A fitness instructor hit with an eviction order on her studio effective today maintains her business fell behind after her court case against Covid-19 restrictions dragged on for years.

Sophia Cannonier said she had filed an application with the Supreme Court requesting a judicial review of her case.

She and Michael Watson, her husband, were accused of breaching public safety regulations after returning from a trip to Britain on July 11, 2021 during the pandemic.

“I’m not saying I won’t pay,” Ms Cannonier told The Royal Gazette from her business, Padma Studio on Marsh Lane in Devonshire. “I want to negotiate. It’s almost like people are trying to silence me.”

The Cannoniers have spoken before about the financial and emotional toll of their Magistrates’ Court case.

They were charged after refusing to yield to the Government’s mandatory quarantine on unvaccinated travellers flying into Bermuda.

The couple, who insisted that their documented immunity after they were both exposed to Covid-19 made quarantine unnecessary, returned to Bermuda without travel authorisation and were accused of violating quarantine by leaving their home.

Ms Cannonier was speaking shortly after finding an eviction notice on the door of her business from the landlord, Westmount Holdings, informing her that eviction would be effective this morning following a Magistrates’ Court ruling against her.

The notice advised that she should remove her possessions from the site or it would be placed in the dumpster outside and disposed of after three days.

She said she had contacted Magistrates’ Court to inform them of the application for a judicial review — adding that she had no intention of letting bailiffs in.

It was not possible yesterday to reach Westmount for comment.

Ms Cannonier readily admitted owing the landlord $40,000, but said she was seeking a payment plan.

“Back in 2019 I owed about $600, but then Covid hit, and because I’m a hands-on worker, therefore the studio was closed. The landlord said they didn’t get a break from the bank.”

She added: “Obviously, I could not pay rent. Then, when I was able to start working again, I did my best to keep up, but there was a decline in business due to Covid.”

Ms Cannonier said her challenge to emergency Covid-19 regulations had also harmed her business.

“When we walked through the airport and said ‘no’ to discrimination, that started a trial and my inability to have a good reputation.”

She said the protracted case with its repeated delays had interfered with her business, which is billed as a Pilates, aerial arts and pole fitness centre.

“The landlord said in April of this year that I needed to move out or pay $40,000. This is all through Covid and the injustices of our case.

“A verdict still has not come in, and we thought we would have it on August 31, but it was postponed.”

Their case has been heard before magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo, who advised in September that a ruling would come on a date still to be determined.

Ms Cannonier said the landlord took her to court that same month, adding that she was given “30 days to vacate” even though she insisted her lengthy case had put her behind in her income.

Corin Smith, a supporter of the Cannoniers, said the trial had heard medical testimony backing the efficacy of natural immunity, while Ayo Oyinloye, the former chief medical officer, had not testified.

“There was no challenge to evidence presented by a qualified immunologist,” he said.

He claimed the couple had been unfairly treated because of the “inability of the judiciary to keep up with cases” causing their trial to be subjected to delays.

“Those who have resisted vaccination are being bullied and treated like enemies of the state.”

Other challenges to emergency powers invoked under the pandemic have not succeeded in Bermuda’s courts.

Mr Smith said the verdict for the Cannoniers could prove “pivotal”.

Ms Cannonier said she was unaware if bailiffs had been informed of the application for a judicial review. She added: “I am not going to let them in.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers