Charges against an Ontario couple who declined to stay in a quarantine hotel have been stayed by the Crown attorneys. .“This is a bittersweet result for the Davies,” said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF)-funded lawyer Christopher Fleury in a Friday press release. .“It is an excellent outcome for them personally.” .The JCCF said Ontario residents Audrey and Douglas Davies departed Canada for Florida in 2021. Five months later, it said they returned to Canada through the Toronto Pearson International Airport but were charged for breaching the Quarantine Act for refusing to stay in a quarantine hotel. .The Davies completed a form on the reverse of their ticket, requesting an early resolution meeting with Crown attorneys. .The JCCF acknowledged it was not until June that a notice of early resolution meeting was signed by the court clerk of the Ontario Court of Justice. This meeting happened in July. .At the meeting, Fleury expressed concerns with the delay, citing Section 11b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states any person charged with an offence has the right to a fair, speedy trial. The Crown insisted on prosecuting the case. .In the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v. Jordan, it said trials for cases in provincial courts must be completed in one-and-a-half years of charges being laid. If trials are not completed in one-and-a-half years, prejudice is assumed and charges will be stayed, barring exceptional circumstances or delays caused by the accused. .From 2020 to 2022, the division of the Ontario Provincial Court dealing with the Provincial Offences Act was closed to in-person proceedings, despite other divisions being open. Lengthy closures such as those affecting the Davies were considered to be exceptional circumstances and did not count towards the one-and-a-half year threshold. .Fleury sent a letter to the Crown on August 14, reiterating their concerns about the delay and demanding the matter move forward as soon as possible. The Crown informed him the charges against them had been withdrawn. .He concluded by saying it is “frustrating for Canadians who will not get to challenge Ontario’s decision to keep Provincial Offences Courts closed, while all other Ontario courts were open.” .“We were looking forward to challenging established case law and ensuring that Section 11b) is enforced consistently across the Provincial Courts,” he said. .The Federal Court of Canada declined a test case of COVID-19 quarantine measures as moot on August 16. .READ MORE: Federal Court of Canada rejects quarantine test case.“Unless the Court grapples with a test case, even though it may be moot, the constitutionality of the measures may never be examined,” said lawyers arguing on behalf of 11 Canadians who challenged the Quarantine Act. .A judge said arguing whether the Canadian government breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was unnecessary since all mask and vaccine mandates have been repealed.
Charges against an Ontario couple who declined to stay in a quarantine hotel have been stayed by the Crown attorneys. .“This is a bittersweet result for the Davies,” said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF)-funded lawyer Christopher Fleury in a Friday press release. .“It is an excellent outcome for them personally.” .The JCCF said Ontario residents Audrey and Douglas Davies departed Canada for Florida in 2021. Five months later, it said they returned to Canada through the Toronto Pearson International Airport but were charged for breaching the Quarantine Act for refusing to stay in a quarantine hotel. .The Davies completed a form on the reverse of their ticket, requesting an early resolution meeting with Crown attorneys. .The JCCF acknowledged it was not until June that a notice of early resolution meeting was signed by the court clerk of the Ontario Court of Justice. This meeting happened in July. .At the meeting, Fleury expressed concerns with the delay, citing Section 11b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states any person charged with an offence has the right to a fair, speedy trial. The Crown insisted on prosecuting the case. .In the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v. Jordan, it said trials for cases in provincial courts must be completed in one-and-a-half years of charges being laid. If trials are not completed in one-and-a-half years, prejudice is assumed and charges will be stayed, barring exceptional circumstances or delays caused by the accused. .From 2020 to 2022, the division of the Ontario Provincial Court dealing with the Provincial Offences Act was closed to in-person proceedings, despite other divisions being open. Lengthy closures such as those affecting the Davies were considered to be exceptional circumstances and did not count towards the one-and-a-half year threshold. .Fleury sent a letter to the Crown on August 14, reiterating their concerns about the delay and demanding the matter move forward as soon as possible. The Crown informed him the charges against them had been withdrawn. .He concluded by saying it is “frustrating for Canadians who will not get to challenge Ontario’s decision to keep Provincial Offences Courts closed, while all other Ontario courts were open.” .“We were looking forward to challenging established case law and ensuring that Section 11b) is enforced consistently across the Provincial Courts,” he said. .The Federal Court of Canada declined a test case of COVID-19 quarantine measures as moot on August 16. .READ MORE: Federal Court of Canada rejects quarantine test case.“Unless the Court grapples with a test case, even though it may be moot, the constitutionality of the measures may never be examined,” said lawyers arguing on behalf of 11 Canadians who challenged the Quarantine Act. .A judge said arguing whether the Canadian government breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was unnecessary since all mask and vaccine mandates have been repealed.
