Our Board
ST
Sameen T.
An IT project manager, Sameen graduated from Saint Mary’s University with a focus in Finance and Computer Information Systems. She has a deep commitment to justice and common sense and strongly believes that being an engaged and informed citizen is crucial for the functioning of a beneficial-to-all society.
TI
Tara I.
A mother of three and Nova Scotian born and raised, Tara has an undergraduate degree from Mount Saint Vincent University and graduate degree in Urban and Rural Planning from Technical University of Nova Scotia. She has experience in all levels of government, and knows that an informed, active and knowledgeable citizenry is the key to the efficient and proper function of government. She continues her advocacy for Peace, Order and good Government in her position on the CANS Board.
CM
Dr. Chris Milburn.
Chris was Chief of Emergency Medicine for the Eastern Zone of the Nova Scotia Health Authority until being removed in 2021 for speaking out against school closures, as well as vaccine mandates and passports. He remains an outspoken critic of government COVID policies and is committed to free speech in medicine. Chris is committed to promoting ethical decision-making rather than decision by politics and political correctness.
OC
Oliver C.
Oliver is a writer of community and documentary TV with a Masters degree in Philosophy from Western University. His formal training in philosophy complements his concern for justice and equality for all, he believes it is the responsibility of all Canadians to be politically involved in their communities.
WR
William R.
Will is a ten year veteran of the Canadian Forces. He was with the 2nd Battalion PPCLI in Croatia in 1993 when they were awarded both the Governor General of Canada’s unit commendation and the United Nations Secretary Generals citation for halting ethnic cleansing in the Medak area. Will started as a Journalist with community radio and writing articles. In 2009 he began working with CUTV Montreal. He is also a co-founder of 99media.org and the founder of 3RTV, both citizen media groups
To Moot Or Not To Moot
“There Is No Circumstance In Which Unlawful Action Is Appropriate” William Ray
Citizens’ Alliance NS (CANS) was in Court this past Friday December 06th to argue against the Mootness motion which the Respondents (Strang et al. / Attorney General NS – AGNS) had submitted in August of 2022 and then re-submitted in October of this year.
Mootness is the concept that some thing (incident or action) that was relevant at a given point in time is no longer relevant because that point in time for that issue/reason has passed. Most court cases against the pandemic lockdowns, restrictions and mandates across the country have been shut down due to Mootness.
The AGNS’ general argument (in the case of this Judicial Review) is that since the October 04, 2021 public health order which mandated the proof of vaccination was no longer in effect (in its entirety) as of May 23 2023, the NS Government therefore says the issues which CANS brought forward are no longer relevant, namely:
- The illegality of the Public Health Orders from the very start (Prima Facie)
- The CMOH acting outside of his legislated authority from the start (Ultra Vires)
- The known-from-the-start inefficacy and harms of the covid-19 inoculations (Bad Faith)
Mootness is an absurd stance when it comes to this topic. It shows a disconnect from the reality of the harms of the last four years which remains shocking. William Ray (WR) Agent for CANS offered to the Court an eye-opening analogy of a bank robber “making a withdrawal using a firearm instead of a bank card” who, when apprehended after the crime, claims Mootness because said crime is now over: “Yeah, but I’m not doing it anymore!”. Let that percolate for a minute.
The day opened by addressing any issues with the filings before getting into the meat of it. Right away, the Respondents asked for both affidavits which CANS had put forward to be struck or partially struck.
Dr Chris Milburn’s affidavit was struck in almost its entirety due to the Respondents and the Court not having an ink-signature hard copy of the filing even though all parties had had the digital files for a fortnight (the hard copies were stuck in postal transit). There were three exhibits in Dr. Milburn’s affidavit one of which was a Nova Scotia government document : A Guide to the Health Protection Act and Regulations 2005 and this was the only exhibit allowed to remain. This guide states “that there is no ability to implement mandatory immunization in Nova Scotia even in a public health emergency” under the section of “Public Health Emergency” in the document .
The Guide also provides clear details on the administration of the Health Protection Act (HPA). The Respondents raised concerns that there is nothing provided by CANS to verify that the clearly government-produced document was in fact a government document so Justice Keith asked the Respondents’ own affiant Tara Walsh (TW) to verify and confirm that the Guide was in fact a government document – which she did. She also confirmed that the Minister of Health did not declare a Public Health Emergency as required by section 53 of the HPA.
The other exhibits (the ones that were struck) were
- the Health Protection Act itself which has judicial notice meaning it is automatically considered evidence as it is a statute of the NS Legislature and
- the supply contract between Pfizer Canada and the Federal Government of Canada which states in section 5.5: “Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement. Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”
Shelly Hipson’s affidavit was partially struck because:
- she provided a useful one page write-up on each FOIPOP that stated the question, the date range of the data she requested and the key statics of what she was sent (numbers quoted from the official FOIPOP response); this was seen by the AGNS as opinion on the data instead of primarily meta-information “data that provides information about other data, but not the content of the data itself”.
- some of her FOIPOPs were too large to be printed four times over (the Court needs two copies of a filing for itself and each party gets a copy) so a reduced version was provided and secure cloud access to the full digital version was sent to all parties also a fortnight ago. According to online access logs, all parties accessed the affidavit on or shortly after it was filed on Nov 22. Despite this, both the Respondents and the Court stated that they did not have the full affidavit so any FOIPOPs for which Shelly had received data were struck and only the FOIPOPs for which there was no data available were allowed. The positive thing is that even the FOIPOPs without any data speaks volumes on the lack of evidence to support the mandates from the start.
CANS’ argument by Agent William Ray, was crafted so as not to be dependent on the affidavits and we did get some key information from both affidavits in front of Justice Keith so the day continued.
Counsel for the Respondents then spoke briefly about the validity of the Judicial Review since the Orders and proof of vaccination mandate were no longer in effect. Justice Keith asked lots of important, pointed and clarifying questions of the Respondents focussing especially on how a declaration of mootness affected access to justice for the people of Nova Scotia. The Respondents answered by suggesting that individuals could submit a judicial review if they had issues with government-made decisions or go to their elected officials; a collective groan of disbelief came from the observers in the Court and likely online too. The judicial review process, while doable for an individual, can have prohibitive costs associated with it (filing fees, printing costs, often exorbitant lawyer fees, travel and time off for hearings). As for elected officials, they have repeatedly and pointedly turned a blind eye to the harm of the mandates and the suffering caused to their own constituents in favour of conforming to party politics and maintaining the public health narrative supported by the NS Government both legislative and bureaucratic; this comment from the Respondents shows yet another example of a complete lack of awareness of the reality of the last few years for Nova Scotians.
The affiant for the Respondents, Tara Walsh (TW) was up next. TW was the managing director for covid-19 communications during the duration of the declared “State of Emergency” in Nova Scotia and was there to confirm when the Public Health Orders (PHO) had started and then ended; a narrow and irrelevant set of information in the face of the illegality of the Orders from the start. TW was able to confirm that a s.53(2) “Public Health Emergency” was never declared. The PHO was issued under the authority of s.32 on which CANS bases our ultra vires (beyond the scope of authority which is the white collar way to say illegal). S. 32 authority is for Medical Officers to investigate and report on individual communicable disease cases and issue “orders” to persons who have a communicable disease not lock down every healthy Nova Scotian for two years. This meant that the actions listed under s.53 (2) of the HPA should never have come into play (actions such as a voluntary immunization program which was as far from voluntary as one could get). She also confirmed that she was not responsible for the content which she was told to communicate and (I might suggest) which she communicated with no thought to the legality or veracity of the information; she is the modern day equivalent of “I was just following orders”.
“ It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”- Upton Sinclair
Another interesting item to note is that TW interpreted the language around the proof of vaccination to be the law because that is what the intention of the language was even though no law had been made only Orders issued by the CMOH who does not have the ability or power to make law; note however that Bill 174 at first reading stage is attempting to give those exact powers to the CMOH – this would mean that “the Chief Medical Officer becomes an officer of the House of Assembly with similar protections as the Chief Electoral Officer has under the Elections Act” and can choose to call another pandemic under any laws that he would then have the power to make. This, it would seem, could be an attempt to make “legal” what had been previously done ultra vires.
After a break for lunch, William Ray (WR) for CANS delivered his argument. The main points in WR’s argument spoke directly to illegality, ultra vires and bad faith. There were many case law references provided (53 in total) which supported a decision against mootness being declared and which WR delivered in a clear, firm and no-nonsense manner – with the occasional insertion of humour. An adjudication, which is “a formal judgement on a disputed matter”1, is the desired outcome:
“The adjudication would cause the administrator [the CMOH] and his antecedents to act within the Law which should at all times restrain them. There is no future circumstance that could arise or any set of material facts that would give the administrator or any of his antecedents just cause to act unlawfully”
“The Respondent says that a breach of the Law is moot if it happened in the past. If this matter is not adjudicated this will be accepted as the new Law of Nova Scotia”. This was also pleaded by the CCLA in AGNS v. Freedom Nova Scotia et al and CCLA; they argued that the injunction, issued by the judge, had the effect of creating new law and gave powers to the Attorney General which that position never had. In the protocol to the October 4th iteration of the public health order it claims that “proof of vaccination requirement is the law in Nova Scotia under the Health Protection Act Order issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health Oct 4th imbedded protocol”
The protocol also threatens massive financial penalties and the literal closure of our organization dedicated to fighting covid restrictions…..if we refused to comply with covid restrictions…
‘If necessary, enforcement action could include fines of $2,422.50 per individual or $11,622.50 per corporation. It could include closure of the business or organization hosting the event or activity until they comply”
WR then put the question to the Court that if the Order is indeed moot then why does the Crown continue its prosecution of Summary Offense Tickets under an order by the CMOH that ceased to exist, by the statement of the respondent, entirely in May 2023?
The statement was made to show that a Live Controversy continues to exist. A case is Moot when no amount of legal proceedings on the case will change its outcome and therefore it is irrelevant (no Live Controversy). To apply the Respondents’ logic to this case: no matter how blatantly it can be shown that illegality, ultra vires and prior-knowledge bad faith drove the Respondents’ response to Covid-19, it’s still moot because it’s not happening anymore; oh and in this case, let’s keep the legislation we broke in place in case we need to gaslight the public again.
Without this Judicial Review there will be no proper investigation into what happened during those two years of our lives. CANS asserts that without adjudication, the same connection and risk exist in this matter since the CMOH or an antecedent could very likely act in the same manner in the future and predictably breach the personal and corporate rights of Nova Scotians (again). The unreasonable misapplication of the administrators home statute would potentially affect private and corporate rights in the future under that same statute and that makes it a Live Controversy.
The day ended shortly after 3:00 with Justice Keith reserving his decision until a later date. While the day started off with a seeming loss, it quickly turned around to feeling like a very positive day with some very well-articulated arguments. We have worked our hardest and tried our best to show the Court that before the proof of vaccination mandate, before the declared “State of Emergency”, even before the very first Covid-19 press conference with public health measure dictates on March 06 2020, the Respondents knew they were acting outside their legislation and knew that the so called vaccines were neither effective nor safe. 2, 3
It is hoped that we don’t have to wait too long to find out whether the Judicial Review halts at Mootness or whether it finally continues on to the actual Review.
Responses
Barrister & Solicitor
Department of Justice (NS)
8th flr, 1690 Hollis St., PO Box 7
Halifax, NS B3J 1T0
Phone: 902-266-4255
Fax: 902-424-1730
Email: daniel.boyle@novascotia.ca
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTSAbout William Ray
021 I wrote and filed a submision for Judicial Review against Robert Strang and the Government of Nova Scotia against the vaccine mandate for children
Real Guerilla Film making. 2 people and a camera. Tri-lingual. English/French and Innu
I have recently had a pieces published in Quillette and features in the Comment sections of National Post and Toronto Star.
In Quillette, William Ray provides the essential takedown of white privilege.
Danusha Goska FrontPage Mag
Share this:
2021 Yar No. 510031
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Between:
Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia
Applicant
and
Robert Strang acting as Chief Medical Officer of Health of Nova Scotia and Michelle Thompson acting as Minister of Health and Wellness of Nova Scotia and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia
Respondents
BRIEF OF THE APPLICANT, CITIZENS ALLIANCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
MOTION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE NOTICE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Christina Lazier Daniel Boyle
Barrister & Solicitor Barrister & Solicitor
91 – 3045 Robie St., Unit 5 Department of Justice (NS)
Halifax, NS B3K 4P5 8th flr, 1690 Hollis St., PO Box 7
Halifax, NS B3J 1T0
Phone: 902-790-4482 Phone: 902-266-4255
Fax: 902-847-9004 Fax: 902-424-1730
Email: annapolisa@protonmail.com Email: daniel.boyle@novascotia.ca
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Index Page
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…………….3
Part I. Facts……………………………………….…………….……….………………….…….3
Part II. Issue………………………………………………………………………………………6
Part III. Law and Argument……………………………………………….………….……….….6
Part IV. Relief Sought…………………………………………………………….……………....9
These are submissions on behalf of the Applicant, Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia (“CANS”), in support of its Motion for Amendment of the Notice for Judicial Review:
Introduction
1. On October 27, 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice for Judicial Review.
2. On February 9, 2022, the Applicant filed a Motion for Amendment of the Notice for Judicial Review, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 23 (Chambers Motion) and 83 (Amendment).
3. On February 9, 2022, the Applicant filed an amended Notice for Judicial Review, being a clean version of the amendment sought.
4. On February 17, 2022, the Applicant filed a version of the amended Notice for Judicial Review showing the changes made to the October 27, 2021 Notice for Judicial Review; indicating what was removed, added, or corrected to yield the clean version of the amended Notice for Judicial Review filed on February 9, 2022.
5. The Applicant seeks leave of this Honourable Court to proceed with the judicial review on the basis of its amended Notice for Judicial Review filed February 9, 2022.
Part I. Facts
6. CANS is a federally registered not-for-profit, community-based organization, established on July 27, 2021 and already has 820 members. [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
7. CANS’ mission is, “To enable and support human, Charter and constitutional rights and freedoms through fund-raising, community engagement and smart activism and to nurture a safe, healthy and economically thriving environment for our future generations through education and awareness-training.” [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
8. On October 1, 2021, the Chief Medical Officer of Health issued an Order under s. 32 of the provincial Health Protection Act (“HPA”) which came into effect on October 4, 2021, requiring proof of full vaccination against “COVID-19” as one among many communicable disease public health measures (the “Restated Order”). [Restated Order #3 of the Chief Medical Officer of Health under Section 32 of the Health Protection Act 2004, c. 4, s. 1. (Oct. 1, 2021) – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 2]
9. As a not-for-profit organization carrying on business in Nova Scotia, CANS is subject to the impugned Order. The preamble states: “TO: …. 2.) All not-for-profit and for-profit businesses and organizations operating or carrying on business in Nova Scotia.; ….” [Restated Order #3 of the Chief Medical Officer of Health under Section 32 of the Health Protection Act 2004, c. 4, s. 1. (Oct. 1, 2021) – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 2]
10. Section 16.7 of the Order states:
Businesses and organizations that host discretionary,
non-essential events and activities must adhere to the COVID-19 Protocol for Proof of Full Vaccination for Events and Activities,
located at: https://novascotia.ca/coronavirus/docs/COVID-19-Protocol-for-proof-full-vaccination-events-activities-en.pdf, and must:
(a) verify proof of full vaccination from each patron/participant before they engage in the activity or event, and each volunteer who hosts, leads or organizes the event or activity unless they have been granted an exception in accordance with the Protocol;
(b) only retain information collected under subsection (a) if the patron/participant or volunteer provides their consent and destroy it on the earlier of their withdrawal of consent or termination of this Order; and
(c) only use the information collected under (a) for the purpose of confirming that the patron/participant or volunteer is fully vaccinated prior to engaging in the event or activity in compliance with this Order and may not use it for any other purpose.
[Restated Order #3 of the Chief Medical Officer of
Health under Section 32 of the Health Protection Act 2004, c. 4, s. 1. (Oct. 1,
2021) – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 2]
11. The “COVID-19 Protocol for Proof of Full Vaccination for Events and Activities”, effective October 4, 2021, mandates a general requirement that persons aged 12 and older provide proof they have been “fully vaccinated” against “COVID-19” with one or more specified vaccines before being permitted to engage in “discretionary” or “non-essential” activities or events, as defined in the Order, encompassing CANS activities and events. [“COVID-19 Protocol for Proof of Full Vaccination for Events and Activities” (Oct. 4, 2021) – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab x]
12. The Protocol states at clause 2.4: “Businesses and organizations hosting events and activities that are covered in Section 3.1 of this protocol are responsible to check that participants are fully vaccinated before they engage in the event or activity. [“COVID-19 Protocol for Proof of Full Vaccination for Events and Activities” (Oct. 4, 2021) – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab x]
13. Clause 3.1 of the Protocol states:
People need proof of full vaccination to go to or participate in discretionary, non-essential events, activities and services that gather people together, including but not limited to:
… indoor and outdoor festivals, special events and arts and culture events and activities (like theatre performances, concerts and movie theatres), unless they are outdoor events held in a public space with no specific entry point (like Nocturne)
• indoor and outdoor sports practices, games, competitions and tournaments (participants and spectators)
• indoor and outdoor extracurricular school-based activities, including sports
• bus, boat and walking tours
• museums, Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, and public library programs novascotia.ca/ coronavirus
• indoor and outdoor events and activities like receptions, social events and conferences that are hosted by a business or organization
• indoor and outdoor wedding ceremonies and funerals (including receptions and visitation) that are hosted by a business or organization
• community meetings in rental spaces and/or where the public may be present, such annual general meetings of businesses or organizations
• training hosted by a recognized business or organization (such as driver training or courses offered by a training business) and/or using a rental space.
[“COVID-19 Protocol for Proof of Full Vaccination for Events and Activities” (Oct. 4, 2021) – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab x]
14. The Protocol defines the term “fully vaccinated” as follows:
2.1 Definition of full vaccination
A person is considered fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in Nova Scotia in the following circumstances:
• 14 days or more after receiving the second dose of a two-dose series of a Health Canada authorized COVID-19 vaccine (Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, AstraZeneca) following minimum dosing intervals. This includes a mix of these vaccines, such as one dose of AstraZeneca and one dose of Moderna.
• 14 days or more after receiving a one-dose series of a Health Canada authorized COVID-19 vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson).
• 14 days or more after receiving the final dose of any other World Health Organization authorized series of COVID-19 vaccine (such as Sinopharm or Sinovac).
[“COVID-19 Protocol for Proof of Full Vaccination for Events and Activities” (Oct. 4, 2021) – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab x]
15. CANS seeks judicial review of the impugned s. 32 Orders, directives and Protocols, which adversely impact CANS' ability to fulfill its vision and mission through group activities and events by, among other things, requiring the organization to ask for proof of vaccination from would-be participants, which CANS considers an unacceptable violation of privacy and Charter rights. [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
16. CANS has, furthermore, undertaken the application for judicial review on behalf of its members whose daily lives, family activities, mental health, physical well-being, exercise of Charter rights and freedoms, employment, and social relations, have been adversely affected by the Order under review and for whom the Order has caused or may cause harm to their health and/or violation of their privacy and Charter rights. [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
17. The original Notice for Judicial Review, filed October 27, 2021, was prepared by William Ray, a CANS member and lay person who did not have the benefit of legal counsel. [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
18. On November 12, 2021, the CANS Board met and determined that the Notice for Judicial Review which had been filed did not clearly reflect the decision (i.e., Orders) which CANS is asking this Honourable Court to review, nor did it adequately set out the grounds for review or the relief sought. [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
19. It is by way of this Motion for Amendment of the Notice for Judicial Review, and the submission of supporting documents, that CANS seeks to perfect its Notice for Judicial Review in both form and substance, in keeping with the Civil Procedure Rules. [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
20. CANS’ Board regards this Motion for Amendment of the Notice for Judicial Review as an important step in gaining access to justice for the organization and its membership who are directly affected by the Order which is the subject of this Application. [Affidavit of Krista Simon – Applicant’s Book of Documents, Tab 1]
Part II. Issue
21. The Motion for Amendment raises the following issue:
Does the Applicant’s Motion for Amendment of the Notice for Judicial Review meet the legal test for leave to amend?
Part III. Law and Argument
22. Civil Procedure Rule 83 allows a party to an application to amend documents filed.
23. Rule 83.01 (2) states, “This Rule requires a party who wishes to amend a court document to obtain permission from the other parties or a judge, except documents may be amended without permission early in an action.”
24. Rule 83.03 states, “A party to a proceeding other than an action may amend the notice by which the proceeding is started, or a notice of contest, participation, or contention, with the agreement of the parties affected by the amendment or with permission of a judge.”
25. It is, arguably, still early in the instant proceedings: The Motion for Directions has not yet been heard, the record has not yet been produced, and preliminary matters have yet to be addressed. Hence, the Applicant respectfully submits, its amendment could proceed without seeking leave. However, the Applicant respectfully requests leave of this Honourable Court so as to settle any objection of the Respondents to an amendment made without their consent.
26. Rule 83.03 does not provide an explicit legal test for amendment where permission of a judge is sought. Looking to caselaw for guidance, however, reveals Courts’ consideration of two key factors: whether there is bad faith on the part of the Applicant or serious prejudice to the Respondent which cannot be compensated by costs.
27. In Oldford v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Justice Rosinski of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court opined in the context of an action that the legal test for granting amendment entailed two issues: bad faith or serious prejudice. The Court found no direct evidence of bad faith on the part of the moving party and inferred a good faith basis for the amendment. In his consideration of prejudice, Justice Rosinski gave weight to the fact that the defendants had had the proposed amended Statement of Claim for a considerable time and the factual foundation of the amendment was not perceptibly different from the initial Statement of Claim; both of which factors mitigated prejudice to the defendants. [Oldford v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [2011] N.S.J. No. 62, 2011 NSSC 49 – Applicant’s Book of Authorities, Tab 1]
28. The Applicant respectfully submits that its Motion for Amendment is made in good faith as there is both legitimacy and necessity to the amendment and it is brought for no improper purpose.
29. The amendment is necessary to clarify the scope of the Application, the grounds for the Application, and the remedies sought. The amended Notice sets out the justiciable issues which might not have been apparent in the initial pleading. In its revised form, the Applicant respectfully submits, the Notice also provides particulars which should assist the Respondents and Court in determining what the record should contain. Moreover, the essence of the Application does not materially change.
30. The Applicant respectfully submits that the Respondents are not disadvantaged by the substance or timing of the proposed amendment. Again, it is early in the proceedings. Furthermore, the original Application referenced and appended a letter which had been sent to the Respondents on CANS’ behalf on September 8, 2021. While the Respondents failed to respond to that letter, they nonetheless had the benefit of knowing its content several weeks prior to CANS’ first filing of the Notice for Judicial Review. Consequently, there can be no surprise to the Respondents in, for instance, the proposed amendment raising Charter issues addressed at length in that letter.
31. While prejudice to the Respondents is in the order of negligible inconvenience, the Applicant respectfully submits, if the amendment is not allowed, the Application could fail due to inadvertent shortcomings of the Notice. The Applicant respectfully submits that access to justice would be wholly denied in that case, because the timeframe within which the Applicant can bring a challenge of the same scope by way of a fresh application for judicial review has expired.
32. Civil Procedure Rule 7.05 states:
7.05 Judicial review application (1) A person may seek judicial review of a decision by filing a notice for judicial review before the earlier of the following: (a) twenty-five days after the day the decision is communicated to the person; (b) six months after the day the decision is made.
33. In the Applicant’s case, 7.05 (1)(a) applies. Denial of the Motion for Amendment could, therefore, result in denial of the Applicant’s opportunity to have the series of impugned Orders reviewed, beginning with the October 1, 2021 Restated Order #3. Thus, the prejudice to the Applicant of being denied leave far outweighs any prejudice to the Respondents of granting the Applicant leave to amend.
34. In a case where the Applicant filed an application while unrepresented, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed his filing of an amended pleading once Counsel was retained, finding the inconvenience to the respondent was outweighed by the prejudice to the applicant should he be denied opportunity to have the claim heard in its entirety. [Caldi v. Budget Rent-A-Car, [1995] N.S.J. No. 146, 140 N. S. R. (2d) 158 (C. A.) – Applicant’s Book of Authorities, Tab 2]
35. The Courts of Nova Scotia have made a concerted effort throughout the past two decades to improve access to justice for unrepresented litigants; levelling the playing field where possible short of introducing any spectre of bias. The instant case invites such accommodation where the Applicant initiated its application to the best of its ability without the benefit of legal counsel. Now represented, the Applicant ought to be granted permission to restate the legal challenge it brings and the outcomes it seeks so as to perfect its Application, the Applicant respectfully submits.
36. The Applicant respectfully submits that the review contemplated in s. 6(1)(i) of the Act, which Counsel for the Respondents raises in his December 8, 2021 submissions as a suitable alternative to the judicial review, is prescriptively undertaken by the Minister of Health and Wellness. Such an administrative review is no substitute for judicial review, the Applicant respectfully submits. It amounts to the Minister reviewing her own performance and that of her department.
37. The Applicant comes before this Honourable Court, engaging the Judiciary to perform a vital and rigourous check among the “checks and balances” integral to our constitutional democracy: to examine the reasonableness and lawfulness of the Executive branch of government’s exercise of broad powers and discretion in a particularly novel context. The Minister is bound to invest in navel-gazing at some later date. In the meantime, the Applicant is entitled to call upon this Honourable Court and benefit from its review of the impugned Orders, ensuring that their reasonableness and lawfulness are thoroughly, objectively, and impartially tested. This aim can be realized only with leave to proceed on the basis of the amended Notice for Judicial Review, the Applicant respectfully submits.
Part IV. Relief Sought
38. The Applicant respectfully submits that it has satisfied the legal test to obtain an order permitting the proposed amendment of the Notice for Judicial Review; having demonstrated no bad faith in bringing it and posing no appreciable prejudice to the Respondents in the timing or substance of it.
39. The Applicant respectfully requests that this Honourable Court issue an Order granting the Applicant’s Motion for Amendment of the Notice for Judicial Review as filed February 9, 2022.
40. All of which is respectfully submitted.
_____________________________________
Christina Lazier
Counsel for the Applicant,
Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia
Kingston, Nova Scotia
March 4, 2022
“Free Speech In Medicine” Conference Nova Scotia – Oct 27-29
October 27-29, 2023 — Village of Baddeck, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
Interview: CHD Canada’s Nova Scotia Provincial Director Sameen Toms and
Dr. Chris Milburn chat about the upcoming “Free Speech in Medicine” (FSIM) Conference taking place October 27-29, 2023, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
As many know, Dr. Milburn was fired from his position as director of Emergency Medicine for the Eastern Zone of Nova Scotia Health in 2021 because he dared to question and criticize public health officials regarding COVID-19 policies, including vaccine mandates and school closures.
Dr. Milburn and his wife Dr. Julie Curwin (known on Substack and Twitter as Pairodocs) founded Free Speech in Medicine and Science to connect individuals who believe in scientific integrity in the face of attempts to politicize and subvert scientific discourse. They believe the most important topics to talk about are those that you’re not supposed to talk about!
The doctors’ second annual FSIM conference will feature a slew of esteemed speakers who will delve into a range of subjects that include:
- revisiting COVID policy and the rise of the biomedical security state,
- exploring the legal boundaries of regulatory colleges’ control over free speech,
- examining transgenderism, and
- exploring the limits of harm reduction strategies for substance abuse
Both Sameen and Dr. Milburn look forward to meeting you at the conference! For more information, including registration and travel to this thought-provoking and inspiring event, visit the FSIM conference website today.
About Us
President & Co-Founder: Christine Colebeck
Co-Founder: Amanda Forbes
Vice President/Mktg Comm: Jen Berman Diaz
CONTACT US
Volunteer Opportunities
Would you like to get involved with CHD Canada?
Currently we are seeking volunteers from all provinces with various interests, skills and talents:
– Writers
– On-camera Interviewers
– Social Media Asst and Content Creators
– WordPress/Constant Contact
– Fundraising & Development
– Membership Coordinator
– Education
– Events Assistance
– Legal
– Finance/Accounting
– Administrative
– Tech Director
– Photographer/Videographer
– BIPOC Outreach
– Student Volunteers/Interns
You name it!
Send us an email and let us know what you’re great at and what interests you!
Canada.team@Childrenshealthdefense.ca
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Founder and former Chairman of the Board
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Founder and former Chairman of the Board and Chief Legal Counsel of Children’s Health Defense, was the founder of Waterkeeper Alliance, the world’s largest clean water advocacy group, and serves as counsel to Morgan & Morgan, a nationwide personal injury practice.
Mr. Kennedy is an esteemed author, with a long list of published books including the New York Times’ bestseller, “Crimes Against Nature.” Mr. Kennedy was named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River. His reputation as a resolute defender of the environment and children’s health stems from a litany of successful legal actions. He received recognition for his role in the landmark victory against Monsanto last year, as well as in the DuPont Case that inspired the movie “Dark Waters” (2019).
Cape Breton doctor removed as head of emergency medicine for Eastern zone
Dr. Chris Milburn has been practising medicine for 22 years, over that time he hasn't shied away from controversy.
On a local radio show last week, Milburn questioned some decisions being made by the province.
"I'm not surprised Dr. Strang was angry, because my views were misrepresented to him," says Milburn, a Cape Breton physician.
Social media was abuzz with people targeting Milburn for his views on vaccinations, but the physician says his words were "taken out of context."
"What I'm for is science and what I'm for is personal choice," says Milburn. "Patient autonomy is one of the basic, ethical foundations of our modern health care system."
Milburn also questioned school closures, and whether some in leadership roles were – in his words – enjoying the limelight and "de facto rule over our province."
Some interpreted that comment as being directed at Dr. Robert Strang, Nova Scotia's chief medical officer of health. Milburn says it wasn't, but when a reporter asked Strang about the Cape Breton doctor's comments, this was his response.
"I think he's had a strong response from the community in Cape Breton," said Strang. "My only other thing would say he's a trained emergency physician and I'm trained as a public health physician, I don't try to practice emergency medicine, and you shouldn't try to practice public health medicine."
Milburn says "that is symptomatic of the whole issue to me."
Via email late Wednesday afternoon, the Nova Scotia Health Authority said Milburn is not currently department head of emergency medicine for the Eastern zone.
"Where are we going to see that public health impact," says Milburn. "You're not going to see it sitting in an office in Halifax. You're going to see it in an emergency room in Cape Breton, or Canso, or Halifax."
Despite being removed from his leadership role, Milburn continues to work as a physician in the Cape Breton Area.
Kyle Moore
February, 2024: Kyle Moore is no longer with the company.
Kyle Moore is a videographer for CTV Atlantic in the Sydney Bureau.
Kyle joined the CTV Atlantic team in 2013 after more than a decade in the broadcasting business.
Born and raised in Glace Bay, N.S., Kyle began his career in news with CJCB Radio in 2004.
He then transitioned to sports coverage, travelling the Maritimes with Eastlink TV hosting AUS and QMJHL hockey coverage, before spending three years with the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles organization as the play-by-play broadcaster.
In his spare time, Kyle can be found on the ball diamond and at the hockey rink. He's umpired several Canadian Little League Championships and has acted as an official for Hockey Nova Scotia.
Married to his longtime sweetheart Samantha, the pair have two children.
Dr. Chris Milburn is a family and ER physician who has been working in Nova Scotia for 20 years. He and his wife Julie Curwin, a psychiatrist,
Comments
Dr. Christopher Milburn v. Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons
- November 12, 2020
The Justice Centre was retained in March of 2020 by a Nova Scotia emergency room physician to defend him from professional discipline, after a Complaint was filed by activists who took exception to an opinion column he wrote in a local paper. The Decision of the Investigation Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia was released on November 4, 2020 and a summary of the Decision was published on November 12, 2020—until that time all details about the Complaint were subject to a publication ban.
Last year, on November 16, 2019, Dr. Chris Milburn wrote an opinion piece for The Chronicle Herald. In the wake of two special constables being convicted of criminal negligence for the death of a drunk man being held in custody, Dr. Milburn expressed the opinion that, while police and jail guards should be held to a high standard, they should not be held to an impossible one. He noted the negative effects on already over-burdened emergency departments of having to provide “medical clearance” of some of the most “wild-behaving and impaired” people being brought in by police and guards on a routine basis.
Dr. Milburn’s piece was read widely, and many people, both within and outside the medical profession, expressed support for his views both publicly and privately. A number of others spoke out against his views. Various letters to the editor were written which showed a split in public thinking on the matter – some were critical of what they perceived to be his dismissive attitude toward those with addiction issues; still others were grateful for his comments as being a breath of fresh air.
To respond to his critics, Dr. Milburn wrote a rebuttal piece on Nov. 27, 2019, in which he confirmed that he has no hesitation to provide appropriate care to any patient, ‘criminal’ or not, and noted the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ exhibited by one of his detractors, a criminal defence lawyer, in her article critiquing his opinions. As Dr. Milburn explained, “I believe that caring for someone means having high expectations and pushing them to do better. I have personally provided excellent care to some of the most notorious criminals in our country. I believe these people are human beings, flawed like the rest of us, who deserve medical care just like anyone else. And when I don’t have to give up my own physical safety or risk that of my staff to provide that care, I am more than willing to do so.”
A compilation of letters to the editor on Nov. 30, under the headline “Milburn op-eds stoke serious debate about personal responsibility”, showed how the public appreciated the opportunity to discuss the issues, despite opinions being divided.
On January 17, 2020, a group of 14 activists, academics and doctors, led by a Halifax lawyer, filed a formal Complaint against Dr. Milburn with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, seeking to punish and threaten the livelihood of Dr. Milburn merely for expressing opinions with which they disagreed. They were not Dr. Milburn’s patients, nor had he had any prior interactions with these complainants. Several did not even reside in Cape Breton, where he practices medicine. The College has not permitted the Complaint to be publicized in its entirety.
The Justice Centre provided submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn’s behalf, including his own personal statement and legal arguments defending the right of physicians to be able to express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square. The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and should not be encouraged by the College. The Justice Centre submitted that an appropriate response would have been to write a rebuttal piece, which was done by several people, including one of the complainants. This is how ideas are presented, debated, dismissed, or affirmed in a free and functioning democracy – not attacking the speaker and attempting to destroy their livelihood or cause them to be otherwise disciplined by their professional regulator.
The Justice Centre further submitted that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – including doctors.
The College appointed an Investigation Committee to review the matter, and an interview was conducted with Dr. Milburn on September 1, 2020, in the presence of his Justice Centre counsel. In its Decision, the Committee dismissed the complaint and stated that it “does not find that Dr. Milburn may have breached the standards of professional ethics or practice and therefore a caution is not appropriate.”
While this was an excellent result for Dr. Milburn, the Decision was unfortunately not a full-throated defence of free speech: “A dismissal of this complaint should not be read as the Committee’s endorsement of Dr. Milburn’s public utterances….Individuals who identify themselves as physicians when speaking out on matters in a public way, must recognize the impact of their words and take into account the various sensitivities at play in the matters under discussion,” the Committee wrote.
Additionally, shortly after the Complaint was filed a further query was made by the College’s deputy registrar, in which Dr. Milburn was asked to explain why he posted a comment on Facebook which gave kudos to French president Macron for supporting a young LGBT woman who was being accused of blasphemy for her criticism of radical Islam. A response was provided by Dr. Milburn, with the assistance of the Justice Centre, and the matter was dropped on March 24, 2020. There had been no formal complaint, but it appeared that the original matter prompted the College to review Dr. Milburn’s social media postings.
Although the Decision and the supplementary inquiry into the Facebook post were both resolved in Dr. Milburn’s favour, the Justice Centre is concerned that professional regulators are increasingly being asked to investigate professionals’ public comments by activists seeking to ‘cancel’ those who hold views they consider ‘wrong’.
Huge thanks to members of CANS, Shelly Hipson and Dr. Milburn for all the hard work in preparing for this case. Thanks to William Ray for ernestly and articulately presenting the issues. It is so important they do not get away with these illegal actions, that they are held to account and that those who stood against and suffered under the mandates are validated.
William Ray was especially impressive with his closing arguments/statement. I was glad to see him use the example of someone having committed a robbery (his example – holding up a bank) and then later retiring from robbing banks and claiming that the case against him was therefore now moot.
I had discussed this briefly with William after the previous court appearance as it seemed to me at the time to be ridiculous to claim any past criminal action as “moot”, just because it was in the past.
Further, the actions of Robert Strang are far from moot for those now suffering the serious physical and mental side-effects of the mRNA injections (not a vaccine by any stretch of the imagination), those who have died because of the injection, those who couldn’t spend their last moments with dying loved-ones, those who lost their jobs, those who suffered/are suffering extreme business losses, and so forth
For all, it is quite evident that there was extreme negligence and lack of due diligence involved in forcing the injections on Nova Scotians. If I recall from my brief law course information from the distant past, there is no defence against negligence.
Presumably this is still the case.
Strang’s actions have negligence written all over them.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I called Correct?