quarantine act tickets

You've been charged under the Quarantine Act, now what? How do you defend your rights in the court?

The most common offence that the tickets are issued for is Section 58 of the Quarantine Act, failure to comply with any order regarding the entry into Canada. This refers refusing to comply to any order/regulation under the Orders in Council that were created under the Quarantine Act. The other common offences are section 15(1), failure to answer questions, and 15(3), failure to comply with reasonable measure.
 

Below are the key steps to follow to fight your ticket:

1. Submit for trial (there is an option for early resolution where you can speak to the prosecutor and take a lesser fine in exchange for a guilty plea, we always recommend the trial option). Be sure to keep a copy of the original ticket.
 

***DO NOT IGNORE THE TICKET AND DO NOT RETURN WITH RESCIND/NO CONTRACT - this will net out in getting a final bill!***

2. Request disclosure from the prosecutor once you have a trial date. You want to read through your disclosure in detail, look for every name that appears and for the correlating notes or statements. If there is anything missing, for example no notes appear when you saw notes being taken in the moment, you must ask for them as that is not giving you full disclosure and without that you cannot have a full defence. Disclosure may include:

The disclosure may include:

• a synopsis or police summary of the case
• a Crown screening form
• a copy of the information
• police officer's notes
• witness statements
• surveillance video and photos
• financial documents
• medical records
• forensic reports

NOTE: reference the Self-Representation page to learn more about disclosure and court process and procedures.

3. Once you have your disclosure and you have all the information that is required from what took place the day of the incident, you can start preparing for the next steps and/or trial.

Actions to consider before trial:

1. If you trial date is over 18 months from the date of the offence - and the delay was not due to you delaying the trial, you can file an 11B charter application to request the charges be dropped. Case law R v Jordan and R v Ghraizi solidify the 18 month ceiling for time to be tried.
 

2. File a motion of particulars. A motion of particulars is a request to the court to compel the Crown to provide information that is germane to your case. There are provisions in most provincial acts that accommodate these motions. For example, in Ontario, section 35 of the Provincial Offences Act states:

Particulars

35 The court may, before or during trial, if it is satisfied that it is necessary for a fair trial, order that a particular, further describing any matter relevant to the proceeding, be furnished to the defendant.  R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 35.

The following motion templates are available for download HERE for Ontario and Quebec.

1. Motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the provincial court to adjudicate on a rights issue. The provincial courts do not have inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate on rights issues as they are a statutory court meaning that get their authority from statute (other pieces of legislation). These courts do not have any authority to acknowledge common law nor your rights under the Constitution Act. The charges under the Quarantine Act have infringed on many of our rights, the right to medical privacy, informed consent, etc and we have a right to a fair trial. This motion is asking that the charges be dropped if the court cannot provide confirmation with substantiation that rights issues will be heard and adjudicated. 

2. Motion to challenge the authority of the Minister of Health (MOH) to override provincial health care authority. The Minister of Health is responsible for administering the Quarantine Act (QA) and the regulations under it. The QA infringes on provincial health care legislation with regards to medical privacy and informed consent. We discovered that the MOH does not have the jurisdiction at the provincial level, as per the Department of Health Act which is the Act that gives the MOH their authority This is consistent with the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act 1867, section 93.14.

3. Motion to challenge the authority of the Minister of Justice (MOJ) to interfere with the administration of justice in the provinces. The MOJ implemented the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations that was used to change the definitions of provincial acts regarding the issuing and adjudication for the purpose of processing Contravention Act offences. Again, the MOJ does not have the authority under the Department of Justice Act which is the Act that gives the MOJ their authority. Again, this is consistent with the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act 1867, section 93.14. 

I am requesting that the charges against me be dropped because these charges are a violation of my rights as per Canadian Bill of Rights, section 1(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty and security of person and enjoyment of property, which protects the right of informed consent for medical procedures and the right to privacy. And Section 1(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law. The travel mandates created two classes of people, vaccinated and unvaccinated and therefore the law was not applied equally to all Canadians and as identified in the exemptions noted in the order in Council and the Contraventions Act which has not been implemented in all Canadians equally.

*Use if the charges are for refusing to test

The screening technology of the PCR test is in direct violation of the provisions noted in section 14(1) of the Quarantine Act, which states the following:

“Screening technology

● 14 (1) Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screeningtechnology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller’s body of any instrument or other foreign body."

The PCR is defined in the Order in Council as “COVID-19 molecular test means a COVID-19 screening or diagnostic test, including a test performed using the method of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP)”. The administration of the PCR test requires” inserting a long nasal swab (nasopharyngeal swab) into your nostril and taking fluid from the back of your nose”. reference Mayo Clinic Tests & Procedures for COVID-19 diagnostic testing. 

Furthermore, being forced into a medical procedure is a violation of informed consent which is protected in provincial law and has been solidified in the following case law;

Parmley v. Parmley, 1945 CanLII 13 (SCC), page 196 Informed consent medical. 

Summary: Consent must be made freely and information about the risks must be given. 

Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192, page 196 Informed consent medical. 

Summary: Consent must be made freely and information about the risks must be given. 

And the attempt to force me to do the PCR test is an act of assault as per case law 

R vs Ewanchuk, 1999, which identifies that acts of threats and reprisal are assault:

“Where there is a threat of harm or reprisal or pressure from an authority there is no consent and therefore the act is assault.”

Being forced to disclose my personal medical information, which is reserved for client/patient confidentiality, is a breach of privacy and has been codified in the case law 

Jones v Tsige 2012 ONCA 32:

“The Ontario Court of Appeal declared that the common law in Canada recognizes a right to personal privacy, more specifically identified as a "tort of intrusion upon seclusion", as well as considering that appropriation of personality is already
recognized as a tort in Ontario law.”

Furthermore, the Contraventions Act, a Federal Act, is not being applied to all Canadians equally. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and as well as the territories did NOT sign on to the Contraventions Act, which means that the Quarantine Act is NOT being applied equally to all Canadians and this is a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights, section 1(b), the right to equal treatment and protection of the law. We are not all being treated equally, nor equally protected by law if some of us are exempt from charges while others are not. 

The evidence to support the fact that Alberta and Saskatchawen have not signed onto the act:

1. Application of Provincial Laws Regulations, SOR/96-312 - 1996 states:

Part IX and Part X, demonstrating that no dates have been provided for when the Contraventions Act will take effect in Saskatchewan and Alberta:

PART IX

Province of Saskatchewan

1 (1)Subject to subsection (2), the following enactments apply in respect of contraventions alleged to have been committed on or after the day on which this Part comes into force, in Saskatchewan or within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Saskatchewan:

PART X

Province of Alberta

1 (1)Subject to subsection (2), the following provision of an enactment and enactments apply in respect of contraventions alleged to have been committed on or after the day on which this Part comes into force, in Alberta or within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Alberta:

Showing how BC has signed on as there is a date in which it comes into affect:

Note, that BC has a date in which it applies, as do the other provinces:

Province of British Columbia

1 (1)Subject to subsections (2) to (5), the following enactments apply in respect of contraventions alleged to have been committed, on or after June 7, 2005, in British Columbia or within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of British Columbia:

Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 154, Number 1: Regulations Amending the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations

April 14, 2020, Part 2, Volume 154, Number 1, Canada Gazette

1. Regulations Amending the      Application of Provincial Laws Regulations: SOR/2020-87
2. 
   

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues:

The schedule to the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations is amended in order to incorporate by reference the provincial ticketing schemes of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Incorporating these provincial laws by reference would allow for Alberta and/or Saskatchewan, subject to an agreement with the federal government, to administer and enforce federal offences designated as contraventions under the Contraventions Act in accordance with the existing provincial ticketing schemes already in place in those jurisdictions.

These regulatory amendments are being made as an anticipatory measure to enable and facilitate the swift use of provincial ticketing regimes in Alberta and Saskatchewan — should either or both of the provinces agree to do so — to enforce provisions of the Quarantine Act designated as contraventions as part of the Government of Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Furthermore, these amendments address comments made by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

Thus, validating that the Quarantine Act is not being applied to all Canadians equally, and therefore this is a violation of 1(b) of the Bill of Rights.

With regards to the Charter superseding the Bill, section 26 of the Charter reads: 

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Therefore, the Bill is not superseded by the Charter in any capacity and my rights are fully protected under the Bill. And this is further demonstrated with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1985 and the Nunavut Legislation Act, 2020.

Furthermore, there is case law to support the Bill was not superseded by the Charter, which has been solidified in the following cases:

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1985

It has not been declared by any Act of the Parliament of Canada that the Immigration Act, 1976 shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights. In view of s. 5(2) of An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1960 (Can.), c. 44, in Part II which follows the Canadian Bill of Rights, I do not see any reason not to apply the principle in the Drybones case to a provision enacted after the Canadian Bill of Rights.

R. v. Andrew, 1986 CanLII 966 (BC SC)

The fact that I have held that the principle of equality before the law does not fail within s. 7 does not mean however that it is not a principle of fundamental justice. It simply means that the principle is not yet entrenched by the Charter. The Charter did not repeal the Canadian Bill of Rights nor did it do away with principles of fundamental justice existing independently of the Bill of Rights. 

The Queen v. Beauregard, 1986 CanLII 24 (SCC), Para [1986] 2 SCR 56

I have reached the conclusion that s. 29.1(2) of the Judges Act is inconsistent with s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and that the respondent is entitled to a declaration that this subsection is inoperative in so far as the respondent is concerned.

And finally, as there has been no act of Parliament to limit our rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights there has been no authority granted through Parliamentary procedure to limit my rights.

Therefore, forced testing, quarantine, ArriveCan and declaring my vaccination status is a violation of my rights of informed consent, privacy, security of person and enjoyment of property and anyone enforcing this act is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights and the precedence law noted. As quarantine is a federal matter there is no chance of conviction as the Bill directly applies. 

— END OF SCRIPT

NOTES:

1. If a “30-day application” or “constitutional/charter challenge” is mentioned, you will need to clarify with the courts that you are NOT doing a constitutional challenge and that you are not required to put forward your argument prior to the trial. The only time you would put forward your defence prior to      hearing the prosecutor’s is if you are putting forward a constitutional challenge.

2. The Bill is NOT part of the constitution, it sits as its own legislation. If the JP mentions an application to challenge the law, that is NOT what you are doing using the Bill. The Bill is stand-alone legislation that does not require to be invoked, nor an application. It is applied like any other Act or case law.

3. The charges stem from the Quarantine Act, which is a federal statute, so the Bill      directly applies. You are not charged with a provincial offence; it is a Federal statute

4. Self-represented litigants are afforded leeway in the courts and the court should provide      direction in regard to procedural matters. And there is case law to support this:

Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566 (CanLII),

Para [37] In those circumstances, the motion judge should not have granted summary judgment but, instead, should have focused on the moving parties’ alternative relief – the dismissal of the action because the appellant had not set it down for trial by December 31, 2014, as directed by a master. Had the motion judge done so, no doubt he would have concluded that this action had reached the point where case management by a single judge was required in order to address the legitimate desire of the respondents to see the action moved along, while accommodating, in a reasonable and practical manner, the self-represented appellant’s unfamiliarity with the process to enable her to present her case to the best of her ability.

https://otlablog.com/2016-onca-566/

CASE LAW LINKS - USE THIS IF YOU NEED TO APPEAL OR IF YOU NEED TO RESPOND TO A BRIEF FROM THE PROSECUTOR (we can assist in either of these instances):

1. Quarantine Act, (S.C. 2005, c. 20), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/q-1.1/FullText.html
2. Canadian  Bill of Rights, (S.C. 1960, c. 44), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html
3. Parmley v. Parmley, 1945 CanLII 13 (SCC), https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1945/1945canlii13/1945canlii13.html
4. Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192,  https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2553/index.do
5. R vs Ewanchuk, 1999] 1 SCR 330, https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1684/index.do
6. Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2012/2012onca32/2012onca32.html
7. Contraventions Act,(S.C. 1992, c. 47), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.7/FullText.html
8. Application of Provincial Laws Regulations (SOR/96-312), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-312/FullText.html
9. Regulations Amending the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations: SOR/2020-87, https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-04-14-x1/html/sor-dors87-eng.html
10. The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art26.html
11. Statutory Instruments Act, (R.S.C., 1985, c. S-22), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-22/FullText.html
12. Federal Emergencies Act, (R.S.C., 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.)),  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/FullText.html
13. Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1985 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 177,  https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1985/1985canlii65/1985canlii65.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQA1U2luZ2ggdi4gTWluaXN0ZXIgb2YgRW1wbG95bWVudCBhbmQgSW1taWdyYXRpb24sIDE5ODUAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1
14. R. v. Andrew, 1986 CanLII 966 (BC SC), https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1986/1986canlii966/1986canlii966.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAlUi4gdi4gQW5kcmV3LCAxOTg2IENhbkxJSSA5NjYgKEJDIFNDKQAAAAAB&resultIndex=1
15. The Queen v. Beauregard, 1986 CanLII 24 (SCC), Para [1986] 2 SCR 56, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii24/1986canlii24.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQA-VGhlIFF1ZWVuIHYuIEJlYXVyZWdhcmQsIDE5ODYgQ2FuTElJIDI0IChTQ0MpLCBbMTk4Nl0gMiBTQ1IgNTYAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

We host a self-representation Zoom every 2nd Monday of the month where we cover the ins and outs of doing self-rep and we always allocate time for questions! 

All are welcome to join us to learn how to self-represent in confidence. Zoom link can be found in the Events page or join our mailing list using the link below to get the details.