Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Lawyers contesting Newfoundland and Labrador’s travel ban say the policy is arbitrary and violates mobility rights guaranteed in the charter.

Closing arguments were heard Tuesday in the provincial Supreme Court in a challenge of restrictions imposed last spring to limit the spread of COVID-19.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Halifax resident Kim Taylor allege the measures restricting entry to residents and essential workers violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and fall outside the province’s jurisdiction.

Story continues below advertisement

Ms. Taylor’s lawyer, John Drover, told the St. John’s courtroom Tuesday that Newfoundland is the first province to shut its borders to other Canadians, adding that a closer analysis is needed of mobility rights in Canada.

He said the policy goes against the Constitution Act and the Charter.

“We have put up, basically, international borders without the right to do so,” Mr. Drover said. “We live in weird times, no question, but this is way over the top.”

The Canadian Charter states every citizen has the right to enter, remain in and leave the country, and has the right to move to, and take up residence in, any province.

Justice Donald Burrage mulled from the bench that the drafters of the Charter could have included more specific wording guaranteeing entry into another province for reasons other than moving or working there.

But Mr. Drover argued the mobility rights would have been considered self-evident.

“I don’t think any Canadian, or any politician, any lawyer or any judge has ever put to their mind that you could restrict Canadians from travelling around in Canada,” Mr. Drover said.

Story continues below advertisement

Justin Mellor, a lawyer for the province, said Tuesday Newfoundland has constitutional authority to enact the policy because the ban addresses an issue of public health, placing it “squarely within provincial jurisdiction.”

He also argued the ban does not violate any mobility rights because the text of the Charter does not explicitly address interprovincial mobility.

Justice Burrage questioned Mr. Mellor on whether the ban threatens confederation.

“If you allow provinces to close their borders to each other, we don’t have Canada, or at least some would say we don’t,” the judge said.

Mr. Mellor replied that the option to request an exemption to the ban makes the policy “constitutionally sound.”

Rosellen Sullivan, representing the civil liberties group, argued the ban is arbitrary because more than 13,000 exemptions have already been granted, undermining its public-health goals. “There’s nothing in the exemption criteria that is related to the purpose,” Ms. Sullivan said Tuesday.

Story continues below advertisement

She argued Ms. Taylor had a “rock-solid” isolation plan, yet was still refused entry. Ms. Taylor had asked to travel to Newfoundland after her mother’s death but was denied. The decision was reversed, and Ms. Taylor was later allowed into the province, but she has said the decision came too late to allow her to grieve properly and comfort her father.

Ms. Taylor and the civil liberties group filed their challenge in May. She is not seeking monetary damages in the claim but says she wants to spare others from having the same experience.

Ms. Sullivan also argued the ban is not necessary to minimize serious illness or death, contrary to what the Chief Medical Officer of Health claimed in her affidavit prepared for the case. Almost 80 per cent of the province’s COVID-19 cases were recovered when the ban was announced on April 29, Ms. Sullivan said.

Chief Medical Officer of Health Janice Fitzgerald, who ordered the ban, testified last week that her policy was effective when paired with other measures, such as physical distancing. The province currently has two active cases of COVID-19. Three people have died from the virus and 263 people have recovered.

Many restrictions on activities and businesses have been lifted and the province began allowing residents of other Atlantic provinces to visit in July. The rest of Canada, however, is still subject to the travel ban.

Last week, the court heard from Proton Rahman, an epidemiologist modelling scenarios on the contagion’s spread within the province. He prepared two models for the court, which indicated the rate of infection could have been 20 times higher without the travel ban.

Story continues below advertisement

Dr. Rahman also discussed a study he co-authored with researchers at Oxford and Stanford universities that concluded the travel restrictions were politically contentious but clearly effective at controlling cases.

Mr. Mellor pointed to the testimony of Dr. Rahman and Dr. Fitzgerald and mentioned other factors putting Newfoundlanders at high risk from COVID-19 to justify his argument that the ban was needed to protect the vulnerable. The province has the highest proportion of seniors in the country and high rates of cancer, obesity and smoking, he said.

Mr. Mellor also brought up the province’s strained health care system, including its limited number of acute care beds, to argue authorities needed a cautious approach to managing the pandemic. “It would not take much to break our health care system,” he said.

Arguments are expected to conclude Wednesday.

Sign up for the Coronavirus Update newsletter to read the day’s essential coronavirus news, features and explainers written by Globe reporters and editors.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.
View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies