Canadian court declares Covid lockdowns illegal due to improper implementation.
An Albertan court made a groundbreaking ruling on Tuesday, declaring the lockdown orders implemented in response to Covid as invalid.
The ruling in Ingram v. Alberta is expected to lead to the withdrawal of charges against individuals, churches, and other organizations involved in similar cases.
Justice Barbara Romaine ruled in favor of the applicants, highlighting that the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) had exceeded her authority by delegating decisions to the cabinet, which was not permitted under Canadian law. The CMOH herself admitted during the trial that she only provided advice and recommendations to politicians, without making the decisions herself.
While Justice Romaine acknowledged that the lockdowns violated the rights outlined in section 2 of the Canadian Charter, she stated that they would have been permissible if 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.
The court action filed by Rebecca Ingram and the other applicants challenged the lockdowns nine months after the health emergency began, making it the first of its kind. However, Canadian courts allowed the Alberta government to delay presenting evidence until July 2022, allowing them to continue violating citizens’ rights without any oversight.
John Carpay, president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, expressed his joy at the decision and its implications for ongoing cases.
“We are hopeful this ruling will lead to the withdrawal of charges against Pastor James Coates, Fairview Baptist Church, Ty Northcott, and other courageous citizens who refused to comply with unjust and unscientific measures,” Carpay said.
In a statement to the Federalist, Carpay emphasized the significance of this decision in the legal status of Canadian lockdowns.
Carpay stated, “Courts have been deferential to the government and have 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 measures.”
The ruling comes at a time when the Canadian government has been subjecting its citizens to a constant stream of persecution and mistreatment, including the persecution of Christians and treating dissent as terrorism.
Samuel Boehlke is a rising senior in Mass Communication/Law and Policy at Concordia University Wisconsin and a current intern at The Federalist. He is Web Editor for CUW’s The Beacon and External Affairs Editor for Quaestus Journal. Reach him at [email protected] or by DMs @vaguelymayo.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...