Pitmaster Adam Skelly has failed to convince a judge that the government violated his constitutional rights by shutting down his restaurant during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Superior Court Justice Janet Leiper dismissed Skelly’s case this week, writing in her decision that the city and province acted appropriately in order to protect the public from “serious risk of illness, hospitalization, and death.”
In November 2020, health experts believed the risk of hospitals being overwhelmed with COVID patients was “imminent.” In Toronto, hundreds of people were getting infected every day, more than 1,000 had already died, and there was no vaccine yet. In response, Premier Doug Ford tightened pandemic restrictions, banning even patio dining at restaurants.
On the first day the new orders went into effect, Skelly announced on social media that his restaurant, Adamson Barbeque, would defy them, sparking a three-day standoff during which anti-lockdown activists clashed with police.
In the end, Skelly’s business was forcibly shuttered, and he was charged with mischief and obstructing a police officer. He was later sued by the city for $187,000 in policing costs.
A year later, he decided to permanently close his two Toronto restaurants, telling the Star at the time he was doing it because he felt the government was “discriminating against a segment of society” and he saw no end to the injustice. He’s since moved to Alberta.
Skelly argued in his submissions that the lockdown “unreasonably prejudiced” small businesses. His restaurant, for example, offered Texas-style barbeque fare best enjoyed at large tables. Reopening it was an act of civil disobedience, he said, against baseless, overly restrictive legislation without “any proven health justification.”
The large police response was “disproportionate” and contravened his Charter right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, he contended.
Leiper ruled that the public health benefits of closing Adamson Barbeque down during his protest “outweigh the deleterious effects” on the business. She noted that the province gave him a chance to comply before calling the police.
This was not a “seizure” of his property, as Skelly claimed in the court filing, Leiper wrote, and did not infringe on any of his rights.
The judge went on to say that Skelly could have found alternative, legal ways of protesting the lockdown. For instance, he could have staged an outdoor demonstration at the restaurant as there was no legislation limiting outdoor gatherings at the time.
To Leiper, if society were to permit the kind of protest Skelly engaged in, safety regulations would become meaningless.
Skelly’s reasoning, that it “restricts expression” to punish someone for breaking laws they disagree with, could also apply to rules around construction sites, the safe operation of motor vehicles and food sanitation measures, she wrote.
Skelly and his lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
