|
Charter - s.7 Security of the Person. Dorceus v. Ontario
In Dorceus v. Ontario (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against findings of a motion judge that "concluded that the claim constituted both an abuse of process and a pleading that disclosed no reasonable cause of action", and consequently struck the pleadings. The claim was by "a group of more than 400 current and former healthcare workers" who "allege that a provincial public health directive led to the suspension or termination of their employment because they declined vaccination".
The court addresses a Charter s.7 issue, here regarding consent to medical treatment:[53] Beginning with s. 7, those claims are not viable. Section 7 protects the right to refuse to consent to medical treatment: Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331, at para. 67. The Directive, however, did not deprive the appellants of this right. As the motion judge observed, it did not compel them to undergo any form of medical procedure. Instead, the heart of their complaint is that they faced employment consequences for choosing not to vaccinate or test. Those consequences do not engage s. 7 because it does not protect the right to pursue a particular occupation: Tanase v. College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2021 ONCA 482, 156 O.R. (3d) 675, at para. 40, leave to appeal refused, [2021] S.C.C.A. No. 350. . Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against a JR dismissal determining whether: "section 10 of the Citizenship Act, by which citizenship that was obtained by “false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances” may be revoked, violate paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights".
Here the court considers the 'security of the person' element of Charter s.7:[119] The right to security of the person under section 7 protects against physical punishment and the threat thereof, imprisonment and detention, and serious and profound psychological distress, a requirement far beyond the normal stress and anxiety that may arise because of state action: Canadian Council for Refugees at para. 90; New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC), [1999] 3 SCR 46 at para. 60.
|
