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. 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 ray 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

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.

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 (other than defamation)

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

Judges: Corbett, Lederer, Charney

Sonja Kustka and her patients versus CPSO (medical privacy, 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.

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, judges automatically assume that the CPSO is right about the science and acts in good faith without political motivations)

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.

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

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

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

Legal cases (defamation)

Canadian Frontline Nurses, Choujounian, Nagle, Pitter (Ontario defamation case)

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

Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169 (Kulvinder Kaur defamation case)

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

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