Sarah Mills: Tiger Woods should know better after another DUI case
Sarah Mills says Tiger Woods could easily pay for a car service, and he should also have an NDA to keep his business his...
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the constitutionality of a pandemic-related restriction that curbed travel to Newfoundland and Labrador for public health reasons.
A 2020 order from the province’s chief medical officer limited the circumstances in which non-residents could enter the province due to COVID-19.
In May 2020, Nova Scotia resident Kimberley Taylor requested an exemption to attend her mother’s burial in Newfoundland.
Taylor’s initial application was denied May 8 but a reconsideration request was approved eight days later, allowing her to enter the province.
Although she was eventually granted entry, Taylor sought a court declaration that the travel restrictions breached her mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported her application.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruled the legislation giving rise to the order was within the competence of the province as a valid public health measure.
The court also found the order violated Taylor’s constitutional right under section 6 to travel anywhere in Canada, but that the circumstances of the pandemic justified the infringement under section 1 of the Charter, which allows for reasonable limits on rights.
Newfoundland’s Court of Appeal declined to hear an appeal and cross-appeal on the basis they were moot, as the travel restrictions were no longer in effect.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear arguments and decide the case on its merits.
In its ruling Friday, the top court found the travel restrictions banned most non-residents from entering Newfoundland.
In practice, they prevented Taylor from travelling to the province to grieve her mother and be with her family for several days, until she received state authorization, a majority of the court noted.
These travel restrictions “were not fleeting or trivial,” but imposed a real limit on Canadians’ freedom to move throughout the country, the ruling said.
The restrictions therefore violated elements of section 6 that guarantee free travel within Canada — including across provincial borders — as well as the right to establish a residence in any province, the top court said.
The court concluded, however, that the travel restrictions were justified under section 1 of the Charter.
“In the early days of the pandemic, governments across Canada — including Newfoundland and Labrador — were confronted by a new and deadly disease,” wrote Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and Justice Sheilah Martin for the majority.
“Growing numbers of cases and deaths paired with a lack of concrete medical and scientific evidence created an extraordinarily difficult situation where decisions had to be made swiftly to attempt to protect health and reduce further loss of life,” the judges added.
“These unprecedented circumstances, factoring in the capacity of their health-care system and high volume of vulnerable populations, entitled Newfoundland and Labrador to act as it did.”
Howard Sapers, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said in a statement Friday that a public health crisis is not a “blank check” that allows the government to ignore Charter rights.
“Times of crisis are precisely when the civil liberties and fundamental freedoms that define our society are at the greatest risk,” he said.
Another such emergency is inevitable, Sapers added. “Today’s decision clarifies the legal parameters so officials can govern effectively — and in accordance with the Charter — during future crises,” he said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 13, 2026.
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
