A judge in Calgary ruled that details of confidential discussions between Alberta’s chief medical officer, Dr. Dean Hinshaw, and the cabinet about pandemic restrictions and recommendations could be made public.
A group of Alberts, including those working in churches and gyms, have launched a lawsuit seeking to declare public health orders unconstitutional.
Earlier this month, Hinshaw testified about the decision-making process and the consequences of public health restrictions imposed over the past two years.
Confidential discussions in the cabinet
Days after their cross-examination, the questions of the plaintiffs’ lawyers turned to confidential discussions in the office.
“Can you tell us what recommendations you made to the cabinet that were ignored or given instructions that contradicted your recommendations?” Jeffrey Rath asked.
Lawyers for the Alberta government objected and presented a document from Sonia Savage, then Minister of Justice, stating that discussions between Hinshaw and the cabinet should be kept secret.
Savage wrote that disclosing details of cabinet discussions “could impede the free flow of future cabinet discussions, thus negatively affecting the democratic governance of Alberta.”
The judge asked 3 questions
Queen Judge Barbara Romain suggested asking Hinshaw three questions in a private hearing before deciding whether to make the answers to those questions public and some of the evidence in the hearing.
The questions were:
-
Has the Prime Minister and her cabinet ever instructed you, Dr. Hinshaw, to impose stricter restrictions on your CMOH orders than you recommended?
-
Have you ever had the cabinet impose stricter restrictions on certain groups such as churches, gyms, schools and small businesses than you recommended?
-
Have you ever recommended to the Cabinet that the restrictions be removed or relaxed at all times, and this recommendation has been rejected or ignored by the Cabinet?
On Tuesday, Romain issued a seven-page ruling declaring that “the public interest in disclosing Dr. Hinshaw’s answers to court questions outweighs the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of evidence.”
“This is an important case related to the constitutionality of the CMOH orders, which the plaintiffs claim violated their rights under the Charter,” Romain wrote.
Romain also noted that the questions and answers do not reveal disagreements between ministers, the views of individual ministers or the specifics of her recommendations.
“Determining whether or not the cabinet has ordered Dr. Hinshaw to impose restrictions that are stricter than her recommendations or targeted specifically at specific groups of citizens is necessary to ensure that the case can be adequately and fairly presented. “, The judge wrote.
The province may appeal the decision
Provincial lawyers have previously said they would consider appealing Romain’s decision if she decides the answers will be revealed.
There is no schedule for when the answers to Romain’s questions will be announced.
Add Comment