Lawyer Leighton Grey, of Grey Wowk Spencer LLP, said on Tuesday he thinks lawsuits will be brought against the Alberta government after the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta’s decision to invalidate the public health orders of Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), in Ingram v. Alberta.."What will be most interesting is to see how the premier deals with several high-ranking people in the Kenney government who participated in the creation of these illegal orders but who remain in her Cabinet and her caucus," Grey told the Western Standard on Tuesday..READ MORE: Alberta court strikes down Hinshaw's public health orders that violated Charter freedoms."More importantly, this case is a call to action for the premier to introduce statutory changes to prevent this from ever happening again.".The Alberta court struck down these lockdown measures because they were effectively issued by Cabinet rather than by the CMOH. Hinshaw testified at trial that politicians were the final decision-makers and she merely provided advice and recommendations..The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) said on Tuesday it is pleased with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta’s decision..JCCF is a legal advocacy organization that defends citizens' fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..With these health orders being invalidated, JCCF said it is expected Crown prosecutors will need to withdraw charges against Ty Northcott/Northcott Rodeo Inc., Pastor James Coates of Grace Life Church of Edmonton, Pastor Tim Stephens' church, Fairview Baptist Church and others..The legal advocacy organization said the court’s ruling also confirms that lockdowns did violate Albertans’ fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, association, and peaceful assembly protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.."In this court action, the Alberta government produced no comprehensive studies, reports or data analyzing lockdown harms. Without any comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, Justice Barbara Romaine nevertheless concluded that lockdowns were justified violations of Charter freedoms because they produced more good than harm," said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms..JCCF said when Rebecca Ingram and other applicants filed their court action in December 2020, the Alberta government had already been restricting Albertans’ rights to associate freely, assemble peacefully and practice their religious beliefs for almost nine months. This was the first court challenge to lockdown measures in Alberta.."The vaccination orders themselves happened after Sept. 1, 2021 and so strictly speaking are not covered by this ruling. However, since those health orders were made in the same illegal way, they are exposed to the risk of another application to have them declared Ultra Vires," Grey said. (Ultra Vires is Latin for "beyond the powers.")."As for the lockdown restrictions, they are all illegal. This comes under the tort of public malfeasance, and is actionable.".Grey said the Charter is still in "serious trouble."."The court here erred in even ruling on the Charter application. A court is only to make a constitutional ruling if there is no other way to decide a case. This ought to have been a 10-page decision," Grey said.."The last 80 are all Obiter Dicta aimed at vindicating the Kenney government. There was no need for the court to go on and consider the constitutionality of illegal laws." (Orbiter Dicta is Latin for "something said in passing.").Grey said the illegality of these Orders was the primary argument "we presented, and was successful."."This case therefore stands as the only superior court decision in the country which has ruled against a pandemic government in this way. It is important because it recognizes, however reluctantly, that government power is limited and that a court will tell them so," Grey said.."Governments in Canada are expected to govern in accordance with the laws that they make. In this case, Dr. Hinshaw was made the most powerful person in the history of our province. She was a medical dictator granted the statutory power to use 'any means necessary' to fight the pandemic, and that still was not enough.".Grey said she even exceeded that level of authority.."In this case, finally, the Rule of Law was affirmed," Grey said.."Dr. Hinshaw was vivisected on cross-examination and it led to her removal as CMHO. The Court’s depiction of her in this judgment is legal sophistry. Hinshaw was so bad that the Court spends pages trying to rehabilitate her, while making an ad hominem attack upon one of the world’s most respected scientists, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.".Grey said in the end, this case is important to "truth and justice."."Two autocrats have been banished from Alberta — Kenney by populist political action and Hinshaw via this case," Grey said.."WWII was not won in a single battle. Normandy did not end the war, but it was a huge victory. The challenge now is to continue fighting until the ultimate victory is won, i.e. restoration of the Rule of Law in Canada.".The Western Standard reached out to the Alberta Justice Department for comment, but so far has not heard back.."I would expect to see many such suits brought against the Alberta government," Grey said.
Lawyer Leighton Grey, of Grey Wowk Spencer LLP, said on Tuesday he thinks lawsuits will be brought against the Alberta government after the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta’s decision to invalidate the public health orders of Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), in Ingram v. Alberta.."What will be most interesting is to see how the premier deals with several high-ranking people in the Kenney government who participated in the creation of these illegal orders but who remain in her Cabinet and her caucus," Grey told the Western Standard on Tuesday..READ MORE: Alberta court strikes down Hinshaw's public health orders that violated Charter freedoms."More importantly, this case is a call to action for the premier to introduce statutory changes to prevent this from ever happening again.".The Alberta court struck down these lockdown measures because they were effectively issued by Cabinet rather than by the CMOH. Hinshaw testified at trial that politicians were the final decision-makers and she merely provided advice and recommendations..The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) said on Tuesday it is pleased with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta’s decision..JCCF is a legal advocacy organization that defends citizens' fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..With these health orders being invalidated, JCCF said it is expected Crown prosecutors will need to withdraw charges against Ty Northcott/Northcott Rodeo Inc., Pastor James Coates of Grace Life Church of Edmonton, Pastor Tim Stephens' church, Fairview Baptist Church and others..The legal advocacy organization said the court’s ruling also confirms that lockdowns did violate Albertans’ fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, association, and peaceful assembly protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.."In this court action, the Alberta government produced no comprehensive studies, reports or data analyzing lockdown harms. Without any comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, Justice Barbara Romaine nevertheless concluded that lockdowns were justified violations of Charter freedoms because they produced more good than harm," said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms..JCCF said when Rebecca Ingram and other applicants filed their court action in December 2020, the Alberta government had already been restricting Albertans’ rights to associate freely, assemble peacefully and practice their religious beliefs for almost nine months. This was the first court challenge to lockdown measures in Alberta.."The vaccination orders themselves happened after Sept. 1, 2021 and so strictly speaking are not covered by this ruling. However, since those health orders were made in the same illegal way, they are exposed to the risk of another application to have them declared Ultra Vires," Grey said. (Ultra Vires is Latin for "beyond the powers.")."As for the lockdown restrictions, they are all illegal. This comes under the tort of public malfeasance, and is actionable.".Grey said the Charter is still in "serious trouble."."The court here erred in even ruling on the Charter application. A court is only to make a constitutional ruling if there is no other way to decide a case. This ought to have been a 10-page decision," Grey said.."The last 80 are all Obiter Dicta aimed at vindicating the Kenney government. There was no need for the court to go on and consider the constitutionality of illegal laws." (Orbiter Dicta is Latin for "something said in passing.").Grey said the illegality of these Orders was the primary argument "we presented, and was successful."."This case therefore stands as the only superior court decision in the country which has ruled against a pandemic government in this way. It is important because it recognizes, however reluctantly, that government power is limited and that a court will tell them so," Grey said.."Governments in Canada are expected to govern in accordance with the laws that they make. In this case, Dr. Hinshaw was made the most powerful person in the history of our province. She was a medical dictator granted the statutory power to use 'any means necessary' to fight the pandemic, and that still was not enough.".Grey said she even exceeded that level of authority.."In this case, finally, the Rule of Law was affirmed," Grey said.."Dr. Hinshaw was vivisected on cross-examination and it led to her removal as CMHO. The Court’s depiction of her in this judgment is legal sophistry. Hinshaw was so bad that the Court spends pages trying to rehabilitate her, while making an ad hominem attack upon one of the world’s most respected scientists, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.".Grey said in the end, this case is important to "truth and justice."."Two autocrats have been banished from Alberta — Kenney by populist political action and Hinshaw via this case," Grey said.."WWII was not won in a single battle. Normandy did not end the war, but it was a huge victory. The challenge now is to continue fighting until the ultimate victory is won, i.e. restoration of the Rule of Law in Canada.".The Western Standard reached out to the Alberta Justice Department for comment, but so far has not heard back.."I would expect to see many such suits brought against the Alberta government," Grey said.
