Arab Canada News
News
Published: September 25, 2020
A woman tried to file a lawsuit against a school in Manitoba seeking more than $200,000 in compensation for requiring her children to wear masks at school, a step she said violated her children's rights. She was seeking an injunction to allow her children to attend school without masks.
Christa MacKenzie, a lawyer from Ontario representing her family in court, filed a statement of claim in Manitoba on September 16 against the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine (DSFM), a French division in the province.
In the lawsuit, MacKenzie said she was seeking class action damages of $210,000 for various violations of rights and privacy, in addition to $1,000 for each day her children missed school. She also requested an injunction preventing the school from requiring her children to wear masks during school hours.
Thursday afternoon at the Bench Court in Manitoba, Judge Gerald Chartier dismissed the case, stating that MacKenzie failed to convince the court that irreparable harm would occur if the order was not issued.
In a written ruling, Chartier wrote that MacKenzie had written to the school principal demanding her children be exempted from having to wear a mask for various reasons.
Chartier wrote that after a discussion with the principal, MacKenzie submitted doctor's notes to the division stating "for medical reasons, this patient would not be able to tolerate continuous mask wearing."
In the claim, MacKenzie alleges that the school "responded by questioning the doctor's credentials as being a doctor in Ontario."
Manitoba guidelines require face masks for students in grades four through twelve, as well as in any grades 3/4 combined classroom where physical distancing cannot be maintained, and adding doctor's notes is not required for exemptions.
In the claim, MacKenzie said the school ignored the previous provincial policy by requesting a doctor's note, violating her children's rights.
But Chartier said in his ruling that her arguments "lack merit" and stated he was not convinced that MacKenzie "proves irreparable harm if this order is not granted."
Comments