Leslyn Lewis on Questions Passed as Orders for Return

With regard to the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19 (the “Action Committee”) co-chaired by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti: (a) who were the originators of the idea for the Action Committee; (b) what were the terms of reference and mandate of this Action Committee; (c) given the Action Committee’s membership included high-level representatives from the executive branch of the federal government (Department of Justice Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada) and the judicial branch (Supreme Court of Canada, provincial courts), what measures were implemented to protect the separation of powers and judicial independence; (d) what measures were taken to prevent judges on the Action Committee and across Canada from being pressured to act as advocates for the federal government’s policies, as opposed to independent arbiters of fact and law; (e) given the Action Committee’s mandate centred on administrative procedures rather than judicial decision-making, why did its membership include judges, rather than just court administrators; (f) what influence, if any, did British Columbia’s Justice COVID-19 Response Group and Cross-Jurisdictional Technical Advisory Group have on the Action Committee’s formation, deliberations, and recommendations; (g) what metrics or criteria were the participating judges given in order to prevent bias on factual or legal issues surrounding COVID-19; (h) what were the procedures in place to identify and manage financial, personal or political conflicts of interest among the Action Committee’s members and direct participants; (i) what specific conflicts of interest were identified and with whom; (j) which law firms participated, either directly or indirectly, in the Action Committee; (k) did the Action Committee consider, discuss or address (i) the topics of “misinformation,” “disinformation” or “malinformation” related to court operations, judicial decision-making or any other context, (ii) the use of judicial notice in legal challenges related to COVID-19 or the pandemic response, (iii) the implementation of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies or restrictions for court users, staff or judges and any exemptions from such policies; (l) what actions were taken or processes put in place to ensure that legal cases related to COVID-19 were decided based on a review of all the evidence put before the presiding court, notwithstanding (i) any information or advice provided to the Action Committee by the executive branch (Department of Justice Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety), (ii) any information or guidance provided to the courts by the Action Committee; (m) were concerns raised at any time, either internally or externally, over any aspect of the Action Committee’s (i) creation, membership, processes, independence, politicization, bias, conflicts of interest, (ii) discussion or actions around issues of public health restrictions, mask and vaccine mandates and exemptions, or the taking of judicial notice in COVID-related cases, and, if so, what were the concerns; (n) what was the communication protocol of the Action Committee to provide direction or make recommendations to courts, regulatory bodies or associations; (o) what were those communications and their dates; (p) were cases delayed waiting for information from the Action Committee; (q) did the Action Committee recommend the restriction on access to judicial chambers based on COVID-19 vaccination status; (r) who or what entities received advice or recommendations from the Action Committee; and (s) did the Action Committee set forth any requirements or guidelines to Crown prosecutors for criminal prosecutions related to harms resulting from the government’s COVID-19 pandemic response, or for handling private prosecutions that may arise from harm, negligence or other allegations?