From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

If the case is allowed to proceed, any business operator in Alberta from 2020 to 2022 who was negatively impacted by COVID orders would be eligible to join the lawsuit. Any payout from the lawsuit would come from the taxpayers, which ironically includes the business owners themselves.

Alberta business owners who faced massive losses or permanent closures due to COVID mandates might soon be able to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the provincial government after lawyers representing the businesses were in court for a certification hearing.

The court heard from the business group’s lawyers regarding the lawsuit proposal, which comes from Alberta-based Rath & Company. Lead counsel Jeffrey Rath said the Alberta government has been placed on notice for its actions against businesses during the COVID lockdown era.

The Rath lawsuit proposal names Rebecca Ingram, a gym owner, and Chris Scott, a restaurant owner, as “representative plaintiffs who suffered significant financial harm due to (former Alberta Chief Medical Officer) Dr. (Deena) Hinshaw’s Public Health Orders.”

Well-known freedom-oriented constitutional lawyer Eva Chipiuk was with Rath in court for the certification hearing. In an X post on October 3, she shared that it was an “interesting two days in court arguing on behalf of businesses impacted by Alberta’s public health orders.”

“In the heart of democratic societies lies a fundamental principle: Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. When justice systems operate in the open, public trust is maintained. People need to witness fairness, impartiality, and due process in action,” she wrote.

“When governments operate in the light of public scrutiny, they uphold not just the law but the trust of their citizens, ensuring that governance is not just a mechanism of power but a beacon of justice and equality.”

Chipiuk shared that a decision on whether or not the lawsuit will be allowed to proceed will be coming in a few months. She noted it will be “interesting how the judge decides in this case.”

“And will be very interesting how the government responds. They had an opportunity to get ahead of this issue but chose not to. We shall see if they took the right path or if they will be catching up and making up later,” she said.

Alberta Justice Colin Feasby noted at the end of the court certification hearing that both sides made good arguments, but the earliest a decision would be ready is December 1.

In court, representatives for the Alberta government eventually conceded that Ingram could be allowed to be a representative plaintiff but questioned whether Scott could be considering his case is more officially known.

Chipiuk and Rath told the judge that the government’s public health orders exceeded their legal authority and, as a result, all businesses affected by the COVID orders should be compensated.

The government’s legal team claimed that the COVID orders were put in place on a good faith initiative and that it was Alberta Health Services, not the government, that oversaw enforcement of the rules.

If the case is allowed to proceed, any business operator in Alberta from 2020 to 2022 who was negatively impacted by COVID orders would be eligible to join the lawsuit. Any payout from the lawsuit would come from the taxpayers, which ironically includes the business owners themselves.

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province, which in effect has allowed the class action to get this far.

As a result of the court ruling, Alberta Crown Prosecutions Service (ACPS) said Albertans facing COVID-related charges will not be convicted but instead have their charges stayed.

Thus far, Dr. Michal Princ, pizzeria owner Jesse Johnson, Scott, and Alberta pastors James Coates, Tim Stephens, and Artur Pawlowski, who were jailed for keeping churches open under then-Premier Jason Kenney, have had COVID charges against them dropped due to the court ruling.

Under Kenney, thousands of businesses, notably restaurants and small shops, were negatively impacted by severe COVID restrictions, mostly in 2020-21, that forced them to close for a time. Many never reopened. At the same time, as in the rest of Canada, big box stores were allowed to operate unimpeded.

Class action is about ‘accountability, transparency, and justice,’ lawyer says

Before the hearing, Chipiuk said it is crucial for the public to “understand the significant impact of the unlawful public health orders on Albertans. The financial, psychological, and tragic consequences cannot be ignored.”

“At the end of the day, Premier Smith must recognize the gravity and optics of this situation. Fighting against those harmed by the Province’s unlawful orders, while the Province heavily favored the public sector over the private sector, does not foster an environment that encourages entrepreneurs or promotes business and investment in Alberta,” she wrote on X.

“This case calls for accountability, transparency, and justice. The Province must acknowledge the devastation caused by its illegal actions and stop evading responsibility. This case also presents an opportunity for Premier Smith to demonstrate to Albertans that government overreach will not go unnoticed, and those harmed by it will be compensated — principles that align with the proposed amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights.”

Danielle Smith took over the United Conservative Party (UCP) on October 11, 2022, after winning the leadership. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down as well as enacting a vaccine passport.

Smith, however, has been mum on the class action as well as other lawsuits against the government that are in the works. She has promised that changes will be coming to the Alberta Bill of Rights that she said will offer Albertans more protections against government overreach.

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The outspoken critic of COVID-19 shots said the judge appeared interested in learning more about the underlying cause of accusations made against him by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Canadian medical freedom fighter Dr. Mark Trozzi passionately appealed his legal case before a court on Tuesday with the help of his lawyer. The outcome will determine whether he regains his right to practice medicine again after it was taken away because he spoke out against COVID shots.

Trozzi told LifeSiteNews he is “optimistic” about the outcome, noting that the judge seemed interested to find the underlying cause of accusations made against him by his medical regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

“I think the judge was pretty curious to dig into the science files which they (CPSO) ignored and see why I accused them of these things. They are counting on the judge to just think I am nuts and punish me for strong words,” Trozzi told LifeSiteNews after his hearing.

During the hearing, the CPSO had its lawyers go over their reasons for stripping Trozzi of his medical license earlier in the year.

His appeal case was heard by the Ontario Divisional Court (ODC). The banned doctor is hopeful he will be successful in having a decision overturned by the CPSO, which stripped him of his medical license earlier this year because he spoke out against COVID jabs and mandates.

According to Trozzi, who has 25 years of experience working in emergency rooms, the CPSO’s court “strategy was trying to make me sound crazy,” but he does not “think it will work.”

“I am optimistic that these judges are going to do their part to start restoring some sort of worthwhile future for their grandkids and ours,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Trozzi’s case, should it be successful, attorney Michael Alexander said it would have far-reaching legal implications that directly impact Canadians’ freedom of expression rights across “all domains of government regulation,” including all health colleges.

On January 25, the CPSO’s Discipline Tribunal, led by registrar Dr. Nancy Whitmore, stripped Trozzi of his license because he exposed the truth of the COVID ‘pandemic’ and its vaccines.

According to Trozzi, the CPSO left “little room” for “significant criticism or substantial challenge scientifically or legally” in what he referred to as its “kangaroo court” ruling that stripped him of his license.

“In essence the CPSO has just abused their authority and violated doctors, running their tribunal as a kangaroo court and torture chamber. Their science was minuscule, and they never even refuted the volumes of scientific evidence which we placed before them,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“We have them in the appeal court now to rope them in from their extreme abuse of power, for starters.

During the hearing, the CPSO, as noted by Trozzi, talked about its accusations against him, regarding COVID jabs as well as PCR tests.

“The CPSO talked about strong accusations I have made against them and others, for things such as experimental genetic injections not ‘safe and effective vaccines,’ no real pandemic, PCR scam, obstructed treatment, the criminality of the college,” he said.

“They climaxed these portions with quoting my most stern moments that are founded on those true accusations, things like ‘they should be prosecuted, imprisoned, lawfully hung.’”

The CPSO has thus far initiated legal action against Trozzi and at least five other doctors who are committed to their Hippocratic Oath responsibilities related to COVD: Mary O’Connor, Rochangé Kilian, Celeste Jean Thirlwell, Patrick Phillips, and Crystal Luchkiw.

Hearing panel ‘fair,’ Trozzi’s lawyer says

During the court hearing, Alexander made some exceptionally good arguments to support Trozzi’s claims that he was unfairly targeted by the CPSO in “biased” proceedings.

In speaking to LifeSiteNews, Alexander said in his view he felt that the hearing panel “was fair,” adding that he and Trozzi “had a good day.”

“I mean in the sense that I got out the core arguments that we needed to make to succeed in this,” he said.

“I don’t feel that the lawyers for the college really grappled with our arguments. They just repeated their own arguments. But I cannot say at the end of the day how the court will deal with that, but that’s my observation of it.”

Alexander told LifeSiteNews that as he has said before, the CPSO proceedings against Trozzi were “biased.”

“If my arguments are accepted about the fundamental errors, relating to the evidence that were made by the tribunal. If those are accepted it really impugns the entire decision and I would hope leads to an assumption that the proceeding was biased,” he said.

Alexander noted that once there is “evidence of bias,” the decision, in this case, the CPSO against Trozzi “must be overturned.”

“The proceeding certainly was biased, and I have argued that” he said.

Alexander noted how he had hoped for a full-day hearing, but he had to make do with a half-day hearing because the court is slammed with various cases.

A ruling in favor of Trozzi would overturn his medical license ban, but Alexander noted that a decision is not likely until the new year. LifeSiteNews will report on the judge’s ruling on today’s court hearing once that decision has been made public.

The hearing was open to the public, but the live stream suffered from outages for some, and others could not even log in, in after the capacity limit of the stream was reached.

In 2020 during the COVID crisis, Trozzi became concerned after the mainstream narrative regarding the virus and various public health emergencies were severely skewed.

He observed that his hospital’s ER was mostly empty despite claims they were overflowing.

Trozzi came under the CPSO spotlight for promoting alternative COVID treatments and publicly explained why the COVID shot is “not a vaccine.”

In retaliation for speaking out, he was barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID-19 injections as well as masking requirements and testing, in 2021.

The CPSO has cracked down on numerous physicians who failed to comply with standard protocol during the COVID outbreak. It has done this so assiduously that Dr. Robert Malone spoke out last year against what he described as the “re-education” of dissident Canadian doctors.