It’s been over 5 years since Toronto Police showed up in force to close down Adam Skelly’s restaurant in Etobicoke. And it has been ongoing ever since.
He is awaiting sentencing on criminal charges that are stayed pending the outcome of this Application. If he wins here, the charges presumably get thrown out. If this Application fails, then the stay is lifted.
See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background information.
Skelly is taking both the Ontario Government and the City of Toronto to Court, and is directly challenging sections of the Reopening Ontario Act (R.O.A.) which made these shutdowns possible. Adamson Barbeque itself had been named as an Applicant, but has since gone bankrupt.
Finally, we get to hear from Eileen De Villa, who was at the time, the Toronto Medical Officer of Health. She has left the position and claims to be “living her life”.
Currently, the hearing is set for 3 days at the end of February.
Also, the Factum is available, and is an interesting read. Other documents include Skelly’s transcript, and that of Matthew Hodge.
Toronto Health Officials Barred From Revealing Advice To Ford
From pages 95-96: The subject of a November 16th, 2020 publication came up. When asked about whether or not health officials had signed non-disclosure agreements, De Villa’s lawyer refused to answer. A request to see the NDA itself was also refused.
On page 98, her lawyer refused to answer whether or not the topic of Constitutional or Charter Rights had been discussed.
De Villa Admits No Authority To Issue Notice To Trespass
Starting at page 168, De Villa admits she had no actual authority to issue a “Notice To Trespass”. However, it didn’t stop her from issuing orders that effectively did just that. On page 181, her lawyer refuses a request to produce any other related orders she had issued.
Other Interesting Developments
De Villa frequently claims to not remember specific details. It’s unclear whether this is true, as so much time as passed, or if she’s being evasive.
At page 45, De Villa confirmed that she had sought legal advice to determine whether or not she actually had the authority to implement certain measures. A request to get information on that advice was refused.
Page 66, De Villa refused a request to release all data and evidence that had been shared with David Williams, who was the Provincial Medical Officer of Health. This was in response to an October 2nd, 2020 letter. She also refused to answer whether or not her orders were controversial, or had a political impact.
Page 76, De Villa refuses to answer whether or not she had sough input from members of the restaurant or entertainment industry before closing indoor dining. She claims it wasn’t her intention to “decimate” them, but apparently didn’t consult anyone.
Page 81, De Villa is asked about the assertion that 44% of cases from September 20th to 26th had been in restaurants, bars and entertainment venues. She couldn’t answer the source of that information.
Page 99, De Villa refused to discuss what evidence had been shared with the City of Toronto in order to justify various restrictions.
At page 182, De Villa’s lawyer says that she was allowed to issue trespass notices, but will come up with a reason as to why it’s justified.
At page 196, De Villa admits that when the Toronto Public Health Unit filed a lawsuit against Skelly to recoup their funds, he filed a 3rd-Party Claim against her.
At page 197, De Villa refused to answer whether it would be considered a conflict of interest if her husband, Richard Choi, had financial interests in Astra Zeneca.
Overall, it seems pretty clear that De Villa’s counsel was trying to avoid having her answer as many questions as possible. She objected to virtually everything. However, we’ll have to see what the judge decides.
COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Skelly – Restraining Order Deferred Matter
(2) Skelly – Restraining Order Decision, December 2020
(3) Skelly – Criminal Court Limits What He Can Post Online
(4) Skelly – Judge Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Case, June 2021
(5) Skelly – Costs Of $15,000 Ordered For Failed Motion
(6) Skelly – Costs From 2020 Kimmel Decision, Previously Deferred
(7) Skelly – Motion For Security For Costs Decision, September 2023
2020/2021 COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Application Record Restraining Order (Michael Swinwood)
(2) Skelly – Notice of Constitutional Question (February)
(3) Skelly – Amended Notice Of Constitutional Question (June)
(4) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondents (Applicants)
(5) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondent on Motion – HMTQ
(6) Skelly – 2021 Motion Factum
(7) Skelly – 2021 Motion Amended Factum – Respondents (Applicants)
(8) Skelly – DeVilla Transcript
(9) Skelly – 2021 Motion Reply Factum
(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order
MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim
NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Notice Of Application (Ian Perry)
(2) Skelly – Costs – Notice of Motion – Moving Party (Respondent) HMTK
(3) Skelly – Costs – Motion Record-Moving Party (Respondent)
(4) Skelly – Costs – Applicant Responding Motion Record Security For Costs
(5) Skelly – Costs – Factum – Moving Party – HMK
(6) Skelly – Costs – Responding Factum Applicants Skelly et al
(7) Skelly – Justice Akazaki Deferral Of Case
(8) Skelly – Transcript De Villa
(9) Skelly – Transcript Hodge
(10) Skelly – Transcript Skelly
(11) Skelly – Factum 2026 Hearing
EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report
(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report
(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report
(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report
(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report
Discover more from Canuck Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The NDA scheme happens between corporations. The fact that what we think of as a government employee is signing NDA requires an understanding that
(a) no public health agency, not even Health Canada is part of the Canadian government: all are subsidiary corporations of the corporate World Health Organization and always have been;
(b) NDAs are used in almost every case (and not just health and COVID issues) to hide crimes, and this is just another case;
(c) the landmass is ruled over by corporations masquerading as ‘government’ and most are foreign corporations like the WHO, UN, WEF, etc.
Keep up the great reporting…and Happy 2026
Thank you!