A lawyer who sued the B.C. government for a lack of accommodation for exemptions from the vaccine passport is waiting with expectation for a verdict..In an interview with Western Standard, Geoffrey Trotter said his plaintiffs’ case is strong..“Medical exemptions for the vaccine passport… were available too narrowly. The government had a list of conditions that it said would qualify, but that list was neither comprehensive nor was there an opportunity for an individualized assessment,” Trotter explained..“We sued on the basis that people with other vaccine contraindications were off the list, that disabilities weren't being accommodated, and it was unconstitutional for that reason.”.Trotter, who represented the plaintiffs in April on behalf of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said his clients suffered “pretty significant” impacts. One with Spina Bifida could no longer go to therapy as she was banned from pools. Another client at risk became pregnant, but couldn’t go to restaurants or a community centre for a mother — infant course..A third plaintiff was a woman who had complex and overlapping disabilities who had undergone 15 surgeries. She was contraindicated for many medications already, a history that heightened her risk for a bad reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine..Trotter believes his clients would have had an easier time in some other provinces..“In Ontario, initially, a doctor could write an exemption letter directly, so it didn't have to go through a public health approval process; whereas in BC, all the doctor could do would be write a letter in support of their patient applying to public health for an exemption,” Trotter explained..“There were provinces like Ontario, where the doctor could just do it directly. They had their own discretion about what the qualifying conditions would be, so that would be a much more accommodating regime. Ontario did move away from that partway through, but some other provinces either had longer lists or provision for an individualized assessment.”.The case was heard by Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson in May. In March of 2021, Hinkson responded to a legal challenge against protest and religious gatherings that was launched by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in March of 2021. Hinkson struck down the ban on public protest but did allow the ban on religious gatherings to remain..“I'm hopeful that over the course of this next year or so, there'll be some kind of sober second thought about some of what was done legally because it does seem like some of the policies were a blunt instrument, no exemptions, not considering the collateral damage of the orders. And, thus far, there hasn't been a lot of pushback from the courts,” Trotter said..“We're hopeful…We think that it's a fairly open and shut case, but we'll see what the judge thinks..Trotter believes the case is important, not just for what happened previously, but to ensure a proper response in future circumstances..“There's a danger in times of a singular public enemy, whether that's in a time of war or time of pandemic, where defeating that enemy can become the only thing that government is thinking about. So they're not adequately thinking about other considerations. Here it’s the constitutional rights of those who are affected by the orders,” Trotter said..“It's important to use the courts when we can to ensure the government is keeping its eyes on not just its one objective, but the other duties that it needs to satisfy at the same time. You can't sacrifice constitutional rights on the altar of defeating a pandemic. Both things need to be kept in view.”
