Manitoba churches taking COVID closure battle to Supreme Court of Canada

Five Manitoba churches have filed an application with the Supreme Court of Canada, against the closure of churches during late 2020.

In a release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Tuesday, it notes that the application argues “the national importance of the constitutionality of church closures and restrictions on outdoor gatherings.”

The complainants include the Gateway Bible Baptist Church, and two individuals, including Pastor Tobias Tissen.

They alleged the church closures breached Charter rights of religious freedoms and freedoms to assemble and express themselves.

Earlier this year, seven churches tried to appeal the 2020 ruling in the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

---

RELATED:

• Manitoba Court of Appeal dismisses seven churches’ challenge to COVID-19 rules
• Churches in Manitoba Court of Appeal to challenge COVID-19 rules
• Lawyers barred from practising in Manitoba judge followed case

---

At the time the Appeal Court says a Court of King’s Bench judge did not err in his analysis that the restrictions were necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers for the churches argued public health orders in 2020 and 2021 that temporarily closed in-person religious services, then permitted them with caps on attendance, violated the Charter.

According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms the Supreme Court case will be as follows:

“How are constitutionally protected activities to be juridically measured against comparable non-constitutionally protected activities? What is the proper approach to the minimal impairment stage of the Oakes analysis with respect to public health orders that fully prohibit Charter-protected activities (eg. In-person religious worship) while permitting comparable non-Charter-protected activities (eg. In-person university classes, film and television productions, indoor team-training for the Winnipeg Jets, etc.);
Does reliance on the “precautionary principle” satisfy the state’s onus under Charter section 1 to provide “cogent and persuasive” evidence to justify Charter-infringing measures?”

At this time, there is no date for when the Supreme Court will hear this case.

-With files from the Canadian Press