“It’s interesting that the applicants are trying to paint that somehow the removal of the mask orders was done for extraneous or improper purposes,” said Gary Zimmermann, a lawyer representing the Alberta government. The families of five immunocompromised children as well as the Alberta Federation of Labor (AFL) are calling for a review of the decision, which was made on February 8 during a cabinet meeting. Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, presented a series of options to cabinet as the number of infections fell. A press conference was held later that day to announce the easing of restrictions. The lifting of the mandatory mask requirement for students came into effect on February 14. Lawyers for the group argued Wednesday that Dr. Hinshaw abdicated her authority on the cabinet and failed to fulfill her obligation to protect medically vulnerable students. They said the decision to remove mask mandates in Alberta schools was not consistent with public health advice and was instead made by government officials for political reasons, including to “suppress protests” at the Coutts border crossing. On Thursday it was the government’s turn to respond. “They refer to the combustible situation at Coutts, but I repeat that there is no evidence that Dr Hinshaw — or the Cabinet, for that matter — was politically motivated in relation to this, protesting against masks or the combustible situation at Coutts. There is no evidence of that,” he told the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing. He said the decision was based on a number of factors, including the reduced number of cases. “The latest relevant statistics, jurisdictional scans, science, effectiveness of interventions … and that includes the fact that requiring children to wear masks is not without consequences,” he said. “The decisions … were made in absolute good faith, using the best judgment based on the information available at the time.” He says students, guided by their parents, were allowed to make their own decisions about mask use. “Therefore returning Alberta to the pre-pandemic status quo on this particular matter,” he told the court. The children at the center of this court case, according to the plaintiffs’ legal team, were segregated, alienated and bullied because they had to stay home from school or, in other cases, because they were the only ones in their schools who wore masks.
Health over education
Zimmermann told Judge Grant Dunlop that the families’ claims that removing the mandatory mask mandate forced them to choose between their children’s health or education was not valid. He says none of the children were prevented from going to school and there is no indication that any were separated from their classmates. “I would suggest to you that it appears that none of these people were affected in terms of not being able to attend school because of the removal of the masks,” he said. The applicants said they are not asking to reinstate a province-wide mandate. Instead, their lawyers, Orlagh O’Kelly and Sharon Roberts, are asking the judge to declare that it was not Hinshaw who made the decision and that, in future, she cannot hand over power to the cabinet. Zimmerman noted that there is no record of the detailed discussions that took place during the meeting of the cabinet committee on the implementation of the priorities because they are held in confidence. However, he argues that Hinshaw made the decision because she recommended it as an option and signed the order. “We suggest that Dr. Hinshaw maintained decisive control and that she maintained decisive participation,” Zimmermann said. Roberts, in her closing remarks, said the government had failed to demonstrate why the mask mandate was lifted so abruptly. “The government’s message seems to be ‘there’s nothing to see here.’ “What we heard today … is that kids should be kids. That was the explanation that was given then, and that’s the explanation … that was given today. And you can make up your own mind about that. That’s the justification, there was no nothing else,” Roberts said. Dunlop said it would likely take a few weeks to review all the evidence, but told the court he hoped to reach a decision “as soon as possible”. Bryan Labby is a business reporter at CBC Calgary. If you have a good story idea or tip, you can contact him at [email protected] or on Twitter at @CBCBryan.
title: “Alberta Government Lawyers Reject Claim School Mask Mandate Lifted Over Flammable Border Protest Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-29” author: “Doris Johnson”
“It’s interesting that the applicants are trying to paint that somehow the removal of the mask orders was done for extraneous or improper purposes,” said Gary Zimmermann, a lawyer representing the Alberta government. The families of five immunocompromised children as well as the Alberta Federation of Labor (AFL) are calling for a review of the decision, which was made on February 8 during a cabinet meeting. Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, presented a series of options to cabinet as the number of infections fell. A press conference was held later that day to announce the easing of restrictions. The lifting of the mandatory mask requirement for students came into effect on February 14. Lawyers for the group argued Wednesday that Dr. Hinshaw abdicated her authority on the cabinet and failed to fulfill her obligation to protect medically vulnerable students. They said the decision to remove mask mandates in Alberta schools was not consistent with public health advice and was instead made by government officials for political reasons, including to “suppress protests” at the Coutts border crossing. On Thursday it was the government’s turn to respond. “They refer to the combustible situation at Coutts, but I repeat that there is no evidence that Dr Hinshaw — or the Cabinet, for that matter — was politically motivated in relation to this, protesting against masks or the combustible situation at Coutts. There is no evidence of that,” he told the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing. He said the decision was based on a number of factors, including the reduced number of cases. “The latest relevant statistics, jurisdictional scans, science, effectiveness of interventions … and that includes the fact that requiring children to wear masks is not without consequences,” he said. “The decisions … were made in absolute good faith, using the best judgment based on the information available at the time.” He says students, guided by their parents, were allowed to make their own decisions about mask use. “Therefore returning Alberta to the pre-pandemic status quo on this particular matter,” he told the court. The children at the center of this court case, according to the plaintiffs’ legal team, were segregated, alienated and bullied because they had to stay home from school or, in other cases, because they were the only ones in their schools who wore masks.
Health over education
Zimmermann told Judge Grant Dunlop that the families’ claims that removing the mandatory mask mandate forced them to choose between their children’s health or education was not valid. He says none of the children were prevented from going to school and there is no indication that any were separated from their classmates. “I would suggest to you that it appears that none of these people were affected in terms of not being able to attend school because of the removal of the masks,” he said. The applicants said they are not asking to reinstate a province-wide mandate. Instead, their lawyers, Orlagh O’Kelly and Sharon Roberts, are asking the judge to declare that it was not Hinshaw who made the decision and that, in future, she cannot hand over power to the cabinet. Zimmerman noted that there is no record of the detailed discussions that took place during the meeting of the cabinet committee on the implementation of the priorities because they are held in confidence. However, he argues that Hinshaw made the decision because she recommended it as an option and signed the order. “We suggest that Dr. Hinshaw maintained decisive control and that she maintained decisive participation,” Zimmermann said. Roberts, in her closing remarks, said the government had failed to demonstrate why the mask mandate was lifted so abruptly. “The government’s message seems to be ‘there’s nothing to see here.’ “What we heard today … is that kids should be kids. That was the explanation that was given then, and that’s the explanation … that was given today. And you can make up your own mind about that. That’s the justification, there was no nothing else,” Roberts said. Dunlop said it would likely take a few weeks to review all the evidence, but told the court he hoped to reach a decision “as soon as possible”. Bryan Labby is a business reporter at CBC Calgary. If you have a good story idea or tip, you can contact him at [email protected] or on Twitter at @CBCBryan.
title: “Alberta Government Lawyers Reject Claim School Mask Mandate Lifted Over Flammable Border Protest Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-19” author: “Dorotha Smith”
“It’s interesting that the applicants are trying to paint that somehow the removal of the mask orders was done for extraneous or improper purposes,” said Gary Zimmermann, a lawyer representing the Alberta government. The families of five immunocompromised children as well as the Alberta Federation of Labor (AFL) are calling for a review of the decision, which was made on February 8 during a cabinet meeting. Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, presented a series of options to cabinet as the number of infections fell. A press conference was held later that day to announce the easing of restrictions. The lifting of the mandatory mask requirement for students came into effect on February 14. Lawyers for the group argued Wednesday that Dr. Hinshaw abdicated her authority on the cabinet and failed to fulfill her obligation to protect medically vulnerable students. They said the decision to remove mask mandates in Alberta schools was not consistent with public health advice and was instead made by government officials for political reasons, including to “suppress protests” at the Coutts border crossing. On Thursday it was the government’s turn to respond. “They refer to the combustible situation at Coutts, but I repeat that there is no evidence that Dr Hinshaw — or the Cabinet, for that matter — was politically motivated in relation to this, protesting against masks or the combustible situation at Coutts. There is no evidence of that,” he told the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing. He said the decision was based on a number of factors, including the reduced number of cases. “The latest relevant statistics, jurisdictional scans, science, effectiveness of interventions … and that includes the fact that requiring children to wear masks is not without consequences,” he said. “The decisions … were made in absolute good faith, using the best judgment based on the information available at the time.” He says students, guided by their parents, were allowed to make their own decisions about mask use. “Therefore returning Alberta to the pre-pandemic status quo on this particular matter,” he told the court. The children at the center of this court case, according to the plaintiffs’ legal team, were segregated, alienated and bullied because they had to stay home from school or, in other cases, because they were the only ones in their schools who wore masks.
Health over education
Zimmermann told Judge Grant Dunlop that the families’ claims that removing the mandatory mask mandate forced them to choose between their children’s health or education was not valid. He says none of the children were prevented from going to school and there is no indication that any were separated from their classmates. “I would suggest to you that it appears that none of these people were affected in terms of not being able to attend school because of the removal of the masks,” he said. The applicants said they are not asking to reinstate a province-wide mandate. Instead, their lawyers, Orlagh O’Kelly and Sharon Roberts, are asking the judge to declare that it was not Hinshaw who made the decision and that, in future, she cannot hand over power to the cabinet. Zimmerman noted that there is no record of the detailed discussions that took place during the meeting of the cabinet committee on the implementation of the priorities because they are held in confidence. However, he argues that Hinshaw made the decision because she recommended it as an option and signed the order. “We suggest that Dr. Hinshaw maintained decisive control and that she maintained decisive participation,” Zimmermann said. Roberts, in her closing remarks, said the government had failed to demonstrate why the mask mandate was lifted so abruptly. “The government’s message seems to be ‘there’s nothing to see here.’ “What we heard today … is that kids should be kids. That was the explanation that was given then, and that’s the explanation … that was given today. And you can make up your own mind about that. That’s the justification, there was no nothing else,” Roberts said. Dunlop said it would likely take a few weeks to review all the evidence, but told the court he hoped to reach a decision “as soon as possible”. Bryan Labby is a business reporter at CBC Calgary. If you have a good story idea or tip, you can contact him at [email protected] or on Twitter at @CBCBryan.
title: “Alberta Government Lawyers Reject Claim School Mask Mandate Lifted Over Flammable Border Protest Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-25” author: “Natalie Nickle”
“It’s interesting that the applicants are trying to paint that somehow the removal of the mask orders was done for extraneous or improper purposes,” said Gary Zimmermann, a lawyer representing the Alberta government. The families of five immunocompromised children as well as the Alberta Federation of Labor (AFL) are calling for a review of the decision, which was made on February 8 during a cabinet meeting. Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, presented a series of options to cabinet as the number of infections fell. A press conference was held later that day to announce the easing of restrictions. The lifting of the mandatory mask requirement for students came into effect on February 14. Lawyers for the group argued Wednesday that Dr. Hinshaw abdicated her authority on the cabinet and failed to fulfill her obligation to protect medically vulnerable students. They said the decision to remove mask mandates in Alberta schools was not consistent with public health advice and was instead made by government officials for political reasons, including to “suppress protests” at the Coutts border crossing. On Thursday it was the government’s turn to respond. “They refer to the combustible situation at Coutts, but I repeat that there is no evidence that Dr Hinshaw — or the Cabinet, for that matter — was politically motivated in relation to this, protesting against masks or the combustible situation at Coutts. There is no evidence of that,” he told the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing. He said the decision was based on a number of factors, including the reduced number of cases. “The latest relevant statistics, jurisdictional scans, science, effectiveness of interventions … and that includes the fact that requiring children to wear masks is not without consequences,” he said. “The decisions … were made in absolute good faith, using the best judgment based on the information available at the time.” He says students, guided by their parents, were allowed to make their own decisions about mask use. “Therefore returning Alberta to the pre-pandemic status quo on this particular matter,” he told the court. The children at the center of this court case, according to the plaintiffs’ legal team, were segregated, alienated and bullied because they had to stay home from school or, in other cases, because they were the only ones in their schools who wore masks.
Health over education
Zimmermann told Judge Grant Dunlop that the families’ claims that removing the mandatory mask mandate forced them to choose between their children’s health or education was not valid. He says none of the children were prevented from going to school and there is no indication that any were separated from their classmates. “I would suggest to you that it appears that none of these people were affected in terms of not being able to attend school because of the removal of the masks,” he said. The applicants said they are not asking to reinstate a province-wide mandate. Instead, their lawyers, Orlagh O’Kelly and Sharon Roberts, are asking the judge to declare that it was not Hinshaw who made the decision and that, in future, she cannot hand over power to the cabinet. Zimmerman noted that there is no record of the detailed discussions that took place during the meeting of the cabinet committee on the implementation of the priorities because they are held in confidence. However, he argues that Hinshaw made the decision because she recommended it as an option and signed the order. “We suggest that Dr. Hinshaw maintained decisive control and that she maintained decisive participation,” Zimmermann said. Roberts, in her closing remarks, said the government had failed to demonstrate why the mask mandate was lifted so abruptly. “The government’s message seems to be ‘there’s nothing to see here.’ “What we heard today … is that kids should be kids. That was the explanation that was given then, and that’s the explanation … that was given today. And you can make up your own mind about that. That’s the justification, there was no nothing else,” Roberts said. Dunlop said it would likely take a few weeks to review all the evidence, but told the court he hoped to reach a decision “as soon as possible”. Bryan Labby is a business reporter at CBC Calgary. If you have a good story idea or tip, you can contact him at [email protected] or on Twitter at @CBCBryan.
title: “Alberta Government Lawyers Reject Claim School Mask Mandate Lifted Over Flammable Border Protest Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-29” author: “Blanche Carrington”
“It’s interesting that the applicants are trying to paint that somehow the removal of the mask orders was done for extraneous or improper purposes,” said Gary Zimmermann, a lawyer representing the Alberta government. The families of five immunocompromised children as well as the Alberta Federation of Labor (AFL) are calling for a review of the decision, which was made on February 8 during a cabinet meeting. Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, presented a series of options to cabinet as the number of infections fell. A press conference was held later that day to announce the easing of restrictions. The lifting of the mandatory mask requirement for students came into effect on February 14. Lawyers for the group argued Wednesday that Dr. Hinshaw abdicated her authority on the cabinet and failed to fulfill her obligation to protect medically vulnerable students. They said the decision to remove mask mandates in Alberta schools was not consistent with public health advice and was instead made by government officials for political reasons, including to “suppress protests” at the Coutts border crossing. On Thursday it was the government’s turn to respond. “They refer to the combustible situation at Coutts, but I repeat that there is no evidence that Dr Hinshaw — or the Cabinet, for that matter — was politically motivated in relation to this, protesting against masks or the combustible situation at Coutts. There is no evidence of that,” he told the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing. He said the decision was based on a number of factors, including the reduced number of cases. “The latest relevant statistics, jurisdictional scans, science, effectiveness of interventions … and that includes the fact that requiring children to wear masks is not without consequences,” he said. “The decisions … were made in absolute good faith, using the best judgment based on the information available at the time.” He says students, guided by their parents, were allowed to make their own decisions about mask use. “Therefore returning Alberta to the pre-pandemic status quo on this particular matter,” he told the court. The children at the center of this court case, according to the plaintiffs’ legal team, were segregated, alienated and bullied because they had to stay home from school or, in other cases, because they were the only ones in their schools who wore masks.
Health over education
Zimmermann told Judge Grant Dunlop that the families’ claims that removing the mandatory mask mandate forced them to choose between their children’s health or education was not valid. He says none of the children were prevented from going to school and there is no indication that any were separated from their classmates. “I would suggest to you that it appears that none of these people were affected in terms of not being able to attend school because of the removal of the masks,” he said. The applicants said they are not asking to reinstate a province-wide mandate. Instead, their lawyers, Orlagh O’Kelly and Sharon Roberts, are asking the judge to declare that it was not Hinshaw who made the decision and that, in future, she cannot hand over power to the cabinet. Zimmerman noted that there is no record of the detailed discussions that took place during the meeting of the cabinet committee on the implementation of the priorities because they are held in confidence. However, he argues that Hinshaw made the decision because she recommended it as an option and signed the order. “We suggest that Dr. Hinshaw maintained decisive control and that she maintained decisive participation,” Zimmermann said. Roberts, in her closing remarks, said the government had failed to demonstrate why the mask mandate was lifted so abruptly. “The government’s message seems to be ‘there’s nothing to see here.’ “What we heard today … is that kids should be kids. That was the explanation that was given then, and that’s the explanation … that was given today. And you can make up your own mind about that. That’s the justification, there was no nothing else,” Roberts said. Dunlop said it would likely take a few weeks to review all the evidence, but told the court he hoped to reach a decision “as soon as possible”. Bryan Labby is a business reporter at CBC Calgary. If you have a good story idea or tip, you can contact him at [email protected] or on Twitter at @CBCBryan.
