OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of travel restrictions imposed by Newfoundland and Labrador during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling, delivered on , acknowledges that while the restrictions infringed upon Canadians’ mobility rights, those infringements were “reasonably justified” given the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic’s onset.
The case stemmed from a challenge brought by Kim Taylor, a Nova Scotia resident who was denied entry into Newfoundland and Labrador following the death of her mother in May 2020. The province’s restrictions, implemented to prevent the spread of the virus, temporarily prohibited non-residents from entering, with limited exceptions. Taylor argued that the restrictions violated her Charter rights, specifically Section 6, which guarantees the right to mobility within Canada.
Balancing Rights and Public Health
The Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t a simple endorsement of the restrictions. The court recognized that the measures did violate mobility rights under Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the majority opinion determined that this violation was justifiable under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows for reasonable limits on rights if those limits are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The court’s reasoning centered on the unique and urgent conditions present in early 2020. As the ruling states, the restrictions were implemented when infection numbers were rising, lives were being lost and there was limited understanding of the virus itself. The court specifically noted the capacity of Newfoundland and Labrador’s healthcare system and the presence of a high volume of vulnerable populations as factors justifying the province’s actions. The decision emphasizes that governments must exercise caution when limiting freedoms, but also acknowledges the need for decisive action during public health emergencies.
Differing Interpretations of Charter Rights
While the court unanimously agreed on the overall outcome – upholding the constitutionality of the restrictions – there was some divergence in how the justices interpreted the specific sections of the Charter that were affected. A five-judge majority found that both subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of Section 6 were violated. Subsection 6(1) protects the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada, while 6(2) protects the right to move to and work in any province. Three judges, however, held that only subsection 6(2) was violated. One judge believed only 6(1) was violated. Despite these differing views on the precise nature of the Charter violation, all justices agreed that the restrictions were “reasonably justified” under Section 1.
Implications for Future Public Health Measures
The ruling is expected to have significant implications for how governments respond to future public health crises. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), which intervened in the case, described the decision as a confirmation of Canadians’ rights while also clarifying the parameters for government action during emergencies. Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the CCLA’s Fundamental Freedoms program, stated that the decision confirms that citizens and permanent residents have a constitutional right to move freely between provinces.
The CCLA emphasized that the ruling will likely influence future cases involving the interpretation of Charter rights. While the court upheld the Newfoundland and Labrador restrictions, it also underscored the importance of carefully balancing public health concerns with individual liberties. The decision serves as a reminder that any limitations on Charter rights must be demonstrably justified and proportionate to the risk being addressed.
A Difficult Case with Deeply Personal Consequences
The case highlights the difficult choices governments faced during the pandemic and the deeply personal consequences of those decisions. Kim Taylor’s experience – being denied the opportunity to attend her mother’s funeral – underscores the emotional toll of the restrictions. As Taylor herself stated, People who are grieving the loss of a loved one, such as a mother, father, sister, brother, a child, should not be subjected to this level of cruelty by a government entity.
”
The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t diminish the pain experienced by individuals like Taylor, but it does provide a legal framework for understanding the government’s actions during a time of extraordinary crisis. The decision affirms that while individual rights are paramount, they are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable limitations when necessary to protect public health and safety.
This ruling provides a legal precedent for balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being during future public health emergencies, emphasizing the need for governments to act cautiously and justify any restrictions on Charter rights.
