Canada – Page 44 of 130

August 28, 2022August 28, 2022

Nova Scotia FOI: Another Data Dump On Cases/Vaxx Rates

More information is coming out of Nova Scotia, thanks to a few dedicated researchers. First, we will get into the correlation between vaxx status and cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths. The data is actually pretty interesting, and can be presented with little comment.

Of course, there is no virus, but that’s another issue.

COVID CASES BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
January 2022	341	43	149	2,649
February 2022	281	18	154	1,475
March 2022	244	3	106	1,363
April 2022	338	1	110	1,231

HOSPITALIZATIONS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
August 2021	1	0	0	0
September 2021	16	2	10	5
October 2021	3	1	6	8
November 2021	13	1	7	9
December 2021	5	0	2	34
January 2022	32	5	10	110
February 2022	36	1	5	58
March 2022	23	0	2	16
April 2022	30	0	4	28

ICU ADMISSIONS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
August 2021	0	0	0	0
September 2021	2	0	2	2
October 2021	2	1	1	0
November 2021	3	1	4	5
December 2021	2	0	1	5
January 2022	6	4	1	21
February 2022	9	0	2	12
March 2022	7	0	1	2
April 2022	6	0	1	9

DEATHS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
August 2021	0	0	0	0
September 2021	2	0	0	3
October 2021	2	0	0	1
November 2021	2	0	1	7
December 2021	1	0	1	7
January 2022	15	0	1	51
February 2022	17	2	4	21
March 2022	9	0	2	18
April 2022	17	0	1	17

ADVERSE REACTIONS
MONTH REPORTED	SERIOUS	NON-SERIOUS	TOTAL
August 2021	57	5	62
September 2021	23	6	29
October 2021	39	8	47
November 2021	28	11	39
December 2021	26	5	31
January 2022	27	3	30
February 2022	24	27	51
March 2022	36	8	44
April 2022	65	14	79

And how many people typically die in a year in Nova Scotia? Keep in mind, it’s around 1,000,000 people, so several thousands should be expected annually. Keep in mind, this encompasses all causes of death.

TOTAL DEATHS
MONTH	Y2019	Y2020	Y2021	Y2022
January	920	888	862	873
February	804	821	812	230*
March	936	888	850	–
April	807	865	759	–
May	783	847	874	–
June	774	716	790	–
July	767	805	776
August	791	757	816	–
September	701	802	837	–
October	807	813	881	–
November	818	883	907	–
December	864	879	908	–
Total	9,772	9,964	10,072	1,103*

Here’s another document, almost 60 pages, that is worth a quick look. There’s too much to properly address everything in this one article. Also, yet one more is available. Now, for some disclaimers that everyone should be familiar with:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

This has been covered before, but is worth a going over. The definition of a “Covid death” is nothing short of fraud. The original has been moved or deleted, but the archive is still available.

As a reminder, the WHO said in its March 2020 guidance (page 3), and September 2020 guidance (page 8) that virus isolation is not recommended for routine diagnostic procedures.

Confirmed case
.
A person with confirmation of infection with SARS-CoV-2 documented by:
.
• The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) assay (e.g., real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequendng) performed at a community, hospital, or reference laboratory (the National Microbiology Laboratory or a provincial public health laboratory)
or
• The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated point-of-care {POC) NAAT that has been deemed acceptable to provide a final result (i.e., does not require confirmatory testing)
or
• Seroconversion or diagnostic rise (at least 4-fold or greater from baseline) in viral specific antibody titre in serum or plasma using a validated laboratory-based serological assay for SARS-CoV-2

In fact, given the testing “requirements” provided, it doesn’t appear that any proof of a virus is required in any stage.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated. Other interesting reads are apocalypticyoga, by Bill Huston, Stormhaven, by William Ray, and What’s Up Canada by Wayne Peters.

(1) 2022-00626-HEA Response Package
(2) 2022-00445-HEA Response Package Test Results Nova Scotia Redacted
(3) Decision – 2022-00455-Long Redacted

OTHER IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf (Original)
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf

August 27, 2022August 27, 2022

Nova Scotia FOI: Gov’t Data On Deaths By Age/Vaxx Status

People in Nova Scotia continue to dig for information about this so-called pandemic. The full listings to date are below. This piece involves official death statistics in that area.

The demographic and place of residence data for Nova Scotians who died from COVID-19 since January 1, 2022. Date of death. Vaccination status.

Before getting into the statistics, a few disclaimers are needed. The most obvious of which is that no virus has ever been proven to exist.

This has been covered before, but is worth a going over. The definition of a “Covid death” is nothing short of fraud. The original has been moved or deleted, but the archive is still available.

It’s also interesting that a “Medical Officer of Health”, who doesn’t even practice, is able to overrule local authorities in determining the cause of death. These deaths can also be attributed to “Covid” as long as there is believed to be some contributing factor. Pretty subjective.

Now, onto the data provided by Nova Scotia:

MONTH	DEATH TOTAL
January 1 -31, 2022	67
February 1 – 28, 2022	61
March 1 – 31, 2022	44
April 1 – 30, 2022	85
May 1 – 31, 2022	65
June 1 – 20, 2022	13
TOTALS	335

# OF SHOTS	DEATH TOTAL
0 (Purebloods)	58
1	9
2	96
3 or more	172
TOTALS	335

The FOI response adds in a disclaimer that no real conclusion can be drawn between vaccine efficacy and other factors. One would think that they don’t want people thinking these shots are useless (at best) or harmful (at worst).

SEX	DEATH TOTAL
Male	189
Female	146
Combined	335

Seems that none of the other 167 genders have fatalities to report in this deadly pandemic. What a strange observation we have here.

AGE GROUP	DEATH TOTAL
0 – 9	0
10 – 19	Less Than 5
20 – 29	0
30 – 39	Less Than 5
40 – 49	7
50 – 59	13
60 – 69	33
70 – 79	86
80 – 89	125
Over 90	69

The overwhelming majority of deaths are people who have had at least 2 shots. The majority are also seniors 70 years of age and older. Keep in mind, Nova Scotia has a population of approximately 1,000,000 people. Even if 1,000 people were to have died (with a direct causal link), it would be only 0.1% of the population. And we see just how flexible these people are with their definitions.

It’s almost as if there’s no virus, and that there’s no discernible health benefit to taking these experimental vaccines.

As a reminder, the WHO said in its March 2020 guidance (page 3), and September 2020 guidance (page 8) that virus isolation is not recommended for routine diagnostic procedures.

(1) 2022-00956-HEA_PublicPackage Nova Scotia
(2) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(4) “https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(5) https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/
(6) https://stormhaven.blog/
(7) https://www.whatsupcanada.org/

August 24, 2022October 22, 2022

VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)

Here is the latest on the (second) Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit, filed July 6, 2020.

This website has been about the only media outlet that has fully and truthfully reported on a number of high profile “anti-lockdown” lawsuits. Despite the hype surrounding them — and the endless requests for donations — there is stunningly little to report.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that nothing has been happening. According to the Ontario Court, these are all the documents that are available as of today, August 24, 2022.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

After more than 2 years, all that has happened is that: (a) there was a Notice of Discontinuance against the CBC (removing them from the case); and (b) Nicola Mercer, MOH for the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, filed a Statement of Defense.

CBC implied in August 2020 that they were never served. They said they “obtained an unredacted copy”, which implies they contacted the Court directly. This is not proper service, and doesn’t start the 20 day time limit. Now, they threaten to bring a SLAPP Motion?! When were they served?

Interestingly, the Affidavit of Service came from Nicola Mercer’s lawyer when serving the Statement of Defense. There doesn’t appear to be any Affidavits of Service from the Plaintiffs for the Statement of Claim. Therefore, it’s a fair question to ask who has actually been served.

Considering the Claim is missing most service addresses, that alone may open it up to procedural challenges.

Here are a few points from Mercer’s Statement of Defense:

A “good faith” defense is raised with respect to issuing orders
There are statutory provisions to allow for such orders
Mercer was following the so-called scientific consensus
Mercer relies on a provision granting immunity
Paragraphs 25 and 26 say that all orders have expired, and that the issue is moot.

That last point is of particular concern. By doing nothing for 2 years, the Defendants, or at least this one, can now say there’s no issue, as the orders are over. “Moot” in the legal sense refers to something that has already been resolved, and thus, there’s no reason to bring to Court.

In essence, Mercer claims (as one defense) that so much time has elapsed, the issue of the various orders is no longer relevant.

This site covered the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits. It was described in great detail how both Claims were horribly defective, and likely to be thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

This wasn’t designed to smear or defame anyone. Instead, these critiques were meant to be brutally honest reviews about what was wrong with the pleadings. They were drafted so poorly that it was difficult to view this as anything other than intentional.

This is from a recent stream. Don’t worry, more is available:

The above clips are from Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 13, 2022 livestream. Quotes from these are very revealing as to what’s really been going on.

“Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides…. There’s [more to] the impact of your legal proceedings than simply what happens within the Court.”
“It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds.”
“We brought awareness to a dynamic that was hidden from the public.”
“I would suggest that maybe this was the most important impact we had to date.”
“The VCC case was initiated as a shot across the bow.”
“It was aimed at [mandatory vaccines and mask exemptions]”.
“As soon as we filed, they quickly back-peddled in Ontario and put in regulations that allowed for masking exemptions, in the wording we were advocating for.”
“This is not Hollywood. Constitutional issues are not always resolved in the Courtroom.”
“They’re resolved by pre-emptive action that makes the Government have a sober second thought.”
“It’s not as if the VCC challenge has had no effect, particularly in Ontario.”
“A lot of the issues being raised in the umbrella challenge are not being pursued [within other challenges].”

These video clips are essentially admissions that the July 6, 2020 lawsuit was brought for reasons other than to diligently pursue a Trial. Pretty moronic. It’s obvious from the total lack of progress that there was never any urgency in bringing this forward.

Yes, other people have filed lawsuits with ulterior motives in the past. Others will do so in the future. But few are dumb enough to brag on a livestream that this is what was really happening.

It takes a special kind of stupid to admit this. While the Ontario Attorney General could always file a Motion to strike (for a variety of reasons), this makes it much easier. Beyond that, filing lawsuits with no intention to pursue them could lead to serious issues with the Law Society of Ontario, or whichever Province one practices in.

It’s unclear how this July 6, 2020 case was used to “leverage” anything out of the Ford Regime. It was written in such a disjointed manner, and contained so much irrelevant information, it would have been easy to get struck. This isn’t a document that would shake and scare the A.G.’s Office. It’s the kind of rant that would make most lawyers laugh.

Supposedly, there is some larger “litigation strategy” that Vaccine Choice refuses to disclose. This is a massive bait-and-switch. In the Summer of 2020, there was a fundraising blitz undertaken to raise cash for this ground breaking suit. This comes across as extremely unethical.

Many people donated in good faith to these lawsuits, believing that proceeding to Trial was the ultimate goal. But that apparently isn’t the case.

In the Summer of 2021, new talking points emerged about there being “Affidavits of evidence” that totaled in the thousands of pages. However, they haven’t been filed anywhere, if they even exist. A likely explanation is that this was done to quell concerns about the complete lack of activity.

And now that the various orders are (for now, at least) gone, it wouldn’t take much to get the case tossed for mootness. This 2 year delay made this possible.

Also, consider the Action4Canada case as a reference point. Brief responses were filed by the Defendants, followed by Applications to Strike. The B.C. Attorney General’s Office argued that the the long delays were used to drive up donations, while making no real progress. It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 session that over $750,000 had been raised. Currently, Judgement is reserved on various Applications to strike that suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

All of this was laid out last August.
Vindication is bittersweet.

It’s not a stretch to see the Vaccine Choice Canada case going down that same path. The much longer delay is curious, and again raises questions of when Defendants were actually served.

The admissions that the July 6 case was a “shot across the bow”, or done “as pre-emptive action”, or done “to educate the public”, make it clear there were other agendas at play.

Donors should demand their money back, and Vaccine Choice really needs to open up the books for public inspection.

Now, about those rumours….

It’s not really a secret that this website (and anyone directly or indirectly associated) was sued last year for $7,000,000. The main issue was reporting the observation that it didn’t appear these anti-lockdown suits were ever meant to go to Trial. The problems, including defects with the pleadings themselves, were covered in great detail. More on that another time.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view

August 20, 2022August 20, 2022

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

This article is going to be a little disjointed, but the purpose is to show how convoluted and illogical drugs policies are becoming in the Province of British Columbia.

Decriminalization
B.C. is the first province in Canada to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of people who use drugs will reduce the fear and shame that keeps people silent and leads so many to hide their drug use and avoid treatment and support. Reducing the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s work to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care. Decriminalization will become effective Jan. 31, 2023, and the Province will work with a broad cross-section of partners to make sure police are trained and health authorities are prepared for this change.

The B.C Government got a 3 year exemption from Ottawa for possession of narcotics — any narcotics — that are in small enough quantities, and for personal use.

The (outgoing) Premier sent his condolences for deaths that resulted from a poisoned supply. Of course, it’s a bit rich considering that these drugs are poison to begin with. Perhaps they were just killing off the customers too quickly.

Just 2 years ago, Horgan actually recommended staying home and smoking pot as a way to stay safe during the so-called pandemic. There was even a “Good Times” website up in the Summer of 2020. It’s since been removed, but the archived version is still available.

The BCCDC, or B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has guidelines surrounding illicit drug use. Note: it doesn’t appear that stopping is a major objective. Here’s an archived version of it.

Some initiatives to combat drug abuse include:

Decriminalization
Access to prescribed safer supply, a Canadian first
Overdose prevention and supervised consumption services
Lifeguard App
Take-home naloxone kits
New beds for addictions and recovery care
Expanded scope of nursing practice, a Canadian first (RN prescriptions)
Expanded opioid agonist treatment

Now, there are also programs at various stages for emergency responses and expanded treatment options. However, considering the efforts untaken to expand drug use in this Province, efforts to stop the problem seem insincere.

Of course, the BC Centre for Disease Control is compromised, to put it mildly. The BCCDC Foundation is a registered charity, and gets major tax breaks. Its donors include drug companies, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Archive here). Should the organizations impacting public policy be getting donations from the same companies who profit from — vaccine mandates?

Champions
Our $75,000 – $250,000 Donors

GlaxoSmithKline
Julie Glover
Pfizer Canada Inc.
Unbounded Canada Foundation
Vancouver Foundation

Ambassadors
$25,000 – $74,999.99 Donors

British Columbia Association for Sexual Health
Merck Canada Inc.
Pacific Blue Cross
Teradici Corp

Allies
$5,000 – $24,999.99 Donors

AbbVie Canada Corp.
Associated Canadian Theological Schools Society
BC Teachers’ Federation
Ben and Lilac Milne
BlueSky Properties
Chef Ann Kirsebom’s Gourmet Sauces / BBQ Ltd.
Connor, Clark & Lunn Foundation
Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.
Imperial Medical Group Inc.
Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
LifeLabs
London Drugs Limited
Orbis Investments Canada Ltd.
Sanofi
Vancouver Dispensary Society
Vard Electro Canada Inc.

Just a thought: but perhaps the pharma money that the BCCDC Foundation receives contributes to the fact that it’s so pro-pharma. This cannot be ignored. Nor can the charity status of the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority.

In 2018, B.C. began a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health-care costs that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

B.C. alleges that opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with a view to increase sales, resulting in increased rates of addiction and overdose. Purdue Canada is one among over 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the class action commenced in 2018 and scheduled for a certification hearing in the next year.

The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit. This settlement was reached very early in the litigation process, before the allegations against Purdue Canada have been proven in court. This is the largest settlement of a governmental health claim in Canadian history. The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts, expected in the next few months.

At the end of June 2022, the B.C. announced a proposed $150 million settlement with Purdue Canada over its business practices.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the extra health care costs, and it seems unlikely that court rulings will come close to compensating the public. Of course, this only speaks to the financial burdens, not the societal and personal losses.

This is pretty convoluted to think that drug laws are getting watered down, resulting in easier access to drugs. Meanwhile, society is plagued by the results of legal drugs (opioids). It’s not just deaths, but ruined lives and families that are the collateral damages.

Will this settlement result in these pharmaceuticals being taken off the market, at least for the most part? Or will these court actions simply be viewed as the cost of doing business?

It’s difficult to see that the Government here is serious about ending drug problems in this Province. Then again, maybe the goal is not to stop it, but just to control it.

(1) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1559588217208184832
(2) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1294762295348715520
(3) https://goodtimes.gov.bc.ca/
(4) https://archive.ph/naVsZ
(5) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/priority-populations/people-who-use-substances
(6) https://archive.ph/AVbNY
(7) https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/escalated-drug-poisoning-response-actions-1
(8) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/substance-use-harm-reduction-dashboard
(9) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/death/coroners-service/statistical-reports
(10) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug-type.pdf
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(12) https://bccdcfoundation.org/our-donors/
(13) https://archive.ph/bg8cd
(14) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0044-001031

August 18, 2022

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

An Ontario Superior Court Judge dismissed an application to essentially force a minor to get a shot against her will.

Parents were in the midst of divorce and custody issues, and the topic of the “vaccines” came up. The father was insistent that the daughter get it, while the mother said she would respect the girl’s own choices. The girl, who is 12 years old, has outright refused to get it.

Throughout the decision, the term “taken judicial notice” comes up again and again. What this means is that a court will not look into an issue, simply because some other court or adjudication body has already done so. While there is a certain logic to it, garbage rulings can also simply be accepted on this basis.

[1] The respondent father brings this motion seeking an order directing that the applicant mother ensure that their daughter is vaccinated against COVID-19 and that she receives any further and additional scheduled vaccinations in accordance with provincial recommendations, failing which the father shall be permitted to return this matter to seek sole decision-making authority over all aspects of the child’s medical care.

[11] Unfortunately, Mr. Tonge was not able to provide the opinion requested. By letter to the parties dated February 22, 2022, Mr. Tonge stated that he understood he was requested and agreed to assist S. in reconnecting with her father and not to undertake an assessment of parental influence. He was unaware of the vaccination issue until it was raised by S.. Mr. Tonge could not comment on the “presence or absence of parental influence and the understanding, capacity and maturity of this child to make a decision” as he was not asked to, nor did he agree to conduct such an assessment.

[15] The respondent father’s position is that it is presumptively in S.’s best interest that she be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus and mother has provided no evidence to rebut this presumption. The apparent objections of S. do not stem from any sound medical evidence or opinion. Mother has improperly left the decision up to S. who is not old enough, mature enough, or knowledgeable enough to make such a major health decision. Thus, it falls on this court to step in and protect the child’s best interests, to make sure that she receives her COVID-19 vaccination to protect her and to protect her classmates, her friends, her neighbours, and family.

[37] The issue before the court in taking judicial notice of scientific facts is not assessing whether the science is “fake science”, but whether scientific facts that would normally require expert opinion to be admitted, may be judicially noticed without proof. This issue was recently addressed by Breithaupt Smith J. in R.S.P. v. H.L.C. 2021 ONSC 8362 in which she provided what has been described as a timely warning (J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 at para 65):

[42] I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.

[43] Even if I were to take judicial notice of the “safety” and “efficacy” of the vaccine, I still have no basis for assessing what that means for this child. I must still determine how safe, how efficacious the vaccine is for this child. Does safe mean there are no side effects? Is the vaccine effective in protecting her from contracting COVID-19, from spreading it, from dying from it, from severity of symptoms? As with informed consent, there are many factors that must be carefully considered in weighing risks and benefits.

[58] I am mindful in considering S’s best interests that an order that mother ensure she is vaccinated would have irreversible consequences, if S. was vaccinated as a result. One cannot be unvaccinated. In that respect, it is a final order.

[59] Finally, I am satisfied that S. is a “mature minor” as explained by Abella J. in A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 at para 47. S. is capable with respect to treatment pursuant to s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO 1996, c 2, Sch A. She is mature enough to accept or refuse treatment.

There is a certain logic to it. If young children are “mature” enough to get the shot, then they should be mature enough to make the decision to refuse it.

The court also makes the observation that a person cannot ever be “unvaccinated”. That alone should be enough to give pause before pushing these injections. It was also noted that the “evidence” seems to keep changing, which is another reason to not take the matter as settled.

This adolescent girl seems to have more sense than either of her parents, but at least the mother was willing to respect her personal choices.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.pdf

M.M. v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580

August 17, 2022August 17, 2022

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a.k.a. euthanasia or assisted suicide, had been touted as proponents as having an extremely limited scope. In other words, it would be available to people with terminal illnesses, who were otherwise living in extreme pain.

Bill C-14 was supposed to be limited to terminal cases. In the next session, Bill C-7 increased the eligibility options. Suddenly, even people with serious mental illnesses were able to obtain euthanasia, provided the mental problem wasn’t the sole reason.

And now, we reach the point where people whose SOLE problem is a mental illness can be put down with the help of so-called medical professionals. The people pushing the slippery slope argument have been proven correct once again.

An interim report was released in June 2022, and it’s widely expected that expanding the scope will become law very soon.

MAID PRACTICE STANDARDS

Recommendation 1: Development of MAiD practice standards
The federal, provincial and territorial governments should facilitate the collaboration of physician and nurse regulatory bodies in the development of Standards of Practice for physicians and nurse practitioners for the assessment of MAiD requests in situations that raise questions about incurability, irreversibility, capacity, suicidality, and the impact of structural vulnerabilities. These standards should elaborate upon the subject matter of recommendations 2–13.

INTERPRETING GRIEVOUS AND IRREMEDIABLE MEDICAL CONDITION

Recommendation 2: Establishing incurability
MAiD assessors should establish incurability with reference to treatment attempts made up to that point, outcomes of those treatments, and severity and duration of illness, disease or disability. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many treatment attempts, how many kinds of treatments, and over what period of time as this will vary according to the nature and severity of medical conditions the person has and their overall health status. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. As with many chronic conditions, the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

Recommendation 3: Establishing irreversibility
MAiD assessors should establish irreversibility with reference to interventions tried that are designed to improve function, including: recognized rehabilitative and supportive measures that have been tried up to that point, outcomes of those interventions, and the duration of decline. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time, as this will vary according to a requester’s baseline function as well as life goals. Therefore, this must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.

Recommendation 4: Understanding enduring and Intolerable suffering
MAiD assessors should come to an understanding with the requester that the illness, disease or disability or functional decline causes the requester enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering.

VULNERABILITIES

Recommendation 5: Comprehensive capacity assessments
MAiD assessors should undertake thorough and, where appropriate, serial assessments of a requester’s decision-making capacity in accordance with clinical standards and legal criteria. These assessments should be consistent with approaches laid out in standardized capacity evaluation tools.

Recommendation 6: Means available to relieve suffering
To ensure all requesters have access to the fullest possible range of social supports which could potentially contribute to reducing suffering, the Panel recommends that ’community services’ in Track 2 Safeguard 241.2(3.1)(g) should be interpreted as including housing and income supports as means available to relieve suffering and should be offered to MAiD requesters, where appropriate.

Recommendation 7: Interpretation of track 2 safeguard 241.2(3.1)(h) the person has given serious consideration to those means
Serious consideration should be interpreted to mean genuine openness to the means available to relieve suffering and how they could make a difference in the person’s life.

Recommendation 8: Consistency, durability, and well-considered nature of a maid request
Assessors should ensure that the requester’s wish for death is consistent with the person’s values and beliefs, unambiguous and rationally considered during a period of stability, not during a period of crisis.

Recommendation 9: Situations of involuntariness
Persons in situations of involuntariness for periods shorter than six months should be assessed following this period to minimize the potential contribution of the involuntariness on the request for MAiD. For those who are repeatedly or continuously in situations of involuntariness, (e.g., six months or longer, or repeated periods of less than six months), the institutions responsible for the person should ensure that assessments for MAiD are performed by assessors who do not work within or are associated with the institution.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Recommendation 10: Independent assessor with expertise
The requester should be assessed by at least one assessor with expertise in the condition(s). In cases involving MAiD MD-SUMC, the assessor with expertise in the condition should be a psychiatrist independent from the treating team/provider. Assessors with expertise in the person’s condition(s) should review the diagnosis, and ensure the requester is aware of all reasonable options for treatment and has given them serious consideration.

Recommendation 11: Involvement of other healthcare professionals
Assessors should involve medical subspecialists and other healthcare professionals for consultations and additional expertise where necessary.

Recommendation 12: Discussion with treating team and collateral information
• If the requester’s primary healthcare provider is not one of the assessors, assessors should obtain input from that person. When the requester’s clinical care is shared by members of a multidisciplinary healthcare team, assessors should solicit their input as well.
• With a requester’s consent, assessors and providers shall obtain collateral information relevant to eligibility and capacity assessment. This should include reviewing medical records, prior MAiD assessments, and discussions with family members or significant others. Care must be taken to determine that obtaining collateral information will not be harmful to the requester.

Recommendation 13: Challenging interpersonal dynamics
Assessors and providers should be self-reflective and examine their reactions to those they assess. If their reactions compromise their ability to carry out the assessment in accordance with professional norms, they should seek supervision from mentors and colleagues, and/or discontinue involvement in the assessment process. The practitioner should adhere to any local policies concerning withdrawal from a MAiD assessment and onward referral.

IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendation 14: Consultations with first nations, inuit and métis peoples
Consultation between health regulatory bodies in each province and territory with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples must aim to create practice standards with respect to MAiD MD-SUMC, and MAiD more generally, that incorporate Indigenous perspectives and are relevant to their communities.

Recommendation 15: Training of assessors and providers in specialized topics
To support consistent application of the law and to ensure high quality and culturally sensitive care, assessors and providers should participate in training opportunities that address topics of particular salience to MAiD MD-SUMC. These include, but are not limited to: capacity assessment, trauma-informed care and cultural safety.

Recommendation 16: Prospective oversight
Given its concurrent jurisdiction in relation to MAiD, the federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of a model of prospective oversight for all or some Track 2 cases that could be adapted by provinces and territories.

Recommendation 17: Case-based quality assurance and education
The federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of provincial/territorial systems of MAiD case review for educational and quality improvement purposes.

Recommendation 18: Modifications to data collection under the federal maid monitoring system
Data related to specific topics (eligibility, supported decision-making, means available to relieve suffering, refusal of means available, and residence and legal status) should be collected in the MAiD monitoring system in addition to data already collected under the 2018 Regulations. These data can be used to assess whether key areas of concern raised about MAiD MD-SUMC and complex Track 2 cases discussed in this report are being addressed by the clinical practices recommended.

Recommendation 19: Periodic, federally funded research
The federal government should fund both targeted and investigator-initiated periodic research on questions relating to the practice of MAiD (including but not only MAiD MD-SUMC).

If nothing else, Recommendation #8 points out that this should only be an option during a period of stability, and not during a crisis.

Keep in mind, this is only an interim report. There’s nothing to suggest this won’t be expanded on at some later point.

Since its inception, the rates of people receiving assistance in suicide has increased year over year. This will surely raise those numbers even more.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/Work
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/AMAD/report-1/
(3) https://parl.ca/Content/Committee/441/AMAD/Reports/RP11896958/amadrp01/amadrp01-e.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-14-assisted-suicide/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/euthanasia-3-bill-c-7-to-expand-scope-of-assisted-suicide/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/recent-statistics-on-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-in-canada/

Category: Canada

Nova Scotia FOI: Another Data Dump On Cases/Vaxx Rates

Like this:

Nova Scotia FOI: Gov’t Data On Deaths By Age/Vaxx Status

Like this:

VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)

Like this:

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

Like this:

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

Like this:

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: