THE CHARTER’S BLIND SPOT Part 2 of 3
- kenrdrysdale
- 2 minutes ago
- 13 min read
Section 5: Delegated Coercion — How Governmental Policy Captured the Medical Profession
5.1 The Mechanism of Delegation
Throughout the COVID-19 period, Canadian governments achieved unprecedented control over the practice of medicine without the need for new constitutional powers. The mechanism was deceptively simple: policy by delegation.
Federal and provincial executives issued public-health directives; regulatory colleges converted those directives into binding professional obligations; and hospitals enforced them through contractual employment and credentialing requirements. The result was a closed regulatory loop in which government objectives were implemented through professional compulsion rather than direct decree.
This system had two principal advantages for governments:
It allowed the appearance of “medical consensus” while masking the political origin of the orders.
It insulated governments from direct Charter scrutiny, because the immediate enforcers were technically “independent” professionals.
5.2 Regulatory Colleges as Enforcement Arms
Provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, created by statute to maintain professional standards, became the primary conduits of government policy.
During 2020–2023 they issued a stream of directives instructing physicians to:
Follow provincial and federal public-health guidance “without deviation.”
Refrain from promoting or prescribing non-approved treatments.
Avoid public statements that could be construed as “misinformation.”
Failure to comply was defined as professional misconduct. Several doctors who questioned government narratives or reported vaccine injuries were investigated, suspended, or stripped of licences.
Sworn testimony before the National Citizens Inquiry in 2023 and 2024 detailed multiple such instances. Physicians described being:
Threatened with disciplinary hearings for offering early outpatient treatment.
Warned that any public criticism of vaccination policy would result in investigation.
Advised to report colleagues who expressed dissenting views.
In practice, these directives subordinated medical ethics to political loyalty.
5.3 Hospital Systems and Employment Control
Regional health authorities such as Alberta Health Services, Ontario Health, and Saskatchewan Health Authority implemented uniform internal policies mandating vaccination for employees and for patients a waiting elective procedures or transplants.Hospitals became compliance checkpoints: access to operating rooms, clinical privileges, and even basic patient care required conformity to government vaccination policy.
Because nearly all hospital physicians in Canada are either salaried or dependent on government billing numbers, non-compliance meant economic exclusion from the profession.
The functional independence necessary for Charter insulation thus vanished. Doctors were government contractors in every meaningful sense—funded, regulated, and disciplined by the state.
5.4 The Suppression of Reporting and Data Transparency
Several NCI witnesses testified that reports of vaccine-related injury or death were discouraged or obstructed. Physicians were warned not to file adverse-event reports unless causation was “certain,” an impossible threshold. Some were reprimanded for submitting such reports. In this way, the government not only controlled treatment options but also controlled the information stream that could reveal policy failure.
This degree of information control demonstrates how “delegated coercion” extends beyond direct orders into the epistemic domain—determining what may be known or said within the profession.
5.5 Professional Culture and Fear
The cumulative effect of these pressures was an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship. Doctors who might have questioned the scientific rationale for policies, or who recognized patient harm, learned that silence was the only safe course.
This suppression was not incidental; it was structural. By making regulatory compliance a condition of licensure, the state ensured that dissent would appear as deviance rather than debate.
The ethical inversion is profound: the physician’s traditional duty to advocate for the patient’s best interest was replaced by a duty to enforce government policy on the patient’s body.
5.6 Connection to the Lewis and Harper Cases
Within this system, the physicians who denied Sheila Lewis and Garnet Harper organ transplants had no meaningful discretion.
Both denials occurred under hospital or provincial policies requiring COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of transplantation.
The physicians were executors of those policies, not their originators.By treating them as independent decision-makers, the Alberta courts in Lewis misapprehended the factual environment in which these events occurred.
Their “clinical judgment” was bounded entirely by governmental mandate.
This is the precise scenario envisioned and condemned by the Supreme Court in Eldridge: a government program administered through nominally private agents, producing discrimination and loss of life while escaping constitutional responsibility.
5.7 The Broader Constitutional Consequence
Delegated coercion converts the Charter from a shield into a mirage.The government can compel outcomes—vaccination, censorship, denial of treatment—while maintaining plausible deniability.
Because enforcement is executed through regulatory intermediaries, victims cannot name “the state” as a respondent.In effect, the state governs through professional obedience rather than statutory command, rendering constitutional rights unenforceable at the point of application.
The medical profession thus became the prototype for a new form of governance: administrative constitutional circumvention.Unless this model is confronted, it will replicate in other regulated sectors where licences and credentials can be leveraged to compel compliance.
Section 6: Collapse of Professional Autonomy — Evidence from the National Citizens Inquiry
6.1 Purpose and Scope of the Inquiry
The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was an independent, citizen-organized investigation conducted across Canada in 2023 and 2024. It gathered sworn testimony from physicians, nurses, academics, patients, and public servants concerning the government’s pandemic response.
The hearings were transcribed and archived for public review, providing a valuable qualitative record of how emergency health policy affected professional independence and patient rights.
While the NCI was not a governmental tribunal, its proceedings form one of the most comprehensive collections of first-hand accounts available on the operational realities within Canada’s health-care system during the COVID-19 period.
6.2 Overview of Testimony
Across multiple provinces, witnesses described a consistent pattern of regulatory coercion and administrative intimidation. The testimonies fell broadly into four recurrent categories:
Suppression of Clinical Judgment.
Doctors and nurses recounted being forbidden to prescribe or even discuss treatments that lacked Health Canada authorization. They were instructed to “follow provincial guidance without deviation,” even when a patient’s circumstances called for individualized care.
Disciplinary Threats for Speech or Inquiry.
Several practitioners testified that they were warned or investigated by their Colleges for publishing data, raising safety concerns, or communicating with the media about vaccine injuries. Some reported suspension or termination after expressing dissenting medical opinions.
Mandated Compliance and Credential Control.
Witnesses explained that continued hospital privileges and billing numbers were conditioned on adherence to vaccination and masking policies. Refusal resulted in automatic suspension from practice.
Patient Consequences.
Patients and family members testified that unvaccinated individuals were denied access to surgeries, transplants, or visitation rights, irrespective of medical contraindications. These accounts paralleled the experiences of Sheila Lewis in Alberta and Garnet Harper in Ontario.
Taken together, the testimonies portray a health-care environment in which professional discretion was replaced by regulatory obedience.
6.3 Structural Findings from the Record
When considered collectively, the NCI record supports several structural observations:
Vertical Integration of Authority.
Health Canada and provincial ministries established uniform protocols transmitted through professional regulators and health authorities. Local physicians described themselves as “functionaries within a command system.
Normalization of Censorship.
Physicians and scientists reported that peer dialogue was chilled by the threat of investigation. In effect, administrative oversight became a form of content control, restricting what could be said publicly or even in professional correspondence.
Erosion of Informed Consent.
Multiple witnesses stated that vaccine discussions became prescriptive rather than advisory, with disclosure of risks discouraged. The legal standard of informed consent—central to medical ethics—was subordinated to policy compliance.
Conflation of Public Health and Disciplinary Law.
By using professional conduct proceedings to enforce public-health orders, governments merged two previously distinct domains: clinical regulation and emergency management. This convergence left practitioners without an independent sphere of judgment.
6.4 Constitutional Relevance of the Testimony
The testimonies, though not judicial findings, are constitutionally significant because they reveal the functional reality of Section 32’s blind spot.
They demonstrate that:
Government policies were operationalized through statutory regulators acting under ministerial guidance.
Those regulators exercised coercive powers—licensing, discipline, and employment control—on behalf of the state.
Citizens suffered loss of medical choice and, in some cases, life-saving care as a direct consequence.
Under a purposive interpretation of Section 32, such an arrangement should trigger Charter obligations. The evidence from the NCI therefore provides empirical support for the argument that the Lewis rulings mischaracterized the nature of state action in contemporary health care.
6.5 Illustrative Examples (Representative Summaries)
A British Columbia emergency physician testified that he was suspended for advocating early-treatment protocols inconsistent with provincial guidance.
An Ontario family physician recounted losing her licence for issuing medical exemptions deemed “unreasonable” by the College.
A Manitoba nurse described disciplinary proceedings after submitting an adverse-event report to Health Canada that contradicted official messaging.
A group of Alberta clinicians testified jointly that hospital administrators instructed them to remove unvaccinated patients from surgical schedules.
These summaries are representative rather than exhaustive, illustrating the breadth of professional subordination reported nationwide.
6.6 Analytical Implications
The NCI record transforms anecdotal grievance into a pattern of systemic constraint. It shows that medical professionals were not free agents acting privately; they were components of a regulated hierarchy executing state policy. This reality undermines the assumption of professional independence on which the Lewis and Harper outcomes were predicated.
In constitutional terms, the evidence supports the proposition that government may not escape Charter responsibility by acting through regulatory intermediaries.
When every node of professional authority—education, licensure, employment, and funding—is state-controlled, the acts of those professionals are, in substance, acts of government.
6.7 Conclusion
The testimonies heard at the National Citizens Inquiry reveal a collapse of professional autonomy unprecedented in modern Canadian medicine. They depict a system in which obedience to governmental directive superseded clinical judgment and patient welfare. Whether every allegation is ultimately proven is secondary to the constitutional insight the record provides: that the architecture of delegated coercion created by governments during the pandemic effectively placed physicians within the ambit of the state.
Recognizing that reality is essential if Section 32 of the Charter is to serve its intended purpose of protecting citizens from governmental overreach, regardless of the form that overreach takes.
Section 7: The Charter’s Structural Weakness — Reasonable Limits, Delegation, and Lawfare
7.1 Introduction: A Constitution of Promises Without Penalties
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaims broad guarantees—freedom of expression, conscience, mobility, equality, and security of the person—but embeds within itself two escape valves:
(1) the reasonable-limits clause of section 1, and
(2) the definitional limitation of section 32, which confines the Charter’s reach to “government.”
Neither provision is inherently improper; both were drafted to balance liberty and governance.
Yet together they create a system in which rights can be suspended by justification and evaded by delegation.
The COVID-19 period exposed this dual vulnerability.
7.2 Section 1 — The “Reasonable Limits” Clause
Section 1 allows rights to be limited if those limits are “prescribed by law” and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”The Oakes test (1986 SCC 103) formalized the criteria: a pressing objective, rational connection, minimal impairment, and proportionality between means and ends.
A. Operational Drift of the Oakes Test
In practice, courts have applied Oakes deferentially, particularly during emergencies.Pandemic jurisprudence across Canada demonstrated that once a government invoked public health and presented expert affidavits, almost any restriction was upheld as “proportionate.”
Empirical evidence of necessity was rarely tested; speculative risk sufficed.The courts effectively replaced “demonstrably justified” with “plausibly explained.”
B. Consequences for Rights Protection
This deferential standard converted section 1 from a safeguard into an authorization clause.
Instead of requiring government to justify limits, it required citizens to disprove them—an impossible task amid data suppression and shifting rules.
For individuals like Sheila Lewis or Garnet Harper, the right to life and security of the person was functionally contingent on executive convenience.
7.3 Section 32 — The Delegation Loophole
Where section 1 justifies overt limits, section 32 allows covert evasion.By confining the Charter to “government,” the courts have permitted its obligations to dissolve whenever power is exercised through statutory intermediaries—universities, hospitals, regulatory colleges, and contractors.
The Lewis decisions epitomize this flaw: because the immediate decision-makers were physicians rather than ministers, the Charter vanished at the point of enforcement.
This definitional narrowness creates a constitutional blind zone precisely where citizens encounter state power most directly—at the interface of regulation and daily life.
7.4 Lawfare: Process as Punishment
Even when individuals assert their rights successfully, the process itself nullifies the victory.
A. Temporal Defeat
Constitutional litigation is slow: multi-year trials, appeals, and stays ensure that challenged policies have already achieved their objectives before judgment.
By the time courts declared several pandemic measures unlawful, the restrictions had expired, rendering relief purely declaratory.
B. Financial Deterrent
Charter litigation is prohibitively expensive.Average costs for a full judicial-review proceeding exceed $200,000 to $500,000.Governments, funded by the public purse, can litigate indefinitely.Ordinary citizens, like Ms Lewis, cannot.
This economic asymmetry transforms the courtroom into a mechanism of attrition rather than adjudication.
C. Institutional Deference
The judiciary’s habitual deference to “public-health expertise” reinforces the imbalance.
When courts accept executive evidence at face value, litigation becomes ritual confirmation rather than genuine review—a process critics have aptly termed “lawfare”: the use of law not to protect rights but to exhaust opposition.
7.5 Absence of Penalties for Constitutional Misconduct
Unlike most statutory regimes, the Charter contains no punitive or disciplinary consequence for governmental abuse.
Section 24(1) empowers courts to grant “appropriate and just” remedies, but these are remedial, not deterrent.
Officials who authorize unconstitutional acts face no personal liability; agencies merely adjust future policy.
The absence of penalty converts the Charter into a risk-free experiment: governments may overreach, await judicial correction years later, and suffer no material consequence.
7.6 Combined Effect: Predictable Failure
When these design flaws converge—section 1 justification, section 32 delegation, procedural delay, and cost asymmetry—the result is a Charter that functions rhetorically but not operationally.
During the pandemic this failure followed a predictable sequence:
Emergency declared → executive rule making.
Professional regulators convert policy to obligation.
Citizens harmed seek judicial review.
Courts defer under section 1 or deny jurisdiction under section 32.
Years later, a declaratory judgment issues—after the damage is irreversible.
The pattern demonstrates that the Charter’s architecture prioritizes governmental flexibility over individual protection, a balance that, in crisis, collapses entirely toward power.
7.7 Illustrative Example: The Emergencies Act Ruling
The Federal Court’s 2024 decision declaring the federal invocation of the Emergencies Act unreasonable and unconstitutional illustrates this structural impotence.
Although the court found that the government had breached Charter rights, the declaration carried no penalty; officials remained in office, policies remained precedent, and the appeal process ensured further delay.
In effect, constitutional violation became administratively inconsequential.
7.8 Analytical Conclusion
The Charter’s drafters assumed good faith: that governments would seek minimal interference and that courts would intervene promptly when limits became excessive.
Neither assumption holds.
The lived experience of 2020–2023 demonstrates that a rights document without enforceable sanctions or rapid remedies cannot restrain an executive determined to act first and litigate later.
To restore meaningful protection, Canada must address these structural weaknesses—by redefining the reach of “government,” imposing real consequences for unlawful limits, and accelerating constitutional review during emergencies.
Section 8: The Moral Dimension — State Accountability for Foreseeable Harm
8.1 Law and Morality in Constitutional Governance
Every constitutional system presupposes a moral order—that those entrusted with power will exercise it with restraint and good faith. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not merely a technical document of procedural law; it embodies moral promises: that life will not be taken without justification, that liberty will not yield to convenience, and that equality will not depend on political conformity.
Yet the pandemic revealed the fragility of those promises. When governments adopted coercive medical policies, and when courts upheld or excused them, the legal structure collided with the moral foundations it was meant to express. The deaths of Sheila Lewis and Garnet Harper are therefore not only constitutional tragedies but moral indictments of a state that abandoned its duty of care.
8.2 The Principle of Foreseeable Harm
In both ethics and tort law, the principle of foreseeable harm establishes responsibility when an actor, aware of likely consequences, proceeds regardless. Governments and their agents knew that denying transplants to unvaccinated patients carried an almost certain risk of death. That outcome was foreseeable, not hypothetical.
Because those decisions were made under policies conceived, funded, and enforced by the state, the resulting deaths are not accidents; they are the predictable consequence of administrative design. In moral philosophy, this constitutes culpable omission—the deliberate withdrawal of care under color of law.
8.3 The Physician’s Dual Loyalty Problem
The moral conflict faced by physicians during this period is encapsulated in what medical ethicists call dual loyalty: the tension between duty to the patient and obedience to institutional authority.
Historically, Western medical ethics has resolved this tension in favour of the patient—the physician’s primary duty is to the individual in their care. The pandemic reversed that order. Doctors were told explicitly that compliance with public-health directives superseded personal clinical judgment.
By enforcing vaccination mandates on dying patients, physicians became unwilling participants in a moral inversion: the instrument of harm to those they were sworn to heal. Yet their culpability is mitigated by the coercive environment described in Sections 5 and 6; the ultimate moral responsibility lies with the system that compelled them.
8.4 The Ethical Failure of “Administrative Neutrality”
Government officials often defend such policies as value-neutral, claiming to “follow the science” or to act in the public interest. This rhetoric masks the reality that every coercive policy embeds a moral choice—in this case, the choice to privilege ideological conformity over human life.
Administrative neutrality became a moral shield: decisions that would be unthinkable at the bedside were reframed as impersonal policy, distancing decision-makers from consequence. The death of Sheila Lewis exemplifies this dynamic: no individual officially “chose” her death; it was produced by a system in which responsibility was everywhere and nowhere.
8.5 The Doctrine of State Accountability
Modern constitutionalism holds that the state, as the ultimate guarantor of rights, bears moral as well as legal responsibility for foreseeable harm caused by its policies.
This principle is implicit in section 7 of the Charter—“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.”When the state designs or maintains a system that predictably results in death through denial of medical care, it breaches not only legal duty but moral trust.
In democratic theory, this duty arises from the social contract: citizens surrender certain freedoms in exchange for protection of their fundamental interests. When the state weaponizes that trust—transforming protection into coercion—the contract is voided in spirit, even if it remains intact on paper.
8.6 Collective Responsibility and the “Banality of Harm”
The philosopher Hannah Arendt, reflecting on twentieth-century bureaucratic atrocities, warned that great moral wrongs often occur not through malice but through the banality of evil: ordinary people obeying orders, rationalizing compliance, and dissociating themselves from consequence.
The Canadian experience during COVID-19 offers a subtler form of this phenomenon—the banality of harm. Physicians, administrators, and judges each performed their prescribed roles, believing themselves dutiful, while the system collectively produced outcomes that none individually intended. This diffusion of responsibility is the moral danger of delegated governance.
8.7 Human Dignity as the Core Value
All constitutional rights derive ultimately from the principle of human dignity—the intrinsic worth of every person. Denying a dying patient access to care because of a political or medical opinion is a direct assault on that dignity. It treats the person as an object of policy rather than a subject of moral worth.
When Ms Lewis pleaded for her life, the state responded not as protector but as administrator, citing policy rather than conscience. Such responses erode the moral legitimacy of government itself.
8.8 The Moral Imperative for Reform
Legal reform alone cannot repair a moral failure. Restoring integrity to Canadian governance requires recognition that technical legality is not sufficient for justice. Future emergencies will again test the boundary between authority and conscience. Unless the moral lessons of this period are internalized—by legislators, regulators, and professionals alike—the cycle of obedience and harm will repeat.
The ethical imperative is therefore dual:
To codify accountability so that moral duties are mirrored by legal obligations; and
To cultivate a civic culture in which the defence of human dignity outweighs the convenience of compliance.
8.9 Conclusion
The moral dimension of the Lewis and Harper cases extends beyond law. They expose a national failure of conscience—a moment when institutional loyalty eclipsed compassion, and procedural obedience silenced the moral instinct to preserve life.
A constitutional democracy that tolerates such outcomes without remorse risks losing not only its moral credibility but its very claim to justice.
If the Charter is to serve as more than parchment, it must be grounded again in the moral conviction that no administrative objective can outweigh the value of a single human life.
