Author: Lorian Hardcastle Page 2 of 6

J.D. (Dalhousie), LL.M. and S.J.D. (Toronto). Assistant Professor. Please click here for more information.

By: Shaun Fluker and Lorian Hardcastle

Decisions commented on: CM v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 462 (CanLII); CM v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 357 (CanLII)

PDF Version: For the Record: Who Makes COVID-19 Public Health Orders in Alberta?

In an effort to be a frontrunner in the race to remove COVID-19 public health measures during the early months of 2022, the Alberta government made several notable moves, including decisions on masking. On February 8, 2022, the Premier announced that children would no longer be required to wear masks in school as of February 14 and that children under 12 would not be required to mask anywhere. On the same day, the Minister of Education took the opportunity to issue her own written direction that “[A]s of February 14, 2022 school boards will not be empowered by provincial health order or recommendations from the CMOH to require ECS – grade 12 students to be masked to attend school in person or to ride a school bus.” This direction by the Minister was a notable departure from her earlier position that schools were explicitly permitted to implement public health measures to respond to their own local context.

Alberta’s Vaccine Passport System: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

By Lorian Hardcastle

On September 20, 2021

In COVID-19, Statutory Interpretation

By: Lorian Hardcastle and Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Alberta’s Vaccine Passport System: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Matters Commented On: Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Order 42-2021 and CMOH Order 43-2021

Good governance practices by the executive branch in how it addresses COVID-19 have largely been absent throughout the pandemic across Canada, but surely we have hit a new low in Alberta with what transpired last week. Facing criticism from the public, pleas from health care professionals, and a health care system straining under the increasing number of hospitalizations, the Premier reappeared at a September 15 press conference after a lengthy hiatus, along with the Minister of Health, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, and the CEO of Alberta Health Services. The Premier was questioned about the termination of public health restrictions in early July and the decision to move towards treating COVID-19 as endemic by largely eliminating basic public health measures like testing, tracing, and isolating (a decision that the government later backpedalled on). Although the Premier was initially apologetic for ending public health restrictions in an effort to enjoy the “best summer ever,” he later stated that “I don’t apologize for the decision to relax public health restrictions in the summer….” For her part, the CMOH has admitted that July’s decisions, which were based on her recommendations, put Alberta on its devastating fourth wave trajectory and has said that she “deeply” regrets contributing to the narrative that COVID-19 was over.

Proposed Amendments to the Public Health Act Confirm (Retroactively?) the Validity of the Chief Medical Officer of Health’s COVID-19 Legislation

By Lorian Hardcastle

On April 16, 2021

In COVID-19, Health Law

By: Shaun Fluker and Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: Proposed Amendments to the Public Health Act Confirm (Retroactively?) the Validity of the Chief Medical Officer of Health’s COVID-19 Legislation

Bill Commented On: Bill 66, Public Health Amendment Act, 2021, 2nd Sess, 30th Leg, Alberta, 2021 (first reading 12 April 2021)

On April 12, the Minister of Health tabled Bill 66, the Public Health Amendment Act, 2021, in the Legislative Assembly for first reading. This Bill proposes amendments to the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37, on matters such as the qualifications for public health officials, developing plans to address chronic disease and injury prevention, the privacy of certain public health records, and decriminalizing the inhalation of intoxicants. As we discuss in this post, the Bill also proposes to address governance issues associated with the exercise of legislative powers by medical officers of health and Ministers under the Act, issues that have previously been identified on ABlawg (see e.g. here, here, and here). These amendments are a step in the right direction, but far more needs to be done to preserve the rule of law during exceptional times where executive rule by fiat has been uncomfortably normalized within a democracy.

COVID-19 and Rule by Fiat under Alberta’s Public Health Act

By Lorian Hardcastle

On November 26, 2020

In COVID-19, Health Law

By: Shaun Fluker and Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: COVID-19 and Rule by Fiat under Alberta’s Public Health Act

Matters Commented On: Order in Council 354/2020, CMOH Order 38-2020, and COVID-19 info for Albertans: Mandatory public health measures

Alberta declared its second COVID-19 related public health emergency on November 24 with Order in Council 354/2020, which was issued under section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37 (the Act). This declaration is in place for 90 days, unless extended by resolution of the legislature pursuant to section 52.8 of the Act. This declaration also reinstates the controversial power of ministers to unilaterally amend statutes (see here) over the holiday season. On the same day as this declaration, the Premier, the Minister of Health, and the Chief Medical Officer of Health announced new restrictions to “bend the curve” at a news conference. The Premier and the Minister of Health stated that many of the new restrictions would take effect immediately with the backstop of legal sanction (including $1000 tickets). These measures were considered and determined without any legislative debate, despite the fact that the Legislature is currently sitting. Public debate on these new legislative measures seems to have amounted to nothing more than questions from media at the news conference. COVID-19 has many victims; democracy should not be one of them.

Private Health Care and the Law Part 2: Lessons for Alberta

By Lorian Hardcastle

On October 28, 2020

In Health Law

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: Private Health Care and the Law Part 2: Lessons for Alberta

Case Commented On: Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCSC 1310 (CanLII)

On September 10, Justice Steeves of the BC Supreme Court released his decision in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General). The driving force behind this case was Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon who founded a private surgical clinic in Vancouver that engaged in illegal billing practices. When the BC government cracked down on those practices, Day responded by arguing that the combination of long wait times and laws limiting private funding for insured services violated the Charter.

It is important to note that this case only considered private funding for medically necessary hospital and physician services (i.e. those addressed in the Canada Health Act, RSC 1985, c C-6) and not the plethora of other health services for which there is a patchwork of public and private funding, such as drugs and dental care. In a previous post, I examined Justice Steeves’ constitutional analysis. Here, I summarize the international evidence on private health care and the implications of this decision for Alberta in light of recent moves to increase private surgical clinics and a vote at the United Conservative Party’s (UCP) Annual General Meeting supporting privately financed health care.