COVID-19
Elon Musk-backed doctor critical of COVID response vows appeal after court sides with medical board
From LifeSiteNews
One of Gill’s “controversial” posts read, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. ”
A Canadian physician who challenged her medical regulator after it placed “cautions” against her for speaking out against draconian COVID mandates on social media has lost a court battle, but with the help of her Elon Musk-backed legal team she has vowed to appeal the ruling.
The case concerns Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views posted on X (formerly Twitter) in 2020. As reported by LifeSiteNews, her case received the support of billionaire Tesla and X owner Elon Musk, who pledged in March to back her financially.
One of Gill’s “controversial” posts read, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. #FactsNotFear.”
The Divisional Court decision against Gill dated May 7, 2024, concluded, “When the College chose to draw the line at those tweets which it found contained misinformation, it did so in a way which reasonably balanced Dr. Gill’s free speech rights with her professional responsibilities.”
“In other words, its response was proportionate,” noted the ruling.
Gill’s lawyer, Lisa Bildy with Libertas Law, stated in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews that the “Court declined to quash the ‘cautions’ orders, finding that the ‘screening committee’ of the CPSO was sufficiently alert to the Charter infringement of Dr. Gill’s speech, such that its decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes.”
“Dr. Gill had argued, in two factums,” noted Bildy, which can be found here and here , and filed in the companion court applications, that “her statements were not ‘verifiably false.’”
Bildy expressed that Gill had provided the College with “ample evidence in 2020 to support her position against lockdowns,” but was sanctioned “because they went against the College’s guidance that doctors should not express opinions contradicting government or its public health edicts.”
Gill’s court challenge against the CPSO began last month, with Bildy writing at the time that the College’s “decisions were neither reasonable nor justified and they failed to engage with the central issues for which Dr. Gill was being cautioned.”
She argued that Gill had a “reasonable scientific basis” for her posts, noting that the previous decision made against Gill targeted her for opposing the mainstream COVID narrative.
“The decision starts with the premise that doctors have to comply,” said Bildy, warning that censoring doctors would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.
Bildy noted that in its ruling, the court “disagreed” with Gill’s challenge, “stating that this invited a reweighing of the evidence.”
The court also ordered that Gill pay the CPSO $6,000 in legal costs.
Gill is a specialist practicing in the Greater Toronto area, and has extensive experience and training in “pediatrics, and allergy and clinical immunology, including scientific research in microbiology, virology and vaccinology.”
Last September, disciplinary proceedings against her were withdrawn by the CPSO. However, last year, Gill was ordered to pay $1 million in legal costs after her libel suit was struck down.
The CPSO began disciplinary investigations against Gill in August 2020.
Gill to appeal recent court ruling with support from Musk’s X
The court’s ruling asserted that the CPSO panel members consisted of “three physicians with highly relevant expertise that they were able to bring to bear when assessing the scientific and medical information before them, expertise that this court does not have.”
Bildy noted that in fact, the CPSO panel consisted of “three surgeons and a general member of the public who had deferred to the ‘expertise’ of government’s public health arm.”
The court ruling also dismissed Gill’s arguments that publishing the “cautions on her public register and disseminating a notice about the cautions to hospitals and regulators across the continent was punitive and had a chilling effect on one side of a debate.”
“The Court opted to align with other Divisional Court decisions in stating that the cautions were not a finding of professional misconduct but were merely a remedial measure. This is despite the fact that cautions have, only in recent years, become a public rebuke rather than a private ‘correction’ of a professional by their peers. This significant change has not yet been grappled with by the Ontario Court of Appeal,” noted Bildy.
Bildy said that Gill intends to “seek leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal with the support of X Corp., since her posts were made on the X platform which supports free expression and dialogue, even on contentious issues and particularly on matters of scientific and medical importance.”
Gill noted on X Tuesday that her “notice of motion for leave to appeal will be filed” next week “to begin process.”
She also thanked Musk and X for supporting her legal cause.
Gill had said that she had “suddenly” found herself going “against the narrative,” and was then “seen as a black sheep and as someone who should be shunned.”
Many Canadian doctors who spoke out against COVID mandates and the experimental mRNA injections have been censured by their medical boards.
Earlier this month, Elon Musk’s X announced that it will fund the legal battle for another Canadian doctor critical of COVID lockdowns, Dr. Matthew Strauss, an Ontario critical care physician and professor, against his former employer Queen’s University after it forced him to resign.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews at its annual general meeting in July 2023 near Toronto, canceled doctors Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi, Chris Shoemaker, and Byram Bridle were asked to state their messages to the medical community regarding how they have had to fight censure because they have opinions contrary to the COVID mainstream narrative.
COVID-19
Canadian veteran challenges conviction for guarding War Memorial during Freedom Convoy
From LifeSiteNews
When the convoy first came to Ottawa, allegations were floated that the memorial had been desecrated. After learning of this, Evely quickly organized a group of veterans to stand guard around the clock to protect the area.
A Canadian veteran appealed to the Ontario courts after he was convicted for organizing a guard around the National War Memorial during the Freedom Convoy.
In an October press release, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced that an appeal has been filed in the Ontario Court of Appeals on behalf of Master Warrant Officer (Ret’d) Jeffrey Evely over his conviction for mischief and obstructing police while on his way to guard the Ottawa War Memorial during the 2022 Freedom Convoy.
“By locking down large sections of downtown Ottawa, the police were effectively preventing all civilians from accessing public areas and greatly exceeded their powers under the common law,” constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury explained.
“This case raises issues that have implications for protests across the province and the country. We are hopeful that the Ontario Court of Appeal will agree and grant leave to appeal,” he added.
The appeal argues that police overstepped their authority in their response to the 2022 protest of COVID mandates. Police actions at the time included locking down the Ottawa core, establishing checkpoints, and arresting protesters.
In September 2024, Everly was convicted of mischief and obstruction after his involvement in the 2022 Freedom Convoy, which protested COVID mandates by gathering Canadians in front of Parliament in Ottawa.
As LifeSiteNews previously reported, when the convoy first came to Ottawa, allegations were floated that the memorial had been desecrated. After learning of this, Evely quickly organized a group of veterans to stand guard around the clock to protect the area.
However, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act, many parts of downtown Ottawa were blocked to the public, and a vigilant police force roamed the streets.
It was during this time that Evely was arrested for entering a closed off section of downtown Ottawa during the early hours of February 19, 2022. He had been on his way to take the 4:25 a.m. shift protecting the Ottawa War Memorial.
As Evely walked to the memorial, he was allegedly told to stop by police. According to the police, Evely “ran for a short distance before being confronted by two additional police officers.”
He was forcibly pushed to the ground, landing face first. The veteran was then arrested and charged with mischief and obstructing police.
At the time, the use of the EA was justified by claims that the protest was “violent,” a claim that has still gone unsubstantiated.
In fact, videos of the protest against COVID regulations and shot mandates show Canadians from across the country gathering outside Parliament engaged in dancing, street hockey, and other family-friendly activities.
Indeed, the only acts of violence caught on video were carried out against the protesters after the Trudeau government directed police to end the protest. One such video showed an elderly women being trampled by a police horse.
While the officers’ actions were originally sanctioned under the EA, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the EA, forcing Crown prosecutors to adopt a different strategy.
Now, Crown prosecutors allege that the common law granted police the authority to stop and detain Evely, regardless of the EA.
However, Evely and his lawyers have challenged this argument under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, insisting that his “arrest and detention were arbitrary.”
Earlier this month, Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber were sentenced to 18-month house arrest after a harrowing 25-month trial process. Many have condemned the sentence, warning it amounts to “political persecution” of those who stand up to the Liberal government.
COVID-19
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich says ‘I am not to leave the house’ while serving sentence
From LifeSiteNews
‘I was hoping to be able to drop off and pick up my grandsons from school, but apparently that request will have to go to a judge’
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich detailed her restrictive house arrest conditions, revealing she is “not” able to leave her house or even pick up her grandkids from school without permission from the state.
Lich wrote in a X post on Wednesday that this past Tuesday was her first meeting with her probation officer, whom she described as “fair and efficient,” adding that she was handed the conditions set out by the judge.
“I was hoping to be able to drop off and pick up my grandsons from school, but apparently that request will have to go to a judge under a variation application, so we’ll just leave everything as is for now,” she wrote.
Lich noted that she has another interview with her probation officer next week to “assess the level of risk I pose to re-offend.”
“It sounds like it’ll basically be a questionnaire to assess my mental state and any dangers I may pose to society,” she said.
While it is common for those on house arrest to have to ask for permission to leave their house, sometimes arrangements can be made otherwise.
On October 7, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced Lich and Chris Barber to 18 months’ house arrest after being convicted earlier in the year convicted of “mischief.”
Lich was given 18 months less time already spent in custody, amounting to 15 1/2 months.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government was hoping to put Lich in jail for no less than seven years and Barber for eight years for their roles in the 2022 protests against COVID mandates.
Interestingly, Perkins-McVey said about Lich and Barber during the sentencing, “They came with the noblest of intent and did not advocate for violence.”
Lich said that her probation officer “informed me of the consequences should I breach these conditions, and I am not to leave the house, even for the approved ‘necessities of life’ without contacting her to let her know where I’ll be and for how long,” she wrote.
“She will then provide a letter stating I have been granted permission to be out in society. I’m to have my papers on my person at all times and ready to produce should I be pulled over or seen by law enforcement out and about.”
Lich said that the probation officer did print a letter “before I left, so I could stop at the optometrist and dentist offices on my way home.”
She said that her official release date is January 21, 2027, which she said amounts to “1,799 days after my initial arrest.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich, reflecting on her recent house arrest verdict, said she has no “remorse” and will not “apologize” for leading a movement that demanded an end to all COVID mandates.
LifeSiteNews reported that Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre offered his thoughts on the sentencing, wishing them a “peaceful” life while stopping short of blasting the sentence as his fellow MPs did.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s government enacted the never-before-used Emergencies Act (EA) on February 14, 2022.
-
MAiD6 hours agoDisabled Canadians increasingly under pressure to opt for euthanasia during routine doctor visits
-
Alberta8 hours agoPetition threatens independent school funding in Alberta
-
Alberta1 day agoBusting five myths about the Alberta oil sands
-
Courageous Discourse1 day agoNo Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears
-
Business1 day agoQuebecers want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun confiscation
-
Business7 hours agoCanada Revenue Agency found a way to hit “Worse Than Rock Bottom”
-
Energy1 day agoMinus Forty and the Myth of Easy Energy
-
Health1 day agoNew report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights


