
It serves as a warning to governments across Canada that decisions made during times of crisis will be scrutinized and, if necessary, challenged in court
In a landmark decision, the Alberta Court has certified a class action lawsuit, allowing business owners who suffered economic losses due to pandemic-related public health orders to collectively sue the Alberta government. This development marks a significant step in holding governments accountable for actions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Case Overview
The class action lawsuit was initiated by Rath & Company in February 2024, spearheaded by Rebecca Ingram, a gym owner, and Christopher Scott, the owner of the Whistle Stop Café. Both plaintiffs allege significant financial losses resulting from the public health orders issued by Alberta’s former Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Deena Hinshaw. These health directives, which mandated full or partial closures for many businesses, have now been declared unlawfully enacted in the Ingram decision by the Calgary Court of King’s Bench.
Justice Feasby, presiding over the class certification, ruled on November 3, 2024, a month ahead of schedule, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. While the certification does not imply guilt on the part of the Alberta government, it enables plaintiffs to pursue damages on several common grounds, including potential punitive damages and alleged bad faith actions by the government.
Key Issues Raised by the Class Action
The certified lawsuit allows plaintiffs to address several critical issues, including:
- Bad Faith Allegations: The plaintiffs argue that the Alberta government, under then-Chief Medical Officer of Health Deena Hinshaw, acted in bad faith by imposing restrictions without sufficient justification or consideration of their economic impact.
- Breaches of the Alberta Bill of Rights: The case explores whether the government’s actions violated the constitutional rights of business owners.
- Punitive Damages: Plaintiffs seek punitive damages as compensation for the substantial harm caused by the restrictions.
Justice Feasby noted that the plaintiffs’ claims include allegations that the provincial Cabinet “hid behind the Chief Medical Officer of Health to avoid democratic accountability,” which he described as a “plausibly bad faith” action.
The Role of the Ingram Decision
The Ingram decision has set an important precedent for this class action. In Ingram, several public health orders were declared unlawfully enacted, which bolsters the plaintiffs’ argument that their financial losses stemmed from government overreach. For example, Christopher Scott, one of the lead plaintiffs, had been accused of violating public health restrictions during the pandemic but was acquitted following the Ingram ruling.
This precedent strengthens the claims of the broader class of plaintiffs, consisting of business owners whose operations were affected by the public health orders issued between March 17, 2020, and the date of the class certification.
What This Means for Alberta Business Owners
The certified class includes “all individuals who owned, in whole or in part, a business or businesses in Alberta that was subject to full or partial closure, or operational restrictions, mandated by the Chief Medical Officer of Health’s orders.” However, the certification explicitly excludes corporate shareholders and cooperative members from the class.
Business owners who fall within this category can still join the class action. Once the class action proceeds, all affected individuals will be included unless they opt out to pursue separate legal actions.
Broader Implications for Government Accountability
Constitutional lawyer John Carpay emphasized that this lawsuit serves as a reminder that governments cannot act without consequence. He noted that many small business owners lacked the financial safety nets of public sector workers and faced devastating losses, including bankruptcy and the depletion of retirement funds, due to the lockdown policies.
Co-counsel Eva Chipiuk echoed this sentiment, stating that the class certification is a crucial starting point to address injustices caused by government overreach. She added, “Governments across Canada are being reminded that they cannot act without consequence.”
A Message to Business Owners
This lawsuit provides Alberta business owners with an unprecedented opportunity to hold the government accountable for the financial and emotional toll of the pandemic restrictions. According to lead counsel Jeff Rath, the case aims to bring justice to those who suffered “significant hardship and losses” due to “harsh and unilateral actions” taken by the government.
Rath expressed optimism about the lawsuit, stating, “This is a huge day for Alberta businesses that were illegally harmed by Jason Kenney and Deena Hinshaw. The court’s decision allows us to pursue claims for misfeasance in public office and punitive damages.”
Looking Ahead
While the class certification represents a significant victory for affected business owners, the legal process is far from over. It may take years before the courts reach a final resolution. In the meantime, the Alberta government’s legal team continues to fight the class certification, leaving open questions about the province’s next steps.
Regardless of the outcome, this case has sparked a broader discussion about the balance between public health and economic rights. It serves as a warning to governments across Canada that decisions made during times of crisis will be scrutinized and, if necessary, challenged in court.
How Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) Can Assist Business Owners
For business owners seeking clarity on how this class action might affect their legal rights or exploring options for similar claims in Ontario, Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) is here to help. With extensive experience in employment law and litigation, we provide expert guidance to ensure your rights are protected. Contact us today! Call us at 905-477-7011 or email us at contact@minken.com. Our experienced team is here to help.
Sign up for our Newsletter to learn about new Employment Law legislation and Court decisions impacting your workplace.
Copyrighted. Not to be copied or reproduced without express permission of Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) ©
Please note that this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Related Topics
- $12.7 Million Verdict: A Turning Point for Vaccine Mandates, Religious Accommodation and Workplace Discrimination?
- Suspended Unvaccinated Canada Post Employees Win Grievance
- Employers Liable for Vaccination Injury – A Sign of Things to Come?