The applicant, acting as substitute decision-maker for his incapable elderly father, brought an application for judicial review challenging a hospital's COVID-19 visitor restriction policy and a related memorandum from the Chief Medical Officer of Health.
The applicant argued the restrictions violated his father's rights under sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter by preventing in-person visits.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that neither the hospital's policy nor the CMOH memorandum were subject to judicial review as they did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision with a sufficient public character.
Furthermore, the court held that even if reviewable, the policies did not infringe the Charter, as they were based on sound medical and epidemiological evidence rather than discriminatory presumptions, were not arbitrary or overbroad, and did not constitute state-imposed punishment or treatment.
