The Attorney General of Saskatchewan - v. -, 2022 SKPC 48

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2022 SKPC 48 Date: December 2, 2022 Location: Regina Information: 991192828 *See Appendix 1 ____________________________________________________________________________ Between: The Attorney General of Saskatchewan - and - His Majesty the King - and - Jasmin Grandel, Mark Friesen, Jonathon Wipf, Maxime Bernier, Brenda Kriese, Richard Brent Wintringham, John Slastukin, Chris Saccocia, Tanya Apodaca, Gerald Ferguson, Christina Hagel, Conrad Goodsir, Cindy Gall and Edward Palchinski Appearing: Noah Wernikowski The Attorney General for Saskatchewan Dana Brûlé and Bryan Carter His Majesty the King Elaine Anderson The Accused DECISION M. HINDS, J

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Jasmin Grandel, Mark Friesen, Jonathon Wipf, Maxime Bernier, Brenda Kriese, Richard Brent Wintringham, John Slastukin, Chris Saccocia, Tanya Apodaca, Gerald Ferguson, Christina Hagel, Conrad Goodsir, Cindy Gall and Edward Palchinski (accused) are charged with various offences contrary to Public Health Orders (PHOs) issued pursuant to The Public Health Act, 1994 , SS 1994, c P- 37.1 . A large number of those offences involve alleged violations of restrictions on outdoor gathering imposed in 2020 and 2021 by PHOs. The particulars of the offences are set out in

Summary Offence Tickets and corresponding long form Informations in Appendix 1. [ 2 ] On October 18, 2021 and November 9, 2021 Caritas Law filed two Notices of Constitutional Question (NCQ ) in this Court on behalf of the accused Cindy Gall alleging that certain out door gathering limits were contrary to ss. 2(

b) and (

c) of the Charter and that any limits were not justified by s. 1 of the Charter .

Section 2(

d) was not plead. [ 3 ] On January 10, 2022, legal counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) filed a NCQ with this Court on behalf Jasmin Grandel , Mark Friesen, Jonathon Wipf, Maxime Bernier, Brenda Kriese, Richard Brent Wintringham, John Slastukin, Chris Saccocia, Tanya Apodaca, Gerald Ferguson, Christina Hagel, Tamara Lavoie and George Seitz alleging that certain outdoor gathering limits were contrary to ss. 2(b), (

c) and (

d) of the Charter and that any limits were not justified by s.1 of the Charter. Tamara Lavoie and George Seitz subsequently withdrew their Charter challenges on October 18, 2022. [ 4 ] On February 1, 2022, Caritas Law filed a NCQ in this Court on behalf of the accused, Erinn Knoll alleging that certain outdoor gathering limits were contrary to ss. 2(

b) and (

c) of the Charter and that any limits were not justified by s. 1 of the Charter .

Section 2(

d) was not plead. Erinn Knoll withdrew her Charter challenge on November 1, 2022. [ 5 ] On February 3, 2022, Caritas Law filed a NCQ in this Court on behalf of the accused, Edward Palchinski alleging that certain outdoor gathering limits were contrary to ss. 2(

b) and (

c) of the Charter and that any limits were not justified by s. 1 of the Charter .

Section 2(

d) was not plead. [ 6 ] On August 2, 2022, legal counsel for the JCCF filed a NCQ with this Court on behalf of Conrad Goodsir alleging that certain outdoor gathering limits were contrary to ss. 2(b), (

c) and (

d) of the Charter and that any limits were not justified by s. 1 of the Charter. [ 7 ] On April 22, 2022, at a Case Management Conference it was agreed that all of the aforementioned matters would proceed by way of a combined Charter voir dire which is currently scheduled for January 16 to 20, 2023. [ 8 ] In a separate legal proceeding, on April 7, 2021 legal counsel at the JCCF on behalf of Jasmin Grandel and Darrel Mills, filed a Notice of Application in the Court of King’s Bench. The JCCF alleged that the ten-person gathering limit then in force pursuant to PHOs issued pursuant to The Public Health Act , 1994 was contrary to ss. 2(b), (

c) and (

d) of the Charter. In addition, they argued that any limits on those Charter rights could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter . [ 9 ] That application was argued before Justice Konkin of the Court of King’s Bench on June 29, 2022. [ 10 ] On September 20, 2022, Justice Konkin provided his decision in Grandel and Mills v Saskatchewan and Dr. Saqib Shahab , 2022 SKKB 209 ( Grandel and Mills ) . He dismissed the application. He concluded at para 117 as follows: 1. Did the PHOs violate s. 2(

b) of the Charter ? Yes. 2. Did the PHOs violate ss. 2(

c) and 2(

d) of the Charter ? Subsections 2(

c) and 2(

d) are subsumed into the analysis of

section 2(b). 3. Has Sask provided sufficient evidence to demonstrably justify the PHOs under s. 1 of the Charter ? Yes.

An appeal of this decision was filed with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on October 20, 2022. [11] As a result of the decision in Grandel and Mills, on October 21, 2022 The Attorney General of Saskatchewan (AG Sask)provided a Notice of Intention asking this Court to summarily dismiss the portions of the NCQ’s relating to outdoor gathering restrictionsbased on ss. 2(b), (

c) and (

d) of the Charter. [12] For the reasons which follow, this Court summarily dismisses the portions of the NCQ’s relating to outdoor gathering restrictionsbased on ss. 2(b), (

c) and (

d) of the Charter. ISSUE [13] The sole issue is whether this Court is bound by the decision in Grandel and Mills, such that the accused’s Charter applicationsshould be summarily dismissed.

ANALYSIS Does this Court have the jurisdiction to dismiss Charter applications summarily? [14] The leading case on the preliminary screening of Charter applications is R v Vukelich (1996), (BC CA), 108CCC (3d) 193 (BC CA) in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that there is no absolute entitlement to a Charter voir dire.The Court held that a trial judge has an obligation to control proceedings before them and should not embark upon applications that willnot assist in the proper trial of the real issues.

This was very recently affirmed and restated by the Saskatchewan Court Appeal in R vWesaquate, 2022 SKCA 101 [Wesaquate]. [15] In Wesaquate the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that the statutory courts such as this Court have the jurisdiction to controltheir own process as a part of ordinary trial management.

These trial management powers include the ability to preliminary screen andsummarily dismiss without a full hearing – Charter applications that have “no reasonable prospect of success.” In Wesaquate the Courtstated as follows at paras 92 and 93: [92] Trial judges have the power in criminal cases to control the process in their courtroom and to make rulings to ensure that trialsproceed in an effective and orderly fashion (R v Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9at para 20, 466 DLR (4th) 581 [Samaniego]).

For superior courtjudges, that power lies in the court's inherent jurisdiction while, for statutory courts, it derives from the court's authority to control itsown process (R v Anderson, 2014 SCC 41at para 58, [2014] 2 SCR 167)… [93] Decisions about whether to grant adjournments fall under the trial management power. Likewise for decisions about whether toconduct a full hearing into claims of Charter violations or dismiss them summarily.

In that respect, the trial management powers permitjudges to conduct preliminary screening of Charter applications to assess whether they have a reasonable prospect of success, and tosummarily dismiss them without a full hearing where that standard is not met (R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31at paras 37-38, [2017] 1 SCR659 [Cody]; R v Giesbrecht, 2019 MBCA 35at paras 134-135, 373 CCC (3d) 70; R v R.V., 2022 ABCA 218at para 63; see also R vKutynec (1992), (ON CA), 7 OR (3d) 277 (CA) at 287-289; and R v Vukelich (1996), (BC CA),108 CCC (3d) 193 (BC CA)).

Such use of trial management powers benefits the administration of justice, because it reduces delay andpreserves scarce judicial resources by ensuring that courts do not embark on inquiries that will not assist in resolving the real issues ofimportance to the trial (see: Cody at para 37; R v Orr, 2021 BCCA 42at paras 53-56, 399 CCC (3d) 441 [Orr]; R v O'Reilly, 2017QCCA 1283at para 137, leave to appeal denied, (SCC)). [16] I am of the view that this Court has the jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the present Charter challenge if it concludes it has noreasonable prospect of success.

The next question is whether the accused’s Charter challenge has a reasonable prospect of success,given the decision in Grandel and Mills. Has the Grandel decision decided the legal question in issue in this application?

[17] I am of the view that Justice Konkin addressed the s. 2 Charter applications before this Court in Grandel and Mills. [18] In Grandel and Mills the Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of the PHOs respecting restrictions on outdoorgatherings which limited outdoor gatherings to 10 persons during the period of time from December 17, 2020 through May 30, 2021. This clearly included a consideration of the PHOs at issue in this case[1] – which set a 10 person outdoor gathering limit – and itscompliance with ss. 2(b), (

c) and (

d) of the Charter. In addition, Grandel and Mills clearly considered s. 1 of the Charter. [19] In both Grandel and Mills and the present case, the applicants sought an order or declaration pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charterthat the outdoor gathering limits restrictions imposed by PHOs under The Public Health Act, 1994 unjustifiably infringed upon thefundamental freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(b), 2(

c) and 2 (

d) of the Charter and therefore are void and of no force and effect. [20] In Grandel and Mills, the respondents the Government of Saskatchewan and Dr. Saqib Shahab conceded that the PHOs violatess. 2(

b) of the Charter. The Government of Saskatchewan took the position that given the concession on s. 2(

b) of the Charter, ss. 2(c)and 2(

d) did not require an independent analysis. The Court agreed with this position and determined that in the circumstances of thatcase, to have the interest protected in ss. 2(

c) and 2(

d) subsumed by the s. 2(

b) analysis of the Charter. [21] In Grandel and Mills the Court then considered the remaining issue under s. 1 of the Charter which was whether the outdoorgathering limits were “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. [22] Justice Konkin applied the four-part test in R v Oakes, (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103 [Oakes] which is the same testthat this Court would be required to apply.

After doing so, Justice Konkin concluded as follows at para 116 of Grandel and Mills: I find that Sask’s PHOs which imposed the Outdoor Gathering Restrictions violated the Charter right of freedom of expression asarticulated in s. 2(b). I also find that Sask has met its burden to establish that the Outdoor Gathering Restrictions are reasonable,demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society and are therefore saved pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter. [23] In this case the Court understands that the Government of Saskatchewan would make a similar concession that the PHOs violates. 2(

b) of the Charter and that the focus of the application would be on s. 1 of the Charter, as it was in Grandel and Mills. I understandevidence before the Court in Grandel and Mills was extensive and Justice Konkin’s Oakes analysis was applied to a significant factualrecord. [24] I am of the view that the legal issues decided by Justice Konkin in Grandel and Mills, are identical to those at issue in thisapplication. Does the doctrine of stare decisis apply?

Is the Grandel and Mills decision determinative of this application? [25] The doctrine of vertical stare decisis (to stand by things decided) requires lower courts to follow precedents on the same orclosely related issues from higher courts. Accordingly Provincial Courts are bound by authoritative decisions of the Court of King’sBench. [26] In R v Comeau, 2018 SCC 15 at para 26, [2018] 1 SCR 342 [Comeau] the Supreme Court of Canada noted the importance ofstare decisis and the dangers of failing to adhere to authoritative precedent: [26] Common law courts are bound by authoritative precedent.

This principle — stare decisis — is fundamental for guaranteeingcertainty in the law. Subject to extraordinary exceptions, a lower court must apply the decisions of higher courts to the facts before it. This is called vertical stare decisis. Without this foundation, the law would be ever in flux — subject to shifting whims or theintroduction of new esoteric evidence by litigants dissatisfied by the status quo. [27] In R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, 413 CCC (3d) 447 [Sullivan] the Supreme Court stated that the constitutional status of a law is aquestion of law subject to the doctrine of stare decisis.

At para 56 the Supreme Court stated as follows:

[56] While it is true that stare decisis pertains to the reasons given by a court and a s. 52(1) declaration is a remedy, the reasons explain the status of the impugned law in terms of its consistency with the Constitution. The constitutional status of the law is, as I say, a question of law.

The scope of the legal reasoning extends beyond the individual claimant, with effect beyond the parties flowing from the binding character of the judgment as a matter of precedent. [citations omitted, emphasis added] [ 28 ] In Sullivan the Court went on to discuss the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis and how this applies to a ruling on the constitutionality of legislation, as well as confirming that a constitutional ruling by any court will bind lower courts through vertical stare decisis .

At para 65 the Supreme Court stated as follows: [65] Horizontal stare decisis applies to courts of coordinate jurisdiction within a province, and applies to a ruling on the constitutionality of legislation as it does to any other legal issue decided by a court, if the ruling is binding. While not strictly binding in the same way as vertical stare decisis , decisions of the same court should be followed as a matter of judicial comity, as well as for the reasons supporting stare decisis generally (Parkes, at p. 158).

A constitutional ruling by any court will, of course, bind lower courts through vertical stare decisis . [ 29 ] The decision in Grandel and Mills is a constitutional ruling from a higher court on the same issues before this Court. I find that it is binding on this Court unless the accused applicant establishes one of the two exceptional circumstances in Canada (General) v Bedford , 2013 SCC 72 , [2013] SCR 1101 [ Bedford ] apply. [ 30 ] In Bedford the Supreme Court set out the narrow circumstances under which a lower court can depart from a decision of a higher court with respect to constitutional issues.

Stare decisis applies unless the applicants establish that one of the two exceptional conditions are present. In Bedford these exceptional conditions are described as follows at para 42: [42] In my view, a trial judge can consider and decide arguments based on Charter provisions that were not raised in the earlier case; this constitutes a new legal issue.

Similarly, the matter may be revisited if new legal issues are raised as a consequence of significant developments in the law, or if there is a change in the circumstances or evidence that fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate. [ 31 ] In Comeau the Supreme Court confirmed that the Bedford exceptions to stare decisis are narrow and described them as “extraordinary”. i. Exception 1 Bedford . Has a new legal issue been raised? [ 32 ] I am of the view that a new legal issue has not been raised in the present case.

As previously stated, the decision in Grandel and Mills determined that the Government of Saskatchewan’s PHOs which imposed the Outdoor Gathering Restrictions violated the Charter right of freedom of expression as set out in s. 2(b). The Court in Grandel and Mills then went on to determine that the Government of Saskatchewan met its burden to establish that the Outdoor Gathering Restrictions are reasonable, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society and are therefore saved pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter . These are the very same legal issues that are before this Court.

Put another way, the NQCs before this Court do not raise any Charter issues that are different from what the Court addressed in Grandel and Mills . [ 33 ] In addition, I am of the view that the law has not undergone “significant developments” since Grandel and Mills was decided on September 22, 2022. [ 34 ] I find the “new legal issue” exception does not apply here. ii.

Have the “fundamental parameters of the debate” been shifted by new circumstances or evidence? [ 35 ] As previously indicated the Supreme Court in Bedford stated a court can revisit precedent where there is a “change in circumstances or evidence that fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate”.

[36] In Comeau the Supreme Court provided further guidance on the new circumstance or evidence exception to stare decisis. Itstated at paras 30 -34 as follows: [30] The new evidence exception to vertical stare decisis is narrow: Bedford, at para. 44; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331, at para. 44. We noted in Bedford, at para. 44, that a lower court is not entitled to ignore binding precedent, and the threshold for revisiting a matter is not an easy one to reach....

Thisbalances the need for finality and stability with the recognition that when an appropriate case arises for revisiting precedent, a lowercourt must be able to perform its full role. [31] Not only is the exception narrow — the evidence must "fundamentally shif[t] the parameters of the debate" — it is not a generalinvitation to reconsider binding authority on the basis of any type of evidence.

As alluded to in Bedford and Carter, evidence of asignificant evolution in the foundational legislative and social facts — "facts about society at large" — is one type of evidence that canfundamentally shift the parameters of the relevant legal debate: Bedford, at paras. 48-49; Carter, at para. 47.

That is, the exception hasbeen found to be engaged where the underlying social context that framed the original legal debate is profoundly altered. [32] In Carter, for example, new evidence about the harms associated with prohibiting assisted death, public attitudes toward assisteddeath, and measures that can be put in place to limit risk was relevant. This evidence was unknowable or not pertinent, given the existinglegal framework, when Rodriguez v.

British Columbia (Attorney General), (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, was decided.These new legislative and social facts did not simply provide an alternate answer to the question posed in Rodriguez. Instead, the newevidence fundamentally shifted how the Court could assess the nature of the competing interests at issue. [33] This focus on shifting legislative and social facts is conceptually linked to Lord Sankey's famous "living tree" metaphor, whichacknowledges that

interpretations of the Constitution Act, 1867 evolve over time, given shifts in the relevant legislative and socialcontext: Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, (UK JCPC), [1930] 1 D.L.R. 98 (P.C.), at pp. 106-7. In Edwards,both legal and social changes that had opened the door to women's increased integration into public life after Confederation confirmedthat it was no longer appropriate to read the term "person" in the impugned constitutional provision as anything other than its plaingender-neutral meaning: pp. 110-12. [34] To reiterate: departing from vertical stare decisis on the basis of new evidence is not a question of disagreement or

interpretation.For a binding precedent from a higher court to be cast aside on the basis of new evidence, the new evidence must "fundamentally shif[t]"how jurists understand the legal question at issue. It is not enough to find that an alternate perspective on existing evidence might changehow jurists would answer the same legal question. [emphasis added] [37] In this case the accused applicants take the position that they will present new evidence at the Charter voir dire currentlyscheduled for January 16 – 20, 2023 that will fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate. In particular they plan on calling Dr.Schabas, an expert in public health, who will testify that:

(1) Coercion should be the last resort and only used in the most extremecircumstances

(2) Enforcement of restrictions will only undermine public confidence in public health. Dr. Schabas is said to haveworked 40 years in public health. The Court, however, was not advised or provided any information regarding the education, trainingand experience of Dr.

Schabas. [38] Similar approaches for avoiding stare decisis by trying to call different evidence were recently attempted in Provincial Courts inManitoba and Saskatchewan. [39] In Gateway Bible Baptist Church et al. v Manitoba et al., 2021 MBQB 219 Chief Justice Joyal held in 2021 that the COVID-19related outdoor gathering limits were constitutional as applied to protestors, churches and others. Certain protestors were subsequentlyticketed for attending outdoor events and sought to avoid the vertical precedent in the Gateway decision by proposing to tender newexpert evidence at their ticket trials.

Their applications were summarily dismissed. The oral decision of Judge Cornick of the ManitobaProvincial Court set out in the transcript of R v Allard et al (2 August 2022) Winnipeg, #558-30323 (Man PC) is very helpful. In Allardthe following paragraphs appear at pages T6 and T7 as follows: I now turn to the scientific evidence. I was asked to consider the affidavits filed in the constitutional application with respect to scientific evidence in order to access thesummary dismissal application. There is clearly a debate in the scientific community about COVID-19 transmission outdoors.

The experts agree, to a certain extent, that

COVID-19 transmission outdoors is low. The experts in Gateway, who are the same proposed experts in this case, discuss low instancesof outdoor transmission. The debate continues around a more specific question: the question of, how low is too low to constitutionallyjustify the restrictions on outdoor gatherings? Dr. Rancourt, who was not called in the Gateway case, opines that outdoor transmission is so low as to be incalculable, but he does notsay it is impossible. The expert evidence proposed by the parties is strikingly similar to the expert evidence called in Gateway right downto the specific witnesses.

The proposed evidence of Dr. Rancourt does not rise to the level of shifting the parameters of the debate; nor isso novel as to constitute significant new evidence not contemplated in Gateway. In Gateway, the Court considered both sides of the scientific debate, and it did not lead to a conclusion that Manitoba was wrong orunreasonable in relying on the opinions of its experts in crafting the PHOs. Those are the same experts expected to testify in this matter. The competing scientific opinions were already analyzed in Gateway.

Again, I am bound by the ruling in Gateway. [emphasis added] [40] The AG Sask recently made a similar application for

summary dismissal of eight Defendants’ s. 2 Charter challenges respectingPHOs which imposed outdoor gathering restrictions before Judge Martinez of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court in Outlook,Saskatchewan. In that matter, the defendants were charged on May 10, 2021 with violating a PHO that limited outdoor gatherings to nomore than ten people. On September 10, 2021 counsel for one of the defendant’s, Ms. Brown, filed a NQC challenging the validity ofthe relevant PHO on the basis that it unjustifiably infringed her s. 2(

b) and 2(c)Charter rights to freedom of expression and peacefulassembly. On January 17, 2022 counsel for seven other defendants filed a NQC alleging the relevant PHO unjustifiably infringed their s.2(b), 2(

c) and 2(d) (association) freedoms under the Charter. [41] On April 25, 2022 in a blended trial and voir dire Judge Martinez heard the Crown’s evidence against all of the defendants. Thevoir dire involving the testimony of expert witnesses on the NQC was adjourned to be heard for three days in October, 2022. OnSeptember 20, 2022, the decision in Grandel and Mills took place, prompting the AG’s application of

summary dismissal of thedefendant’s s. 2 Charter challenges. [42] On November 17, 2022 Judge Martinez provided an oral decision on the AG Sask’s application for

summary dismissal. Unfortunately, a transcript of that proceeding is not available at this time. However, I note that proceeding was recorded and I have hadthe opportunity to listen to it on the “For the Record” (FTR) court recording system used by the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan. Ingranting the application for

summary dismissal of defendant’s s. 2 Charter challenges Judge Martinez stated as follows: So, the legal issue before me is the same issue that was before the Court in Grandel. There certainly has not been any significantdevelopment in the relevant law in the two months since Justice Konkin released his decision. The only question is whether any new evidence the defence intend to proffer in this voir dire will fundamentally shift how juristsunderstand the legal question in issue.

According to defence counsel’s submission, in the voir dire, the defendants intend to call a second defence expert in addition to thedefence expert who testified in Grandel. From what I understand, the “new” defence expert is one who possesses expertise inepidemiology, prevention and control of diseases at a population level, and in the development and implementation of related publichealth policy. Something which Justice Konkin would not allow the other expert to testify about because it was not within their area ofexpertise.

However, the only evidence defence counsel identified to me as being different from, or at least that would add to theevidence heard by the Court in Grandel is that this second expert would testify that in the realm of public health policy development,design, and implementation, coercion is a last resort. Now I don’t have an affidavit from the expert, I don’t have a full view of what the expert might say, but the difference in my view isminor and that evidence would not move the goalposts in this case.

In other words, I find that the new, or perhaps more accurately, theadditional evidence, the defence hopes to tender in the voir dire before me on the

section 2 issue and whether it is justified under section1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not fundamentally shift in any way how jurists understand the legal question in issue. So for those reasons I grant the Crown’s application and I’m dismissing the defendant’s Charter challenges under

section 2 of theCharter of Rights and Freedoms. [43] In this case the accused Charter applicants seek to elicit some different expert evidence from Dr. Schabas in the area of publichealth. [44] I note in the first place that given the very little information I have with respect to Dr. Schabas expertise, I have some concernsabout whether Dr Schabas can or should opine on

(1) Coercion should be the last resort and only used in the most extremecircumstances.

(2) Enforcement of restrictions will only undermine public confidence in public health. (R v Mohan, (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9). [45] Secondly, I am of the view that the proposed new evidence of Dr. Schabas does not meet the very high standard that newevidence would have to meet to satisfy the Bedford test. In particular I am of the view that the proposed new evidence of Dr. Schabas

does not fundamentally shift how jurists understand the legal question at issue. I am reminded by Comeau that it is not enough to find that an alternate perspective on existing evidence might change how jurists would answer the same legal question. [ 46 ] In addition, I am of the view that the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis applies in this case. Given the similarities of this application with that facing Judge Martinez I choose to follow his decision as a matter of judicial comity. [ 47 ] I find that the “new circumstance or evidence” exception does not apply here.

CONCLUSION [ 48 ] I find that I am bound by the decision in Grandel and Mills and the narrow exceptions to the rule of stare decisis set out in Bedford and Comeau are not made out . I am satisfied that the Charter applications filed by the accused persons have “no reasonable prospect of success.” As a result the AG Sask’s application for summarily dismissal of any NCQ’s (or portions of NCQ) before this Court related to ss. 2(b) , (

c) or (

d) of the Charter is granted. [ 49 ] I am grateful for the assistance of all counsel on this matter. I note that I have drawn from the written submissions of counsel for the AG Sask in preparing this decision. ___________________________ M. Hinds, J Appendix 1 Jasmin Grandel Ticket 85463188 - Info 991192828 - On or about January 30, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Jan 3-5/23 Ticket 85463838 - Info 991192831 - On or about February 20, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Jan 9/23 Ticket 85463750 - Info 991192834 - Info 991213377 - On or about March 27, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Jan 23-25/23 Ticket 85447763 - On or about April 17, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Jan 31/23 Ticket 85355138 - Info 991192860 Count 2 - On or about April 24, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Feb 6-10,11/23 Ticket 85482578 - Info 991192882 - On or about May 15, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Mar 20-24, 27/23

Mark Friesen Ticket 85447890 - On or about December 12, 2020 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order dated November 26, 2020 by participating in an outdoor public/private gathering of more than 30 people Trial Dec 16/22 Ticket 85463187 - Info 991192828 - On or about January 30, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Jan 3-5/23 Ticket 85463753 - Info 991192834 - Info 991213377 - On or about March 27, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Jan 23-25/23 Ticket 85464347 - Info 991192864 - Info 991213623 - On or about May 8, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Mar 6-10,13/23 Jonathon Wipf Ticket 85463189 - Info 991192828 - On or about January 30, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Jan 3-5/23 Maxime Bernier Ticket 85482573 - Info 991192864 - 991213623 - On or about May 8, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Mar 6-10,13/23 Brenda Kriese Ticket 85391201 - Info 991192882 - On or about May 15, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Mar 20-24, 27/23 Richard Brent Wintringham Ticket 85463752 - Info 991192834 - Info 991213377 - On or about March 27, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Jan 23-25/23 Ticket 8546270 - Info 991192864 – 991213623 - On or about May 8, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Mar 6-10,13/23 John Slastukin Ticket 85437645 - On May 1, 2021 did fail to comply with para 4(

d) of the Public Health Order dated April 20, 2021 by being involved in a public or private outdoor gathering exceeding 10 persons. Trial Jan 11/23 Ticket 85482579 - Info 991192882 - On or about May 15, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Mar 20-24, 27/23 Chris Saccocia Ticket 85423049 Info 991192860 Count 2 - On or about April 24, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Feb 6-10,13/23 Tanya Apodaca Ticket 85482652 and Info 991192882 - On or about May 15, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Mar 20-24, 27/23 Gerald Ferguson Ticket 85492444 - Info 991192860 Count 2 - On or about April 24, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of

The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Feb 6-10,13/23 Ticket 85492963 - Info 991192882 - On or about May 15, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Mar 20-24, 27/23 Ticket 85463943 - On May 8, 2021 Did fail to comply with para 4 of the Public Health Order, Provincial Health Order dated May 6, 2021, by being involved in a public or private outdoor gathering of people that exceeded 10 persons. A default conviction took place on November 19, 2021.

On November 3, 2022 an application for reconsideration (to set aside a deemed conviction) was brought. Christina Hagel Ticket 85391480 - Info 991192835 - On or about April 3, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Jan 30/23 Ticket 85463749 - Info 991192834 - Info 991213377 - On or about March 27, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Jan 23-25/23 Conrad Goodsir Ticket 85492829 - Info 991213623 - On or about May 8, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 . Trial Mar 6-10,13/23 Cindy Gall Ticket 85464353 - Info 991192864 - 991213623 - On or about May 8, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Mar 6-10,11/21 Ticket 85492769 - Info 991192882 - On or about May 15, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act , 1994 . Trial Mar 20-24, 27/23 Edward Palchinski Ticket 85391202 - Info 991192882 - On or about May 15, 2021 Fail to comply with a Public Health Order by attending a gathering exceeding 10 persons, contrary to s. 61 of The Public Health Act, 1994 .

Trial Mar 20-24, 27/23 [1] Excepting the accused, Mark Friesen, Ticket 85447890 which alleges that on December 12, 2020 he failed to comply with a Public Health Order dated November 26, 2020 by participating in an outdoor public/private gathering of more than 30 people. However, I am of the view the reasoning in Grandel and Mills applies to this ticket as well.