Supreme Court noted four factors required to invoke detrimental reliance against a governmental agency:

Consider the similarities and differences in the case facts and answer the following:

(1) unequivocal advice from an unusually authoritative source,

How can your office argue this on behalf of your client, John Doyle?

How will the opposition argue it?

(2) reasonable reliance on that advice by an individual,

How can your office argue this on behalf of your client, John Doyle?

How will the opposition argue it?

(3) extreme harm resulting from that reliance,

How can your office argue this on behalf of your client, John Doyle?

How will the opposition argue it?

(4) gross injustice to the individual."

How can your office argue this on behalf of your client, John Doyle?

How will the opposition argue it?

Which party do you believe has the stronger argument under the precedent case?

Does Section 470 of the Public Health Act impact the above case law application in any way?Discuss briefly.