case brief 2

.odt

School

Mohawk College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

LAWS10125

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

odt

Pages

Uploaded by DeaconValorMule45

KYEREME, Felicia 000289718 Case 4 Tue, Oct 17, 2023 Ontario vs Trinity Bible Chapel Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel et al, 2022 ONSC 1344 Facts: In March 2021, two big churches in Ontario, Trinity Bible Chapel and Alymer's Church of God, filed a petition against the COVID-19 laws that were enforced. The law was on the social distancing and gathering restrictions. The churches claimed that these laws were infringing upon their rights in The Canadian Cater of Rights and Freedom, specifically s.2. s. 2 protects individuals' fundamental rights to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression, etc. (too much to write!!) Trinity Bible Chapel was fined several times for violating pandemic restrictions and allowing more people than allowed at their services. They were fined up to $220,000 for flouting the law. Despite the legal restrictions on large gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Aylmer's Church of God continued to hold in-person services, violating the law and eventually, facing fines. In response, Ontario obtained a restraining order under section 9 of the ROA, effectively prohibiting the churches from continuing to hold large services during the pandemic restrictions.

Ontario won the case by arguing it was reasonable under s.1 of the Charter. Ontario convincingly argued that the case was reasonable under s.1 of the Charter, leading to their win against the two churches. Issue a) Did Ontario’s regulations on the number of people gathering in a religious area interfere with the fundamental guarantee of freedoms of religion in s.2 of the Charter? b) Did the restriction interfere with other rights in the s.2 of the Charter? c) If the limitations outlined in section 2 of the Charter were to interfere with freedom of religion, for example, would those limitations still be considered reasonable under section 1 of the Charter? Law implied by the court:  The Constitution Act , 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s.2  The Constitution Act , 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s.1 Analysis Two prominent churches have filed a case against Ontario. We understand the background of the case and now it's time to address the issues. The main question is whether the pandemic restrictions on gathering limits violated Section 2 of the Charter. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada guarantees fundamental rights to all people who are Canadian. Section 2 of the Charter outlines the basic freedoms that every person in Canada is entitled to. These include freedom of conscience and religion (Section 2(a)), which means that individuals can practice their religion or beliefs freely, without fear of persecution. Additionally, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression (Section 2(b)) ensures that people are free to express their

thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, including through the press and other forms of media, without interference. The Charter also provides for other fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of association (Section 2(d)) and freedom of peaceful assembly (Section 2(c)). These rights and freedoms are essential to upholding the values of democracy and ensuring that all people in Canada can live their lives without fear of oppression or discrimination. The pandemic and COVID-19 regulations in Canada have breached the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to all citizens of Canada. The churches could argue that Canada is taking their rights away to practice their religion in its respective places, but it is important to note that Section 1 of the Constitution Act and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that these rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law and can only be limited when demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The keyword here is "reasonable limits", which means that the government may seek to restrict certain movements or actions if it is necessary to protect public health and safety. In this case, it's necessary that we fall through with the COVID-19 rules. The court could argue that the government's violation of the Human Rights Charter lacks substantial evidence or accurate information. Therefore, we cannot confidently conclude that such a violation has indeed taken place. It is worth noting that these churches have been fined by the court numerous times for their flouting of the law in the past year and two. Nonetheless, the current case aims to determine whether the pandemic restrictions on gathering limits were reasonable and justified under the Charter. These fundamental rights and freedoms are essential to upholding the values of democracy and ensuring that all people in Canada can live their lives without fear of oppression, discrimination or racism. I do believe the pandemic restrictions were reasonable under s. 1.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help