B.C. Court Dismisses COVID-19 Orders Appeal as Moot

In a significant legal development, three judges from the British Columbia Supreme Court have quashed an appeal for a judicial review concerning COVID-19 health orders, deeming the case moot as the orders in question are no longer in effect. The appeal was initiated by a group of eleven individuals challenging ongoing vaccine mandates imposed by provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry during the pandemic. These mandates had been aimed at health-care workers in certain settings, enforcing continued vaccination requirements as a public health measure.

The judges, Patrice Abrioux, Paul Riley, and Lisa Warren, stated that the appeal lacked practical relevance because the orders were rescinded on July 26, 2024, and the public health emergency that facilitated these mandates has since ended. The respondents, including Dr. Henry and B.C.'s Attorney General Niki Sharma, successfully argued that pursuing the appeal would serve no purpose, as the court would only be able to declare invalid orders that are no longer in place.

The petitioners had sought a court judgment asserting that the vaccine mandates violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Constitution Act, claiming the orders were fundamentally flawed and unreasonable. However, the judges highlighted that the appeal was inappropriate for judicial consideration given its moot status. They noted, 'Even if the petitioners were successful, all they would receive is a declaration that orders that no longer exist are invalid.' This ruling follows a previous judicial review which found that the orders were reasonable, with the exception of their applicability to certain non-frontline workers.

The context of this legal dispute stems from the heightened public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly as the Omicron variant emerged as the dominant strain. Health Canada had endorsed an updated mRNA vaccine for the Omicron subvariant in September 2023, reinforcing the importance of vaccination. By April 2022, around 90% of eligible British Columbians had received a two-dose primary vaccine series, with 60% receiving a booster. The prior orders mandated that unvaccinated health-care workers seeking employment must receive this updated vaccine, which was justified by the health authorities on the grounds of patient safety.

The petitioners, many of whom had lost their jobs due to non-compliance with the vaccine mandate, raised concerns that the mandates infringed upon their rights, particularly those who claimed religious or personal objections to vaccination. However, the judges reiterated that the previous judicial review had upheld the legitimacy of the health orders, suggesting that the legal landscape surrounding public health mandates remains complex and contentious.

As public health policy continues to evolve, the implications of this ruling may be felt across Canada, particularly in discussions surrounding individual rights versus community health obligations. Stakeholders in the healthcare sector and legal experts will likely scrutinize the ongoing debates around vaccine mandates and public health measures, especially as new variants of concern may arise in the future. This ruling serves to clarify the judicial stance on moot appeals concerning health orders that have been rescinded, potentially discouraging similar litigation in the future.