COVID-19
Ontario court throws out Dr. Trozzi’s appeal after medical license revoked over COVID stance
From LifeSiteNews
‘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:
- 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;
- Colleges may apply mere guideline and recommendation documents as if they have the force of law;
- Any College discipline tribunal may ignore or manipulate material evidence;
- 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.
COVID-19
Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
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.
COVID-19
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich calls out Trudeau in EU Parliament address for shunning protesters
From LifeSiteNews
Speaking as an invited guest, Tamara Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022 calling for an end to COVID mandates that authorities treated the protesters like a ‘drug cartel.’
Tamara Lich, leader of Canada’s 2022 Freedom Convoy, was invited to speak before the European Parliament and wasted no time blasting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for “hiding” from protesters instead of engaging in dialogue as he did with other activist groups.
“We have politicians calling us terrorists, domestic terrorists, racists, even accusing us of trying to burn down an apartment building,” she said during her address.
“This is not the Canada I grew up in.”
Lich was a guest at the EU Parliament by the Europe of Sovereign Nations group, which is a right-of-center faction. She was joined alongside MEP Christine Anderson to speak to the parliament located in Strasbourg, France.
Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests, which took place in January and February 2022 in Ottawa calling for an end to COVID mandates, authorities treated the protesters like a “drug cartel.”
“Our prime minister ran away and hid and refused to even send anyone out to talk to us. … As a matter of fact, he even said that he’s attended protests before but only those that he supports,” she said.
“In my opinion, the leader of a country leads all of their people, not just the ones who believe in the same ideology. That is his job, and he failed us. They all failed us.”
Lich in a later social media post to X noted how it was a “privilege and an honour to speak to the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group this evening about the treatment of hard-working, blue-collar Canadians and the brave truckers who stood up for all of us.”
“I was able to speak about the current political climate in Canada, the censorship of our media, lawfare and political prisoners (our beloved Coutts boys) and the freezing of bank accounts without Parliamentary oversight or court order from a judge among many other concerning and important issues we are facing as Canadians under this current regime,” Lich said. “Thank you to Madam Christine Anderson and the ESN Group for this amazing opportunity. I will never forget it.”
The Europe of Sovereign Nations thanked Lich for her testimony, saying in a social media post its group was out in “full force on the sidelines of the plenary session in #Strasbourg to hear Tamara Lich’s testimony regarding the #Canadian government’s handling of Covid, which showed no regard for individual freedoms.”
Lich still faces up to 10 years in jail for protesting government COVID mandates
Lich and co-leader Chris Barber’s trial concluded in September, more than a year after it began. It was originally scheduled to last 16 days.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich and Barber’s verdict will be announced on March 12.
Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence. LifeSiteNews reported extensively on their trial.
During Lich’s speech, Lich noted how she was thankful for “support” Canadians showed to the Freedom Convoy “in the form of donations which were that we were going to receive.”
“We honestly thought we would just drive there, you know a small group of us,” she said. “But what we saw, as you guys obviously did too, on the sides of the roads and on the overpasses, was an overwhelming number of Canadians out there to support us who finally felt hope for the first time in years. Who finally felt proud to be Canadian for the first time in years.”
The $24 million raised by GoFundMe was frozen on the orders of the government.
“The first GoFundMe campaign that we started was taking in $1 million a day as we travelled across the country. (It) was frozen after the politicians contacted GoFundMe and told them that we were ‘domestic terrorists’ and that they were ‘fighting terrorism,’” Lich said.
She recounted how the problems facing Canada under the Trudeau government are not just an issue at home but around the world.
“This is what they are trying to do,” said Lich, adding, “I see it everywhere, it’s to demoralize and bankrupt you, but I’m here to tell you that they picked on the wrong woman, and we’ll keep fighting.”
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, Trudeau’s government invoked 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.
-
Business2 days ago
Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
-
Business20 hours ago
Canada’s chief actuary fails to estimate Alberta’s share of CPP assets
-
Business16 hours ago
Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover
-
Artificial Intelligence21 hours ago
US House report exposes Biden admin push to use AI for censorship of ‘misinformation’
-
Internet19 hours ago
Gov’t memo admits Canadians are shifting to independent news due to distrust of media, not Russian ‘bots’
-
Business1 day ago
The Strange Case of the Disappearing Public Accounts Report
-
Opinion23 hours ago
The idea of ‘democracy’ championed by globalist elites is far from what the people think
-
Business2 hours ago
Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List