Quebec's imposition of a nightly curfew during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a contentious topic. The province enforced a curfew on two separate occasions, aiming to curb the virus's spread. The first curfew was set to last four weeks but extended to nearly five months, in effect from January 9, 2021, to May 28, 2021. The second curfew ran from December 31, 2021, until January 17, 2022. These measures made Quebec the only province to prohibit its citizens from leaving their homes at night during the pandemic.
The financial repercussions of breaking the curfew were significant. Offenders faced fines ranging from $1,000 to $6,000. Despite this, over half the fines remain unpaid, with around 17 percent of offenders having paid or pleaded guilty. Quebec's courts maintain a 95 percent conviction rate for pandemic infractions, yet many cases are still pending. Out of $67.9 million in tickets issued, less than half have been settled. This has raised questions about the efficacy and fairness of the enforcement measures.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is challenging a provincial court decision that upheld the government's curfew imposition. This appeal is scheduled for hearing in April. Quebec Court Judge Marie-France Beaulieu acknowledged that the curfew violated Charter rights but justified these violations due to the public health context.
Dr. Horacio Arruda, who was Quebec's director of public health at the time, defended the curfews as necessary.
"We needed it because of the indicators of the health-care system, the numbers of people who were getting sick." – Dr. Horacio Arruda
A study conducted in 2023 highlighted that similar curfews in Hamburg, Germany, effectively reduced virus transmission. This supports Dr. Arruda's assertion about the utility of curfews.
However, not everyone agrees with this perspective. Critics argue that the law was hastily constructed and contained oversights.
"The law was put together pretty hastily, and I understand it was an emergency, so they had to deal with that in a sort of record time, but there were obviously blind spots." – Dylan Jones
Additionally, some see curfews as outdated measures more suited for wartime scenarios.
"For me, a curfew is something that was used for war or things like that. But we had looked at what other countries did, France and other countries, and they used it and it was a success. So we added it to our toolbox." – (no attribution)
Dr. Arruda acknowledged that curfews reduced mobility but admitted assessing their overall impact was complex.
"At least from a perspective of reducing mobility, it did work. To what that translated exactly is more difficult to assess." – Dr. Horacio Arruda
Roxanne Borgès Da Silva highlighted both the positive and negative effects of curfews.
"Curfews can probably have positive effects on reducing transmission of the virus, but they also have negative effects on the social life and mental health of the population." – Roxanne Borgès Da Silva
She emphasized the challenging decisions faced by governments during this period.
"It was a difficult trade off and difficult decisions for governments." – Roxanne Borgès Da Silva
Critics have also labeled the curfew as either an ineffective spectacle or an unjust punishment.
"At best, the curfew is a spectacle. At worst, it is a punishment on individuals to mask the negligence and systemic inaction in managing the pandemic." – (no attribution)
Olivier Séguin expressed skepticism about the legal justifications for imposing such measures.
"Our pretension is that this aim was not allowed by the law." – Olivier Séguin
