Persecution of doctors in Canada

Doctors with at least one 'victory' against the college (includes pre-COVID)

With the exception of Kulvinder Kaur Gill, all of these doctors have lost their license or have given up their license because they were tired of fighting the CPSO.

Akbar Khan

He details his multi-year fight against the CPSO at CPSOcrimes.com. The website lists various other doctors who were able to hold onto their license for some time. For many years, he was able to retain his license but he ultimately lost it in 2022.

Khan appealed to the Ontario divisional court, which ruled against him. The court decision implicitly defers to the CPSO in determining what is and isn't the standard of care:

The use of treatments that are not part of generally accepted or “conventional” therapies or the use of “conventional medications” in an unconventional or “off-label” manner is governed by Policy Statement #3-11 issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario entitled “Complementary/Alternative Medicine.”

The CPSO's CAM policy can be found at https://www.cpso.on.ca/en/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Complementary-Alternative-Medicine/Advice-to-the-Profession-Complementary-and-Alterna

CANLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc2096/2023onsc2096.html

CPSO: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Akbar-Nauman-Khan/0051270-65249

Kulvinder Kaur Gill

For some reason, the CPSO dropped one of its cases against Gill. See The Democracy Fund's statement: https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/cpso_drops_disciplinary_proceedings_ontario_physician_opposing_covid_policies The investigation report against Dr. Gill and her lengthy submissions in response to it cannot be publicly disclosed.

Concerns remain on her record.

CPSO: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Gill-Kulvinder-Kaur/0233347-84436

Edward Leyton

The Michael Code memo (available through CPSOcrimes.com) briefly discusses Ted Leyton's conflict with the CPSO, where he retained his license.

Finally, let me mention a group - I can bunch them together: Dr. Ted Leyton, Dr. Robert Kidd, Dr. Felix Ravikovich, and Dr. Carolyn Dean - who once again were all doctors practising unusual, new, innovate medicine trying to find new solutions to new problems in the health care of the people in this province. and all four were subjected to processes by the CPSO that once again, in my respectful opinion, are of a consistent pattern of unfairness, bias and misuse of powers.

Leyton testified at the National Citizens Inquiry. https://rumble.com/v2or6fs-dr-edward-leyton-shares-his-perspective-on-early-treatment-protocols-ottawa.html?start=1350

On Aug 1 2023, he resigned from being a licensed doctor. https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Leyton-Robert---Edward-Geoffery/0023889-28711

Jozef Krop

https://www.alive.com/health/dr-krop-loses-environmental-medicine-wins/

• 1990: College lays charges against Krop
• 1994-1999: Legal battle, with costs to Krop far exceeding $1 million.
• 2002: Terms and conditions imposed on certificate
• 2010: Krop resigns from membership, agrees to never apply for a license with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Presumably he was tired of being targeted by the CPSO.

CPSO: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Jozef-Krop/0024214-29036

Jean-Marc Benoit

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) today formally withdrew charges against Dr. Jean Marc Benoit, which alleged that his posts on X during the Covid-19 pandemic were “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.”

“While many physicians had concerns about novel and potentially harmful public health measures, few were willing to risk the severe financial and professional consequences of speaking up, which led to an illusion of consensus,” said Lisa Bildy. “Some, like Dr. Benoit and Dr. Gill, continued their public advocacy in spite of the risk. Thanks to TDF, they were able to present an appropriate defence of their positions with their regulator, which resulted in the withdrawal of some or all of the allegations against them.”

https://twitter.com/TDF_Can/status/1752407213744746605

Persecuted doctors (COVID era only)

Mark Trozzi, Crystal Luchkiw, and Patrick Phillips

Licenses suspended. Phillips has given up his license while Trozzi and Luchkiw continue their fight against the colleges. Represented by Michael Alexander.

Phillips was prevented from prescribing fluvoxamine for COVID-19. A few months later, the Ontario Science Table recommended fluvoxamine for acute COVID-19. The Ontario Science Table has been cited as an authority sufficient for judicial notice in R. v. Sinclair, 2022 ONSC 114. The Ontario Science Table was also used as evidence by the applicant in Saint-Phard v. Saint-Phard, 2021 ONSC 6910 and the municipality of York versus the CUPE union (arbitration case).

• Luchkiw: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Luchkiw-Crystal/0280678-97606
• Trozzi: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/M-Trozzi/0048800-62778
• Phillips: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Phillips-Patrick----Brian/0310033-109364

Ira Bernstein

Sent to re-education over COVID early treatment, vax exemptions, mask exemptions, IVM, and HCQ.

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/I-Bernstein/0048404-62382

Mary O'Connor

Feb 2023 - While allegations of professional misconduct were pending before the Discipline Tribunal but not yet determined and her practice was under investigation, Dr. O'Connor voluntarily agreed to resign from the College and not to apply or reapply for registration as a physician in Ontario or any other jurisdiction. https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Mary-Elizabeth-OConnor/0020791-25579

Vinod Nair

In 2022 and 2023, the CPSO imposed terms and conditions on his license regarding IVM. His practice was restricted to anaesthesiology.

CPSO: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/V-Nair/0132231-70381

Christopher Hassell

Lost his license over vaccine exemptions, mask exemptions, ivermectin, and misinformation.

CPSO: https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Hassell-Christopher---Hilton/0026114-30937

Rochagne Kilian

License suspended in 2021. The CPSO only specifies that she failed to co-operate with the College's investigation.

It is alleged that Dr. Kilian engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and/or failed to respond appropriately or within a reasonable period of time to a written inquiry from the College, by, commencing in approximately October 2021, failing to co-operate with the College’s investigation, including by failing to provide information, records and documents requested by College staff.

A document on the CPSO website states that she was "barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID vaccines, masks, tests".

According to the Owen Sound Times: "The CPSO said in a statement last year that it had received confirmation Kilian provided medical exemptions through Enable Air (enableair.com)."

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Rochagne-Kilian/0308112-110334

Celeste Thirlwell

Psychiatrist. Terms and conditions imposed. Issues were: vaccine exemptions, mask exemption, diagnostic testing exemptions. Must not issue prescriptions for Narcotic Drugs

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Celeste-Jean-Thirlwell/0169386-76629

Jeffrey Matheson

Terms and conditions imposed.

• Was disciplined many times in the past.
• Misinformation: "giving patients information on COVID-19 that was inconsistent with public health and College directives" and "Dr. Matheson will engage in professional education including in respecting CPSO policies, public health guidance, and Ministry of Health directives around COVID-19, understanding how health misinformation spreads, and improving critical appraisal skills. "
• Masking: "wear a surgical mask during all in-person encounters and require his staff to do the same"

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Jeffrey-Rice-Holmes-Matheson/0049647-63625

Christopher Alan Shoemaker

Shoemaker and Trozzi tried to step in and take over Crystal Luchkiw's practice after Luchkiw's license was suspended.

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Shoemaker-Christopher---Alan/0024010-28832

Caroline Anne Turek

Pending hearing.

It is alleged that between approximately 2020 and 2022, Dr. Turek engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and/or failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and/or is incompetent in relation to her communications, including but not limited to communications on social media / online / digital platforms regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and related issues. This includes but is not limited to making misleading, false or inflammatory statements about vaccinations, treatments and public health measures for COVID-19.

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Turek-Caroline-Anne/0048470-62448

Zoltan Peter Rona

In 2022, terms and conditions were imposed on his license. He resigned the same year.

"dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in relation to his communications about the COVID-19 pandemic and related issues."

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Rona-Zoltan---Peter/0025401-30224

Sonja Kustka

Terms and conditions imposed on certificate over masks and failing to co-operate with the CPSO investigation. Her patients retained Rocco Galati as the patients did not want their medical records being given to the CPSO.

Her court case lists suspicions from the CPSO regarding ivermectin/COVID treatment, masks, and an exemption letter:

The information included that Dr. Kustka had provided ivermectin to a patient suffering from COVID-19 without examining the patient. The patient’s daughter stated that this resulted in her mother waiting to seek medical attention and eventually resulted in her death. The Registrar also received information from a Girl Guide leader who raised a concern about Dr. Kustka providing potentially illegitimate mask exemptions for two sisters. The sisters had not previously reported medical conditions when registering with Girl Guides and the sisters did not live near Dr. Kustka’s office, which raised a question as to whether they were her patients. In addition, the exemption letter from Dr. Kustka failed to provide any medical reason for the exemptions

https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Kustka-Sonja-Sophia/0039952-53928

Legal cases (licensing related)

Akbar Khan versus CPSO

He details his multi-year fight against the CPSO at CPSOcrimes.com. The website lists various other doctors who were able to hold onto their license for some time. For many years, he was able to retain his license but he ultimately lost it in 2022.

Khan appealed to the Ontario divisional court, which ruled against him. The court decision implicitly defers to the CPSO in determining what is and isn't the standard of care:

The use of treatments that are not part of generally accepted or “conventional” therapies or the use of “conventional medications” in an unconventional or “off-label” manner is governed by Policy Statement #3-11 issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario entitled “Complementary/Alternative Medicine.”

The CPSO's CAM policy can be found at https://www.cpso.on.ca/en/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Complementary-Alternative-Medicine/Advice-to-the-Profession-Complementary-and-Alterna

CANLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc2096/2023onsc2096.html

Judges: Corbett, Lederer, Charney

Sonja Kustka and her patients versus CPSO (medical privacy, patients paid costs to the CPSO, whether the CPSO has a right to investigate)

An Ontario court ruled March 30th that patient medical records of a doctor now under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) are not private and open to the scrutiny of the medical regulator’s investigators. https://brightlightnews.com/ontario-court-rules-patients-medical-records-not-private-during-doctor-investigations/

Kustka was represented by Slansky. Her patients were represented by Rocco Galati. Galati and Slansky were frequent collaborators pre-COVID. For example, they won a landmark case against the Harper government over the appointment of judges without 10 years of experience (teaching law does not count). Galati and Slansky (Constitutional Rights Centre) received a mere $5,000 for their constitutional law work.

The judge ordered that the patients (who filed a motion in this case) shall pay costs of the motion of $4,249.00, all-inclusive, to the CPSO. They didn't just have their privacy and right to bodily autonomy violated... they had to pay costs to the CPSO.

Standard of care (softer stance than other decisions)

Regarding the standard of care, the decision cited various authorities other than the CPSO:

• O. Reg. 364/20 - lockdown orders from the Ontario government, which were later revoked.
• Ontario College of Family Physicians
• Canadian Thoracic Society
• Regarding ivermectin: Health Canada and Ontario Science Table

Contrast this decision with Akbar Khan's, where the judges found that the CPSO could issue documents that establish the standard of care.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2023/2023onsc2325/2023onsc2325.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAMU29uamEgS3VzdGthAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

Judges: D.L. Corbett, Nishikawa and O’Brien

Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (bodily autonomy, innocent until proven guilty, Charter rights, assumption that the CPSO acts in good faith)

Similar to the Sonja Kustka case, the lawyer Paul Slansky (who also represented Kustka), sought to have patients argue that their medical records should not be disclosed to the CPSO. While the judges were different in the Kilian case, the judges also ruled that the CPSO is allowed to seize medical records.

The judges believe that patients have 'a choice' when they must decide between their job and bodily autonomy:

Denying someone an automatic exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine is not the same as forcing them to take the vaccine. Someone who chooses not to take the vaccine may not be able to do certain things in the wider community. However, the decision to take (or not take) the vaccine remains a personal choice.

The judges implicitly assume that the CPSO was acting in good faith and that their views on bodily autonomy (the opposite of 'my body my choice') constitute 'proper' medical care:

What is plain is that the restrictions on Dr. Kilian’s certificate were imposed to protect her patients from harm and, as such, were directed to and consistent with the primary goal of the regulatory regime to ensure proper medical care for all patients.

They also do not believe that the CPSO's action against Kilian affects bodily autonomy (or Charter rights), because apparently you have bodily autonomy when no doctor will give you an exemption:

With respect to the Investigation Decision, the Patients fail to raise a serious justiciable issue, because they have no reasonable expectation of privacy against a medical regulator accessing patient records, and there is no interference with bodily autonomy under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since the CPSO is not “mandating inoculation.” Rather, the CPSO is investigating a member out of concern that she may have committed professional misconduct – in particular, by giving unjustified medical exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccination, thus stepping outside the obligation to provide proper medical care.

"Proper medical care" involves giving the patient 'a choice' between their job and bodily autonomy.

The decision has a different interpretation of facts compared to the motion judge regarding whether the actions of the CPSO could be politically motivated:

This is not a case where an administrative proceeding is fatally flawed, or the Court might intervene to prevent disclosure of privileged information. There are no exceptional grounds here that warrant a review of the Investigation Decision at this time. The issues perceived by the motion judge who considered the possible intervention in the application under s. 87 of the Code as possibly being of concern (the idea that the actions of the CPSO were politically motivated, and that the actions of Dr. Kilian in the public statements she made and the exemptions issued over her name and signature were based on research and science) simply do not arise in this case.

The decision dismissed many of Kilian's arguments as 'premature' even though she could not work and her Charter rights may have been violated.

Dr. Kilian argues that the CPSO is precluded from raising the issue of prematurity because to do so is an abuse of process. What she fails to appreciate is that the Court, on its own, can and does raise prematurity as an issue in applications for judicial review.

The decision also assumes that Kilian was issuing mask exemptions simply because her forms had spaces for exemptions from wearing a mask. This is a very weak form of evidence. Secondly, the judges implicitly assume that there are no valid reasons to issue a mask exemption.

The forms on which the Applicant was providing the exemptions from COVID-19 vaccines also had spaces for exemptions from wearing a mask, which suggested that she would be willing to provide exemptions from other COVID-19 related restrictions.

To be fair, Kilian was linked to EnableAir.com which advertised mask exemptions on its website in 2021. The Enable Air website also noted that proceeds would be donated to Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre (which Slansky works for).

Tammy Peterson's podcast with Dr. Rochagne Kilian and Amina Sherazee (lawyer representing the patients seeking to protect their privacy) discusses this case. Sherazee claims that the court documents do not accurately reflect the arguments made by lawyers on Kilian's side.

2022 decision (discussed above): https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc5931/2022onsc5931.html 2023 appeal: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca281/2023onca281.html

Judges: Swinton, Lederer and LeMay

Thirlwell v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 2654 (medical privacy, search and seizure, COVID vaccines prevent transmission)

According to the decision, a CPSO investigator looked through random patient records and computer files presumably without a warrant:

We then randomly reviewed some [of] the charts and documentation and there was no indication that any of the charts/ patients had medical exemptions written for Covid Vaccines/ Masks or Testing. Several of the charts were noted to have an indication stating “letter required for work” but when we accessed the charts there was [sic] no notes or letters on the date for that visit.[13]

…

Several attempts were made to find exemption letters, in recent appointments. No attached exemption letters were found. In a further attempt to locate exemption letters, Mr. [redacted] located files and folders on the computer having an appearance of being potential exemption letters, which Mr. [redacted] took a copy of in order to conduct searches using forensic tools later.[14]

The decision opined on scientific matters without the CPSO providing evidence to support its scientific views. Apparently it is common knowledge that COVID vaccines prevent transmission.

The improper vaccine exemptions exposed not only her patients but the general public to an increased likelihood of contracting Covid-19.

[...]

The history demonstrates the willingness of Celeste Jean Thirlwell to put at risk, not just the health of these patients, but all members of the general public who may, without knowing of the exemption, come in contact with those patients.

Regarding the strength of evidence, the Court accepted that the lack of information on a vaccination letter was sufficient to conclude that there was no "individualized assessment as to whether the vaccine was medically contraindicated for each patient". This is despite the decision quoting a letter which states that "This letter is a medical exemption from vaccination based on thorough evaluation of medical history of this patient."

Information in the record being considered by the Committee demonstrated that the vaccine exemption letters were vague and lacked clear medical reasons as to why vaccinations were not indicated for the particular people involved. The Committee noted that information received by the College suggested that Celeste Jean Thirlwell had set up a special clinic devoted to providing “family packages,” with exemptions costing up to $300. This suggested a generalized approach to vaccine exemptions for profit, rather than an individualized assessment as to whether the vaccine was medically contraindicated for each patient.

?Hearsay? evidence regarding the practitioner's conspiracy theories was further used to support the college's actions:

The Committee noted that information from one of its sources suggested that Celeste Jean Thirlwell had made comments to patients espousing conspiracy theories (that 50% of the people who get vaccinated will die and that the Australian government was gassing people) and demonstrating ideological opposition to vaccine mandates using comparisons to Nazi Germany.

The CPSO only needs "some evidence" to act. That's it.

The mandate to protect patients confirms and dictates that “some evidence” is enough on which to base an Order of the type being imposed:

The judges believes that the law should change to reflect changes in society, citing Fingerote v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario:

The determination of whether a doctor “exposes or is likely to expose [his or her] patients to harm or injury” is a nuanced and difficult decision. Interim conditions are discretionary and extraordinary. They have the potential to greatly harm a doctor’s reputation and to do so quite unjustly if the underlying allegations are not made out. However, when dealing with issues of professional misconduct generally, and sexual abuse in particular, it is absolutely imperative that vulnerable patients be adequately protected. If society once erred on the side of protecting doctors’ reputations, times have rightly changed. The law prefers and gives primacy to the goal of protecting vulnerable patients. If there is a demonstrated likelihood that a doctor will expose his or her patients to harm or injury, the Committee is free to act and its opinion and remedial discretion will be accorded deference.[31]

The judges do not consider the possibility that the CPSO might be concerned about a political belief or ideology... only Celeste Thirlwell is guilty of doing so based on suggestive evidence:

It is one thing to be careless or cavalier about medical care; it is another to act, where the health of people is concerned, through social or political belief or ideology.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2022/2022onsc2654/2022onsc2654.html

Judges: Swinton, Lederer, McCarthy

Luchkiw v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

The factum from Luchkiw's lawyer (Michael Alexander) may have stated that there are only 2 situations where a patient should receive a COVID exemption. This is not entirely correct as the Ontario MOH guidelines and NACI guidelines do not fully overlap; there are multiple situations where a patient should receive a COVID exemption according to those guidelines. Nonetheless, the court took the position that the CPSO's view, "based" on the Ontario MOH guidelines and NACI, should be the standard of care.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2022/2022onsc5738/2022onsc5738.html

Judges: McWatt, Molloy, and Chalmers

Pitter v. College of Nurses of Ontario and Alviano v. College of Nurses of Ontario

The CNO challeged two nurses for their social media posts.

The decision has a bit of an implicit assumption that the COVID vaccines reduce the spread of COVID-19:

The committee was concerned that Ms. Alviano’s statements could mislead the public with respect to public health measures, including vaccine development, efficacy, and safety and the need to take steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Regarding Charter rights (free expression), the decision reasoned that the nurses' rights were "minimally impaired" by the statement on their public register and the (re)education that they were asked to do. The CNO is allowed to punish these nurses for their speech as long as the infringement on their right to free expression is 'proportionate' to the benefit of what the CNO is tasked to do (using the analysis set out by the Doré/Loyola analysis).

In the context of the serious concerns raised by the Applicants’ conduct, I accept the ICRC’s conclusions that the remedial and educative responses minimally impaired the Applicants’ Charter rights. The committee’s decisions were proportionate.

The decision was highly deferential to the CNO in terms of scientific/medical facts and what the standard of care should be. This implies that the CNO can set the standard of care for nurses and determine what viewpoints are reasonable.

In addition, reviewing courts are required to be attentive to a decision-maker’s demonstrated expertise: Vavilov, at para. 93. Here, the ICRC had highly relevant expertise. In both cases, the panel of the ICRC included three members of the nursing profession.

[...] In the context of what appear on their face to be plainly false statements, it is appropriate for this Court to defer to the panel’s expertise. [...]

For example, the expectations set out in CNO’s Professional Standards and Ethics documents include (1) that nurses are accountable for conducting themselves in ways that promote respect for the profession; and (2) that nurses are obligated to uphold and promote truthfulness, integrity, honesty and professionalism in all dealings with the public. Further, CNO has published a webcast entitled Social Media: Reflect Before You Post.

The decision found that the nurses' views (some of which question the efficacy and safety of masking) "were not within the range of rational public debate." Note: it was not that long ago (pre-COVID) when major nursing unions argued that masks don't stop the transmission of influenza.

The decision also implies that the CNO can discipline nurses for contradicting public health information. This seems like a bizarre position when public health information has been contradictory during COVID (e.g. don't wear a mask, wear a mask, etc.). The court's position seems to be that the CNO should be going after nurses who contradict public health information, which may go against legislation as it is written.

Deference is owed to the ICRC in applying standards of practice to the Applicants’ conduct. In its decisions in the instant cases, the committee set out its expectation of nurses when making public statements and identifying themselves as nurses. These included the following: the information be accurate, evidence-informed and not contradict public health information

Regarding the letter of the law (and exceeding the CNO's authority granted by legislation), the divisional court ruled that the CNO's ICRC did not exceed its jurisdiction as it did 'not' make a determination of professional misconduct. It merely expressed "concerns" and it should not have used the word "view" when the ICRC supposedly had concerns.

I do not accept that the committee’s comments represent findings of fact or of misconduct. It is evident given its screening role that the ICRC has no authority to make findings of professional misconduct. The committee at no point exceeded this role. It did not state that it had made a finding of professional misconduct, nor did it take any action reflective of such a finding. Instead, the outcomes it ordered were statutorily available to it given its screening role. It perhaps would have been better for the committee to express its comments as “concerns” rather than a “view.” Regardless, it acted at all times appropriately within its jurisdiction.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2022/2022onsc5513/2022onsc5513.html#par27

Judges: Edwards, R.S.J., Backhouse and O’Brien

Jeffrey Matheson (license suspended over not wearing a mask)

The Committee’s conclusion was based on its finding that Dr. Matheson did not wear a mask when meeting with the patient, despite the undertaking he gave to do so less than two weeks earlier. It was also based on the public health information about the importance of masks to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2021/2021onsc7597/2021onsc7597.html

Judges: King, Favreau and Nishikawa

Jordan Peterson versus CPO (standard of care, weird interpretation of facts)

The influential thinker Jordan Peterson has been targeted by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for comments he made on social media and in interviews. The decision requires Peterson to follow the Code (Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists) and Standard (the CPO’s Standards of Professional Conduct, 2017) adopted by the CPO. "As a registered member of the College, Dr. Peterson is obliged to follow the Code and the Standards."

In many instances, the decision has unusual interpretations of Peterson's comments. For example:

A tweet on February 19, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson commented that Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa City Councillor who uses they/them pronouns, was an "appalling self-righteous moralizing thing".

Why mention that Catherine McKenney uses they/them pronouns? Peterson's statement clearly does not contain any pronouns and thus avoids pronoun controversy. There is an unwarranted implication that Peterson is using the 'wrong' pronouns, misgendering, or otherwise engaging in some form of discrimination regarding McKenney's gender identity (not stated) by referring to McKenney as a "thing".

The decision also argues that the CPO's order against Peterson "is not disciplinary", even though the proposed re-education of Jordan Peterson (Specified Continuing Education or Remedial Program) would impose financial costs on Peterson and a hit to his reputation.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc4685/2023onsc4685.html

Judges: Backhouse, Schabas and Krawchenko

Legal cases (other) and other legal battles

Judge Rickcola Brinton versus Nova Scotia and Chief judge Pamela Williams

As Rickcola Brinton did not disclose her vaccination status, she was assumed to be unvaccinated and was unable to work as a judge. Chief judge Pamela Williams wrote a note to Brinton regarding her vaccination status: "Regrettably, I will have no recourse other than to suspend you and refer the matter to the judicial council."

Williams had previously wrote to Brinton's doctor asking about her medical status, which could be seen as an invasion of privacy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-judge-launches-5m-lawsuit-covid-19-dispute-1.6989148

Nova Scotia has a shortage of judges which has caused cases to be thrown out. https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/news/nova-scotia-court-backlog-liberals-say-failing-system-exposed-justice-department-cites-need-to-modernize-100846766/

BC courts direction on preferred gender pronouns (NP24, PD-59)

Shahdin Farsai, a lawyer, wrote an opinion piece criticizing the BC court's policy on gender pronouns. Farsai raises an example of a mother attempting to prevent her 17-year-old daughter from having surgery to remove her breasts.

Yet when the mother and her counsel referred to the daughter as “her”, the judge challenged the mother´s right to do so. According to the transcript, the judge said, “there has been a request that counsel refer to [the youth] as he or him … are you refusing to do that?”
If a judge asks a lawyer, party or witness to use another’s preferred pronouns in court like that, the request could be misunderstood as a demand — that is, a court order. This would lead to fear of being in contempt of court or being hauled before the law society for conduct unbecoming. What happens if a judge equates malice and insult from pronoun use accurately based on biological sex (as opposed to preferred pronouns) and threatens a charge of contempt?

https://genderreport.ca/shahdin-farsai-practice-directions-on-preferred-gender-pronouns-in-court-are-problematic/

• NP24 policy (Chief Judge Melissa Gillespie): https://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/downloads/Practice%20Directions/NP%2024%20Form%20of%20Address%20for%20Parties%20and%20Lawyers.pdf
• PD-59 Practice Direction (Chief Justice Hinkson): https://www.bccourts.ca/supreme_court/practice_and_procedure/practice_directions/civil/PD-59_Forms_of_Address_for_Parties_and_Counsel_in_Proceedings.pdf

Ontario courts have a softer pronoun policy which encourages participants to share their pronouns. The notice also states that there is a pushed for 'accessible language', e.g. “all rise” is being updated to “all rise, if you’re able to”.

A.B. v C.D. (persecution of a lawyer, freedom of the press, compelled speech)

The father CD did not want his child taking controversial cross-sex hormone treatments and/or pubertal suppressant drugs. The judge in that case (Hinkson) was definitely not on the father's side, prohibiting the pronouns “she” and “her” when referring to the born-female child. The judge eventually sentenced him to 6 months of prison for talking about the case and ignoring the judge's restrictions on talking about the case.

• https://www.rebelnews.com/infamous_parental_rights_case_ab_vs_cd_wraps_up_after_5_year_struggle
• https://www.jccf.ca/court_cases/ab-v-cd/
• https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/05/compelled-speech-comes-to-b-c-s-courts/

The Law Society of British Columbia went after the father's lawyer Carey Linde in a closed hearing. A Vancouver Sun article argues that the disciplinary proceedings were driven by Chief Justice Hinkson and should not have been hidden from the public. Carey Linde's conduct was found to be unprofessional. https://divorce-for-men.com/lsbc-court-case/

While Canadian media could not disclose all details of the case, American media (e.g. The Post Millennial) was not limited by such restrictions.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Trinity Bible Chapel (lockdowns)

Trinity Bible Chapel church did not obey the lockdowns. They lost at the Superior Court of Ontario and at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The church's website has their analysis of the lawsuit.

The blog post's opinion about authorities acting according to 'the science': Now, what about all that scientific stuff? Way back in 2021, the media and the medical establishment pummeled us with allegations that we were anti-science. We can see the trial judge’s humorous take on ‘science’ as noted in para 22 and 24 respectively, “Ontario was not required to prove, with direct scientific evidence, that capacity restrictions actually reduced the spread of COVID-19,” and, “The standard is not one of scientific certainty, particularly for a social problem that defies scientific consensus”. In other words, despite the oft repeated mantra “trust the science,” the science was “evolving”, so who needs “scientific certainty”? What really matters is that people were frightened and the government at least did something: “In this case, the COVID-19 pandemic required Ontario to act on an urgent basis, without scientific certainty, on a broad range of public health fronts” (par. 102). So much for science.

The decision was not completely lopsided in favour of the Ontario government as neither side paid the other side's legal costs. The Supreme Court of Canada (highest level of appeal) declined to hear the church's case and awarded costs against the church.

• Original decision: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1344/2022onsc1344.html
  • Judge: Renee M. Pomerance
• Appeal: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca134/2023onca134.html
  • Judges: Doherty, Zarnett and Sossin

Canadian military vaccine mandate violated the Charter

In this video, Christine explains the result from the Military Grievances External Review Committee which found that the the Canadian Armed Forces COVID-19 vaccination policy was unconstitutional. https://youtu.be/eq-t9JB1qOk?si=mXA4ya7rVPcYe_QW

You can read the decision here: https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/covid19-vaccination-policy-analysis/annex-i-constitutionality.html

Annette Lewis (denied organ transplant due to being unvaccinated, Charter rights)

The judge argued that Annette Lewis' position would have negative implications for public policy ("would result in medical chaos with patients seeking endless judicial review of clinical treatment decisions"). The judge concluded that the Charter did not apply.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb479/2022abqb479.html

Judge: R. Paul Belzil

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear her appeal and awarded costs against her. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2023/2023canlii49297/2023canlii49297.html

Kassian v British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1603

Three people who should have received a vaccine exemption did not get one. The courts have ruled against them so far.

This case is ongoing; see the CCF’s coverage on their website and Youtube.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1603/2022bcsc1603.html or https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/Justice-Hinkson-re-Kassian-v.-British-Columbia-09-12.pdf

Judge: Chief Justice Hinkson

Eliason v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1604

This case revolves around vaccine passport. The judge dismissed 2 of the petitioners' claims as premature as they did not exhaust all remedies available to them. The third petitioner received an exemption but was often denied services by businesses. The judge argued that it wasn't the government's fault that the petitioner was discriminated against: "I find that any harm he has suffered was not a result of anything done or not done by the respondents, and the present petition should be dismissed."

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1604/2022bcsc1604.html

Judge: Chief Justice Hinkson

'Math is racist' / Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council v. The Queen

(This case relates to social justice and diversity/equity/inclusion ideology, which may indicate where courts are headed on other issues such as COVID.)

The Ontario government implemented standardized testing for math pedagogy (the teaching of math) and basic math in an effort to improve the math scores of Ontario students. The EQAO (Education Quality and Accountability Office) was tasked with the creation of the test, which was vetted for 'racist' and 'discriminatory' content. Because apparently math and math pedagogy can be racist.

The plaintiffs argued that inequality of outcome is evidence of racism. They did not have to prove that there was racist content in the standardized test that led to unequal/racist outcomes.

Some 'racialized' groups were more likely to fail the test while other 'racialized' groups (Asian, European, Choose not to answer) had outcomes similar to Whites. (Yes, the judgement capitalized the word White.)

The plaintiffs won but the case will go to appeal.

Canadian Constitution Foundation video by Christine Van Geyn explaining the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6HsM-3b5SI

CANLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2021/2021onsc7386/2021onsc7386.html

Judges: Backhouse and Nishikawa

Trucker convoy cases

Rouleau Commission

While the trucker convoy clearly was not an emergency, the Rouleau Commission sided with the Trudeau government.

Artur Pawlowski

He was jailed 60 days for speaking to people involving in the Coutts border crossing blockage.

Pawlowski was also detained pre-trial without bail, which is highly unusually and allows authorities to imprison people without trial for their political activities.

Coutts Four

These four men are currently detained pre-trial without bail.

Class action lawsuit from the residents of Ottawa against certain organizers

Ongoing.

Legal cases (family law)

J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77 (judicial notice, alternative factual reality)

This case involves parents fighting over the vaccination of their two youngest children.

The judges live in a reality where Robert Malone (a mRNA technology pioneer) is not a credible source. He's just some guy on the Internet.

One document is titled, “Are people getting full facts on COVID vaccine risks” which quotes one Dr. Robert Malone, who claims to have invented the mRNA vaccine. Dr. Malone is, in fact, quoted several times; the motion judge concluding that “[w]ith [Dr. Malone’s] credentials, he can hardly be dismissed as a crackpot or fringe author”. Other people cited in this article are described by the motion judge as “well known leaders in their fields” and as “qualified and reputable sources”. The difficulty is, it is not entirely clear how anyone could conclude, from what the respondent filed, that Dr. Malone actually invented the mRNA vaccine or that any of those cited in the article are “well known leaders” in their respective fields. There was no basis to draw either of these conclusions.

As the appellant points out, one author in particular, Dr. Tess Lawrie, simply penned an open letter posted on a website called ‘The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.’, which appears to be a self-publication. The motion judge’s description of Dr. Malone, Dr. Lawrie and the other authors cited by the respondent – as leaders in their fields – seems to be based on nothing more than their ability to either create a website or be quoted in one. There is no apparent or verifiable expertise.

[...]

By doing so the motion judge treated the respondent as an expert in assessing pharmaceutical disclosure, while essentially dismissing those who are best positioned to interpret this information, public health authorities, who know how to factor the possibility of side effects into the approval process.

The information relied upon by the respondent was nothing but something someone wrote and published on the Internet, without any independent indicia of reliability or expertise, which, even if admissible, should have been afforded no weight at all.

The decision also suggests that the motion judge should have taken judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, citing that "several courts have already taken notice of the safety, efficacy and importance of paediatric COVID-19 vaccines".

Regarding social justice, the divisional court effectively scolded the motion judge for bringing up historical examples of the government being the problem: residential schools, the sterilization of Inuit women, Japanese and Chinese internment camps during World War Two (Chinese may have been a mistake in history on the judge's part), and same sex marriage.

Regarding the wishes of the 12-year old and 10-year old children, the divisional judges argues that no weight should have been given to the Voice of the Child Report. The government is an authority on parenting decisions. Let's not bring up examples of government wrongdoing because a comparison to same sex marriage would be "inapt".

Judges: Tulloch, Thorburn and George

S.E.T. v J.W.T (judicial notice)

A case very similar to J.N. v. C.G. was handled by Superior Court Justice Richard Bennett, who did not take judicial notice and presume that vaccines are safe and effective if they are approved by the Canadian government. His decision was overturned on appeal. The judges harshly criticized Bennett for judicial errors.

Costs were awarded to the pro-vaccination mother.

Judges: Shaun O’Brien, David Corbett, Janet Leiper.

Original court case: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc977/2023onsc977.html News article about appeal: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/court-overturns-gta-judge-s-covid-vaccine-ruling-slamming-use-of-inflammatory-rhetoric-and-personal/article_9db248e7-f8c0-5bbe-a068-44d12bdd3066.html

Spencer v. Spencer, 2023 ONSC 1633 (the unvaxxed aren't plaguebearers, judicial notice)

According to the motion judge, COVID vaccines prevent transmission and unvaccinated parents should be treated like plaguebearers regardless of natural immunity. Fortunately, the divisional court set aside the COVID-19 testing and other COVID-19 restrictions related to Mr. Spencer’s parenting time.

On the issue of parenting time, the motion judge found that Ms. Spencer was primarily responsible for caring for the children’s needs. He concluded she should have the primary care of the children and that Mr. Spencer’s parenting time should be restricted to reduce the children’s risk of harm from his unvaccinated status. He restricted Mr. Spencer’s parenting time to two evenings a week and one weekend day and ordered other restrictions related to COVID-19, including that Mr. Spencer take weekly rapid tests for COVID-19 and only have his parenting time out-of-doors or inside the matrimonial home.

On the issue of judicial notice, the divisional court largely agreed with the original decision to accept judicial notice that the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective in children: "In addition, a court may take judicial notice of regulatory approval of paediatric vaccination against COVID-19."

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2023/2023onsc1633/2023onsc1633.html

Judges: MacLeod, R.S.J., D.L. Corbett, and O’Brien

M.P.D.S. v. J.M.S., 2022 ONSC 1212 (the unvaxxed are plaguebearers, judicial notice, the family courts will tell you how to parent your kid)

The judge took judicial notice regarding the vaccines and imposed restrictions on the father:

The father shall not knowingly expose the children to any individual he knows or believes is not vaccinated against COVID-19.

Because the father was unvaccinated: "His parenting time with the children must be restricted to reduce their risk of harm." This implies that COVID vaccination prevents transmission.

The judge also restricted the father from talking to his child about COVID-19:

I find that it is appropriate for the purposes of ensuring the integrity of the court’s order to require the father not to tell, or suggest to the child or children, directly or indirectly, that vaccines are untested, unsafe, ineffective or that they are at risk from vaccinations. The father is not to permit any other person to have such a discussion or to make any such suggestion to the children, directly or indirectly. If the children have any questions about the vaccine, the parties shall arrange a consultation between the children and their treating physician to answer any questions about it

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1212/2022onsc1212.html

Judge: B. Tobin

TRB v KWPB, 2021 ABQB 997 (the family courts will tell you how to parent your kid, judicial notice, COVID vaccines aren't experimental)

The judge ordered that the parents refrain from talking to their children (ages 12 and 10) about COVID-19 or vaccination. The judge diagnosed the younger 10-year old child with vaccine anxiety caused by misinformation from her friends and father.

ARB suffers vaccine anxiety, but also expressed concern that the COVID-19 vaccine might hurt or kill her. This is directly related to the misinformation she received from her father, as well as from her friends.

[...]

Further, I direct on the recommendation of children’s counsel, the following:

1. That the father will not discuss, or permit any third party to discuss, the issue of the COVID-19 vaccination or COVID-19 generally with the children, or supply social media or other information about the vaccine or the disease to the children.

2. That neither parent, or any third parties on their behalf, will discuss this litigation with the children.

3. That neither parent will speak negatively about the other in front of the children, or allow any third parties to speak negatively about the other parent in front of the children. This is a term of general application but also relates specifically to the issue of COVID-19 and the vaccination.

Given the stress and anxiety this matter has already caused the children, these directions are made to protect them from receiving further misinformation about COVID-19 and the vaccine, and to shelter them from any ongoing discussion about this litigation.

This judge accepted judicial notice that the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective in children. She determined that it wasn't experimental: "By virtue of its approval by the regulatory authority responsible for testing and approval of drugs for use in Canada, the vaccine is not experimental." She also believes that children are at risk of dying from COVID-19, myocarditis doesn't happen in the 12-17 age group, and that vaccination limits "the spread of illness by limiting its transmissibility".

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2021/2021abqb997/2021abqb997.html

Judge: J.C. Kubik

Saint-Phard v. Saint-Phard, 2021 ONSC 6910 (the family courts will tell you how to parent your kid, judicial notice, bodily autonomy)

The decision notes that "judicial notice may be taken". It goes on to limit what the mother can do in parenting her child. She cannot talk to her child about COVID-19 vaccines, can't have somebody else do it, and can't show her child websites with wrongthink information on COVID-19 vaccines. She also cannot change her child's primary care physician- likely because a Dr. O'Connor (perhaps the same Mary O'Connor that was targeted by the CPSO) recommended against vaccination.

The mother shall not tell, or suggest to Elyon directly or indirectly, that the COVID-19 vaccines are untested, unsafe, ineffective, or that he is particularly at risk from them. Nor may she permit any other person to have any such discussion, or make any such suggestion to the child, directly or indirectly. My order includes that she is prohibited from showing Elyon social media sites, websites, other online information, literature, or any other material that calls into question the safety or efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines or permitting any other person to do so. The respondent shall not involve any medical doctor other than Dr. Tchen in this aspect of Elyon’s care.

The decision also notes that health care providers "may administer the vaccine without parental consent" if the HCP is satisfied that a youth of Elyon’s age (almost 14) is capable of understanding information about the vaccine, why it is recommended and what will happen if they accept or refuse the vaccine. The judge argued that Elyon's views regarding vaccination are wrong: "His current stated view to not have the vaccine is not based on an understanding of accurate medical information as to the benefits and risks of the vaccine. As such it is not a properly informed decision." Thus the child is allowed to consent to vaccination but is not allowed to choose the opposite. The judge deemed it appropriate for the mother to make a medical decision for him.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc6910/2021onsc6910.html

Judge: Mackinnon

A.P. v. L.K., 2021 ONSC 150 (the City of Toronto's Medical Officer of Health argued for judicial notice)

The City of Toronto's medical officer intervened and argued that judicial notice should have been taken regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. The court agreed.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc150/2021onsc150.html

Judge: J.T. Akbarali

Dyquiangco Jr. v. Tipay, 2022 ONSC 1441 (judicial notice- vaccines do not stop transmission)

Judicial notice of 12 facts, 1 of which is:

Vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1441/2022onsc1441.html

Judge: David A. Jarvis

Warren v. Charlton, 2022 ONSC 1088 (judicial notice- vaccines do not stop transmission, mortality rate is low)

The judge took judicial notice of:

a. SARS-CoVi-2 has a low mortality rate, especially in children.

[...]

c. The vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, but they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes.

Arbitration cases (employer mandates)

Electrical Safety Authority v Power Workers’ Union, 2022 CanLII 343 (employer mandate struck down)

The union argued that the employer (ESA) should not be allowed to force employees to be vaccinated. However, it was not a clearcut victory for the union.

The decision contains some editorial comments by the chief arbitrator against the unvaccinated: "As I stated at the beginning, this award should not be taken as a vindication for those who choose, without a legal exemption, not to get vaccinated. Those individuals are in my view misguided and acting against their own and society’s best interests. These individuals may also be placing their ability to earn a living in jeopardy. These individuals should not construe this award as a victory."

Chief arbitrator: John Stout

Legal cases (defamation)

Canadian Frontline Nurses, Choujounian, Nagle, Pitter

The CFLN nurses sued for defamation over hit pieces that were written on them.

The Anti-SLAPP motion against the plaintiffs was successful, so the plaintiffs were required to pay a substantial portion of the defendants' legal fees. (This decision was made before the 2023 Park Lawn ruling that encourages judges to cap anti-SLAPP costs at $50k.) In the 2023 appeal, the legal fees were reduced to a total of $315K.

While the judge found some potential merit to the plaintiff's case, the judge ultimately dismissed the case with the following conclusion:

In light of the foregoing, I conclude that the Plaintiffs have not shown on a balance of probabilities that they likely have suffered or will suffer harm as a result of the CNA Statement and the TNI Article that is sufficiently serious that the public interest in allowing this proceeding to continue outweighs the deleterious effects on expression and public participation and the public interest in protecting that expression.

The judge noted that the bizarre/surprising litigation strategy of the plaintiffs was a factor in his decision:

The decision to sue the TNI Defendants is particularly surprising given that TNI is a small and regional media organization based on Vancouver Island. There appears to be some merit to the TNI Defendants’ submission that the Plaintiffs have deliberately chosen to ignore similar expressions made by media giants and public figures who are better resourced and able to respond to a lawsuit than the TNI Defendants.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc7280/2022onsc7280.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALY2hvdWpvdW5pYW4AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

Their lawyer, Alexander Boissonneau-Lehner, also represented Pitter and Choujounian in other legal proceedings.

Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169

As of 2022, Kaur and Lamba (Ashvinder Kaur Lamba) were ordered to pay costs of $1.1M as the defendants' were successful in their anti-SLAPP motion. See https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKa2F1ciBzbGFwcAAAAAAB&resultIndex=5

Defamation cases unrelated to COVID

In Bent v. Platnick, Bent arguably had a strong anti-SLAPP case as she was alleging wrongdoing by Platnick. However, Platnick derives substantial income from his reputation as his reputation is critical to his work providing medical opinions. Those medical opinions are key to insurance litigation legal actions. According to the Supreme Court of Canada brief: "Bent said that Dr. Platnick had misrepresented and changed other doctors’ reports to make her clients’ injuries look less serious. This meant the people who were hurt would get fewer insurance benefits." The damage to his reputation could be quite substantial. This weighs heavily against the public interest of not allowing defamation lawsuits to chill speech related to public participation.

In a close 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Platnick. Platnick's defamation case against Bent was allowed to proceed and the anti-SLAPP motion failed. One interpretation is that the (alleged) reputational damage must be very high to get past the anti-SLAPP hurdle.

Galloway v. A.B. is another defamation case where the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Galloway says that he faced false accusations of sexual misconduct, with some evidence that some of the statements made against him were false. One could argue that Galloway would be more likely to win his defamation case than Platnick and that anti-SLAPP is less likely to apply for his case.

Relevant legislation

Bill 100, Keeping Ontario Open for Business Act - PASSED

This bill was passed following the Ottawa Trucker Convoy. It provides police with expanded powers to target protestors like the ones who blocked the US-Canada border crossing (Ambassador bridge).

https://brightlightnews.com/interview-bill-100-bruce-pardy-law-professor/

Bill 67, Racial Equity in the Education System Act, 2022 - IN LIMBO

Jordan Peterson publicly spoke out against this bill: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/warning-bill-67/

According to Peterson, bill 67 "will make mandatory the subversion of the entire education system in Ontario (K-12 as well as colleges and universities) to the radically leftist doctrines known as critical theory–a thoroughly anti-western ideology, both post-modern and Marxist in its derivation, based on the idea that all our extant institutions are racist, sexist and discriminatory in their essence."

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-2/bill-67

(British Columbia) Bill 36

The bill allows a health professional to be fined up to $200,000 or jailed up to six months if they knowingly provide “false or misleading information to a person who is exercising a power or performing a duty under this act, or a person acting under the order or direction of that person.” https://www.westernstandard.news/news/doctors-sound-alarm-on-bc-bill-36/article_35f922be-0159-11ee-82d1-a315ee861fd3.html

How to support those persecuted by the colleges

The following spreadsheet lists many of the persecuted doctors and what they're doing now. Many of them have social media accounts or websites where they state how you can support them.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vR0NkYk1TAQS8SEN4PWqrxOd7TGdivDAEDUr9_ceF2oD7qfOzeRiEqKSAPVPTF7NdiU9x-P5x_STWqZ/pubhtml