Page - 251 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

251Civil Liberties vs. Public Health provincial, and municipal responses to COVID-19. As discussed in the first part of this volume dealing with federalism, Canadian prov- inces and municipalities have imposed various restrictions: limiting public gatherings; locking down prisons and mental health facilities; stopping visitors to long-term care homes; closing all but essential businesses; restricting recreational amenities; and imposing manda- tory quarantine orders against specific individuals.2 The federal gov- ernment, employing the Quarantine Act, has limited entry into the country and now imposes a two-week quarantine on citizens return- ing from abroad. Many of these measures are enforced by significant fines (for example, up to $100,000 for a first offence and $500,000 for a second offence in Alberta)3 and even imprisonment (Ontario’s limita- tion on social gatherings is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year’s imprisonment).4 On their face, many of these measures seem to interfere with Charter rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of mobility, and free- dom of religion for would-be churchgoers. Further, as the pandemic has unfolded, it has become clearer that significant testing and contact tracing using cell phone GPS records may be an important tool to bat- tle COVID-19, yet absent consent, this conflicts with privacy rights.5 Similarly, as hope for the end of the pandemic centres on developing a vaccine or treatment, the future prospect of mandatory vaccination regimes (even if limited to essential workers and at-risk populations) may raise questions of conscience and religious freedom.6 There has also been some discussion of introducing legal penalties for indi- viduals spreading harmful misinformation about the disease and treatment—a move that would no doubt engage the Charter right to freedom of expression.7 In this chapter, we contrast and evaluate 2. Rob Ferguson, “Use Law to Impose COVID-19 Quarantines, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer Tells Local Health Officials”, Toronto Star (1 April 2020), online: <www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2020/04/01/ontarios-chief-medical-offi- cer-dr-david-williams-strongly-urging-law-restricting-movements-of-covid- 19-patients.html>; Health Protection and Promotion Act, RSO 1990, c H.7, s 22. 3. Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37, s 73(3); Bill 10, Public  Health  (Emergency  Powers)  Amendment Act, 2nd Sess, 30th Leg, Alberta, 2020, s 9(b)(ii)—(iii) (assented to 2 April 2020). 4. Emergency  Management  and  Civil  Protection  Act,  RSO 1990, c E.9, s 7.0.11(1)(a). 5. See Teresa Scassa, Jason Millar & Kelly Bronson, this volume, Chapter C-2. 6. Richard Moon, Freedom  of  Conscience  and  Religion (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2014). 7. Elizabeth Thompson, “Federal Government Open to New Law to Fight Pandemic Misinformation”, CBC News (15 April 2020), online: <www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325>.