Mahan Keramati

The court struck Daniel Hartman's claim against the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Health, which alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office following the death of his son after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The court found that the government’s public health actions and communications were directed to the public at large and did not create a private law duty of care to individuals.

The claim was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that it could not succeed, even with proposed amendments.

Mohamed Mahjoub, subject to a security certificate and deportation order, sought habeas corpus in the Superior Court to challenge the indefinite conditions of his release, arguing Charter breaches.

The Minister moved to stay the application, citing lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, the existence of an adequate appeal route and the comprehensive nature of the IRPA security certificate scheme (Peiroo exception).

The motion judge granted the stay.

Mahjoub appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the IRPA's security certificate review process, with its specialized Federal Court judges and special advocate system, constitutes a comprehensive and advantageous scheme for reviewing detention conditions, thus precluding habeas corpus, even though the motion judge erred regarding the adequacy of the appeal route.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine requirement for international air travellers arriving in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They argued the requirement violated their Charter rights and that the government failed to follow the advice of its expert advisory panel.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the government's policy choices were not arbitrary or irrational, and that the applicants failed to establish any breach of their Charter rights.

The applicants sought an interim injunction to restrain the enforcement of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine rules for air travellers arriving in Canada, pending a full hearing on the constitutionality of the rules.

The applicants argued the rules violated their Charter rights, including mobility and liberty rights, and caused financial hardship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a narrow serious issue to be tried under s. 7 of the Charter, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the government's public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and its variants.