Travel

Newfoundland travel ban challenge - defeated for now

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 26th, 2020 7:56 pm
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 7, 2017
4597 posts
2000 upvotes
SW corner of the cou…

Newfoundland travel ban challenge - defeated for now

The suit challenging Newfoundland's travel ban has been lost by the plaintiff/complainant (or whatever term is used) at the Newfoundland Supreme Court. I guess the plaintiff/complainant could take it to the SCoC/FCoC or higher Nfld court.

Rights were infringed but COVID was an overriding justifcation.
Cream rises to the top. So does scum.
11 replies
Deal Addict
Jul 26, 2007
1372 posts
550 upvotes
"muh rightzzzzz!" go live in america if you love your inalienable rights so much.

can't believe anyone would waste their time going to the supreme court just so they can go on a vacay.
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2019
2320 posts
18714 upvotes
Halifax resident Kimberly Taylor sued the Newfoundland and Labrador government after she was initially denied an exemption to the province's travel ban after her mother's death in St. John's in May.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 7, 2017
4597 posts
2000 upvotes
SW corner of the cou…
She ain't going to win no appeal. Once the case and the circumstances are explained clearly, I think an overwhelming majority of Canadians (including myself) side with the judge's decision.
Cream rises to the top. So does scum.
Newbie
Aug 26, 2020
35 posts
24 upvotes
Whoever filed the complaint might as well be American. Meh. What a waste of taxpayer money.
Sr. Member
Aug 3, 2017
526 posts
353 upvotes
My folks can come here then go back and quarantine, but I cannot go there even if I am willing and have a plan to quarantine. They need to shut down non-essential travel or not, but it’s not currently treating everyone equally. Similarly someone entering for work doesn’t need to quarantine, but someone returning from shift does need to.

I’m not opposed to restrictions and I think they have done so well because of them, but I do think there are some aspects that could be administered differently with the same successful results.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jul 7, 2017
4597 posts
2000 upvotes
SW corner of the cou…
dolfan1980 wrote: My folks can come here then go back and quarantine, but I cannot go there even if I am willing and have a plan to quarantine. They need to shut down non-essential travel or not, but it’s not currently treating everyone equally. Similarly someone entering for work doesn’t need to quarantine, but someone returning from shift does need to.

I’m not opposed to restrictions and I think they have done so well because of them, but I do think there are some aspects that could be administered differently with the same successful results.
Your folks are residents so I guess harder to deny them the right to return. The whole thing was hastily put together and is meant to be temporary and will take time to fine tune and adjust if the government(s) can be bothered for something they hope will not last much longer. That is why the judge let is stand. Of course if it is extended if not necessary, someone with a more-solid case (such as your example of shift vs. incoming worker) could get the judiciary to force the government(s) to fine tune.
Cream rises to the top. So does scum.
Deal Addict
Apr 24, 2017
1476 posts
685 upvotes
I for one hope it goes to the SCC. Limits on rights are permitted under the charter so long as the limit is the least infringement possible. Personally I think an outright ban is overreaching. Mandatory quarantine period upon entry still affords the right but imposes conditions. In this case though she’d still have missed the funeral. That’s unfortunate but then again many people have died alone from Covid in a sealed off hospital room. Life isn’t normal right now so we all have to expect limits on rights. Outright suspension of them though is going too far.
Penalty Box
User avatar
Dec 20, 2004
5281 posts
1280 upvotes
Toronto
Clement wrote: "muh rightzzzzz!" go live in america if you love your inalienable rights so much.
It's extremely concerning that not only are people so quick to part with their rights during this pandemic, but they actually criticize people who choose to defend them, or even just question when certain measure may be a bit overreaching.
Deal Addict
Apr 24, 2017
1476 posts
685 upvotes
gei wrote: It's extremely concerning that not only are people so quick to part with their rights during this pandemic, but they actually criticize people who choose to defend them, or even just question when certain measure may be a bit overreaching.
Agreed. Most with some intelligence expect things to be somewhat different during this. Questioning just how different and having a discussion on what an appropriate limit is or should be is healthy. Gaining a different point of view that is well thought out is not a waste, even if you don't agree.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 29, 2011
5602 posts
2790 upvotes
Mississauga
There’s a difference between civilly questioning things and being an prick to the local store manager because he won’t let you in.
Deal Addict
Apr 24, 2017
1476 posts
685 upvotes
mrweather wrote: There’s a difference between civilly questioning things and being an prick to the local store manager because he won’t let you in.
Yep. Note the part where I said some intelligence.

Top