B.C. judge finds Chilliwack pastor ‘responsible’ for holding worship service in violation of province’s old COVID-19 orders – but conviction over $2,300 bill won’t be entered until the court considers a constitutional challenge.
In a decision with implications for a number of similar cases, Judge Andrea Ormiston found that while Free Reformed Church pastor John Koopman may not have organized the December 6, 2020 event, he could be considered a “ host” of the service, which contravened a public health order.
Despite the guilty verdict, Ormiston delayed the conviction last week – pending a challenge to the legislation that made the gathering illegal.
A spokesperson for the organization supporting Koopman and other church leaders fined during the tenure said the ruling was part of a slew of lawsuits that continue to clog the courts long after the ruling was dropped. arrangement.
“It does not leave a good taste in the mouths of citizens when they have gone through legal proceedings and seen years of public resources spent against them for choices that had nothing to do with additional health risk. “said Marty Moore, an attorney at the Justice Center for Constitutional Liberties.
“A divine call that cannot be ignored”
While the Crown filed two dozen COVID-19 violation tickets against Koopman and two other pastors last spring, Moore said more than a dozen remain and are currently being challenged in provincial court. .
The worship service at the heart of the case took place two days after Provincial Health Officer Dr Bonnie Henry issued an order barring people from organizing or hosting a long list of events, including in-person worship services.
According to Ormiston’s ruling, an RCMP officer “believed a worship service was going to be held at the church that morning based on information from the church’s public website.”
The officer was prevented from entering, but saw others being admitted. He then uploaded a video from Koopman’s service.
“During the sermon, Pastor Koopman directly addresses the controversy of gathering in person to worship at this time,” Judge wrote. “As he said then, and as he explained in his testimony at this trial, coming together to serve God is a compulsion – a divine calling that cannot be ignored or overridden by state law. .”
Ormiston’s decision largely deals with whether Koopman could be considered an organizer or a host.
The pastor successfully argued that he was not an organizer, as his role is “intentionally removed from the administrative work of operating a church”.
But the judge felt his role was consistent with that of a “host” who “in some way ensures the comfort and well-being of his guests even if they do not get involved in making the necessary arrangements. “.
Moore said the distinction means Koopman will face a $2,300 fine compared to $230 for someone who simply attended — depending on the next step in the legal process.
Disputes at the 3 levels of court
Challenges to the legislation that allowed Henry to issue his warrants are now before all three levels of BC courts.
In addition to Koopman’s challenge in provincial court, the Court of Appeal is reviewing a British Columbia Supreme Court Decision who concluded that if the chief medical officer’s orders might have infringed religious freedoms, she was justified in issuing them.
Meanwhile, Moore said his group is asking a B.C. Supreme Court judge to review a decision from September provincial court decision in which a Kelowna pastor lost his attempt to mount a challenge similar to the one likely to be made in the Koopman case.
In that decision, Judge Clarke Burnett found that Art Lucier was trying to launch an “unacceptable collateral attack” on public health legislation because the law establishes a specific avenue for people who oppose an order.
Lucier argued that this reconsideration process was “flawed and insufficient.” The judge agreed it may not be “sound”, but said the right to appeal clearly existed – as did the right to judicial review afterwards.
“The intent of the legislature was that only those with the appropriate training and qualifications should be responsible for determining the propriety of any reconsideration,” Burnett wrote.
“For another body to do so may well undermine the main purpose of the legislation, which is to protect the public from health risks.”
“A reasonable and proportionate balance”
Koopman’s next court date is December 21.
Moore says the legal proceedings are timely in light of considerations about the need for mask mandates to combat the spread of new strains of COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses.
“If we choose to engage the legal resources of our communities – police, prosecutions and judges – with the use of warrants, we can expect to have far fewer of those resources available to meet the other more pressing needs of our community” , Moore said. .
“I think it’s something in the public interest to consider.”
In any case, the province argued that orders infringing the rights of Canadians were necessary to control the spread of a deadly virus that triggered the state of emergency.
In the decision now before the appeal court, BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson echoed that sentiment.
“”While the impacts of the … ordinances on the rights of religious petitioners are significant, the benefits to the purposes of the ordinances are even greater,” Hinkson wrote.
“In my view, the orders represent a reasonable and proportionate balance.”
“Travel aficionado. Twitter scholar. Writer. Extreme coffee guru. Evil pop culture fanatic.”