2 total
Pandemic restaurant restrictions and enforcement measures were upheld as lawful and constitutional.
The applicant challenged Ontario pandemic legislation, a municipal medical officer of health's closure order and enforcement directions, and a trespass notice issued after he deliberately reopened a restaurant for indoor dining in protest of COVID-19 restrictions.
The court held that the EMCPA, the ROA, and O. Reg. 82/20 were intra vires provincial legislation addressing local public health and economic regulation.
It found no infringement of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, or ss. 7, 8, or 9 Charter rights, and held that any infringement would in any event be justified under s. 1.
The court also held that the medical officer of health acted within statutory authority under the HPPA and the Trespass to Property Act, and that the judicial review aspects could properly be heard together with the constitutional application.
The application for judicial review, constitutional relief, and Charter relief was dismissed.
The appellant's negligent investigation claim against the police was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The appellant, acquitted of all charges after a jury trial, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his civil claim against the Toronto Police Services Board and police officers for negligent investigation and perjury.
The motion judge found several claims statute-barred and determined the appellant adduced no evidence capable of supporting the remaining claims.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that while acquittal is a necessary condition for a negligent investigation claim, it is not sufficient; there must also be evidence of a breach of the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.
The appellant failed to adduce such evidence.
