Connect with us

COVID-19

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

Published

2 months ago

9 minute read

Dr. Mark Trozzi

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

Tuesday, outspoken COVID science critic Dr. Mark Trozzi will appeal a decision to take away his medical license. Due to a new legal standard, a successful outcome may positively impact Canada ‘in all domains of government regulation.’

Medical freedom champion Dr. Mark Trozzi will present his legal case on Tuesday when he appeals the stripping of his medical license in January by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The case will be heard by the Ontario Divisional Court (ODC) and, according to attorney Michael Alexander, a successful result would have far-reaching legal implications impacting freedom of expression rights across “all domains of government regulation,” including all health colleges.

Appearing in a late September interview with Canadian politician Derek Sloan, Alexander explained the history of the case leading up to the revoking of Trozzi’s license on January 25. In their view, “the college was primarily concerned … that Mark had been making statements about COVID-19 science and public policy that amounted to ‘misinformation’ and he was misleading the public and in doing so causing harm.”

It was also relevant that Trozzi was not even in practice at this time but had taken a sabbatical to study these issues more carefully and start a daily newsletter regarding his research.

The concern of CPSO “was the substance of his views,” the attorney assessed, “so they wanted to censor him in some way” and “eventually took him to a discipline hearing where he was found to be unprofessional, incompetent, and in violation of the standard of practice in the profession, primarily because he just presented an alternative point of view.”

READ: Dr. Trozzi stripped of medical license over COVID stance, plans to appeal

Ironically, Trozzi was not able to be present for the interview himself because he was traveling in Japan, with an invitation to speak before its parliament. He had already addressed the Romanian parliament on issues related to the COVID-19 response.

While the highly regarded former emergency room specialist “is a persona non grata in Ontario,” Dr. Trozzi’s attorney observed, “he’s in high demand around the world as someone who is providing important insights into the whole COVID era, COVID science, COVID public policy, and his criticisms are taken very seriously.”

Trozzi case could impact ‘the country in all domains of government regulation’

For more than three decades, the Ontario Divisional Court has been legally directed to judge such cases only according to a low-threshold standard called “reasonableness” that Alexander describes as the court basically deferring to the judgment of such regulatory tribunals as CPSO with regard to facts, the law, and “particularly on the interpretation of the law that the tribunal adopts.”

What makes this case different is that since Trozzi has a “statute-based right to appeal” and thus a 2019 Supreme Court decision now requires the ODC to adopt a higher standard, referred to as “correctness,” in examining the CPSO decision.

Therefore, according to this new standard, “you must get all findings of fact correct, you must get every interpretation of your statute correct, you must interpret all case law correctly,” Alexander explained.

“So, the CPSO has never had to face this before, and this (case) is the first major fundamental challenge to a regulatory body on this standard of correctness in Ontario,” he continued. Thus, this case is “extremely important. If we were to win, it would affect the whole regulatory framework of the province in a positive way.”

“So these same judges, who have been cutting a lot of slack to the College of Physicians in particular, are now going to be facing similar issues that they have faced before but on this new standard of correctness,” the attorney said.  “So they are going to have to adopt a completely different mindset in assessing the case.”

Therefore, “I guess you could say (this is) an existential moment for the judiciary in Ontario,” Alexander proposed.  “I mean will the Divisional Court step up to the plate and fully apply the standard of correctness and have the courage to do it?”

According to Alexander, a successful outcome in this case “would have a ripple effect not just in Ontario for the 22 health colleges here but for the health colleges all across the country,” forcing them to reconsider their policies in this regard.

And given the case regards the fundamental freedom of expression, a successful outcome on these arguments “would have an impact across the country in all domains of government regulation.”

“So this is not a case that’s just about Mark,” the attorney clarified. “We are trying to change the way this country is governed, and the college’s case has given us that opportunity.”

In 2020 during the “pandemic,” Trozzi, an ER veteran of 25 years, noticed that the mainstream narrative surrounding the public health “emergency” was deeply flawed. While media reported overflowing emergency rooms, Trozzi’s hospital remained relatively empty. This inspired him to research the science facts of COVID.

In the interest of protecting not only his own patients but people everywhere, Dr. Trozzi promoted alternative COVID-19 treatments and publicly explained why the COVID shot is “not a vaccine.”

In retaliation, Dr. Trozzi was barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID-19 shots, masking requirements and testing in 2021. He was not alone: Ontario’s Dr. Rochagne Kilian was also similarly barred.

At the time, CPSO said the interim orders were given in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, which allow restrictions on a member’s license if a regulator believes a certain practice “exposes or is likely to expose patients to harm or injury.”

The CPSO has cracked down on numerous physicians who failed to comply with standard protocol during the COVID outbreak. It has done this so assiduously that last year Dr. Robert Malone spoke out against what he described as the “re-education” of dissident Canadian doctors.

READ: Dr. Robert Malone leads thousands of scientists in calling for a total end to ‘orchestrated’ COVID crisis

The CPSO has thus far initiated legal action against Trozzi and at least five other doctors who are committed to their Hippocratic Oath responsibilities related to COVID: Mary O’Connor, Kilian, Celeste Jean Thirlwell, Patrick Phillips, and Crystal Luchkiw.

Alexander also made clear that while the CPSO has the typical governmental “blank check” of “unlimited resources,” including “around 10 lawyers on staff” and “access to outside council,” he is in need to hire “clerks to do special kinds of filing” and is seeking free-will donations.

Having donated “hundreds of thousands of dollars of billable time” into this case, Alexander has no regrets, stating that “it’s too important to the country not to litigate and we are the ones who pioneered this approach, and so it’s us or nobody.”

To assist Dr. Trozzi in winning his precedent-setting case, please donate here.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 8 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 9 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 9 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X