An Albertan court ruled on Tuesday that lockdown orders enacted in response to Covid were invalid.
The ruling in Ingram v. Alberta will likely force prosecutors to withdraw charges against individuals, churches, and other organizations in several other standing cases.
Justice Barbara Romaine ruled in favor of the applicants because the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) delegated her decisions to the cabinet, which she was not authorized to do under Canadian law. The CMOH herself testified at trial that she provided only advice and recommendations to politicians but did not make the decisions herself.
Justice Romaine did conclude that although they violated the rights in section 2 of the Canadian Charter, lockdowns would not have violated the Charter if they had been implemented legally.
“If I am incorrect with respect to whether the orders were legal, these infringements were amply justified as reasonable limits in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1 of the Charter,” Romaine wrote.
Rebecca Ingram and the other applicants filed their court action nine months after the start of the health emergency as the first action to challenge the lockdowns. Canadian courts allowed the Alberta government to delay their evidence until July 2022 and continue to violate citizens’ rights without any check on their authority.
John Carpay, president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, celebrated the decision and what it means for other cases currently in the courts.
“We are hopeful this ruling will mean the withdrawal of charges against Pastor James Coates, Fairview Baptist Church, Ty Northcott, and other courageous citizens who refused to comply with unjust and utterly unscientific measures,” Carpay said.
In a statement to the Federalist, Carpay emphasized that this decision was an important moment in the legal status of the Canadian lockdowns.
Carpay said, “Courts have been deferential to the government and not required them to demonstrate that lockdowns are doing more good than harm or present persuasive evidence … It’s a breath of fresh air to see a court invalidate these.”
The ruling comes amid a steady stream of persecution and maltreatment from the Canadian government, including persecution of Christians and treatment of dissent as terrorism.
The ruling in Ingram v. Alberta will likely force prosecutors to withdraw charges against individuals, churches, and other organizations in several other standing cases.
Justice Barbara Romaine ruled in favor of the applicants because the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) delegated her decisions to the cabinet, which she was not authorized to do under Canadian law. The CMOH herself testified at trial that she provided only advice and recommendations to politicians but did not make the decisions herself.
Justice Romaine did conclude that although they violated the rights in section 2 of the Canadian Charter, lockdowns would not have violated the Charter if they had been implemented legally.
“If I am incorrect with respect to whether the orders were legal, these infringements were amply justified as reasonable limits in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1 of the Charter,” Romaine wrote.
Rebecca Ingram and the other applicants filed their court action nine months after the start of the health emergency as the first action to challenge the lockdowns. Canadian courts allowed the Alberta government to delay their evidence until July 2022 and continue to violate citizens’ rights without any check on their authority.
John Carpay, president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, celebrated the decision and what it means for other cases currently in the courts.
“We are hopeful this ruling will mean the withdrawal of charges against Pastor James Coates, Fairview Baptist Church, Ty Northcott, and other courageous citizens who refused to comply with unjust and utterly unscientific measures,” Carpay said.
In a statement to the Federalist, Carpay emphasized that this decision was an important moment in the legal status of the Canadian lockdowns.
Carpay said, “Courts have been deferential to the government and not required them to demonstrate that lockdowns are doing more good than harm or present persuasive evidence … It’s a breath of fresh air to see a court invalidate these.”
The ruling comes amid a steady stream of persecution and maltreatment from the Canadian government, including persecution of Christians and treatment of dissent as terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment