DAY 3: Updates from final day of Adamson BBQ COVID lockdown constitutional challenge

The Canadian Press / Nathan Denette

Go Ad Free

Nearly six years after he made a defiant stand against Ontario's punitive COVID-19 lockdown, Adamson Barbecue owner Adam Skelly is in court challenging the constitutionality of the pandemic-era restriction.

In November 2020, Skelly reopened his Etobicoke restaurant in defiance of the Reopening Ontario Act. The act became known as the “Barbecue Rebellion” as a large number of supporters were on hand as Toronto police forcefully shut the business.

Speaking to Rebel News ahead of this week's court hearing, Skelly said his legal team is claiming “a bunch of Charter violations” occurred in the process.

“Freedom of expression, life and liberty, peaceful protest — even cruel and unusual punishment. If a breach is found, the government will argue it was justified under Section 1,” he told Rebel News' Tamara Ugolini.

The is being heard by Justice Janet Leiper of the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto over February 25–27. Rebel News reporter David Menzies, who closely covered the Barbecue Rebellion as it unfolded, is providing live updates from the courtroom.

Follow along with his posts on X directly or below on this page.

Third & final day of Adam Skelly’s constitutional challenge re: COVID lockdowns is about to begin. The respondents: Province of Ontario, City of Toronto, the city’s board of health, and former medical officer of health, Dr. Eileen de Villa.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

First up is Penelope Ma, the lawyer for the City of Toronto, the city’s health board and Dr. de Villa.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma speaks of the Section 22 order* that was used to close Adamson BBQ.
*Section 22 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act authorizes the Medical Officer of Health to issue a class order where necessary to address the risks presented by the potential spread of COVID-19 to…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says a Section 22 order was justified due to the immediate risk of a communicable disease outbreak.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says the issuance of the Section 22 order by Dr. de Villa was NOT about COVID being on the property (Adamson BBQ). This wasn’t a necessary prerequisite for Dr. de Villa to issue the order. Rather, it was a matter of there being a risk of a communicable disease outbreak…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says Dr. de Villa had significant data regarding outbreaks at bars & restaurants.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says Dr. de Villa, in an Oct. 2, 2020 letter, expressed her concerns about COVID outbreaks in Toronto.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says Dr. de Villa had a file, prepared by her staff, regarding COVID and restaurants.
Judge says she has a “hard time connecting this letter with the Section 22 order.”
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Judge says to Ma: “This is not your best point.”
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says there was COVID in Toronto - that can’t be denied. There was a health risk, she says, and de Villa had reasonable and probable grounds to issue a Section 22 order.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says our position was made subject to judicial review. She now speaks of Section 24*.
* Section 24" most commonly refers to Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which empowers courts to provide remedies (such as excluding evidence or awarding damages)…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says de Villa’s actions re: using the Section 22 order to close Adamson BBQ was reasonable. She says Skelly had the opportunity to open his restaurant for takeout & delivery but he chose to defy the province’s rules.
The judge asks was there not another option available other…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma speaking of the Trespass to Property Act. Notes that “unprecedented does not mean unlawful.”
Judge asks where is the legal support for this position?
Ma says the authority came from the Section 22 order.
Judge says she’s looking for the chain of logic re: who gets in and out…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma references a health services case.
A Section 13 order was used to close a spa. Ma says Section 13 is similar to a Section 22 order. It involved a spa that posed a health hazard due to its unsanitary conditions. That spa was closed to the public until the health hazard was…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says Adam Skelly was locked out of his own restaurant because “he was part of the health risk.”
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Judge asks: wouldn’t any restaurant owner still be an occupier (despite the Section 22 order) but would still have limited use of the building? Judge says she is having a hard time understanding the city’s rationale.
Ma again states that Skelly himself “was part of the health…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma now to talk of the virus in relation to the Charter. Notes that the City is essentially simpatico with the Province’s position (which was presented yesterday.)
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma references the case of Taylor vs. Newfoundland and Labrador that supports the city’s case of locking down Adamson BBQ.
Kimberly Taylor challenged the province’s 2020 travel bans (under the Public Health Protection and Promotion Act) after being denied entry to attend her…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma now referencing Section 1 of the Charter 9f Rights and Freedoms.
Section 1 of the Charter guarantees rights while permitting "reasonable limits" that are "prescribed by law" and "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Known as the "reasonable limits clause,"…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma notes Dr. de Villa is “an expert” and ought to be given “deference.”
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma again focuses on the potential public health risk of COVID which was in play in 2020.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says respondent’s arguments are not valid as they are “backward looking” and made with the advantage of “hindsight”.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma now referencing “the Dore framework”.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

* The Doré framework (derived from Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12) is a legal methodology used in Canadian administrative law to determine if a discretionary administrative decision that limits Charter rights or values is reasonable. It requires decision-makers to…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says in terms of Dr. de Villa’s actions vs. Charter arguments, she cannot be held to “the standard of perfection.”
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Court now taking an extended recess and will resume at 12 noon.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Court has resumed.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Ma says she has no further submissions.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Skelly’s lawyer, Ian Perry, refers to testimony from the crown’s lawyer from yesterday.
He notes the hypothetical example given by Ryan of a man recklessly speeding to protest speed limits. This is not a valid comparison to Skelly reopening Adamson BBQ given that recklessly…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Perry says there were many ways Adamson BBQ could have been accommodated. But the City deemed the only option available was to lockdown the restaurant and arrest & fine Skelly.
He says the city did not have the right to take Skelly’s property and change the locks.
The city…
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Perry again notes that after being arrested, Skelly was incarcerated for 30 hours - another infringement of his Charter rights.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Perry says the way Skelly was treated was “Over broad and grossly disproportionate.”
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Perry says the issuance of an invalid trespass notice against Skelly amounts to yet another Charter violation.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Perry says de Villa’s actions “were not reasonable” (i.e., based on a trespass charge, a person’s business is shutdown; the person is incarcerated; the person is fined $187,000 for policing costs.)
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Province’s lawyer, Padraic Ryan, says it’s not accurate to say Skelly is facing 6 charges himself. Skelly faces 3 charges and his business faces 3 charges.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Court adjourns; judge reserves her decision. Stay tuned.
— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) February 27, 2026

Rebel News has covered the Adamson Barbecue story from the very beginning — reporting live as police and bylaw officers shut down the restaurant, documenting Adam Skelly’s arrest, interviewing supporters on the ground, and gathering more than 30,000 signatures calling for fairness. What began as a small business owner defying lockdown orders has become a major court battle over government power and civil liberties — and now that the trial is underway, we’re there to report every key moment. While much of the mainstream media moved on, Rebel News has stayed committed to following the case through years of delays so Canadians can hear directly what’s being argued in court and what it means for their rights. Independent, boots-on-the-ground journalism takes real resources — so if you believe in open courts and truly independent reporting, please chip in to help us stay on this story until the very end.

SPONSOR