| Date |
Name of the case (or case number) |
The body delivering the decision |
Keywords, topic |
Executive part |
Brief summary |
Full text |
Page at the website of the issuing court |
Page in other databases |
Unofficial materials, press communications |
| August 10. 2023. |
|
Supreme Court of Canada |
Freedom of religion |
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a challenge against a British Columbia Supreme Court judgment which unanimously upheld the validity of a provincial order banning indoor religious ceremonies during the worst waves of the global pandemic. |
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a challenge against a British Columbia Supreme Court judgment which unanimously upheld the validity of a provincial order banning indoor religious ceremonies during the worst waves of the global pandemic. No detailed reason for the dismissal was given. |
|
|
|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/supreme-court-of-canada-chilliwack-bc-church-covid-restrictions-1.6932457 |
| 23. 12. 2020 |
Hudson’s Bay Company ULC v. Ontario, 2020 ONSC 8046 |
Supreme Court of Canada |
Freedom to conduct a business |
Claim inadmissible |
Ontario has introduced a 'colour-coded framework', which requires regions to be designated according to five colour grades. Under the amendments, implemented on 23 November 2020, large supermarkets that do not sell food, such as the plaintiff's, were not allowed to remain open in Phase 1 regions. However, big-box stores selling food could remain open and could sell any type of goods other than food. The applicant contested the regulation. The applicant argued that the abovementioned regulation makes an irrational distinction between the applicant's shops and those of its competitors, since the goods sold in the shops other than grocery stores are essentially the same. The distinction allowed shops which sold the same type of products as the applicant to continue to sell those products on the sole basis that they also sold groceries. Without that discrimination, the applicant's shops could have remained open. The Supreme Court noted that the Applicant's argument was irrational or arbitrary because it distinguished between large stores that sell groceries and those that do not. Instead, the relevant factor was whether the regulation was consistent with the purpose of the protection against Covid. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the regulation was intra vires and dismissed the Applicant's application for judicial review. |
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2020/2020onsc8046/2020onsc8046.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAFY292aWQAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=35 |
|
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/canada-superior-court-justice-hudsons-bay-company-ulc-v-ontario-2020-onsc-8046-2020-12 |
|
