COVID restrictions vs. freedom of religion: charter challenge arguments conclude – TheRecord.com

ST. THOMAS On the final day of the constitutional challenge between two churches and the province of Ontario, section one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was in sharp focus.

While section two outlines the fundamental freedoms everyone is entitled to freedom of religion, expression, assembly, association section one says these rights are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law, as long as those limits can be justified.

The Church of God, in Aylmer, southeast of London, and Trinity Bible Chapel, in Woolwich Township, claim their fundamental freedoms were infringed upon when the province imposed limits on their ability to gather as a group.

They say the limits imposed were an overreach by the province, that the COVID-19 virus did not measure up to the doom and gloom presented, and that the province could have slowed the spread of the virus without targeting and restricting the way religious groups practised their beliefs.

At times in spring of 2021, Ontario placed restrictions on religious gatherings so that only 10 could gather indoors and outdoors. Then indoor limits rose to 15 per cent of building capacity. Then 25 per cent and 30 per cent, while outdoor limits rose to 100 people, and then as many as could fill a space while staying distanced two metres apart.

Lawyers defending Ontarios restrictions said when the strict limitations were imposed, COVID-19 was a new and potentially fatal disease that was shown to have the ability to spread quickly through a population. At times when community transmission was at its highest and hospital capacity was at the brink, additional measures were needed.

When things were dire, drastic measures were needed, and they were taken temporarily, said Josh Hunter, a lawyer with the Attorney General. The governments decisions were made in consultation with medical experts.

In the provinces submissions, Hunter responded to some of the questions raised by the churches attorneys earlier this week. The churches legal team presented on Monday and part of Tuesday in virtual hearings, run by a St. Thomas court.

Why not just enforce masking and distancing restrictions without capacity limitations?

When community prevalence was at its highest, when the most limiting restrictions were in place, alternative restrictions wouldnt be enough, he said. With friends and families congregating, distancing requirements wouldnt be followed and masking may not happen. With hundreds of people gathering, it would also be difficult for organizers to control.

The only way to reduce the risk posed by religious gatherings was to put the stringent measures in place, for temporary period of time, while also allowing for online services, drive-in services, or multiple smaller services, he said.

What about retail restrictions, where hundreds were allowed in a building to shop?

Retail settings typically have one door in, so management can ensure people enter with a mask, Hunter said. Retail shoppers are transient. Theyre not sitting with friends, singing and talking for long periods of time like in religious gatherings.

This activity (religious gathering) has a risk, he said. When restrictions were able to be loosened safely, without compromising community spread, they were.

On Wednesday morning the provinces Andrea Bolieiro and Justice Renee Pomerance discussed the impact of provincially imposed capacity limits on the freedom of church members to practice their religion.

Trinity Bible Chapels senior pastor Jacob Reaume wrote in his affidavit that the church needed to gather as one body. A church that does not gather is like a body with its parts scattered across a city, the document read.

Bolieiro said when the churches were limited to 10 people, this was an infringement of peoples freedom of religion, but it can be justified because they were still able to run virtual services or offer drive-in services.

When the limit was 15 per cent capacity, the church could have offered four or five indoor services to serve the entire congregation. This would have been a cost but not an infringement, she said. These were extraordinary times, and at Trinity Bible Chapel at least, multiple services had been held each week before the pandemic anyways.

If the churches believe that all members needed to meet in person, as one body, in order for their rights to be upheld, the lawyers didnt show evidence of that belief, she said. As they are the ones claiming their rights have been violated, the burden is on them to show evidence to prove this point, and they didnt, she said.

Justice Pomerance said she would review arguments on both sides and return with a decision at a later date.

Originally posted here:

COVID restrictions vs. freedom of religion: charter challenge arguments conclude - TheRecord.com