The cabinet and committees were supposed to relent to whatever decisions would be made by Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Dr. Deena Hinshaw in accordance with the Public Health Act, but instead acted of their own accord.
"The Public Health Act requires that decisions with respect to public health orders must be made by the CMOH, or her statutorily authorized delegate," the decision reads.
"The final decisions implemented by the impugned orders in this case were made by the cabinet of the government of Alberta or by committees of cabinet. While the CMOH made recommendations and implemented the decisions of the cabinet and committees through the impugned orders, she deferred the final decision making to cabinet."
The decision goes on to clarify that while Hinshaw herself was personally maligned during the scamdemic and long afterwards for being "the symbol of the restrictions," it was not, in fact, she who was "the final decision-maker," Romaine wrote.
Delegating Hinshaw's ultimate decision-making authority to the cabinet stands in direct violation of Section 29 of the Public Health Act. Had the plandemic-related orders been "validly enacted by the CMOH," then it would have been a different story and the rulings would have been constitutional.
(Related: The number-one killer in Alberta right now is death from "ill-defined and unknown causes," meaning covid "vaccines.")
Canadian politicians broke the law with covid mandates
According to plaintiffs in the case, their Charter rights were infringed upon by the public health orders during the pandemic. These rights include the right to freely gather, which was overridden by the Alberta government's restrictions on indoor gatherings, quarantine requirements, business closures, and mask mandates.
All of this was filed as part of a suit in 2020, and is just now being ruled upon by the Canadian court system.
"While they may have infringed certain of the applicants' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 and the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14, these limitations were amply and demonstrably justified as reasonable limits in a free and democratic society pursuant to Section 1 of the Charter and that they were enacted pursuant to a valid legislative purpose," the judge found.
Romaine concluded that at all moments when the impugned orders were in force, there was "a pressing and substantial legislative objective." She further highlighted that the Public Health Act's definition of a public health emergency does include "an epidemic or pandemic disease ... that poses a significant risk to the public health."
In one section of the judge's 90-page decision, she stated that removing the mask mandate in Alberta schools was a decision made by politicians rather than the CMOH, which is a violation of the law.
"In conclusion, I declare that the impugned orders were ultra vires of the Public Health Act because they were based on an interpretation of the Public Health Act that gave final decision-making authority over public health orders to elected officials," the judge wrote, "ultra vires" being a Latin term for "beyond the powers" or "exceed the scope."
Lorian Hardcastle, an associate professor on the faculty at Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary, commented that she would not be at all surprised if the current Alberta government revisited the Public Health Act to shift some powers away from the CMOH to the cabinet.
The latest news about the fight to hold the covid criminals responsible for their crimes against humanity can be found at Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
