The Hermeneutics of Jurisdiction in a Public Health Emergency in Canada

Abstract

This paper investigates the state of the law in Canada in regards to a public health emergency, and in particular the jurisdictional logic that might come into effect were a public health emergency to occur. Although there has yet to be a national public health emergency in Canada, threats of such crises are likely to arise in the future. It is therefore recognised as necessary to address Canada’s legal preparedness for a public health emergency and evaluate proposed reforms to the legal structure that could facilitate response. This paper contributes to this goal by identifying multiple jurisdictional factors that could inform legal interpretations in a public health emergency. It considers how the legal system and the courts are dealing with public health as a national security issue (political and collective matter) while taking into account s. 7 of the Canadian Charter (individual rights). It also looks at the power of the government defined in the Emergencies Act [1985, c. 22] and a proposed legal reform that would make it easier for the government to act unilaterally in a public health emergency. The paper draws on the legal theory of Robert Cover to analyse the hermeneutics of jurisdiction that characterise legal interpretations of public health in Canada, as well as the relationship between jurisdiction and legal violence that these hermeneutics imply. It then develops a case study of the use of medical triage in a public health emergency to explore the possibility of holding the state liable under private law for harm caused to individuals by public health decisions. The paper concludes by suggesting that the state’s public health power can be conceptualised as a form of legal violence and that the courts in Canada should adopt a jurisgenerative approach to legal interpretation in the area of public health.