“I shouldn’t be doing Dr. Henry’s job,” Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson told government lawyers last week. “If she wants police to have the ability to arrest people, the order can be amended, can’t it?”
In response, BC’s High Priestess of COVID, says she doesn’t know if she has the power to order the arrest of individuals who refuse to comply with her self-contradictory health orders. Then she insisted she didn’t want to arrest people attending worship services.
“We’re not talking about arresting people. What we’re talking about in terms of detention was preventing people from entering a premises, for example, and so that is something that is under the Emergency Management Act part of the (health) orders,” the High priestess said.
If Bonnie Henry told the truth yesterday, why does the injunction she applied for specifically request authorization to detain people?
According to the court documents, the province is seeking an order that would prevent elders and members from gathering to worship in their churches and from organizing celebrations, ceremonies, baptisms, funerals or any other “event” as defined by Henry’s orders.
The order would also authorize police to detain anyone they have grounds to believe is planning to attend a religious service organized by any of the three churches.
I would argue it’s because Bonnie Henry is not being honest with British Columbians.
Thankfully, Chief Justice Hinkson refused to buy the garbage Bonnie Henry tried selling, and he denied her request for an injunction.
The High Priestess still refuses to back down in her war against religious worship services.
“They [the health order rules] apply for the reasons that we put them in place based on the signs and the evidence when I believe there is risk of transmission and where we have seen transmission in these settings,” she says.
She steadfastly refuses to answer questions about ski resorts such as Whistler, of course, where in January alone there were 547 cases of COVID directly linked to that venue.
Whistler and all other ski resorts linked to COVID spread remain open.
There is not a single case of COVID linked to the faith community in the past 6 months, a fact the High Priestess continues to ignore.
Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson did not read his reasons in court, but said they would be posted later today.
Justice Hinkson’s decision in Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 248 is long but well thought out. Ultimately, it seems the governments refusal to enforce past injunctions was a major factor in his refusal to grant this one. Absent that condition, the way I read it, he would still have refused due to the irreparable harm done to people of faith by an order that violates their Charter rights.
From the decision:
 If the statement attributed to the Chilliwack RCMP that they forwarded a report to the B.C. Prosecution Service for charge assessment of the violations alleged against three churches is correct, the B.C. Prosecution Service has already been made aware of the conduct of, or similar to that of the petitioners.
 I am left to wonder what would be achieved by the issuance of an injunction in this case. If it were granted and not adhered to, would the administration of justice yet again be brought into disrepute because the B.C. Prosecution Service considers that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute those who refused to adhere to the orders sought from this Court?
 When asked, counsel for the respondents said that the respondents accept that the petitioners’ beliefs are deeply held, but in response to my question as to why an injunction was sought, responded that while the petitioners and others like them are not dissuaded from their beliefs and practices by the impugned orders, an order from this Court is more likely to accomplish their compliance.
 Given the other remedies available to the respondents, I have reservations that an injunction alone, without enforcement by the B.C. Prosecution Service, would overcome the deeply held beliefs of the petitioners and their devotees. Taking into account the decision in Sager, and the other means of enforcement open to the respondents, I find that the balance of convenience does not favour the respondents in this case, and dismiss their application for an injunction.
 To be clear, I am not condoning the petitioners’ conduct in contravention of the orders that they challenge, but find that the injunctive relief sought by the respondents should not be granted.
“The Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson”