30–32) must be made in writing and describe, among other things, who must comply with the order, what must be done or not done pursuant to the terms of the order, the date on which, or the circumstances under which, the order is to expire (if the date or circumstances are known) and how a person affected by the order may have the order reconsidered. [...] (3) After considering a request for reconsideration, a health officer may do one or more of the following: (a) reject the request on the basis that the information submitted in support of the request (i) is not relevant, or (ii) was reasonably available at the time the order was issued; (b) delay the date the order is to take effect or suspend the order, if satisfied that doing so would not be det. [...] The decision-making criteria, set out below, invited consideration of a number of questions to the end of achieving a proportional balance between the amelioration of public health risks and the imposition of burdens on individuals or groups affected by the PHO’s orders: Will granting a variance undermine the overall intent of the order? Will the proposal, if implemented, meet the objectives of th. [...] The Second Wave of the Pandemic [64] With the onset of the fall, and in light of the modelling projections available to her, the PHO anticipated that British Columbians would experience a second wave of the pandemic. [...] [83] Neither the letter from the Immanuel Covenant Reformed Church nor the letter from Pastor Smith identified additional relevant evidence not reasonably available to the PHO when the order was made, nor did the letters put forward a specific proposal that the churches claimed would meet the objectives of the order.
- Pages
- 81
- Published in
- Canada
