Category: Drugs/Alcohol

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

This article concerns a lawsuit from July 6, 2020, which had previously been talked about. This is the challenge from Vaccine Choice Canada and several individuals which was supposed to end all regulations and medical martial law in Canada.

Instead of that, this lawsuit is no closer to Trial than it was 14 months ago. There are still no defenses filed. In fact, other than Windsor-Essex Country and their MOH, Wajid Ahmed, no one else is even listed as having a lawyer. Rather than file an application for a default judgement, Vaccine Choice Canada has been content to let it sit forever, and just ask for donations. This is clearly designed to go nowhere, but that is never made clear to the people who get solicited for money.

And no, it’s not their only case. There is another filed on October 24, 2019, to challenge mandatory immunization of students. There has been no movement on that since March 2020, when the pleadings ended.

The shoddy work of the 2020 case had been critiqued before, however, it’s long time to take a look at the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario. Let’s see exactly why this is due to fail, assuming it were ever challenged. It’s not enough to say that a document is garbage. Instead, it must be explained “why” that is the case.

Recently, the suit from Action4Canada was critiqued, and much the same defects were noted. That will never get to Trial either.

As with the last review, the pleadings are so awful, that it’s difficult to believe this was done by accident. This doesn’t look like the work of a lawyer with 35-40 years of experience, but someone who is trying to ensure a case gets bogged down.

To be clear, this isn’t a defense of Trudeau, Ford, Tory, or any of their authoritarian operatives. That being said, it’s impossible to pretend that this lawsuit actually stands a chance in Court.

To start off, let’s look at a few parts of the Ontario Rules for Civil Procedure. This will list the specifics which are relevant here.

RULE 2.1 GENERAL POWERS TO STAY OR DISMISS IF VEXATIOUS, ETC.
STAY, DISMISSAL OF FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS, ABUSIVE PROCEEDING
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
.
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

RULE 18 TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
18.01 Except as provided in rule 18.02 or subrule 19.01 (5) (late delivery of defence) or 27.04 (2) (counterclaim against plaintiff and non-party), a statement of defence (Form 18A) shall be delivered,
.
(a) within twenty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served in Ontario;
(b) within forty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; or
(c) within sixty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served anywhere else. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.01.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND
18.02 (1) A defendant who is served with a statement of claim and intends to defend the action may deliver a notice of intent to defend (Form 18B) within the time prescribed for delivery of a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (1).
.
(2) A defendant who delivers a notice of intent to defend within the prescribed time is entitled to ten days, in addition to the time prescribed by rule 18.01, within which to deliver a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (2).
.
(3) Subrules (1) and (2) apply, with necessary modifications, to,
(a) a defendant to a counterclaim who is not already a party to the main action and who has been served with a statement of defence and counterclaim; and
(b) a third party who has been served with a third party claim. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (3).

If a Defendant doesn’t file a defence after 20 days, the Plaintiff can go seek a default judgement. This essentially means (if granted) the case would effectively be over. Note: a Defendant can still file a notice of intent, which buys them an extra 10 days. It does not stop the proceedings entirely.

RULE 19 DEFAULT PROCEEDINGS
NOTING DEFAULT
Where no Defence Delivered
.
19.01 (1) Where a defendant fails to deliver a statement of defence within the prescribed time, the plaintiff may, on filing proof of service of the statement of claim, or of deemed service under subrule 16.01 (2), require the registrar to note the defendant in default. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.01 (1); O. Reg. 113/01, s. 3.

CONSEQUENCES OF NOTING DEFAULT
19.02 (1) A defendant who has been noted in default,
.
(a) is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the statement of claim; and
(b) shall not deliver a statement of defence or take any other step in the action, other than a motion to set aside the noting of default or any judgment obtained by reason of the default, except with leave of the court or the consent of the plaintiff. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.02 (1).

According to the Rules, if a Defendant never bothers to file any sort of response, the facts are considered to be admitted. However, an application for default judgement has to actually be submitted.

RULE 24 DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR DELAY
Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

Although it’s unclear who was served, Rule 24 could apply for a variety of different reasons. It’s also worth noting that Rule 14.08 specifies that a Statement of Claim must be served within 6 months of being filed.

RULES OF PLEADING — APPLICABLE TO ALL PLEADINGS
Material Facts
.
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (1).
.
Pleading Law
.
(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (2).

Documents or Conversations
.
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (7).

In other words, the pleadings should not contain long quotes. References or short mentions are fine, but there isn’t supposed to be entire paragraphs or pages for this. These aren’t some abstract or archaic concepts, but are pretty basic in terms of drawing up documents.

Claim for Relief
.
25.06(9) Where a pleading contains a claim for relief, the nature of the relief claimed shall be specified and, where damages are claimed,
.
(a) the amount claimed for each claimant in respect of each claim shall be stated; and
.
(b) the amounts and particulars of special damages need only be pleaded to the extent that they are known at the date of the pleading, but notice of any further amounts and particulars shall be delivered forthwith after they become known and, in any event, not less than ten days before trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (9).

This should be commonsense, but if money is going to be demanded (and there are multiple Plaintiffs), one needs to specify who gets what. This avoids confusion and arguments later on.

PARTICULARS
25.10 Where a party demands particulars of an allegation in the pleading of an opposite party, and the opposite party fails to supply them within seven days, the court may order particulars to be delivered within a specified time. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.10.

A demand for particulars is what gets served when the claim or application is convoluted to understand. This would be another option here. The Defendants could quite reasonably reply with a request that it be made clear what the other side actually wants.

STRIKING OUT A PLEADING OR OTHER DOCUMENT
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
.
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.

These Rules around pleadings are pretty similar to Rule 3-1 and 3-7 in the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure. There are minor differences, but the regulations around drafting and serving pleadings is much the same. Now, let’s get into some specific criticisms.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) states that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts. This is not at all concise. This 191 page filing is rambling, redundant, and contains bald allegations without underlying facts listed to support them.

As one example, look at page 21 and Cindy Campbell. Instead of briefly stating facts, this goes on and on about her story. These long, bloated paragraphs make it impossible for the other side to simply admit or deny allegations. This is done very poorly. It continues with Groza, Lepe, Spizzirri and Shepherd.

In fact, the bulk of the SoC doesn’t belong here, and would certainly be struck if challenged by the Defendants. More on that coming up.

2. Relief For Each Claimant Not Stated In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(9)(a) spells out that the amount for each Claimant (or person suing), must be stated clearly. On page 18, there is a request for $11 million, but it appears to be against CBC only. Moreover, it isn’t clear who exactly it’s supposed to go to.

Against the Crown and Municipal Defendants, no money is sought, only declarative and injunctive relief. That’s right, Trudeau, Tam, Ford, and co. aren’t being sued for a penny.

Apparently, brevity isn’t the name of the game here. The relief sought runs from page 4 to 18, and is incredibly repetitive and redundant.

3. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) does demand that facts be pleaded, however, it also states that evidence MUST NOT be included. From pages 82 to 103, there are many quotes are references to other experts who have differing views. While that is fine in principle, this is not the place to do it. If they have value as experts, then they need to be called to give evidence at a later time. None of that should be in a SoC.

Also, throughout the document, media articles are often cited and included in the footnotes. That may be fine in other contexts, but Court pleadings is not one of them.

4. Long Quotes Also Abundant In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(7) instructs that the “effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material”. In short, we don’t need the entire story told here. Keep it brief.

As just one example, look at page 82. What follows are lengthy quotes from various experts. This goes on for several pages, and should not be included in an SoC. If they are relevant, then the people speaking those words need to be called as expert witnesses at a later date.

5. Making Conclusions Without Supporting Facts

Rule 25.11 allows the court to strike out pleadings that:
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

Beginning at page 146, the SoC goes on to make sweeping declarations on a variety of subjects, despite having little to no foundation. While the bulk of the content is true, underlying facts haven’t been included. There are references to media articles, but again, that shouldn’t be there. The SoC is such a mess that the entire document would probably get thrown out if a motion were filed.

Despite a lot of the content being truthful, all allegations in the SoC will be open to challenge by opposing parties. Countless witnesses would have to be called to prove this, and much more. This is written up in such a way that it would be impossible to bring to trial in any reasonable amount of time — notwithstanding it just sitting for a year.

6. Issues With Denis Rancourt’s Pleadings In Statement Of Claim

Denis Rancourt’s introduction starts on page 39 of the SoC, and yes, he has quite the accomplished background as a researcher and academic.

However, it doesn’t look like any facts are pleaded that would implicate the Defendants. On page 40, it’s stated that Research Gate removed an article, and on page 41, YouTube removed his videos. But they aren’t being sued, so this is irrelevant. He also claims that CBC wouldn’t air his work, which is probably annoying, but doesn’t seem to give rise to a lawsuit.

Page 42 goes on to assert that Rancourt’s free speech and expression rights have been violated. But this appears to be making bald assertions or conclusions without pleading necessary facts.

On page 86, Rancourt is quoted as an expert, which may cause issues considering he’s a Plaintiff here. He’s also listed as a mask expert in the Police On Guard case.

7. Service Likely To Be Challenged (If It Ever Happened)

This may seem pretty basic, but the addresses for service have to be included in the SoC. All of them must be, even if multiple parties can be served at the same address. Only a handful are in this case (seen in page 2 and 3). Should the Defendants stop ignoring this case, it may become a real problem.

Then again, it’s an open question how many of these parties have been served at all. The only ones we can be sure of are Windsor-Essex County and their Doctor. The Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, replied to several inquiries that there was nothing filed beyond that notice of intent from WEC. No affidavits of service, even months later.

CBC News has obtained an unredacted copy of a lawsuit launched by an anti-vaccination advocacy group against the government response to the coronavirus crisis, the details of which can now be independently verified and publicly reported for the first time.
.
The lawsuit was filed July 6 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto by Aylmer, Ont.-based Vaccine Choice Canada and seven individuals. The legal action is a challenge under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the country’s pandemic response measures, including compulsory face masks, the closure of businesses and the enforcement of physical distancing.

In an August 2020 article, CBC claimed that they had “obtained an unredacted copy” of the lawsuit. They imply they were never served, and only got a copy of contacting the Court itself. Whether this is true or not is unclear, but pretty damning if it is. Interestingly, it’s mentioned how the case might get dismissed because it doesn’t comply with the rules, and doesn’t justify a lot of its allegations. CBC also says that Galati refused an on-the-record interview, but then threatened the network with how they cover the protests. All of this sounds surprisingly believable.

Granted, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines last year. But that ended on September 14, 2020. There’s no valid excuse for a response to have not been sent by now.

The items listed above are not minor errors, but could easily stop an action in its tracks. Hard to believe that all of this was due to sloppiness. This isn’t some rookie associate drafting the SoC.

The reality is that the vast majority of the content in the SoC doesn’t belong here. The originating document is supposed to be concise, brief, and outline the facts to be proven. The drafting was quite shoddy, and doesn’t seem like it was ever designed with a Trial in mind.

8. Dismissal For Unnecessary Delay, Failure To Serve

RULE 24 DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR DELAY
Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

What we have is a situation where:
[1] The Government won’t try to strike defective pleadings.
[2] The Plaintiff won’t seek default judgement on a non-response.

Nothing has happened to this suit in a year. Outside of collusion or some kind of agreement, there’s no real explanation. But that hasn’t stopped Vaccine Choice Canada and their lawyer from doing a media blitz last summer. Even as donations flooded in, it was never disclosed that what the situation was. Well meaning people were led to believe that this case was being pursued diligently.

In reality, the Defendants could file a motion to dismiss this case at any point.

This case used to be prominently posted on the Vaccine Choice Canada website. It’s now not as easy to find, unless one knows where to look.

Now, there have been recent claims that these affidavits of evidence (in the thousands of pages) were being compiled to drop on the Government. Even if true, no Judge is going to read documents of that length. Additionally, it won’t help when the flawed SoC gets thrown out, for the reasons listed above.

If exposing Trudeau and Ford was important, just imagine what a SoC, properly drafted, could have done. Imagine all of the information and evidence that would have been flushed out during depositions and discovery. Instead, this has been a waste of time and money. In fact, it doesn’t seem like there’s any urgency to bring any of the Constitutional Rights Centre cases ahead.

Despots like Trudeau and Ford are despicable people, but at least we know they are enemies. It’s the people masquerading as allies who are harder to put up with.

To anyone still donating to these scams, think long and hard about it.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-unredacted-version.pdf
(2) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(4) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(5) https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/media/press-release-legal-challenge-to-covid-19-measures-filed-in-ontario-superior-court/
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988

Posted on

Canadian Public Health Association Is A Charity, Funded By Drug Companies

The Canadian Public Health Association, or CPHA, is an organization that tries to influence health policy within Canada and abroad. Also, check out the British Fertility Society, the U.S. Council on Patient Safety, the American College Health Foundation (ACHF), the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN), or the Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation (CPSF). All have similar ties.

But that seems harmless enough, right? Surely, these are all well meaning people. However, when one looks up who their major sponsors are, certain names stand out. This certainly is cause for concern, given how much money is known to influence the law and politics.

It’s a shame that this group doesn’t specify the amount that these “platinum” sponsors (or donors) contribute. Although the page has since been edited, the archive is still available, as is a pdf version. That being said, this prominent list includes:

  • AstraZeneca
  • Medicago
  • Merck
  • Moderna
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Seqirus

Yes, this organization’s biggest private donors are drug companies, including AstraZeneca, Merck and Moderna, who have a significant financial interest in ensuring the Canadian Government keeps purchasing their vaccines. Things get even more interesting, since the CPHA is actually a charity, registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. Not only is big pharma financing the CPHA, but those grants are subsidized by the public in terms of tax rebates.

CPHA was incorporated in 1912, and it became a charity in 1975. Its CRA registration is 106865744 RR 0001. How the CPHA describes its activities is also very interesting. Corporate documents can also be ordered on the Federal site.

Ongoing programs:
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE LIAISON AND NETWORK BOTH NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY IN COLLABORATION WITH VARIOUS DISCIPLINES, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS; ENCOURAGING AND FACILITATING MEASURES FOR DISEASE PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION AND PROTECTION AND HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY; INITIATING, ENCOURAGING AND PARTICIPATING IN RESEARCH DIRECTED AT THE FIELDS OF DISEASE PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION AND HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE LIAISON AND PARTNERSHIP WITH CPHA’S PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS;ACTING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH A RANGE OF DISCIPLINES INCLUDING HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE, TRANSPORTATION, OTHER HEALTH-ORIENTED GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS IN DEVELOPING AND EXPRESSING A PUBLIC HEALTH VIEWPOINT ON PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH ISSUES; DESIGNING, DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES; FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS FOR CANADA; IDENTIFYING PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES AND ADVOCATING FOR POLICY CHANGE; IDENTIFYING LITERACY AS A MAJOR FACTOR IN ACHIEVING EQUITABLE ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES.

The Canada Revenue Agency also provides a snapshot of the finances of all charities over the last 5 years. Looking through some of the data, we get this information:

2016 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $17,952.00 (0.61%)
Non-receipted donations $693,500.00 (23.43%)
Gifts from other registered charities $45,561.00 (1.54%)
Government funding $759,823.00 (25.67%)
All other revenue $1,443,165.00 (48.76%)
Total revenue: $2,960,001.00

Charitable programs $2,217,691.00 (75.52%)
Management and administration $478,049.00 (16.28%)
Fundraising $17,565.00 (0.60%)
Political activities $96,389.00 (3.28%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $126,791.00 (4.32%)
Total expenses: $2,936,485.00

2017 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $6,562.00 (0.23%)
Non-receipted donations $334,000.00 (11.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $65,979.00 (2.32%)
Government funding $1,485,693.00 (52.21%)
All other revenue $953,575.00 (33.51%)
Total revenue: $2,845,809.00

Charitable programs $2,275,825.00 (75.97%)
Management and administration $489,917.00 (16.35%)
Fundraising $9,128.00 (0.30%)
Political activities $98,965.00 (3.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,957.00 (4.07%)
Total expenses: $2,995,792.00

2018 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $3,404,797.00 (82.24%)
Management and administration $498,188.00 (12.03%)
Fundraising $9,405.00 (0.23%)
Political activities $101,965.00 (2.46%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $125,710.00 (3.04%)
Total expenses: $4,140,065.00

2019 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $2,609,623.00 (80.85%)
Management and administration $487,201.00 (15.09%)
Fundraising $9,554.00 (0.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,370.00 (3.76%)
Total expenses: $3,227,748.00

2020 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $2,736.00 (0.07%)
Non-receipted donations $397,000.00 (9.57%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,734.00 (0.21%)
Government funding $2,500,250.00 (60.29%)
All other revenue $1,238,324.00 (29.86%)
Total revenue: $4,147,044.00

Charitable programs $2,877,407.00 (82.79%)
Management and administration $552,487.00 (15.90%)
Fundraising $9,548.00 (0.27%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,475,665.00

It would be nice to know what “other revenue” means, considering it represents between a third and half of the money that this organization takes in.

Because of its status as a charity, donations to the CPHA only cost about half the amount given. Approximately 40% to 50% comes back in the form of tax rebates. That’s not the only subsidy this group gets. Oh, there are others indeed.

The CPHA is also receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing this organization for “pandemic relief”. That could be part of why this group never seems to oppose any measures that are brought in.

Considering that CEWS is intended for private businesses to cover their employees’ salaries, this would seem to imply that CPHA isn’t part of the Government.

CPHA is (surprisingly) not currently registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It hasn’t been for a while, and the last time they received money (according to their postings) is 2015.

CPHA has a number of projects on the go, and the climate change ones stand out. Of course, it’s not surprising that it would be intertwined with everything these days. Given this group’s connection to the pharmaceutical industry, it’s quite expected that they also promote the mass vaccination agenda. This from 2017:

Immunization is one of the most successful and cost effective public health interventions, saving countless number of lives through the reduction of morbidity and mortality caused by disease. Despite this, vaccine preventable diseases still persist in Canada, requiring high levels of immunization coverage for continued protection. To better understand the underlying causes and strategies to achieving optimal vaccine coverage and acceptance, a significant body of multifaceted and interdisciplinary research is being developed within the Canadian and international research community. The growing interest in identifying and addressing the challenges faced in improving vaccine acceptance and uptake has resulted in the development of relevant research data, tools, practices, procedures and strategies. However, not all evidence is made easily available and accessible to support health care professionals growing needs.

Following a report commissioned by the Communicable and Infectious Disease Steering Committee of the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network Opens in a new window from the Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake Task Group, a number of recommendations to improving vaccine coverage were made. One of which included the establishment of an up-to-date inventory of relevant peer reviewed research and studies underlying the causes and potential solutions to vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

In July 2017, CPHA—funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada Opens in a new window through the Immunization Partnership Fund—launched the Creation of a Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. The project aims to offer access to the latest evidence-based products, resources and tools via the Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Opens in a new window. CANVax is an online database of curated resources to support immunization program planning and promotional activities to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, has been helping fund the Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. It stands to reason that companies like AstraZeneca and Moderna are as well. This is essentially market research, not much different than the Vaccine Confidence Project. Keep in mind, PHAC is actually a branch of the WHO, and not really Canadian.

DATE AMOUNT
Dec. 5, 2016 $136,782
Jul. 1, 2017 $15,795
Jul. 1, 2017 $180,418
Jul. 1, 2017 $3,582,970
Oct. 19, 2018 $896,893
Jan. 2, 2020 $3,122,867
May 25, 2020 $508,792

Through Open Search, we can see the donations PHAC has made to CPHA in recent years. That is quite a lot of money, considering that pushing drugs is one of its primary functions.

This is a group that advocates on behalf of certain health policies, including on widespread vaccination. It also receives taxpayer money (along with pharma money) to run its operations. But whose interests does it really serve?

(1) https://www.cpha.ca/
(2) https://www.cpha.ca/corporate-partners
(3) https://www.cpha.ca/projects
(4) https://www.cpha.ca/creation-canadian-immunization-resource-centre
(5) https://opengovca.com/corporation/959421
(6) Corporations Canada Search
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16210&regId=826615#regStart
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) CPHA 01 Continuance
(12) CPHA 02 Directors
(13) CPHA 03 Bylaws

Posted on

B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996

With the looming vaccine passports in B.C. (and elsewhere), a good piece of legislation to know is the B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996. It doesn’t really require much commentary, as the quoted passages are pretty self explanatory.

Part 2 — Consent to Health Care
.
Consent rights
4 Every adult who is capable of giving or refusing consent to health care has
(a) the right to give consent or to refuse consent on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds, even if the refusal will result in death,
(b) the right to select a particular form of available health care on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds,
(c) the right to revoke consent,
(d) the right to expect that a decision to give, refuse or revoke consent will be respected, and
(e) the right to be involved to the greatest degree possible in all case planning and decision making.

General rule — consent needed
5 (1) A health care provider must not provide any health care to an adult without the adult’s consent except under sections 11 to 15.
.
(2) A health care provider must not seek a decision about whether to give or refuse substitute consent to health care under section 11, 14 or 15 unless he or she has made every reasonable effort to obtain a decision from the adult.

Elements of consent
.
6 An adult consents to health care if
(a) the consent relates to the proposed health care,
(b) the consent is given voluntarily,
(c) the consent is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation,
(d) the adult is capable of making a decision about whether to give or refuse consent to the proposed health care,
(e) the health care provider gives the adult the information a reasonable person would require to understand the proposed health care and to make a decision, including information about
(i) the condition for which the health care is proposed,
(ii) the nature of the proposed health care,
(iii) the risks and benefits of the proposed health care that a reasonable person would expect to be told about, and
(iv) alternative courses of health care, and
(f) the adult has an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers about the proposed health care.

How incapability is determined
7 When deciding whether an adult is incapable of giving, refusing or revoking consent to health care, a health care provider must base the decision on whether or not the adult demonstrates that he or she understands
(a) the information given by the health care provider under section 6 (e), and
(b) that the information applies to the situation of the adult for whom the health care is proposed.

No emergency health care contrary to wishes
12.1 A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12 if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the health care.

However, depending on how malicious the higher ups may be, there are sections that could be twisted and perverted to force certain types of health care. That being said, the whole issue of consent seems pretty clear cut.

Threatening someone’s livelihood, finances, or general freedoms in order to obtain consent amounts to coercion. And that is exactly what forced “vaccines” and tests do. And yes, this has been brought up many times, but these aren’t even approved by Health Canada. They have interim authorization. Considering the emergency declaration was cancelled in Ontario and B.C., this should actually be illegal.

Also check out the Ontario Health Care Consent Act of 1996. So-called medical professionals aren’t allowed to do anything to you if you don’t give voluntary and informed consent.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#part2
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-health-care-consent-act-of-1996-fyi-for-vaccines-or-tests/
(3) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(4) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(7) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-9.html#docCont
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3

Posted on

B.C. Mandates “Vaccine Passports”, No Emergency Order, No Approval, No Exemptions (AUDIO)

In a move that surprised no one, B.C. has announced its own vaccine passport, coming into effect on September 13, 2021. People who want to have some fun in their lives are about to have far fewer options.

There is the line near the end: “The measures will be time limited through to Jan. 31, 2022, subject to possible extension.” of course, subject to possible extension is a built-in loophole that will allow this to

A call to the Government, specifically, Patient & Client Relations, confirmed that this is exactly what they intended to do. There is no mistake or misunderstanding. The lack of qualifiers or exemptions in the directive were not the result or carelessness on someone’s part.

A few takeaways from this call:

  • No state of emergency needed to do it
  • No exemptions in order currently
  • No plans to put exemptions in later
  • No need to have approved vaccines (interim authorization is fine)
  • No guarantee this ends on January 31, 2022 (spoiler: it won’t)

The person on the other end of the call was pleasant enough, but clearly working from a script. It appeared that such inquiries were anticipated in advance. And where will this take effect?


(UPDATE) On Wednesday, August 25, I tried again. Someone different answered the phone, and she was much more hostile and testy than the previous one. It’s unclear whether she knew nothing about the vaccines themselves, or was coached on how to deceive and mislead. But it doesn’t really matter, as the result is the same.

A few takeaways from this 2nd call:

  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about vaccines not being approved
  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about risks to pregnant women
  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about risks to nursing mothers
  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about BCHRC having exemptions put in
  • She refused to specify where exactly in the law this was legal

Also, it was impossible to get through on the regular phone line, after that first call. Perhaps they are blocking numbers of people who ask difficult questions. Considering what they are trying to do, that isn’t too farfetched of an idea.

Another difference from the last call: this woman was very eager to get off the phone once it became clear that hard questions would be asked. She is little more than a mouthpiece and a gatekeeper.

As to where these “vaccine passports” will apply

-indoor ticketed sporting events
-indoor concerts
-indoor theatre/dance/symphony events
-restaurants (indoor and patio dining)
-night clubs
-casinos
-movie theatres
-fitness centres/gyms (excluding youth recreational sport)
-businesses offering indoor high-intensity group exercise activities
-organized indoor events (eg. weddings, parties, conferences, meetings, workshops)
-discretionary organized indoor group recreational classes and activities

And all of this comes despite M275, which cancelled the State of Emergency on June 30, 2021. Also, M273 cancelled the other measures. To reiterate, this isn’t being done under any emergency order, but is simply dictated by Bonnie Henry and her handlers.

To any university or college students, consider your options. This also applies to living in residence, and could very well be extended beyond that. In fact, more announcements are expected soon.

Other Provinces, like Quebec and Manitoba, are already implementing their own version.

Such moves will likely kill most of the rest of these industries. And that appears to be calculated. However, this seems even more insidious than at first glance.

As a few examples: BCRFA, the British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association; BCHA, the B.C. Hotel Association; and ABLE BC, the Association for Beverage Licensees, openly promote the myriad of Government handouts that are available to their members. They do this at the same time they support vaccine passports and mask mandates, driving away both employees and customers. But, it doesn’t really matter to them, since the Government — or taxpayers — will just bail them out.

Not only are businesses in hospitality subsidized by CEWS, but so are the trade groups that represent them. These are just a few of the many examples.

BCRFA goes even further, actively trying to import a replacement workforce under “Express Entry”. This is no doubt because we don’t have enough people unemployed here already.

Collapsing the economies of B.C. other Provinces, and elsewhere, can only be explained as being deliberate. However, until that happens, taxpayers will be subsidizing organizations that are complicit in perpetuating this fraud and medical tyranny.

Where’s Action4Canada in all of this? They have been fundraising for a year, and “claim” to have retained Rocco Galati to sue the B.C. Government? Not holding out much hope for that. Even if a Statement of Claim is eventually filed, no guarantee it will ever go beyond that.

(1) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0053-001659
(2) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/current-health-topics/pandemic-influenza/contacts
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/mo/mo/m0275_2021?fbclid=IwAR309l-HdQCrEdBaF6q2dUMwr5CbevxjJ94CweOLK-VUSBx7bE-weX725KE
(4) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergency-preparedness-response-recovery/embc/reports/speaker/621140-letter_to_the_speaker-protective_measures-m273.pdf
(5) https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/health-issues/a-z/2019-coronavirus/progress-of-the-covid-19-vaccination/covid-19-vaccination-passport
(6) https://manitoba.ca/covid19/vaccine/immunizationrecord/index.html
(7) British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association
(8) https://www.bcrfa.com/covid-19-enews
(9) https://archive.is/Vnjmg
(10) https://www.bcrfa.com/federal-support
(11) https://archive.is/uMgNE
(12) https://www.bcrfa.com/expressentry
(13) https://archive.is/1IehR
(14) https://www.bcha.com/covid-19-advocacy-efforts.html
(15) https://archive.is/mxG2D
(16) ABLE BC – AdvocacyReport v4
(17) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch

Posted on

ACOG, Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care, Partnered With Drug Companies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the ACOG, made quite a stir when they recommended back in December 2020 that it was okay for pregnant women to get these experimental “emergency use authorization” vaccines. Apparently, that is still the case.

Turns out, there is a bigger picture to look at. The ACOG is part of the Council on Patient Safety, a collective of health care groups that work together.

The Membership Of The Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care comprises 19 different spots, and there are currently 2 vacancies. The groups have different goals, but there is a lot of overlap with what they do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a member, and so is the American College of Nurse Midwives. By itself, that it nothing remarkable.

  • American Academy of Family Physicians
  • American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
  • American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • American College of Nurse Midwives
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American Society for Anesthesiologists
  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine
  • Advancing Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
  • Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
  • Nurse Practitioners In Women’s Health
  • Preeclampsia Foundation
  • Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics & Gynecology
  • Society of Gynecologic Surgeons
  • Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology
  • Society of OB/Gyn Hospitals
  • Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

The problems start to set in once you realize that the Council on Patient Safety also has an “industry” branch, including pharmaceutical companies. Needless to say, whatever policies the Council pushes can greatly increase the market for these products

The Forum on Patient Safety in Women’s Health Care, created in January 2013, is a collaboration between the Council and industry partners committed to advancing patient safety in women’s health care. The Forum is designed to facilitate open and ongoing dialogue in order to identify and maximize common interests in women’s health and to develop collaborative initiatives.

There is a scrolling banner of those industry partners, and it was capped for illustrative purposes. Anyone find it odd that drug companies are partnering with health groups this closely?

Some familiar names, including Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Is it any wonder that vaccines are still recommended for pregnant women? I don’t suppose the industry partners had anything to do with that. Interesting, that people online are recently getting upset over these recommendations, yet no one takes that time to do even a basic search.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control Foundation (the fundraising arm), receives considerable donations annually, including from drug companies. This isn’t really a secret these days. And what a shocker, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, are both on the donors list.

Now, the USCDC recommends mass vaccinations, including for pregnant women. The Council on Patient Safety recommends them too. And both have ties to companies that will benefit from these decisions. Do you get it now?

(Update): This problem isn’t limited to the United States, which isn’t surprising. The Society for Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has some interesting donors. The largest is MD Financial Management, a company that provides money management services to doctors. The next largest are Bayer, Merck and Pfizer. Related health care groups probably are funded by big pharma as well.

Now, SOGC refers to this as “providing resources”. Is that a euphemism for drug companies providing money? Or discounting their products? Wish it was a little more specific.

(1) https://cwcnova.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ACIPURGINGEUA.pdf
(2) ACOG Recommends Vaccinating Pregnant Women
(3) https://www.phillytrib.com/news/health/ob-gyn-associations-recommend-all-pregnant-people-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19/article_74130a85-fb9d-5ed6-a4f2-002b4746f238.html
(4) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/
(5) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/council-members/
(6) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/industry-form/
(7) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporationshttps://archive.is/cYdV4
(8) https://www.sogc.org
(9) https://www.sogc.org/en/-COVID-19/COVID-19/COVID-19-Champions/en/content/COVID-19/covid-champions.aspx?hkey=1d24c3f0-be85-48f3-bc0a-a006c53b98a2
(10) https://archive.is/lGQpy

Posted on

B.C. Contemplating Vaccine Passports, As Bonnie Henry Glosses Over Old Statements

Apparently, Bonnie Henry is going to be pressuring people to take the experimental “vaccine”, but will get getting private businesses to do the dirty work.

Health Minister, Adrian Dix, didn’t have much to say in a meaningful sense. After all, his education in history and political science didn’t really prepare him for the role.

People in B.C. may be a bit confused. After all, the Protective Measures (COVID-19) Order was repealed on June 28, 2021. Also, the State of Emergency from March 2020 was formally cancelled.

Guess we can forget about a peaceful life in B.C. Will there also be emergency measures reintroduced at some point? After all, there are still plenty of people who see through this act.

From the looks of things, it seems that the B.C. Government won’t mandate it. However, they will encourage businesses to impose such a policy. Now, will they be subsidized to enforce such rules? Will there be extra perks for places that do?

Many people know about the 2015 Ontario Labour Arbitration which the ONA fought against a mandatory VOM “vaccinate-or-mask” policy. What less people know is that Bonnie Henry was an expert witness in that case.

Case: Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)

No joke. Less than a decade ago, Bonnie was telling an Ontario Hearing that there was no real evidence that masks or vaccines worked against influenza. Since then, she has changed her tune, and says something quite different. Although the ruling is readily available, there don’t appear to be transcripts.

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).

145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.

Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.

160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
.
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
.
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
.
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
.
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset

Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.

184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
.
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
.
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.

Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings. However, that was 2015, and apparently the science has changed completely since then. Or perhaps just the politics.

In any event, she seems content pushing experimental, unapproved “vaccines” on the public. Of course, the manufacturers are indemnified against liability.

Even within the last year her view on masks changed considerably. It’s a good thing people document and archive these inconsistencies. Kudos to whoever made this compilation. Otherwise, people like Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, John Horgan and Mike Farnworth would be more easily able to rewrite history, and conceal their deceptions

Don’t worry! Action4Canada will be filing their lawsuit any day now, and that will save us! They are just one fundraiser away from being almost ready to start. (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

(1) https://bc.ctvnews.ca/not-vaccinated-against-covid-19-b-c-s-health-officials-say-there-will-be-consequences-1.5525139
(2) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/mo/mo/m0275_2021?fbclid=IwAR309l-HdQCrEdBaF6q2dUMwr5CbevxjJ94CweOLK-VUSBx7bE-weX725KE
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergency-preparedness-response-recovery/embc/reports/speaker/621140-letter_to_the_speaker-protective_measures-m273.pdf
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
(5) 2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2016/2016canlii76496/2016canlii76496.html
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2018.ontario.college.of_.nurses.mask_.ruling.pdf

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress