txp

I think you are mostly correct. My sense if that if one shows up at the land border with a valid Canadian passport but without a negative COVID test he/she would be allowed to enter but will be sent to a mandatory quarantine.

As Garykung noted, the right to enter Canada as well as the right to freedom of association are both in the Constitution Act of 1982 (also known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). That act contains a big disclaimer in Article I: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it ***subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society***" (emphasis added).

This means that Parliament can do pretty much anything they want as long as it is "justified" in a free and democratic society. Oh well...

txp

You are correct. My initial recollection was that the right to travel was guaranteed by the Constitution Act of 1867 (British North American Act), which does not seem to contain any disclaimers. But it isn't the 1867 Act. It's in the 1982 charter, from which Parliament may deviate, so long as it is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." I wonder, however, who makes the determination of what is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"? Probably Parliament itself...

garykung

The Federal Judiciary, i.e. Supreme Court of Canada.

txp

Technically this is correct. However, from a practical standpoint, I very much doubt that they would want to override any of the COVID restrictions imposed by Parliament, or even those who were implemented through an Order In Council rather than legislation. My sense is that unlike the US Supreme Court, the Canadian Court is willing to give more latitude to Parliament, in the spirit of the British tradition.

garykung

Do they have a legal reason to override?

CorSter

Just to add to this - I went to a LabQ test van in Midtown this morning based on capedreamer's post a few weeks back. They didn't blink at all when I presented my Canadian passport, and fairly confident everyone else in line was also foreign traveller. No cost. Just waiting for the results to come through and I'll report back when that happens.

txp

I think the role of the Court is to interpret the 1982 Act. One could argue that *no* travel restriction is justified in a free and democratic society (unless someone is under arrest) and that individual rights should prevail over the collective pubic health considerations. In fact, one could argue that travel restrictions are reminiscent of the Soviet Union (to a lesser degree, of course). Someone else could argue the exact opposite: a minor travel inconvenience is justifiable to protect the rest of the society. In the end, the court must weigh the individual rights vs. the necessity of protecting society. In this, they will probably give large latitude to the government, more so than the US Court might be inclined to do here in the US.

For some reason, Canadians seem to be fine with minor infringements of their 1982-guranateed constitutional rights, so long as it is for the common good. (Another example are sobriety checks conducted by SQ/OPP/RCMP, which seem to contradict Article 8 of the Charter -- "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreason-able search or seizure" -- because you get stopped without warrant and without probable cause.)

I am not judging anything.

capedreamer

Glad you tried it out!

Btw, their chat and phone numbers are quite responsive. So if you don't receive an e-mail with your results after 24 hours, give them a shout. One of my friends had this issue and they quickly rectified it after he reached out.

garykung

Your argument lacks merits. Specifically, Canada requires returning citizens to provide a test result. Whether the test is positive or negative, Canada will still allow the return. Hence, there is no freedom of movement restriction.

If you say COVID test is a restriction, then how about getting a Passport?

I don't want to go that far. But sobriety checks is legal, which at the minimum, you signed away when you get licensed.

sydneyracquelle

No Cdn citizen is ever denied the right of entry. By air it is the airline refusing entry. By land you may always enter but with a $6,250 fine.

txp

1. To benefit from the right of travel one needs to prove that one is Canadian Citizen. The passport is the best proof of citizenship, so there is no issue here with infringement of rights. This said, one could argue that the passport should be sufficient. All other entry requirements (quarantine, testing, etc.) are arguably superfluous and at the discretion of the government du jour.

The three-day "internment camp" requirement that costs over $1,000 for passengers arriving by air is perhaps the most compelling case one could make of an OIC that is in contradiction to the Charter. One should not have to pay $1,000 to exercise one's fundamental right to travel. Nor should one be deprived of liberty for three days because one decided to exercise that right. If you have to be deprived of liberty for three days for exercising a constitutionally-guaranteed right, is that right really a right?

Again, I am simply surprised that no one raised the constitutionality issue of some of the measures implemented by the Canadian government since COVID.

txp

Having a constitutionally guaranteed right to enter Canada seems inconsistent with asking someone to pay $6,250 for exercising that right. What am I missing? Is travel a right, or a privilege?

EmailKid

The upthread discussion

One only needs to pay to be tested (actually, upthread discussion details how to be tested in US for FREE); fine is for those who choose not to comply with Pandemic rules that Supreme Court held to be constitutional.

pentiumvi

Can anyone confirm that a PCR test done in Canada (for entry into US) can be used to satisfy negative COVID test for returning back to Canada?

I'm looking to day a same day return down to the US.

bambinomartino

There have been a number of court challenges, none of which had any success. The main decision was penned by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court himself, and he addressed and dismissed many of the issues you raised.