Connect with us

COVID-19

Nova Scotia judge sues chief judge, provincial court over Covid vaccine status and judicial independence

Published

6 minute read

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is providing for the legal representation of Judge Rickcola Brinton of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia in a lawsuit against The Honorable Pamela S. Williams, former Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, among others. Brinton was threatened by Williams with suspension and referral to the provincial Judicial Council after she chose not to disclose her Covid vaccination status in late 2021. She filed her claim in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on September 29, 2023, seeking damages for the intentional violation of her judicial independence and medical privacy.

On September 29, 2021, Brinton received an email (sent to all judges of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court) from Judge Williams, then Chief Judge, asking if they would agree to share their vaccination status with each other. Chief Judge Williams also asked whether the Court should share that information with the Nova Scotia Bar.

On October 1, 2021, Brinton replied, “I realize I may be in the minority…as I have concerns with medical privacy,” she wrote. “I also know that the vaccination mandates and passports may be disproportionately impacting racialized communities. And as an essential service, will we be creating a two-tiered society for those who already feel as though we are not all free to serve them?” She thus declined to disclose her vaccination status.

In an effort to persuade her, Chief Judge Williams met with Brinton on October 7, 2021. Brinton explained that her decision not to disclose her vaccination status was a matter of conscience and the result of prayerful contemplation. She offered to get tested for Covid as often as needed, but Chief Judge Williams rejected Brinton’s proposal.

At the end of October, Brinton went on short-term disability leave. She submitted the required Proof of Illness form completed by her doctor.

On November 1, 2021, Chief Judge Williams sent out an email to all judges stating that “only fully vaccinated judges will be assigned to sit in our courtrooms.” Four days later, on November 25, 2021, she issued a public statement announcing that “[a]ll Provincial Court judges presiding in courtrooms, both now and in the future, are fully vaccinated.”

A few months later, on February 22, 2022, Chief Judge Williams wrote to Brinton stating that she would not approve the continuation of the short-term leave unless Brinton provided evidence of her disability. She also wrote that if Brinton continued to refuse to disclose her vaccination status, she would be “considered non-vaccinated and unable to preside over in-person trial and sentencings in the Court Room,” and that she would have “no recourse other than to suspend [Brinton] and refer the matter to the Judicial Council.”

Then, on March 27, 2022, without warning or Brinton’s consent, Chief Judge Williams wrote to Brinton’s doctor requesting that he supply her with details of Brinton’s medical issues. The doctor called Brinton to ask if she consented to this disclosure of medical information. She did not consent. The Chief Judge’s office followed up by calling the doctor’s office to once again ask for disclosure consent. Again, Brinton declined. Meanwhile, Brinton had provided necessary information to her disability benefits provider and had been approved for long-term disability.

Brinton has not received any communication from Chief Judge Williams since April 2022. Williams’ term as Chief Judge ended in August 2023. She continues to sit on the bench.

Judicial independence is a crucial and ancient constitutional principle, predating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Brinton raised concerns about interference with medical privacy and the impact of disclosing her Covid vaccination status on the independence and impartiality of both herself and the Court, particularly with respect to cases where courts have been asked to rule on issues regarding Covid vaccines; for example, whether an employee who is terminated for not taking the Covid vaccine is eligible for EI benefits, or whether it was legal for post-secondary institutions to force students out of their programof study for not taking the vaccine. As a result of raising such concerns, Brinton was threatened with suspension and disciplinary action.

Brinton’s lawsuit names the Honourable Pamela S. Williams, the Office of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, as defendants.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Dr. Trozzi expresses optimism after day in court appealing to overturn ban on his medical license

Published on

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.

“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’ConnorRochangé KilianCeleste Jean ThirlwellPatrick 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.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Dr. Trozzi appeals revocation of his medical license in ‘existential moment’ for Ontario courts

Published on

Dr. Mark Trozzi

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

Tuesday, outspoken COVID science critic Dr. Mark Trozzi will appeal a decision to take away his medical license. Due to a new legal standard, a successful outcome may positively impact Canada ‘in all domains of government regulation.’

Medical freedom champion Dr. Mark Trozzi will present his legal case on Tuesday when he appeals the stripping of his medical license in January by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The case will be heard by the Ontario Divisional Court (ODC) and, according to attorney Michael Alexander, a successful result would have far-reaching legal implications impacting freedom of expression rights across “all domains of government regulation,” including all health colleges.

Appearing in a late September interview with Canadian politician Derek Sloan, Alexander explained the history of the case leading up to the revoking of Trozzi’s license on January 25. In their view, “the college was primarily concerned … that Mark had been making statements about COVID-19 science and public policy that amounted to ‘misinformation’ and he was misleading the public and in doing so causing harm.”

It was also relevant that Trozzi was not even in practice at this time but had taken a sabbatical to study these issues more carefully and start a daily newsletter regarding his research.

The concern of CPSO “was the substance of his views,” the attorney assessed, “so they wanted to censor him in some way” and “eventually took him to a discipline hearing where he was found to be unprofessional, incompetent, and in violation of the standard of practice in the profession, primarily because he just presented an alternative point of view.”

READ: Dr. Trozzi stripped of medical license over COVID stance, plans to appeal

Ironically, Trozzi was not able to be present for the interview himself because he was traveling in Japan, with an invitation to speak before its parliament. He had already addressed the Romanian parliament on issues related to the COVID-19 response.

While the highly regarded former emergency room specialist “is a persona non grata in Ontario,” Dr. Trozzi’s attorney observed, “he’s in high demand around the world as someone who is providing important insights into the whole COVID era, COVID science, COVID public policy, and his criticisms are taken very seriously.”

Trozzi case could impact ‘the country in all domains of government regulation’

For more than three decades, the Ontario Divisional Court has been legally directed to judge such cases only according to a low-threshold standard called “reasonableness” that Alexander describes as the court basically deferring to the judgment of such regulatory tribunals as CPSO with regard to facts, the law, and “particularly on the interpretation of the law that the tribunal adopts.”

What makes this case different is that since Trozzi has a “statute-based right to appeal” and thus a 2019 Supreme Court decision now requires the ODC to adopt a higher standard, referred to as “correctness,” in examining the CPSO decision.

Therefore, according to this new standard, “you must get all findings of fact correct, you must get every interpretation of your statute correct, you must interpret all case law correctly,” Alexander explained.

“So, the CPSO has never had to face this before, and this (case) is the first major fundamental challenge to a regulatory body on this standard of correctness in Ontario,” he continued. Thus, this case is “extremely important. If we were to win, it would affect the whole regulatory framework of the province in a positive way.”

“So these same judges, who have been cutting a lot of slack to the College of Physicians in particular, are now going to be facing similar issues that they have faced before but on this new standard of correctness,” the attorney said.  “So they are going to have to adopt a completely different mindset in assessing the case.”

Therefore, “I guess you could say (this is) an existential moment for the judiciary in Ontario,” Alexander proposed.  “I mean will the Divisional Court step up to the plate and fully apply the standard of correctness and have the courage to do it?”

According to Alexander, a successful outcome in this case “would have a ripple effect not just in Ontario for the 22 health colleges here but for the health colleges all across the country,” forcing them to reconsider their policies in this regard.

And given the case regards the fundamental freedom of expression, a successful outcome on these arguments “would have an impact across the country in all domains of government regulation.”

“So this is not a case that’s just about Mark,” the attorney clarified. “We are trying to change the way this country is governed, and the college’s case has given us that opportunity.”

In 2020 during the “pandemic,” Trozzi, an ER veteran of 25 years, noticed that the mainstream narrative surrounding the public health “emergency” was deeply flawed. While media reported overflowing emergency rooms, Trozzi’s hospital remained relatively empty. This inspired him to research the science facts of COVID.

In the interest of protecting not only his own patients but people everywhere, Dr. Trozzi promoted alternative COVID-19 treatments and publicly explained why the COVID shot is “not a vaccine.”

In retaliation, Dr. Trozzi was barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID-19 shots, masking requirements and testing in 2021. He was not alone: Ontario’s Dr. Rochagne Kilian was also similarly barred.

At the time, CPSO said the interim orders were given in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, which allow restrictions on a member’s license if a regulator believes a certain practice “exposes or is likely to expose patients to harm or injury.”

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 last year Dr. Robert Malone spoke out against what he described as the “re-education” of dissident Canadian doctors.

READ: Dr. Robert Malone leads thousands of scientists in calling for a total end to ‘orchestrated’ COVID crisis

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 COVID: Mary O’ConnorKilianCeleste Jean Thirlwell, Patrick Phillips, and Crystal Luchkiw.

Alexander also made clear that while the CPSO has the typical governmental “blank check” of “unlimited resources,” including “around 10 lawyers on staff” and “access to outside council,” he is in need to hire “clerks to do special kinds of filing” and is seeking free-will donations.

Having donated “hundreds of thousands of dollars of billable time” into this case, Alexander has no regrets, stating that “it’s too important to the country not to litigate and we are the ones who pioneered this approach, and so it’s us or nobody.”

To assist Dr. Trozzi in winning his precedent-setting case, please donate here.

Continue Reading

Trending

X