In its decision, the Divisional Court held that the applicants had failed to prove that the directions were unreasonable and violated s.7.
In determining the reasonableness of the two directives, the court confined itself to examining one of the two directives, directive no.5, given its precedence and the applicants’ emphasis on hospitals and nursing homes. long term.
Upon review, the court noted significant changes to earlier versions of Directive # 5. In its latest version, Directive 5 extended its scope not only to regulated health professionals, but also to unregulated health professionals, such as personal support workers. Directive 5 initially prohibited the “unreasonable” refusal of an N95 mask by an employer, but the latest version prohibited refusal on any basis. The latest version also provided that in deciding whether an N95 mask is required, a nurse can consider its proximity to the patient or resident and the simple fact of their interaction with each other.
The guidelines themselves, the court noted, made it clear that the respondent had considered both the precautionary principle and the scientific evidence on how COVID-19 is transmitted.
The court explained that although the guidelines were based on the scientific view that the virus is not normally transmitted by aerosols, the respondent implemented the precautionary principle by allowing nurses to receive masks N95 in any place they believe in, based on their professional judgment. , one is required.