Canadian Christian chiropractor fights ‘illegal’ $65,000 fine for refusing to wear mask

Dr. Curtis Wall went against the College of Chiropractors of Alberta’s COVID mask mandate in 2020 and the organization has been pursuing disciplinary action ever since.

The legal team for Dr. Curtis Wall, a Canadian chiropractor who was recently fined $65,000 by his medical college for not wearing a mask in 2020 despite the fact public health orders last year were nullified by a court, has vowed to fight the “illegal” fine, saying that Wall was targeted because he is a “Christian man of integrity and principle.”

“Dr. Wall should not pay any fines or costs when the public health orders he was charged with not following have been declared void by the courts,” said Wall’s legal team, Liberty Coalition Canada (LCC), in a press release.

“He is a Christian man of integrity and principle — attributes that make him a target for government overreach in the era of COVID.”

Wall was practicing in Calgary in 2020 when the COVID crisis was gearing up, went against Alberta’s public health orders and chose not to wear a mask during patient visits. Many of his patients also decided to not wear masks during their visits, which quickly drew the ire of College of Chiropractors of Alberta, which had mandated that all chiropractors wear masks.

Wall, who has been seeing patients for the last 25 years with a pristine record, was then targeted by the College, which tried to strip him of his license to practice. The College was unable to strip Wall of his license and he continued to practice, sans mask in 2021 and 2022.

In 2021, the College had brought against Wall, as per the LCC, “a long list of charges of unprofessional conduct against Dr. Wall, most of which related to Dr. Wall not wearing a mask while treating patients and permitting his patients to not wear a mask.”

Wall was then brought before a disciplinary hearing Tribunal to mediate his case, which went well into 2022, and had placed a publication ban on all “identities of all witnesses,” including Wall’s.

James Kitchen, Wall’s lawyer from the LCC, was successful in getting the publication ban lifted, as the LCC noted due to the College “wishing to avoid likely defeat before the courts” regarding keeping the ban in place.

Fined chiropractor says college did not recognize his ‘Christian convictions’

The Tribunal’s decision noted the LCC is “riddled with errors of fact and law and is so poorly decided it is an embarrassment to the chiropractic profession.”

Wall spoke with LifeSiteNews and observed that while in his point of view he does not feel his fines and costs imposed on him by the college “are a direct result of my Christian faith,” he did note that the tribunal did “not recognize my honest Christian convictions as a valid reason for my not wearing a mask.”

“They put placed no merit in the argument that as a Christian I believe I am created in the image of God,” Wall said.

“My face is an expression of Him. Having man arbitrarily mandate that I cover my face is an affront to that expression and signifies that I am living in the fear of man, not by faith. So, in all, I don’t feel directly persecuted as a Christian, but certainly indirectly.”

Wall told LifeSiteNews that in his opinion the college could have “handled this issue much differently.”

“There must always be room for exceptions to a rule. I did present a doctor’s note to verify my inability to wear a mask. They did not place any weight on that note. They blamed me for ‘self-diagnosing’ my problem,” Wall said.

“Number one, I’m a doctor. I think eight years of schooling has given me some wisdom to diagnose my own signs and symptoms. Number two, if someone eats a peanut and their throat swells shut, can they not diagnose themselves and stay away from nuts? It’s not a problem to self-diagnose.”

Wall said that despite his legal team presenting four expert witnesses to demonstrate “the obvious inadequacy and lack of efficacy in mask-wearing, not to mention the harms as well,” the college “did not cite the record once in their verdict.”

He noted that “common sense, science and past and present studies overwhelmingly demonstrate” the lack of efficacy regarding mask-wearing.

The LCC noted that although both Kitchen and Wall hoped for an “unbiased decision from the tribunal,” they knew it was more “likely the tribunal members would lack the courage to oppose the government’s COVID narrative by accepting the scientific evidence masks are utterly ineffective at preventing the transmission of COVID and harmful to wearers.”

“Nonetheless, it is shocking the lengths the tribunal went to dismiss the evidence of Dr. Wall, three of his patients, and his four expert witnesses while blithely accepting all the evidence of the College.”

Wall’s charges laid despite a recent court ruling nullifying all Alberta COVID health orders

According to LCC, the charges brought against Wall show that the College of Chiropractors of Alberta has “ignored the law” relating to non-criminal COVID-era charges handed out in the province.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, last year a judge from Alberta ruled that politicians violated the province’s health act by making decisions regarding COVID mandates without authorization. This ruling came from the Alberta’s Court of Kings Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision, which put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province. In effect, the ruling struck down and nullified all health orders issued by Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s former chief medical officer of health.

As a result, multiple people facing charges, such as Dr. Michal Princ, pizzeria owner Jesse Johnson, café owner Chris Scott, and Alberta pastors James Coates, Tim Stephens, and Artur Pawlowski who were jailed for keeping churches open under then-Premier Jason Kenney, have had COVID charges against them dropped due to the court ruling.

The Alberta’s Court of Kings Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province.

As a result of the court ruling, Alberta Crown Prosecutions Service (ACPS) said Albertans facing COVID-related charges will likely not be convicted but instead have their charges stayed.

However, last year, the College, and of important note after the Ingram ruling, ordered Wall to pay $65,000 in fines and costs “under threat of immediately losing his license to practice if he does not pay,” the LCC said.

Chiropractor’s lawyer to fight fine tooth and nail

According to the LCC, the College’s new complaints director said she will enforce the tribunal’s court-defying order and mandate Wall pay the $65,000.

Because of this, Kitchen submitted an application to the College “to prevent this injustice” against Wall, the LCC noted.

“The Application will be heard on June 21. It will be heard virtually and is open to public, although the College has erected a number of barriers to people attending its hearings. For one, people must register with the hearings director and must do so many days in advance,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“The Tribunal elected to ignore the Ingram decision despite issuing its decision over two weeks after Ingram was released by the Court.”

Kitchen noted that the Tribunal had a lawyer advising it who was being paid some $700 an hour. He told LifeSiteNews that “Tribunals can do whatever they want and often do.”

“Only if the affected person takes further legal action can they hold the Tribunals accountable. And even then, that’s very difficult because the first appeals are to the councils of the Colleges, which almost always rubber stamp whatever the Tribunals decide. Real accountability isn’t had until the impugned professional is able to reach the Court of Appeal, which of course takes years and an enormous amount of funding for lawyer fees,” Kitchen said.

Kitchen is working Wall’s case at discounted rates and noted that high legal costs in such cases dealing with tribunals, who can drag things on for years, to him appear to be a tactic the Colleges count on for “avoiding accountability.”

The LCC estimates the College, which is funded through payments from all chiropractors, paid some $600,000 in legal fees to fight Wall.

“LCC asks supporters to donate toward Dr. Wall’s case so he and Mr. Kitchen can hold the College of Chiropractors of Alberta accountable and bring an end to the unjust persecution of Dr. Curtis Wall. Liberty Coalition Canada is assisting Dr. Wall with his legal expenses through the Legal Defense Fund.”

Kenney quit after losing the confidence of his United Conservative Party (UCP) members for backtracking on his promise to not impose a COVID vaccine passport. Under Kenney, thousands of businesses, notably restaurants and small shops, were negatively impacted by severe COVID restrictions, mostly in 2020-21, that forced them to close their doors for a time. Many never reopened. At the same time, as in the rest of Canada, big box stores were allowed to operate unimpeded.

Under Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Premier Danielle Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” people in her lifetime.

Recently, LifeSiteNews reported on how Alberta-based Rath & Company is in the process of putting together a class-action lawsuit against the Alberta government on behalf of many business owners in the province who faced massive losses or permanent closures from what it says were “illegal” COVID public health orders enacted by provincial officials.

Up Next

CBC tries to hide senior executive bonuses

Don't Miss

Panama Elects President Vowing Shutdown Of Key Routes To US Used By Over Half A Million Migrants

Todayville

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

World-leading biochemist debunks evolutionary theory

Digital ID / 52 mins ago

Canadian government launches trial version of digital ID for certain licenses, permits

Alberta / 10 hours ago

Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works

Alberta

Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works

Published on December 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).

The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.

Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.

As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.

Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).

The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.

Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.

Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.

The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance

Published on December 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail, Mackenzie Moir and Lauren Asaad

In October, Alberta’s provincial government announced forthcoming legislative changes that will allow patients to pay out-of-pocket for any diagnostic test they want, and without a physician referral. The policy, according to the Smith government, is designed to help improve the availability of preventative care and increase testing capacity by attracting additional private sector investment in diagnostic technology and facilities.

Unsurprisingly, the policy has attracted Ottawa’s attention, with discussions now taking place around the details of the proposed changes and whether this proposal is deemed to be in line with the Canada Health Act (CHA) and the federal government’s interpretations. A determination that it is not, will have both political consequences by being labeled “non-compliant” and financial consequences for the province through reductions to its Canada Health Transfer (CHT) in coming years.

This raises an interesting question: While the ultimate decision rests with Ottawa, does the Smith government’s new policy comply with the literal text of the CHA and the revised rules released in written federal interpretations?

According to the CHA, when a patient pays out of pocket for a medically necessary and insured physician or hospital (including diagnostic procedures) service, the federal health minister shall reduce the CHT on a dollar-for-dollar basis matching the amount charged to patients. In 2018, Ottawa introduced the Diagnostic Services Policy (DSP), which clarified that the insured status of a diagnostic service does not change when it’s offered inside a private clinic as opposed to a hospital. As a result, any levying of patient charges for medically necessary diagnostic tests are considered a violation of the CHA.

Ottawa has been no slouch in wielding this new policy, deducting some $76.5 million from transfers to seven provinces in 2023 and another $72.4 million in 2024. Deductions for Alberta, based on Health Canada’s estimates of patient charges, totaled some $34 million over those two years.

Alberta has been paid back some of those dollars under the new Reimbursement Program introduced in 2018, which created a pathway for provinces to be paid back some or all of the transfers previously withheld on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Ottawa for CHA infractions. The Reimbursement Program requires provinces to resolve the circumstances which led to patient charges for medically necessary services, including filing a Reimbursement Action Plan for doing so developed in concert with Health Canada. In total, Alberta was reimbursed $20.5 million after Health Canada determined the provincial government had “successfully” implemented elements of its approved plan.

Perhaps in response to the risk of further deductions, or taking a lesson from the Reimbursement Action Plan accepted by Health Canada, the province has gone out of its way to make clear that these new privately funded scans will be self-referred, that any patient paying for tests privately will be reimbursed if that test reveals a serious or life-threatening condition, and that physician referred tests will continue to be provided within the public system and be given priority in both public and private facilities.

Indeed, the provincial government has stated they do not expect to lose additional federal health care transfers under this new policy, based on their success in arguing back previous deductions.

This is where language matters: Health Canada in their latest CHA annual report specifically states the “medical necessity” of any diagnostic test is “determined when a patient receives a referral or requisition from a medical practitioner.” According to the logic of Ottawa’s own stated policy, an unreferred test should, in theory, be no longer considered one that is medically necessary or needs to be insured and thus could be paid for privately.

It would appear then that allowing private purchase of services not referred by physicians does pass the written standard for CHA compliance, including compliance with the latest federal interpretation for diagnostic services.

But of course, there is no actual certainty here. The federal government of the day maintains sole and final authority for interpretation of the CHA and is free to revise and adjust interpretations at any time it sees fit in response to provincial health policy innovations. So while the letter of the CHA appears to have been met, there is still a very real possibility that Alberta will be found to have violated the Act and its interpretations regardless.

In the end, no one really knows with any certainty if a policy change will be deemed by Ottawa to run afoul of the CHA. On the one hand, the provincial government seems to have set the rules around private purchase deliberately and narrowly to avoid a clear violation of federal requirements as they are currently written. On the other hand, Health Canada’s attention has been aroused and they are now “engaging” with officials from Alberta to “better understand” the new policy, leaving open the possibility that the rules of the game may change once again. And even then, a decision that the policy is permissible today is not permanent and can be reversed by the federal government tomorrow if its interpretive whims shift again.

The sad reality of the provincial-federal health-care relationship in Canada is that it has no fixed rules. Indeed, it may be pointless to ask whether a policy will be CHA compliant before Ottawa decides whether or not it is. But it can be said, at least for now, that the Smith government’s new privately paid diagnostic testing policy appears to have met the currently written standard for CHA compliance.