Seite - 228 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

VULNERABLE228 are closely linked and the decision to do an operational act may easily involve and flow from a policy decision.”18 In Imperial, for instance, the Court found that the federal government’s decisions to promote low-tar cigarettes and develop new strains of tobacco based on pub- lic considerations such as economic, social, and political factors were core policy decisions. As such, these decisions and the acts taken in furtherance of them constituted “core policy” and were immune.19 By leaving the contours of its new category of “core policies” undefined, the Supreme Court in Imperial created a thoroughly vague zone of action in which the Crown cannot be sued.20 This is likely to encroach substantially on the operational realm that was previously open to scrutiny, and could possibly lead to unlimited immunity for the Crown where it would previously have been held liable.21 It will be difficult for prospective plaintiffs to demonstrate that the Crown’s actions in the context of COVID-19—for example, decisions on the level of testing or stockpiling of PPE; decisions to ease lock-down measures; or decisions to close or re-open schools—were not deci- sions as to a course of action that were based on public policy con- siderations. As a result of the uncertainty surrounding what used to be the policy/operational distinction, courses of action taken in accor- dance with policy decisions are also susceptible of falling under the umbrella of immunity covering policy decisions. The immunity can be overcome if it can be proven that the government’s policy decisions were irrational or taken in bad faith, but that is a threshold that is dif- ficult to meet. It is possible that the courts will find that the lack of care and the treatment endured by patients in long-term care homes did not flow from policy decisions taken in the context of the pandemic, and therefore fall at the other end of the spectrum, into what used to be the operational realm. However, the care and treatment provided at long-term care homes were to be inspected by the government, and the manner in which those inspections were carried out is likely to be 18. Barrett  v  Enfield  London  Borough  Council, [2001] 2 AC 550 at 571, Lord Slynn of Hadley LJ. 19. This finding was found to also apply in the context of Quebec law: Canada (Procureur  général)  c  Imperial  Tobacco  Ltd, 2012 QCCA 2034. 20. Bruce Feldthusen, “Simplifying Canadian Negligence Action Against Public Authorities—Or Maybe Not” (2012) 20 Tort L Rev 176; Bruce Feldthusen, “Public Authority Immunity from Negligence Liability: Uncertain, Unnecessary, and Unjustified” (2013) 92:2 Can Bar Rev 211. 21. For an example of an operational aspect, see Laurentide Motels Ltd v Beauport (City), [1989] 1 SCR 705, 23 QAC 1.