Five years after the first reported COVID-19 case in Quebec, the province’s curfew remains controversial — more than half the fines are unpaid, legal battles continue and health experts still debate whether the benefits outweighed the costs.
Quebec was the only province to prohibit its citizens from leaving their homes at night during the pandemic.
Premier François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec government imposed a nightly curfew on two separate occasions.
Was it worth it? Dr. Horacio Arruda, who was the province’s director of public health when the curfews were imposed, said it was a necessary move at the time.
“We needed it because of the indicators of the health-care system, the numbers of people who were getting sick,” Arruda said in a recent interview with CBC News.
“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.”
The first time around, the curfew — which forced Quebecers to stay indoors from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. — was initially supposed to be four weeks. It ended up remaining in place for nearly five months, from Jan. 9, 2021, until May 28, 2021.
The second curfew ran from New Year’s Eve 2021 until Jan. 17, 2022.
Breaking the curfew resulted in fines between $1,000 and $6,000.
Arruda said in both cases, the curfew helped keep cases down when waves of the virus put the province’s hospitals under immense pressure.
Still, five years later, questions remain about the curfew’s effectiveness and its lasting legacy, given the infringement on civil liberties.
Spectacle or effective public health measure?
The Legault government faced pushback over the decision, particularly during the second curfew, when a group of experts went public with their concerns.
“At best, the curfew is a spectacle,” the open letter said. “At worst, it is a punishment on individuals to mask the negligence and systemic inaction in managing the pandemic.”
It was later revealed that Montreal Public Health had also advised against the second curfew.
François Castonguay, a public health professor at Université de Montréal, said there is some evidence the curfew helped contain the spread of the virus by limiting mobility.
A 2023 study, for instance, found that the nighttime curfew in Hamburg, Germany was “more effective than international travel restrictions and school closures but less effective than stay-at-home orders.”
But he said there were also unintended consequences and impacts on people’s mental health.
“At least from a perspective of reducing mobility, it did work. To what that translated exactly is more difficult to assess,” he said.
Roxanne Borgès Da Silva, a public health professor at Université de Montréal, advocated for a curfew as hospitalizations climbed in 2021. In an email this week, she also said the curfew likely helped limit the spread of the virus but added there is also an “opportunity cost associated with 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,” she said.
“So, it was a difficult trade off and difficult decisions for governments.”
A Charter challenge
While experts have weighed both the benefits and drawbacks of the curfew, the measure is also facing scrutiny in the courts.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is appealing a provincial court decision upholding the Quebec government’s imposition of curfew.
The lawsuit was launched after a protester was ticketed for being out after curfew in Amos, Que. Quebec Court Judge Marie-France Beaulieu ruled last February the curfew violated Charter rights, but those violations were justified by the public health context.
Beaulieu wrote that the rapid increase in COVID-19 cases constituted an “exceptional” situation, which “forced the government to adopt measures to reduce the risks of spread in order to protect the life and health of the population.”
The appeal is set to be heard in April. Olivier Séguin, a lawyer for the Justice Centre, said the trial made it clear that the curfew wasn’t just about controlling the spread of the virus — it was also a way to “make an impression in the mind of the people.”
“Our pretension is that this aim was not allowed by the law,” he said.
More than half of tickets unpaid
Beyond the legal challenge, millions in fines remain unpaid. Out of $67.9 million in tickets handed out for pandemic infractions, less than half have been paid out, with some contested or withdrawn, according to the latest government figures.
Around 17 per cent of offenders paid or pleaded guilty, while many others are likely facing default judgments. Despite a 95 per cent conviction rate in Quebec’s courts, some cases are still pending.
Lawyer Dylan Jones, a criminal defence lawyer, represented several homeless people who were ticketed during the pandemic. He successfully appealed their fines.
“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,” he said.
