Airport PCR test not lawful

https://i.imgur.com/9mRpyv5.png

Police on Guard for Thee


Various media outlets have recently reported on individual travellers receiving fines for not submitting to mandatory COVID19 tests when arriving at Pearson Airport.

The quarantine act does not allow for his type of mass testing. In fact, section 14(1) expressly stated that screening does not involve the entry into the traveller's body of any instrument.

As per the airport's website the type of PCR tests being administered are bilateral anterior swabs or nasopharyngeal swabs. These tests require a swab 1-1.5 centimeters into each nasal cavity for 15 seconds.

Screening officers may perform a health assessment on travellers. This is the definition from the Quarantine Act:

an evaluation of the relevant medical history and the travel history of a traveller and a physical examination, including an examination of the traveller’s head, neck and extremities and the measurement of vital signs such as the traveller’s temperature, heart rate and respiratory rate.

Only when a Screening Officer has reasonable grounds that a traveller has a communicable disease, or the traveller is refusing to be screened in the manner prescribed in the above definition, can further health assessments or medical examinations be required (which may include a COVID test).

The reason these travellers are being ticketed and not subjected to further assessments is because the act itself says that such an invasive procedure is not lawful.

Ticketing people who are lawfully able to refuse an intrusive COVID test is a clear attempt to intimidate individuals into compliance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by impact

https://i.imgur.com/9mRpyv5.png

Police on Guard for Thee


Various media outlets have recently reported on individual travellers receiving fines for not submitting to mandatory COVID19 tests when arriving at Pearson Airport.

The quarantine act does not allow for his type of mass testing. In fact, section 14(1) expressly stated that screening does not involve the entry into the traveller's body of any instrument.

As per the airport's website the type of PCR tests being administered are bilateral anterior swabs or nasopharyngeal swabs. These tests require a swab 1-1.5 centimeters into each nasal cavity for 15 seconds.

Screening officers may perform a health assessment on travellers. This is the definition from the Quarantine Act:

an evaluation of the relevant medical history and the travel history of a traveller and a physical examination, including an examination of the traveller’s head, neck and extremities and the measurement of vital signs such as the traveller’s temperature, heart rate and respiratory rate.

Only when a Screening Officer has reasonable grounds that a traveller has a communicable disease, or the traveller is refusing to be screened in the manner prescribed in the above definition, can further health assessments or medical examinations be required (which may include a COVID test).

The reason these travellers are being ticketed and not subjected to further assessments is because the act itself says that such an invasive procedure is not lawful.

Ticketing people who are lawfully able to refuse an intrusive COVID test is a clear attempt to intimidate individuals into compliance.

---

Courts are going to be very busy quashing all these illegally issued tickets !!

Yea...those over zealous bylaw officers handing out fines like candy will have a lot of explaining to do as folks refuse to pay them. The Town council blew it when they say that enforcement was at the discretion of the officer....Lawyers will have a field day with that. :)

Maybe that's why Mr Ford has made the PCR testing at the Airport Voluntary.

Sorry but I fail to see why by-law officers, would have some explaining to do. If they are lawful tickets, as per policy , what happens in court, is of no concern to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Sorry but I fail to see why by-law officers, would have some explaining to do. If they are lawful tickets, as per policy , what happens in court, is of no concern to them.

---

Policy does not make a charge legal or legitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Sorry but I fail to see why by-law officers, would have some explaining to do. If they are lawful tickets, as per policy , what happens in court, is of no concern to them.

---

Well then, let's allow it to be a free for all, let them go on charging in their poor interpretation of the law (and likely ignorance of the law) and let's totally bog down the courts with all this nonsense ... and put another burden on the tax payer. Let the circus take over all order.

Correct, it does not. But if they have followed that policy, why would they have to explain their actions? Courts decide the legitimacy of charges, not officers.

These clowns need to be made accountable for all the hardship and mayhem they have willfully caused to the population.
The day of reckoning is fast approaching. They will utilize every loophole they can find to pass the buck and run like scared rabbits.
We will get them come election time for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Correct, it does not. But if they have followed that policy, why would they have to explain their actions? Courts decide the legitimacy of charges, not officers.

---

Most bylaw people aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and routinely exercise authority they don't have. They need to be stepped on,hard,if they screw up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Most bylaw people aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and routinely exercise authority they don't have. They need to be stepped on,hard,if they screw up.

---

In this day and age ..leaving laws up to the 'discretion' of the enforcement officer is an open invitation to fight it.

"Yes Judge...I like to challenge this ticket for sitting on the bench during the pandemic. I believe the officer didn't charge the people next to us because they were old and just resting but he charged us and I needed to rest due to a bad back. I have a video.".

Judge: "Can the Officer who wrote this ticket please come forward and explain why you ticketed this couple and not the other couple "

It was actually posted by Lawyers in Ottawa that they were going to do pro-bono work for any tickets issued in Ottawa that were in violation to Pandemic Rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Sorry but I fail to see why by-law officers, would have some explaining to do. If they are lawful tickets, as per policy , what happens in court, is of no concern to them.

---

My take on this is, the bylaw officer (any LEO?) should know the law they are enforcing? They should know the difference between law and policy? If they are ignorant of the law and use policy to erroneously enforce something they think is law, they should have lots to explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

In this day and age ..leaving laws up to the 'discretion' of the enforcement officer is an open invitation to fight it.

"Yes Judge...I like to challenge this ticket for sitting on the bench during the pandemic. I believe the officer didn't charge the people next to us because they were old and just resting but he charged us and I needed to rest due to a bad back. I have a video.".

Judge: "Can the Officer who wrote this ticket please come forward and explain why you ticketed this couple and not the other couple "

It was actually posted by Lawyers in Ottawa that they were going to do pro-bono work for any tickets issued in Ottawa that were in violation to Pandemic Rules.

---

It’s not the law that is discretionary.... it’s the enforcement of that law that is....discretion will never be removed from a LEO, for obvious reasons....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Correct, it does not. But if they have followed that policy, why would they have to explain their actions? Courts decide the legitimacy of charges, not officers.

---

I'd love to get back the 3 days I lost from work having to fight a stupid ticket that was thrown out eventually in court.
Let the courts decide that! Too many people on power trips not even understanding the laws they are enforcing ... and so, no, it's not okay to leave everything to the courts ... it's wrong, and it needs to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkB

I'd love to get back the 3 days I lost from work having to fight a stupid ticket that was thrown out eventually in court.
Let the courts decide that! Too many people on power trips not even understanding the laws they are enforcing ... and so, no, it's not okay to leave everything to the courts ... it's wrong, and it needs to stop.

---

Mark you need to move to critical mass for anything to happen. In other word's everybody that get's issued an unfair ticket takes it to Court and clogs the system to a dead stop. Right now the public actually "accommodate" the Court system. They have traffic ticket agents who handle multi charge plea deals, or agents for car rentals agencies who do the same. Officers will very often lay 3 or 4 mickey mouse charges
which if a citizen challenged and had a trial on each could take up half a morning of court time.IMHO