NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION Attorney General of British Columbia

Pursuant to the supremacy of the Constitution as embodied in section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, no person may be convicted of an offence under a law which is itself “inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution”, as such a law is, “to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect”. [...] The Impugned Order unjustifiably infringes the fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opinion, and expression (as protected by section 2(b) of the Charter); of peaceful assembly (as protected by section 2(c) of the Charter); and of association (as protected by section 2(d) of the Charter. [...] The Impugned Order therefore strikes at the very heart of the protection for peaceful assembly, and therefore clearly infringes the freedom of peaceful assembly of the Accused/Applicants and other British Columbians as protected by section 2(c) of the Charter. [...] The effect of the Impugned Order is to substantially interfere with the freedom of the Accused/Applicants and other British Columbians to associate by gathering together for the collective exercise of other constitutional rights. [...] In contrast, the Impugned Order as it applied to the outdoor assemblies referred to in the Supposed Exemption—given the failure of the PHO to provide applicable guidelines upon which benefit of the Supposed Exemption was made conditional by the PHO—failed to provide such accessible and precise information either to those subject to the Impugned Order or those tasked with enforcing its terms.