Background: Amanda Yates and other appellants challenged Orders in Council related to COVID-19 public health measures, specifically the requirement of using the ArriveCAN application and quarantine measures for unvaccinated individuals.

Issues: The appellants questioned the constitutionality of these measures and sought various reliefs, including declarations of Charter breaches and damages.

Decision: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application moot after the repeal of the Orders in Council. The Court determined that there was no live controversy and refused to exercise discretion to hear the moot case.

Key Points:

1. Mootness: The Court upheld the principle that if a case no longer presents a live controversy, it is considered moot.
2. Discretion to Hear Moot Cases: The Court decided not to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, aligning with jurisprudence concerning mootness in the context of pandemic measures.
3. Charter Damages and Judicial Review: The Court noted that Charter damages are not typically available in applications for judicial review.

Conclusion: The ruling highlights the importance of live controversy in legal challenges and the discretionary nature of courts in dealing with moot cases, particularly in the context of repealed public health measures.

Financial terms not specified.