Canada’s courts seem to be finally finding the courage to speak truth to power and appropriately rebuke the provincial and federal governments for their overreach and bad faith conduct during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This week, Ontario Justice Goodman released Tamara Lich from custody on bail. In his reasons and throughout the process, Justice Goodman distinguished that Lich had been merely charged with “mischief” and that the Trudeau government’s approach was disproportionate and inappropriate.
It seems highly likely that Lich’s charges will be ultimately dropped given that just yesterday similar mischief charges against other Freedom Convoy protestors were stayed.
In a similar rebuke against former Premier Kenney (now only “interim” Premier for a few more months thanks to efforts by Take Back Alberta and TBOF), the Alberta Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favour of Pastor Artur Pawlowski who was arrested, jailed and fined multiple times for continuing to preach in breach of Alberta’s Covid-19 lockdowns.
The Appeal Court not only ordered the Alberta government to pay Artur’s legal costs and reimburse all fines, but highlighted that the government’s conduct was disproportionate and indiscriminate in violating freedoms of religious expression and public association.
It is reassuring that Canada’s higher courts are beginning to show courage in the face of 2.5 years of unconstitutional government overreach. The significant change in tone and rigour bodes well for Church in the Vine Pastor Tracy Fortin’s case now going to appeal. As lawyer James Kitchen noted, the upholding of disproportionate fines against Pastor Fortin only stand because the lower courts continue to take “judicial notice” of Alberta Health Services’ claimed scientific facts.
“Judicial notice” is a mechanism that allows a Judge to take something as true or proven without actually examining any evidence or testimony by claiming that it is something that is “widely known or accepted”. Of course, the “settled science” continues to change day by day as all levels of Canadian government are increasingly being caught in lies, misrepresentation, and obfuscation.
For example, the ongoing legal challenge against the federal government’s travel mandate recently revealed in cross-examination that Dr. Celia Lourenco and her directorate, Health Canada’s final authority for authorizing and approving the COVID-19 vaccines were not once consulted by any branch of the federal government (including Health Canada itself, Transport Canada, the Prime Minister’s Office, or other Ministries) concerning the necessity or efficacy of mandate policies.
Dr. Lourenco further added, also under oath, that if the vaccines’ actual real-world performance had been observed during the clinical trials, none of the vaccines would now qualify for authorization.
This damning revelation joins the sworn testimony in June of the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Head Epidemiologist and Transport Canada’s Head of Policy stating that they never recommended mandates to the government because there was no scientific data to support the policy.
Pandemic cases have been slow to work their way through Canada’s courts. Not in the least because of several courts electing to not hear or rule on key issues such as the scientific validity of governments’ policies or the constitutionality of their impacts.
However, and as seen in the United States and throughout the world, as these cases reach higher levels with more senior judges, the results are predominately fierce decisions against government overreach and unscientific policies.