The ruling is part of a political trial that began Monday. Several individuals and churches launched a constitutional dispute in December 2020, accusing the provincial government of violating Alberton rights by imposing orders and restrictions on public health at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the trial, Alberta’s chief health officer, Dr. Dina Hinsaw, argued that public health restrictions were necessary to protect the county health care system during the pandemic. Hinshaw also repeatedly said it had made recommendations to elected officials and used their political decisions to inform subsequent public health mandates.
Read more: Alberta’s lawyer accuses Hinshaw of ‘controlling narrative’ around COVID-19
The story goes on under the ad During a cross-examination on Wednesday afternoon, attorney Jeffrey Rath asked Hinsaw if his prime minister or cabinet had ever rejected her recommendations on COVID-19 public health restrictions. Nick Parker, the county attorney, objected and voiced concerns about cabinet secrecy. Nicholas Trofimuk, another provincial lawyer, presented a certificate from the executive council to the court. The certificate states that Hinshaw participated in confidential, high-level discussions with Prime Minister Jason Kenney and his cabinet on the COVID-19 county response, Trofimuk said. These discussions must remain confidential, as COVID-19 remains a politically sensitive issue and the release of details could influence cabinet decisions, Trofimuk and Parker argued. Trending Stories
Ezra Miller’s arrest sparks Warner Bros. emergency meeting on actor’s future UN votes in Russia over Human Rights Council citing Boutsa’s assassination
Read more: Alberta top doctor takes position during civil trial over response to COVID-19
Rath disagreed. He also said that the public deserves to know whether Hinshaw’s decisions are presented as public health mandates rather than political policies. He also accused the government of meddling in the political process, saying the timing of the protest should be called into question. Rath then accused the government of promoting Hinshaw’s mandates under the Public Health Act instead of the Emergency Act. “It’s like the prime minister picking up the phone in the middle of a lawsuit and telling the decision-maker how to decide,” Rath said during a cross-examination on Thursday morning. The story goes on under the ad “Any professional who acts morally or competently when faced with this situation will resign. We have the right to ask these questions. “
Romaine asking private questions to Hinshaw
At the end of the cross-examination on Thursday, Romaine pushed Hinshaw aside to ask three questions privately. These questions will be her decision on the issue of cabinet confidentiality, she said. The questions were:
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet, including the Cabinet for the Implementation of Priorities and the Cabinet for Emergency Management (loosely referred to as the Cabinet), have ever led you to impose stricter restrictions on your CMOH mandates than those did you suggest? Has the cabinet ever asked you to impose stricter restrictions on specific groups such as churches, gyms, schools and small businesses than you had recommended? Have you ever suggested that restrictions be lifted or relaxed at any time and that the recommendation be rejected or ignored by the cabinet?
Read more: COVID-19 in Alberta: 990 people in hospital as of Wednesday
The answers to these questions will only be submitted to the public archive if Romaine decides that they are related to the civil lawsuit. Otherwise, they will remain confidential. Both lawyers agreed that they would not present the final arguments until Romaine made its decision next week. Parker said the Crown Adviser reserves the right to request additional time to receive further instructions and to file an urgent appeal due to the previous nature of the decision. The story goes on under the ad The trial is set to begin next week. © 2022 Global News, part of Corus Entertainment Inc.
title: “Alberta Top Doctor S Claim Of Cabinet Confidentiality Challenged In Court " ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-19” author: “Leslie Jines”
The ruling is part of a political trial that began Monday. Several individuals and churches launched a constitutional dispute in December 2020, accusing the provincial government of violating Alberton rights by imposing orders and restrictions on public health at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the trial, Alberta’s chief health officer, Dr. Dina Hinsaw, argued that public health restrictions were necessary to protect the county health care system during the pandemic. Hinshaw also repeatedly said it had made recommendations to elected officials and used their political decisions to inform subsequent public health mandates.
Read more: Alberta’s lawyer accuses Hinshaw of ‘controlling narrative’ around COVID-19
The story goes on under the ad During a cross-examination on Wednesday afternoon, attorney Jeffrey Rath asked Hinsaw if his prime minister or cabinet had ever rejected her recommendations on COVID-19 public health restrictions. Nick Parker, the county attorney, objected and voiced concerns about cabinet secrecy. Nicholas Trofimuk, another provincial lawyer, presented a certificate from the executive council to the court. The certificate states that Hinshaw participated in confidential, high-level discussions with Prime Minister Jason Kenney and his cabinet on the COVID-19 county response, Trofimuk said. These discussions must remain confidential, as COVID-19 remains a politically sensitive issue and the release of details could influence cabinet decisions, Trofimuk and Parker argued. Trending Stories
Ezra Miller’s arrest sparks Warner Bros. emergency meeting on actor’s future 6 cases of COVID-19 XE have been reported in Canada
Read more: Alberta top doctor takes position during civil trial over response to COVID-19
Rath disagreed. He also said that the public deserves to know whether Hinshaw’s decisions are presented as public health mandates rather than political policies. He also accused the government of meddling in the political process, saying the timing of the protest should be called into question. Rath then accused the government of promoting Hinshaw’s mandates under the Public Health Act instead of the Emergency Act. “It’s like the prime minister picking up the phone in the middle of a lawsuit and telling the decision-maker how to decide,” Rath said during a cross-examination on Thursday morning. The story goes on under the ad “Any professional who acts morally or competently when faced with this situation will resign. We have the right to ask these questions. “
Romaine asking private questions to Hinshaw
At the end of the cross-examination on Thursday, Romaine pushed Hinshaw aside to ask three questions privately. These questions will be her decision on the issue of cabinet confidentiality, she said. The questions were:
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet, including the Cabinet for the Implementation of Priorities and the Cabinet for Emergency Management (loosely referred to as the Cabinet), have ever led you to impose stricter restrictions on your CMOH mandates than those did you suggest? Has the cabinet ever asked you to impose stricter restrictions on specific groups such as churches, gyms, schools and small businesses than you had recommended? Have you ever suggested that restrictions be lifted or relaxed at any time and that the recommendation be rejected or ignored by the cabinet?
Read more: COVID-19 in Alberta: 990 people in hospital as of Wednesday
The answers to these questions will only be submitted to the public archive if Romaine decides that they are related to the civil lawsuit. Otherwise, they will remain confidential. Both lawyers agreed that they would not present the final arguments until Romaine made its decision next week. Parker said the Crown Adviser reserves the right to request additional time to receive further instructions and to file an urgent appeal due to the previous nature of the decision. The story goes on under the ad The trial is set to begin next week. © 2022 Global News, part of Corus Entertainment Inc.
