An appeal application by Jasmin Grandel of Regina and Darrell Mills of Saskatoon was dismissed earlier this month.
Brandon Harder
Regina Leader-Post
A ruling by Canada’s highest court has dashed the legal hopes of two Saskatchewan people who’ve spent years challenging the constitutionality of gathering restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Jasmin Grandel of Regina and Darrell Mills of Saskatoon attended outdoor protests critical of government-imposed measures to combat COVID-19. Between Dec. 19, 2020 and May 15, 2021, Grandel was ticketed eight times and Mills only once.
The pair disagreed with the rulings of two consecutive Saskatchewan courts, which held that while restrictions had violated constitutional rights, the violations were justified under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section states that rights and freedoms can be limited, “so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.”
At the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which is the province’s highest court, the duo argued that a lower-court judge was wrong in treating the alleged violations — freedom of expression (Section 2(b) of the Charter), assembly (Section 2(c)) and association (Section 2(d)) — “as though they were the violation of a single right rather than conducting a cumulative analysis.”
That judge wrote that, “so long as the freedom of expression analysis sufficiently accounts for the assemblage and associative rights engaged,” he saw no need to “duplicate the analysis across multiple Charter rights.”
A three-judge panel at the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed. And it was on this point that Grandel and Mills hoped the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) would hear them out.
They were represented by lawyer Andre Memauri, who is associated with the legal advocacy group Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
The group’s website indicated the pair planned to argue to the SCC “that Saskatchewan’s Covid gathering restrictions were primarily an unjustifiable limitation of the freedom of peaceful assembly, which was not centrally considered.”
Essentially, Grandel and Mills needed to ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the last Saskatchewan ruling. In legal terms, they applied for “leave to appeal.”
Their application was dismissed on March 6, meaning the court declined to hear their appeal.
“The Supreme Court of Canada will only hear an appeal if the case raises a question of public importance,” states the SCC website. “You must convince the Court that your case should be heard.”
An application requesting leave, prepared by Memauri, stated the case presented issues of “national importance.”
However, given the SCC ruling on the case, the court was not convinced.
