The workers of the health network did not succeed in this first round of their battle to invalidate the decree which requires them to be vaccinated against COVID-19. They wanted this obligation to be suspended pending the trial which will empty the question, but Judge Michel Yergeau of the Superior Court told them no on Monday morning. The decree therefore remains valid.
The date on which he rendered judgment is not trivial. The deadline – the second, after a first postponement – was to be November 15.
But between the pleadings of the lawyers on the request for suspension and the judgment, Quebec declared that it renounced to apply the decree which imposes the double vaccination: it said to fear disruptions of services which would harm the population, since the sanction due to refusal of the vaccine had to be suspension without pay.
Regardless, the magistrate rendered his decision all the same: despite “this major change of course”, “the exact nature and scope of the modifications to be made to the decree following this announcement are not yet known at the time of sign this judgment ”.
Those who brought this request to court – including nurses, doctors and pharmacists – refuse to be vaccinated: they invoke their freedom of choice and the inviolability of their person. Several said they agreed to be tested regularly for COVID-19, which was the solution finally adopted by Quebec.
Their lawyer had pleaded before Judge Michel Yergeau of the Superior Court that “this decree does more harm to the population than good” and that by adopting it, the government of Quebec went against the objective. even the Public Health Act, which is to protect Quebecers.
Me Natalia Manole had thus argued that the suspension of caregivers would lead to a real “disaster” for the population: there will be service disruptions in the health network, surgeries will be postponed or canceled, and medical clinics such as CHSLDs will have to close, she detailed during the hearing which took place on October 27.
After analyzing the positions of the parties, the judge concluded that the applicants had raised “serious” questions and demonstrated “an appearance of right”.
However, he recalls that it is not for a judge to reassess whether the contested government decision – here, the compulsory vaccination of caregivers – is wise or not: he can only intervene if it does not comply with the laws in force. .
And he is of the opinion that the applicants have not been able to demonstrate that the decree – whether one agrees with it or not, he emphasizes – was not adopted “at its very face to protect the health of the population in a context of duly declared health emergency ”. They did not therefore overturn the “presumption of validity” of this government decision.
The decree therefore remains in force, although the impact of this judgment is limited for caregivers, since the Minister of Health Christian Dubé has already announced that he will not apply it – for the moment.