In a ruling with ramifications 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 violates a public health order. Despite the guilty finding, Ormiston avoided sentencing last week – pending a challenge to the legislation that made the rally illegal. A spokesman for the organization that supports Koopman and other church leaders ticketed during the term says the ruling is part of a flurry of proceedings that continue to clutter the courts long after the order was lifted. “It doesn’t leave a good taste in people’s mouths when they’ve gone through the legal process and seen years of public money wasted on choices that had nothing to do with causing additional health risk,” said Marty Moore, attorney at the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
“A divine call that cannot be ignored”
While the Crown dropped 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 contested in district court. The religious ceremony at the center of the case took place two days after the District Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry issued an order prohibiting people from organizing or hosting a long list of events, including private worship services. Provincial health officer Bonnie Henry issued orders prohibiting people from organizing or hosting religious events in December 2020. (Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press) According to Ormiston’s ruling, an RCMP officer “believed there would be a worship service at the church that morning based on information from the church’s public website.” The officer was unable to get in, but saw others being admitted. He later downloaded a video of Koopman’s service. “During the sermon, Pastor Koopman directly addresses the controversy of gathering in person to worship at that time,” the judge wrote. “As he said then, and as he explained in his testimony during this trial, coming together to serve God is a compulsion — a divine call that cannot be ignored or superseded by state laws.” The Ormiston decision dealt largely with the question of whether Koopman could be considered an organizer or host. The pastor successfully argued that he was not an organizer because his role was “deliberately removed from the administrative work of running a church.” However, the judge found it his role to be a “host” who somehow ensures the comfort and well-being of his guests, even if they themselves are not involved in making the necessary arrangements. Moore said the distinction means Koopman will face a $2,300 fine as opposed to $230 for someone who just attended — depending on the next step in the legal process.
Challenges on all 3 levels of the pitch
Challenges to the legislation that allowed Henry to issue her orders are now before all three levels of BC’s courts. In addition to Koopman’s challenge in provincial court, the Court of Appeal is reviewing a BC Supreme Court ruling that found while the top doctor’s orders may have violated religious freedoms, she was justified in issuing them. Meanwhile, Moore said his group is asking a BC Supreme Court judge to review a provincial court ruling from September in which a Kelowna pastor lost his bid to bring a similar challenge to what might be in Koopman case. In that ruling, Judge Clarke Burnett found that Art Lucier was trying to make an “impermissible collateral attack” on public health law because the law sets a specific path for people who object to an order. Pastor Art Lucier was recently fined for violating public health orders after losing an attempt to challenge the law governing the orders. The decision is subject to appeal. (Trevor Bothorel/CBC) Lucier argued that this review process was “flawed and inadequate.” The judge agreed that it may not have been “robust”, but said the right to appeal clearly existed — as did the right to a judicial review afterwards. “It was the legislature’s intent that only those persons with the appropriate training and qualifications be charged with ascertaining the merits of any review,” Burnett wrote. “For another agency to do so may well undermine the primary goal of the legislation, which is to protect the public from health risks.”
“Logical and proportional balance”
Koopman’s next court date is Dec. 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. Paramedics clean a gurney at Lynn Valley Care Center in North Vancouver in March 2020. Public health officials argued that orders banning public gatherings were necessary to stop the spread of COVID-19. (Ben Nelms/CBC) “If we choose to use the legal resources of our communities – policing, prosecution 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,” he said. Moore. . “I think that’s something that’s in the public interest that needs to be looked at.” In all cases, the province argued that the orders that infringe on Canadians’ rights were necessary to control the spread of a deadly virus that led to a state of emergency. In the decision now before the appeals court, BC Supreme Court Justice Christopher Hinkson echoed that sentiment. “”While the effects of the … orders on the rights of religious actors are significant, the benefits to the goals of the orders are even greater,” Hinkson wrote. “In my view, the orders represent a reasonable and proportionate balance.”
