The applicants, students at Seneca College, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of the college's mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.
They argued the policy violated their rights under sections 2(a), 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case.
The court held that their objections were based on personal preference rather than a comprehensive moral code, and the policy did not force medical treatment but rather presented a choice with consequences.
The court also found no irreparable harm and held that the balance of convenience favored the public interest in health and safety.
