From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Mark Trozzi

‘the Court has released its decision in my case against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Unfortunately, the ruling went against us on every point, disregarding key evidence and legal standards to reach its decision’

As many of you know, the Court has released its decision in my case against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Unfortunately, the ruling went against us on every point, disregarding key evidence and legal standards to reach its decision. This disappointing outcome reflects the Tribunal’s previous findings, which accused me of spreading so-called “misinformation” and acting dishonorably for providing alternative viewpoints on COVID-19. Despite the setback, I remain committed to defending the right to ethical medical practice and freedom of expression in healthcare. I am grateful for your continued support.

You can read the court’s ruling here: (Click Here)

Here is the latest Justice for Medicine Case Update from my lawyer and friend, Michael Alexander.

Case Update

November 8th, 2024

Hi Everyone,

As many of you may have already heard, the decision in the Trozzi case was released last Friday, far in advance of normal timelines. I am sorry to report that the Court ruled against us on all points of law, and in fact, ran roughshod over major issues to get where it wanted to go.

By way of background, the Tribunal had ruled in November of 2023 that Dr. Trozzi had been spreading misinformation concerning COVID-19, which had the potential to cause harm to the public, for instance, by encouraging people to take ivermectin or stating that the COVID-19 shots had not met appropriate standards of safety and efficacy. The Tribunal also ruled that Dr. Trozzi had failed to maintain the standard of practice by providing medical exemptions for COVID-19 shots. As well, it found that Dr. Trozzi had acted dishonorably by engaging in uncivil discourse.

I launched an appeal of the Tribunal decision in early 2024, and the matter was heard by the Divisional Court on October 8th. The decision was reviewed on the standard of correctness, which is the highest standard of review in the court system. It requires the Court to hold the lower decision-maker to the single, right answer on every point of law.

READ: Dr. Trozzi appeals revocation of his medical license in ‘existential moment’ for Ontario courts

In my written and oral submissions before the Court , I argued that the College Tribunal had failed to consider relevant evidence and had otherwise misrepresented relevant evidence. The Tribunal did not even mention Dr. Trozzi’s two scientific reports on COVID-19 science, which were tendered to respond to the expert witness report provided by Dr. Andrew Gardam, the College’s main expert on COVID-19 science. Dr. Trozzi’s reports contained references to over 160 articles from internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals, dozens of articles waiting for publication approval and statistics taken from Public Health England, Our World in Data, Statistics Canada and Public Health Ontario, while Dr. Gardam’s brief report referred to less than a dozen sources.

Dr. Trozzi’s reports were put into evidence at the Tribunal hearing. They were the subject of my cross-examination of Dr. Gardam, the College’s re-direct of Dr. Gardam, and were also hotly debated during closing submissions. Yet, the Court ruled that the reports had never been introduced into evidence and were, therefore, irrelevant. This is an absurd ruling on its face, and flies in the face of the fact that the parties had reached a pre-hearing agreement to put the studies into evidence in a joint book of documents.

In my oral and written submissions, I noted that the Tribunal had failed to even mention my cross-examination of Dr. Gardam, during which Dr. Gardam admitted that he agreed with the major points of science advanced by Dr.Trozzi’s reports. In legal parlance, this is referred to as “impeaching the witness.” It refers to a mode of questioning whereby the witness is put in contradiction with his or her previous oral or written statements.

It goes without saying that impeaching the College’s main expert witness and turning him into a witness for Dr. Trozzi is highly relevant since it subverts the College’s allegation that Dr. Trozzi had been spreading misinformation that could cause public harm. However, the Tribunal did not even mention the cross-examination in its decision. That is clear evidence of bias and should have led the Court to overturn the Tribunal decision.

In the course of its decision, the Court approved the Tribunal’s failure to grapple with my cross-examination of the College’s expert witness on “misinformation,” Dr. Noni MacDonald, and brushed over the fact that the Tribunal illegitimately applied mere guideline documents as if they had the force of law; as well, the Court refused to recognize pre- and post-Charter Supreme Court cases that have established the absolute right of every citizen to express a minority or dissenting opinion on matters of public importance.

READ: Dr. Mark Trozzi: COVID tyrants must face justice, or we’re all at risk

While there was always the chance that the Court would affirm the Tribunal decision, since Dr. Trozzi did provide medical exemptions contrary to the College’s standard of practice, though without causing any patient harm, and had also engaged, at times, in uncivil discourse, it does not follow that the Tribunal had the right to ignore material evidence or misrepresent guidelines as legal norms. A positive ruling on those points could have been a major victory for all health care professionals, even if the Court had still chosen to affirm the Tribunal’s decision.

The Trozzi decision and other recent cases involving doctors dissenting from the public COVID-19 narrative have confirmed the following propositions:

1. Any health college may conduct an unlawful search and seizure of a member’s office, which is to say, without establishing reasonable and probable grounds, as required by the Health Professions Procedural Code;

2. Colleges may apply mere guideline and recommendation documents as if they have the force of law;

3. Any College discipline tribunal may ignore or manipulate material evidence;

4. Health professionals do not enjoy the fundamental right to register disagreements with government public health policies and recommendations.

For the time being, we have lost in spite of our best efforts because the Divisional Court of Ontario is perversely committed to enforcing the government’s narrative concerning COVID-19, even though we all know that it is utterly false and has caused injury and death to hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

This, however, is not the end of the road. Trump’s victory in the U.S. will change the zeitgeist around all public health issues, as will the appointment of RFK Jr. to a Cabinet position.

READ: Canadian doctors warn against new ‘self-amplifying’ COVID shots rolled out in Japan

Further, currently, I am defending municipal council members who have been penalized under a new provincial censorship regime simply for expressing an independent point of view on policy matters. These cases involve many of the same legal principles at play in the Trozzi case. If I am successful in one of the municipal cases, this could lay down some case law that will help our beleaguered doctors and their patients.

Best wishes,

Michael Alexander

Reprinted with permission from Dr. Mark Trozzi.

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

While Pat King has been labeled as one of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy by the mainstream media, he is largely considered by those who followed the event to be a tertiary actor.

A Canadian judge has found Pat King, a controversial figure connected to the Freedom Convoy, guilty of a total of five charges related to his involvement in the 2022 protests held in the nation’s capital which called for an end to COVID mandates.  

An Ottawa judge found King guilty of two counts of disobeying a court order, one count of mischief, one count of counselling others to commit mischief, as well as one count of counselling others to obstruct police. 

As reported by the Canadian Press, King was also found not guilty of four other charges, those being three counts of intimidation and one count of obstructing police.  

King’s lawyers had argued that his involvement with the Freedom Convoy was peaceful in nature and did not warrant any of the charges laid against him. 

Crown lawyers claimed that King was one of the main leaders of the Freedom Convoy who played a key role in the month-long protests that took place in January and February of 2022. 

The Crown’s case relied heavily on videos posted to social media, which were shared by King throughout the protests. 

While King has been labeled as one of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy by the mainstream media, he is largely considered by those who followed the event to be a tertiary actor.

For instance, True North’s Andrew Lawton, who wrote a book on the Freedom Convoy, wrote in 2022, “the media keeps calling Pat King the ringleader of the convoy, but in reality, organizers told him to get lost when they realized he was toxic.” 

In 2022, King was granted bail after spending five months in jail for his involvement with the protests. He had to pay a $25,000 fine and was banned from speaking to other Freedom Convoy members and was placed under curfew. 

In February 2022, during the height of the Freedom Convoy, King told protesters to “Hold the line, ladies and gentlemen,” and to “not back down, we got your backs.” 

In late February that same year, King was denied bail by a judge. He was arrested on February 18 and was charged with various offenses, including mischief and counseling to commit mischief. 

As it stands now, the Freedom Convoy’s actual main leaders, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, are awaiting their fate in their trial for their involvement in the 2022 protests. As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, some protesters charged for participating the Freedom Convoy have seen their charges dropped.  

In early 2022, thousands of Canadians from coast to coast came to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23. 

The EA controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal. 

COVID vaccine mandates, which also came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.