I have received several questions from the public asking me what the legal consequences are when a restaurant owner decides to challenge the health rules. I am also asked if the restaurateurs who are forced to close would have recourse against the Government in connection with the financial losses or bankruptcies that this could cause.
QUESTION
Danielle from Montreal asks me this question: What are the legal consequences for this pastry chef from Jonquière who opened her dining room despite the health rules? What about the group of restaurateurs who want to open their dining room on January 30?
RESPONNSE
We can understand these restaurateurs to be there. These very difficult for them. On the other hand, the Public Health Act is unequivocal and will allow the authorities to impose fines of $1,000 to $6,000 per day…and when there is a repeat offense following a first offence, the amounts double: ” 142. In the event of a repeat offence, the minimum and maximum fines provided for by this law are doubled.
So the minimum and maximum of the fine will double…this can lead to the imposition of very large amounts as fines. What discourage many if the government applies the law.
If the restaurateur does not listen at all despite the imposition of tickets, the authorities could even go so far as to obtain an order from a judge forcing the restaurateur to completely close his restaurant for the protection of public health: “106 . When a director of public health is of the opinion, during an investigation, that there is indeed a real threat to the health of the population, he may:
(1) order the closure of a place or allow access only to certain persons or under certain conditions and post a notice to that effect;”
A seal could be put on the door and the restaurateur would no longer have access to his establishment.
HUMAN DRAMAS THAT ARE PLAYED OUT IN SILENCE
I will tell you that despite the law, the fact remains that it is a very controversial subject at the moment. There is a desire to defeat the virus and prevent our health system from cracking, bringing all the consequences we know. We talk a lot about common interest during
the pandemic. However, we forget that while we are waging war on the virus, there is significant collateral damage. There are human dramas that unfold in silence. It’s not a health issue, but it can be just as devastating…
We ask a lot of entrepreneurs… we ask them to sacrifice themselves for the group. Not an easy position. Which explains very well why there is a desire on the part of several restaurateurs to follow in the footsteps of the Pâtissière de Jonquière and defy the health rules on January 30th for their own survival… we may have a lot of empathy for the situation , but who wants their life to be sacrificed for the band?
Indeed, an entrepreneur, more specifically a restaurateur in this case, will invest everything in his business. His money, his time, sometimes his health, he will often even involve his family in making sacrifices… when things go wrong, he can lose everything, it’s human dramas that unfold like the loss of psychological health, a divorce ,etc. That’s a lot to ask of them right now. Above all, that they have done their part and that they see that in many places in the world, restaurants are not closed despite the fight against the pandemic and they are allowed to open for a matter of survival and in order to avoid significant collateral damage.
It’s not legal what they intend to do… however, when looking for solutions in the legal field, you have to respect the law, of course, but you always have to look for the logic behind the rules. Communication is always the solution and it is time for the Legault Government to stop turning a deaf ear and work with restaurants for a predictable and safe reopening. If this is not possible, they compensate them adequately as soon as possible! No history of administrative paperwork that takes forever and makes aid inaccessible.
QUESTION
Alain from Quebec asked me another question related to this subject: Given the closures of restaurants forced by the government, could restaurants have recourse against the government for losses suffered or bankruptcies?
RESPONNSE
The answer is no. The Public Health Act provides immunity from prosecution in connection with actions taken in good faith by the government to protect the public during a health emergency:
“The government, the minister or any other person cannot be sued for an act done in good faith in the exercise or execution of these powers.”