by Richard Enos, Collective Evolution:
All the way back at the end of October 2020 I applied to join a lawsuit that was to challenge the Covid measures that were instituted in ten school boards in Ontario.
To make a long story short, the retainer fee I had submitted was eventually returned to me, as the legal counsel wanted to focus on only a few of the most egregious cases. In my particular case, I had obtained a mask exemption based on conscience for my 6-year old son, and after the complete runaround I experienced up and down the school board, where no individual from the principal to the director of education was actually willing to take responsibility in the event of any infringements of the exemption, I decided that I had lost all trust in the system and pulled my son out of school altogether.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
From what I’ve heard from parents who reached out to me for help with their mask exemptions, as well as the heart-wrenching stories from other parents whose children have been traumatized by these measures, I have been waiting anxiously for an announcement that this action had been filed in court, which finally came on May 4th in the form of a press release on the website of Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Galati:
On April 20th, 2021 Children’s Health Defense (Canada), Educators for Human Rights (an Association of Teachers), as well as a group of seventeen (17) children (through their litigation guardian parents), along with three individual teachers, filed Notice of Application against the government of Ontario and various School Boards and Public Health Officers with respect to school lock-downs, lock-outs, and treatment of children under the COVID measures.
Notice of Application
This was the first time I had heard of ‘Notice of Application,’ but I have taken this excerpt from the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure which I believe covers this particular notice:
A proceeding may be brought by application where these rules authorize the commencement of a proceeding by application or where the relief claimed is,
(g) an injunction, mandatory order or declaration or the appointment of a receiver or other consequential relief when ancillary to relief claimed in a proceeding properly commenced by a notice of application;
(g.1) for a remedy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
My aim here will be to summarize in layman’s terms the declarations and orders of this action, to the best of my ability, because I feel it is important for more people to know and understand the significance of this action being taken. Of course, I would recommend reading the entire 22-page Notice of Application itself to get the most detailed and accurate understanding.
The notice of application has listed the following people and entities as respondents, meaning these are the people/entities whose past and ongoing actions are being challenged:
Eileen De Villa, (Chief Medical Officer, City of Toronto Public Health), City of Toronto, Dr. Lawrence Loh, (Chief Medical Officer for Peel Public Health), Hamidah Meghani, (Chief Medical Officer for Peel Public Health), Robert Kyle, (Chief Medical Officer for Durham Public Health), Dr. Nicola Mercer, (Chief Medical Officer for Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health), Dr. David Williams, (Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health), The Attorney General for Ontario, The Minister of Education, The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, The Toronto District School Board, The Halton District School Board, The Durham District School Board, Robert Hochberg, Principal at Runnymede Public School, Superintendent Debbie Donsky of Toronto District School Board, Johns and Janes Does (Officials of the Defendants Minister of Education, Health and Long-Term Care and School Boards)
The notice begins with an application for the court to make a set of declarations, the first one being (a) a declaration that s.22 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act is unconstitutional and of no force and effect [in this or any other application].
This is followed by an application for the following to be declared by the court:
- (b) the state of emergency was invoked illegally, and even if it was legal, it is under federal jurisdiction, with regards to quarantine, lockdown, stay-at-home orders and curfews; further, the measures were invoked without people’s right to consult, a breach of the Charter.
- (c) the municipal Covid measures ordered and taken by the medical officers is beyond their powers, and even if it is within their powers, reasonable and probable grounds for their invocation have not been met.
- (d) the Covid measures taken were not scientifically based, and were justified solely by a fraudulent PCR test; further, the quarantining and isolation of asymptomatic children in their bedrooms is particularly abusive and against the Charter, and even more egregious is the lack of appropriate consideration for children with special needs.
- (e) the consensus opinion of the world’s scientific community is that masking and all other Covid measures are ineffective, and in some cases irreparably harmful to children.
- (f) mandatory masks, isolation and PCR testing violates applicants’ and childrens’ constitutional rights.
- (g) the notion of transmission of this virus from asymptomatic children to adults is completely without medical or scientific basis or merit.
- (h) masking, social distancing and testing in schools is unscientific, non-medical, unlawful and unconstitutional and should be halted immediately.
- (i) children do not pose a threat to their teachers with regards to Covid-19.
- (j) teachers who do not wish to mask have the statutory and constitutional right not to mask.
- (k) the masking of children is unscientific, non-medical, and harmful, and children should be prohibited from wearing them even if their parents want them to.
- (l) none of the above Charter violations can be dismissed by s.1 of the Charter.
Following these applications for declarations are applications for the following orders to be proclaimed by the court:
- (m) the respondents are prohibited from registering a PCR test above a cycle threshold of 25 as a screening test, and must administer specific additional diagnostic methods (as recommended) to determine the presence of a live virus; the respondents are prohibited from locking down schools, requiring children to wear masks, or requiring that children isolate themselves; the respondents are prohibited from declaring an ‘outbreak’ based on two positive PCR results, and from conducting school and classes by remote online distance learning over a computer.
- (n) the respondent Ministers are required to reveal the source and substantive evidence they received, and the specific scientific and medical evidence used to justify the measures imposed; they are required to reveal the cycle threshold rates for ALL PCR tests administered, and provide specific demographic data on all case mortalities, with distinctions provided between those who died ‘of’ as opposed to’with’ Covid-19; children are able to attend in-person school without masks or PCR test requirements.
Remainder of the Application
These declarations and orders were followed by: a request that costs of the application and other relief be paid by the respondents; the grounds for the application based on the various pertinent laws, legal decisions and arguments; and a list of the documentary evidence and expert testimony that will be presented at the hearing.
For those wondering why this action does not appear to be an immediate injunction or a lawsuit in which defendants are being sued for damages, Rocco Galati said the following in a May 6th press conference announcing the filing:
This is by way of application, we’re not going to waste our time trying to get interim injunctions, we’re going to argue this on the merits, as a final application, and I hope that scheduling for urgent matters, which we consider [this is], we will have a scheduling and a hearing date by fall…
We will be following this application by an action for monetary damages, which is a separate proceeding. We did not want to bog down and delay this proceeding in terms of declaratory and prerogative relief, injunctive relief, to wait for the long, drawn-out statement of claim. We will, in time, we’re going to give the 60-day notice to the Crown’s office that we will be coming at them, these same people will be coming at them for damages, on behalf of the damage that they’ve caused these children and the grief they’ve caused to their parents and their families because they did not respect the law.
It was a little disconcerting to learn that the hearing would at best be scheduled in the fall, and even that is not guaranteed as delay tactics from the government are expected. However, it gave me satisfaction to read a thorough and decisive document that cuts through the Covid narrative promoted by mainstream media (who, as expected, chose not to attend this important press conference) and highlights what many of us have long known to be obvious: that these measures have been ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus, and have caused severe mental, emotional, and physical damage to our children, the extent and permanence of which will be impossible to determine.