Category Archives: Health Law

The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part II

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part II

Matter Commented On: COVID-19 in Alberta and Canada

Since it appeared in Canada at the end of January, the number of cases of COVID-19 has steadily increased. Despite considerable efforts to contain the spread of the disease, Canada has seen over 1000 new cases per day since late March, with this number reaching 1600 new cases in a single day on April 5. On April 7, 58 people succumbed to the disease in one day. The ongoing COVID-19 outbreak raises numerous pressing legal and ethical tensions. In a previous ABlawg post, I examined the trade-offs that governments have made between individual liberties and protecting the public good. In this post, I consider two additional legal and ethical tensions: health care priority setting in the face of scarce resources and the disproportionate effects of public health measures on vulnerable people. Continue reading

The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part I

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part I

Matter Commented On: COVID-19 in Alberta and Canada

Introduction

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that affect humans and animals and, in some circumstances, can pass between species. Coronaviruses cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to SARS. A novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. There have been over 1,250,000 cases worldwide, over 68,000 of which have been fatal. Actual infection rates are likely much higher, given the limited number of tests conducted in many jurisdictions, the backlog in receiving test results, and the prevalence of false negative tests. As of April 5, there have been 1181 cases in Alberta, including 20 fatalities. Continue reading

COVID-19 and Retroactive Law-Making in the Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act (Alberta)

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and Retroactive Law-Making in the Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act (Alberta)

Legislation Commented On: Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act, SA 2020 c 5

On April 2, Alberta amended provisions governing emergency powers under the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37. This post discusses amendments made to section 52.1, and also comments on their retroactive effect. I’ve previously commented here and here on the exercise of these emergency powers to address COVID-19. Continue reading

COVID-19 and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

Legislation Commented On: Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37

All levels of government in Canada are working hard to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its severe impacts on public health. Despite the fact that COVID-19 is a national emergency, the federal government has not declared it as such under the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) (I previously wrote about this here). For now, we have a collaboration of public health emergency declarations made by provincial, territorial and municipal governments. Alberta declared a public health emergency on March 17, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health and on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, with Order in Council 80/2020 issued under section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37. This post critically examines how Alberta is exercising its emergency legal power under this legislation. Continue reading

Freedom of Information in Alberta: The Troubles With the OIPC

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Freedom of Information in Alberta: The Troubles With the OIPC

Decision Commented On: Re Alberta Health, F2019-16, 2019 CanLII 33710

This is the third in a series of posts on Alberta’s access to information legislation, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy ActRSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP Act). The first post set out the basic structure of the access to information, and the second post was a case study on the use of the FOIP Act. This post focuses on the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), which serves as the initial dispute resolution mechanism for FOIP issues. The post also describes how the “adequate alternative remedy principle” can make troubled administrative review bodies into obstacles to effective oversight. Continue reading