The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to not hear the case of three British Columbia churches that were challenging the prohibition of in-person religious services imposed by the provincial government. .“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined our application for leave to appeal in this matter,” said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) Litigation Director Marty Moore in a Thursday press release. .“Errors such as imposing on citizens the burden to show that government violations of their rights were unreasonable, contrary to the language of Section 1 of the Charter, will need to be corrected in latter cases.” .The BC government closed all houses of worship because of COVID-19 while allowing restaurants and gyms to remain open. .Moore said the JCCF’s clients, who face prosecution for holding safe in-person worship services in 2020 and 2021, “will continue to assert their other legal and constitutional rights in defence against those charges, including that the Provincial Health Officer abused her discretion in selectively permitting and prohibiting in-person gatherings based on factors other than health and safety.”.The prohibition on in-person worship services in the public health orders is an example of such conduct. .In Brent Smith vs. British Columbia, three Fraser Valley churches said they believe in-person assembly for religious worship is commanded by God and is an essential component of their faith..The churches held in-person services while adhering to all COVID-19 restrictions in BC at the time. .Upper Fraser Valley RCMP charged the heads of three Fraser Valley churches with holding in-person services against BC’s COVID-19 restrictions in 2020. .READ MORE: Three BC church reps charged $18,000 for holding services banned under COVID rules.“On the mornings of December 6 and 13, Chilliwack RCMP responded to reports of groups of people gathering at three separate churches contrary to the existing PHO,” said Upper Fraser Valley RCMP Cpl. Mike Rail. .“As officers investigated the complaints, police worked closely with Provincial, Regional Health officials and the BC Prosecution Service in the education and enforcement of current COVID-19 health regulations to attain the compliance of the congregations.”.The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms invokes the supremacy of God and the rule of law as principles upon which Canada is founded. The petitioners in this case asserted some of their Charter rights had been infringed. .These churches and a protest organizer filed a constitutional challenge against the prohibition and restrictions on protests in public health orders issued by BC Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry. .BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson dismissed the constitutional challenge. At the hearing, the government conceded its ban on outdoor protests was unjustified and saw it declared it to be of no force or effect. .The JCCF filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal in 2021. Counsel said in its written argument the prohibition did not impair or give effect as much as possible to the Charter rights engaged. .The Court of Appeal dismissed the churches’ challenge to the prohibition in December. .The JCCF announced in February the BC churches filed an application for leave to the Supreme Court due to the Court of Appeal’s decision. .READ MORE: BC churches seek leave to appeal to Supreme Court over in-person worship lawsuit.“This case centred on the question of whether BC’s violation of Charter rights was a reasonable limit ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’ as required by Section 1 of the Charter,” said Moore. .“However, this issue cannot be fairly addressed when a court prevents citizens from providing evidence on whether the restriction of their rights was justified, fails to require that the government justify its restriction of Charter rights, and in fact, holds that citizens are not entitled to challenge the constitutionality of government orders they have been charged with violating.”.Counsel said in its application these determinations, each stemming from administrative rather than constitutional law, “severely degrade the Charter’s strength in protecting citizens’ rights and freedoms.” .Moore concluded by saying this case was important for people to know if they are entitled to bring evidence in an administrative judicial review to argue their constitutional challenge. .“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has determined today that prohibiting in-person worship is not a matter of national importance,” he said.
