Quebec Judge Refuses to Suspend Obligation to Wear Face Cover

A judge in Montreal-Quebec rejected a request from three Quebecs who wanted state rules on face coverings due to the suspension of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a decision made on Friday, Judge Frederick Perodo of the Quebec Superior Court filed an immediate suspension of state legislation and ministerial ordinances requiring Quebecs to wear face coverings in various indoor public places. I refused to allow it.

The request for an emergency stay was rejected, but the entity will be heard at a later date during the trial.

“This is not one of the very clear and obvious cases that allows the court to intervene before the trial,” writes Pérodeau. “Only a complete discussion of the benefits sheds light on the issues raised and separates the wheat from the rice husks.”

Until then, masking measures will continue to be effective unless the state changes the rules.

Three plaintiffs nominated in the proceedings, Francesco Platania, William Thomas and Marie Trankir, said COVID-19 is not a serious threat to Quebecs and does not require health emergencies or face-to-face measures. thinking about.

They argued that public health measures should be abolished and declared illegal and unconstitutional. Their claim includes that the requirement to wear a face cover violates basic rights such as right to life, freedom, security and freedom of expression.

They also claim that the study has not demonstrated the effectiveness of facial coverings. They said other states lifted or relaxed the mask rules. They also asked the court to rule that there were no health emergencies.

Mr Perodo wrote that the court does not decide whether the legislative action is justified, but whether it is legal. It is presumed that laws and legislative acts have been passed for the public good and that attempts to suspend them must be proved in another way.

He also emphasized that the emergency stop must show urgency and it is impossible to wait for the outcome of the trial. It must also be shown that if the measures are not removed, there will be serious and irreparable harm.

However, the judge wrote that the applicant did not show that their request was urgent. The state mask regulations on public transport and interior spaces have been in force since July 2020, but were challenged 11 months later.

“The situation they are complaining about today has been around for over a year,” he writes.

By Sidhartha Banerjee