The Supreme Court of British Columbia has rejected an attempt by the provincial government to dismiss one of the cases challenging health workers’ vaccination requirements against COVID-19.
Lawyers for provincial health official Dr. Bonnie Henry say the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, which has filed a lawsuit, does not have the reputation to bring the matter to court.
The CSASPP lawsuit seeks Henry’s public health orders, which require workers in most health facilities to be vaccinated on the grounds that they violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and do not provide reasonable exceptions and adaptations.
Henry’s response to the case argued that the orders were reasonable, precautionary measures for public health.
The decision, issued this week by Judge Simon R. Koval, did not reach a conclusion on the merits of the CSASPP’s allegations, but rather the organization’s position on the case.
Koval concluded that the organization had the “reputation of public interest” needed to sue, despite the province’s arguments to the contrary.
Henry’s lawyers say the CSASPP’s lawsuit does not raise a “serious legal issue”, claiming it is “devoid of any significant details” that would make it worth the time.
Koval disagreed, writing that the petition raises “substantial issues” that are clearly within the scope of the judiciary.
The Provincial Health Officer also claimed that the CSASPP had not shown “genuine interest” in the issues at hand, noting that the organization’s explicit aim was to challenge the COVID-19 measures in British Columbia.
“The PHO claims that the CSASPP has no history of involvement in the issues raised by the petition, and the evidence linking its membership to healthcare is unclear and weak,” Koval wrote in his ruling.
“The PHO says that the CSASPP is simply a ‘purpose-built structure for measures to combat COVID-19.'”
The judiciary largely agreed with this assessment of the organization and its purpose, writing:
“In my opinion, creating a society committed to one side of a problem is not enough to create a real interest in reputation … The members of such a group are obviously interested in the issue, but they do not have to have a different interest. from the community as a whole. “
Nevertheless, Koval believes that the CSASPP has shown genuine interest in the legal issues it has raised by requesting a review of Henry when the vaccination orders were first issued, including Henry’s refusal to request a review. in his appeal to the court.
Finally, Henry’s lawyers say the CSASPP’s allegations are superfluous, as several other health workers are already suing the province over the vaccination mandate.
Koval agreed again, but only to a certain extent. Justice writes that ongoing litigation led by health workers who lost their jobs because they were not vaccinated makes the CSASPP’s challenge to public health orders unnecessary.
However, this case did not respond to Henry’s request to reconsider his order and allow more exceptions, something that, according to justice, could be considered in the CSASPP case.
“The CSASPP’s position seems unnecessary for access to justice for affected health professionals,” Koval wrote. “However … the CSASPP petition appears to be a reasonable and effective means of presenting evidence and claims on the request for review and response.”
Although he concluded that the organization should have a reputation in the public interest and be allowed to continue its work, Koval rejected a private interest claim filed by CSASPP Executive Director Kipling Warner.
Warner, a software engineer, said he was directly and adversely affected by the vaccine’s mandate, saying his ability to access medical services in time was limited by Henry’s orders, citing the long wait for surgery as an example of that damage.
“In my view, Mr Warner does not offer any evidence, other than an unsubstantiated, concluding statement, to suggest any pledge of rights or any personal or special impact of the impugned orders,” Koval wrote. “There is nothing to suggest that his waiting for an operation was unusual or influenced by the impugned orders. In my opinion, for these reasons, he does not meet the requirements for legal capacity in the private interest.”
Add Comment