A Saskatchewan judge ruled the COVID-19 mask mandate does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..Richard Keough entered the Foam Lake Co-op grocery store four times between December 16, 2020, and March 17, 2021, without wearing a mask as required under the COVID-19 provincial mask mandate..Keough received tickets for the offences and fought against them, saying they violated his rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter..The Provincial Court Judge Michelle Marquette did not agree with Keough’s defence and found him guilty on all charges..The judge found Keough guilty of not wearing a face covering in an indoor setting on four occasions, as required by the Public Health Act (PHA)..Keough was also found guilty of trespassing at the Co-op store on two occasions after the store banned him from the premises. .At the trial, the Crown showed video evidence that Keough went into the store without a face covering on four occasions and Keough confessed to not wearing a face covering all four times..The Crown had six witnesses, including the Co-op store manager, four RCMP officers, and Dr. Mark Fenton, a respiratory illnesses expert..Keough’s defence cross-examined Fenton “at length” according to the judge’s ruling, but the judge wrote that “no medical evidence to the contrary was presented” by the defence..Fenton testified about the use of masks and transmitting COVID-19, he said that masks reduce the spread of COVID-19 but presented no medical evidence beyond his testimony about masks..The judge accepted Fenton’s testimony as fact..Keough’s defence argued that “his freedom of expression and his right to life, liberty, and security of the person” were being infringed upon by the mask mandate..“The face covering expresses a message that COVID-19 is real and dangerous, and this message is contrary to his beliefs and as such, this compelled speech infringes on his freedom of expression,” said Keough’s lawyer..The judge said that according to case law “freedom of expression necessarily entails the right to say nothing or the right not to say certain things.”.The argument that a face covering is a form of expression was rejected by the judge because the mask mandate was made for public health and not about controlling expression..Keough showed his opposition to the mask mandate, including cell phone videos to Co-op employees with “counter-information concerning COVID-19” on the days he was charged..The judge ruled because of his cell phone videos, his freedom of expression was not violated..On the issue of Keough’s “rights” under the charter, his defence argued that masks violate an individual’s right to control their own body and state-imposed stresses..“Liberty rights protect an individual’s right to control their bodily integrity and make their own health care decisions and as face coverings are medical treatment, any order requiring or mandating medical treatment upon an individual is a breach of an individual’s liberty rights,” said the defence..“An individual has a right to be free from state-imposed psychological and emotional stress and submits that the face covering requirement imposes psychological and emotional stress.”.The judge accepted neither argument..“Based on the evidence, I am unable to conclude that the wearing of a face covering is a medical intervention that intrudes on one’s bodily integrity to the degree that infringes a person’s section 7 rights,” wrote the judge..“There was no medical evidence presented to this court that demonstrates Mr. Keough was caused serious psychological harm or even physical harm by wearing a face covering.”.Keough’s defence also claimed that the “public health orders were vague, specifically in a section that described exemptions to the mask mandate.”.Keough testified he had attempted to get an exemption, but no medical professional granted him an exemption..The judge wrote that “I do not find the wording of the section vague” and that Keough was “not uncertain of the steps required to obtain a medical exemption to avoid culpability.”.“He followed the procedure as outlined and a medical exemption was not granted by the health professional.”.The judge fined Keough, but the judge’s decision did not give the amount..The PHA fines are up to $75,000 for the first offence and up to $100,000 for the second or more offences..Under the Trespass to Property Act, fines are up to a $5,000 maximum.
A Saskatchewan judge ruled the COVID-19 mask mandate does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..Richard Keough entered the Foam Lake Co-op grocery store four times between December 16, 2020, and March 17, 2021, without wearing a mask as required under the COVID-19 provincial mask mandate..Keough received tickets for the offences and fought against them, saying they violated his rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter..The Provincial Court Judge Michelle Marquette did not agree with Keough’s defence and found him guilty on all charges..The judge found Keough guilty of not wearing a face covering in an indoor setting on four occasions, as required by the Public Health Act (PHA)..Keough was also found guilty of trespassing at the Co-op store on two occasions after the store banned him from the premises. .At the trial, the Crown showed video evidence that Keough went into the store without a face covering on four occasions and Keough confessed to not wearing a face covering all four times..The Crown had six witnesses, including the Co-op store manager, four RCMP officers, and Dr. Mark Fenton, a respiratory illnesses expert..Keough’s defence cross-examined Fenton “at length” according to the judge’s ruling, but the judge wrote that “no medical evidence to the contrary was presented” by the defence..Fenton testified about the use of masks and transmitting COVID-19, he said that masks reduce the spread of COVID-19 but presented no medical evidence beyond his testimony about masks..The judge accepted Fenton’s testimony as fact..Keough’s defence argued that “his freedom of expression and his right to life, liberty, and security of the person” were being infringed upon by the mask mandate..“The face covering expresses a message that COVID-19 is real and dangerous, and this message is contrary to his beliefs and as such, this compelled speech infringes on his freedom of expression,” said Keough’s lawyer..The judge said that according to case law “freedom of expression necessarily entails the right to say nothing or the right not to say certain things.”.The argument that a face covering is a form of expression was rejected by the judge because the mask mandate was made for public health and not about controlling expression..Keough showed his opposition to the mask mandate, including cell phone videos to Co-op employees with “counter-information concerning COVID-19” on the days he was charged..The judge ruled because of his cell phone videos, his freedom of expression was not violated..On the issue of Keough’s “rights” under the charter, his defence argued that masks violate an individual’s right to control their own body and state-imposed stresses..“Liberty rights protect an individual’s right to control their bodily integrity and make their own health care decisions and as face coverings are medical treatment, any order requiring or mandating medical treatment upon an individual is a breach of an individual’s liberty rights,” said the defence..“An individual has a right to be free from state-imposed psychological and emotional stress and submits that the face covering requirement imposes psychological and emotional stress.”.The judge accepted neither argument..“Based on the evidence, I am unable to conclude that the wearing of a face covering is a medical intervention that intrudes on one’s bodily integrity to the degree that infringes a person’s section 7 rights,” wrote the judge..“There was no medical evidence presented to this court that demonstrates Mr. Keough was caused serious psychological harm or even physical harm by wearing a face covering.”.Keough’s defence also claimed that the “public health orders were vague, specifically in a section that described exemptions to the mask mandate.”.Keough testified he had attempted to get an exemption, but no medical professional granted him an exemption..The judge wrote that “I do not find the wording of the section vague” and that Keough was “not uncertain of the steps required to obtain a medical exemption to avoid culpability.”.“He followed the procedure as outlined and a medical exemption was not granted by the health professional.”.The judge fined Keough, but the judge’s decision did not give the amount..The PHA fines are up to $75,000 for the first offence and up to $100,000 for the second or more offences..Under the Trespass to Property Act, fines are up to a $5,000 maximum.
