The Canadian Constitution Foundation is in a BC court this week to appeal the use of vaccine mandates being imposed in the province ever again. .During the COVID-19 pandemic British Columbians were required to show government-issued QR codes disclosing their vaccine status to enter public spaces such as restaurants, libraries, and movie theatres. .The government is attempting to block the case from being heard by declaring it moot for the second time. .Christine Van Geyn, litigation director at CCF, a legal charity that fights for fundamental freedoms in Canada, appeared in court Wednesday for the first of a three-day trial. .“These vaccine passports that were required by governments changed how society functioned,” Van Geyn said, adding that in a lot of cases “it was constitutionally suspect.”.“In particular the policy in British Columbia was really troubling because it failed to provide for open categories for medical exemptions,” she explained. .“For the sake of people who had their rights violated, we can't forget it.”.“Now citizens who couldn't obtain good faith medical exemptions in BC are now going to be having their day in court,” she said. “And the court of appeal is going to be hearing our appeal of a decision that dismissed an earlier challenge to the vaccine passports.”.The CCF will represent three women “who have been directly impacted” in court. They were all eligible for medical exemption based on the provincial laws, which is supposed to be a “closed” and definitive list. .People were only allowed to apply for medical exemption if they had a “specific and named condition,” such as heart inflammation or pericarditis from the first dose of vaccine, if they were anaphylactically allergic to vaccine ingredients, or undergoing “certain types of cancer treatments.”.Two of the women “had rare medical conditions and complex medical histories that were not listed.”.“They were too uncommon to have even been contemplated by the government, so they were ineligible even to apply,” she said. .“And even though one of our patients did have one of those listed conditions (pericarditis), she was still only potentially eligible for what is called an ‘activity by activity’ exemption that meant every time this young woman wanted to do some basic socializing in a public place, she needed to apply to the government for an exemption for that specific activity.”.The case was dismissed “as premature” in the lower courts because “patients should have known that the government wasn't actually enforcing the ‘activity by activity’ application requirement, even though that was what the law said.”.“Essentially the government successfully defended unconstitutional orders by saying that they secretly didn't actually follow them, and then faulted these women for not having known this.”.The government now claims the “case is moot,” though that claim was already made at the lower level. .“They're now attempting to relitigate that position, which they really are not supposed to do, but if the government succeeds in claiming mootness, they will once again evade scrutiny for their illegal law and deny justice for victims of government overreach. .However, the case is not moot, Van Geyn argued, because the BC government has “refused to commit that they will not bring back some form of a vaccine passport.”.Meanwhile, vaccine mandates for some sectors have been maintained in BC, such as for health care workers. These mandates are no longer enforced by employers, but by government mandate. .Van Geyn argued the case has “broader ramifications in addition to the Charter impacts” that cannot be permitted. .“That type of secret process solution may be used to evade constitutional review in other cases,” she said.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is in a BC court this week to appeal the use of vaccine mandates being imposed in the province ever again. .During the COVID-19 pandemic British Columbians were required to show government-issued QR codes disclosing their vaccine status to enter public spaces such as restaurants, libraries, and movie theatres. .The government is attempting to block the case from being heard by declaring it moot for the second time. .Christine Van Geyn, litigation director at CCF, a legal charity that fights for fundamental freedoms in Canada, appeared in court Wednesday for the first of a three-day trial. .“These vaccine passports that were required by governments changed how society functioned,” Van Geyn said, adding that in a lot of cases “it was constitutionally suspect.”.“In particular the policy in British Columbia was really troubling because it failed to provide for open categories for medical exemptions,” she explained. .“For the sake of people who had their rights violated, we can't forget it.”.“Now citizens who couldn't obtain good faith medical exemptions in BC are now going to be having their day in court,” she said. “And the court of appeal is going to be hearing our appeal of a decision that dismissed an earlier challenge to the vaccine passports.”.The CCF will represent three women “who have been directly impacted” in court. They were all eligible for medical exemption based on the provincial laws, which is supposed to be a “closed” and definitive list. .People were only allowed to apply for medical exemption if they had a “specific and named condition,” such as heart inflammation or pericarditis from the first dose of vaccine, if they were anaphylactically allergic to vaccine ingredients, or undergoing “certain types of cancer treatments.”.Two of the women “had rare medical conditions and complex medical histories that were not listed.”.“They were too uncommon to have even been contemplated by the government, so they were ineligible even to apply,” she said. .“And even though one of our patients did have one of those listed conditions (pericarditis), she was still only potentially eligible for what is called an ‘activity by activity’ exemption that meant every time this young woman wanted to do some basic socializing in a public place, she needed to apply to the government for an exemption for that specific activity.”.The case was dismissed “as premature” in the lower courts because “patients should have known that the government wasn't actually enforcing the ‘activity by activity’ application requirement, even though that was what the law said.”.“Essentially the government successfully defended unconstitutional orders by saying that they secretly didn't actually follow them, and then faulted these women for not having known this.”.The government now claims the “case is moot,” though that claim was already made at the lower level. .“They're now attempting to relitigate that position, which they really are not supposed to do, but if the government succeeds in claiming mootness, they will once again evade scrutiny for their illegal law and deny justice for victims of government overreach. .However, the case is not moot, Van Geyn argued, because the BC government has “refused to commit that they will not bring back some form of a vaccine passport.”.Meanwhile, vaccine mandates for some sectors have been maintained in BC, such as for health care workers. These mandates are no longer enforced by employers, but by government mandate. .Van Geyn argued the case has “broader ramifications in addition to the Charter impacts” that cannot be permitted. .“That type of secret process solution may be used to evade constitutional review in other cases,” she said.
