Page - 160 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

VULNERABLE160 is more agnostic, in that it refers to general urgency as the primary criterion for deciding whether to hear a matter. To date, both the Federal Court and the Ontario Superior Court have heard and decided a number of COVID-related cases.93 This is important for several reasons. As I have noted, the executive and the legislature are moving quickly. The margin of error is higher than it would normally be. Additionally, the scope of the potential impact on rights in this pandemic is vast. Governments at all levels have promul- gated laws, regulations, and emergency orders that place significant constraints on individual rights and freedoms. Moreover, the enforce- ment of these laws and regulations is not neutral; rather, it tends to disproportionately limit the freedoms of some groups over others, as the chapters in the Equity section of this volume make plain. Courts have a special responsibility to address these types of issues. Going forward, both the Federal Court and the provincial supe- rior courts must continue to ensure that public law actions challeng- ing state and legislative overreach are given priority, whether those challenges arise from the pandemic or not.94 The same is true with challenges to government delay or inaction, which is now the subject of multiple actions in the Federal Court.95 Conclusion Canadian institutions have been forced to adapt rapidly to the chal- lenges posed by COVID-19. The challenges in this context are not limited to the public health crisis and its impact on the economy. Rather, they include ensuring basic access to, and functioning of, institutions. The executive, Parliament, and the courts have made a great deal of progress in a short time. Political parties that engage in highly partisan ways in normal times have thus far chosen the path of collaboration—though some cracks are beginning to show.96 Courts are adapting to new ways of working and are doing what they can 93. See e.g. McCulloch  v  Canada  (Attorney  General), 2020 FC 565 [McCulloch]. 94. For a pessimistic view of the effectiveness of courts in providing accountability in the context of COVID-19, see Daly, this volume, Chapter B-6. 95. McCulloch, supra note 93; HIV/AIDS Legal Network Notice of Application, supra note 19. 96. Mike Blanchfield, “Tories want Parliament Declared ‘Essential Service,’ Regular House Sittings”, National Post (22 May 2020), online: <nationalpost.com/ pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/tories-want-parliament-declared-essential- service-regular-house-sittings>.