Appeal Court Issues Ruling in My Case Against the CPSO

Upholding Integrity in Medicine: A Setback in Court, but the Fight Continues for Truth and Freedom

As many of you know, the Court has released its decision in my case against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Unfortunately, the ruling went against us on every point, disregarding key evidence and legal standards to reach its decision. This disappointing outcome reflects the Tribunal's previous findings, which accused me of spreading so-called "misinformation" and acting dishonorably for providing alternative viewpoints on COVID-19. Despite the setback, I remain committed to defending the right to ethical medical practice and freedom of expression in healthcare. I am grateful for your continued support.

You can read the court’s ruling here: (Click Here)

Here is the latest Justice for Medicine Case Update from my lawyer and friend, Michael Alexander.

---

Case Update

November 8th, 2024

Hi Everyone,

As many of you may have already heard, the decision in the Trozzi case was released last Friday, far in advance of normal timelines. I am sorry to report that the Court ruled against us on all points of law, and in fact, ran roughshod over major issues to get where it wanted to go.

By way of background, the Tribunal had ruled in November of 2023 that Dr. Trozzi had been spreading misinformation concerning Covid-19, which had the potential to cause harm to the public, for instance, by encouraging people to take ivermectin or stating that the Covid-19 shots had not met appropriate standards of safety and efficacy. The Tribunal also ruled that Dr. Trozzi had failed to maintain the standard of practice by providing medical exemptions for Covid-19 shots. As well, it found that Dr. Trozzi had acted dishonorably by engaging in uncivil discourse.

I launched an appeal of the Tribunal decision in early 2024, and the matter was heard by the Divisional Court on October 8th. The decision was reviewed on the standard of correctness, which is the highest standard of review in the court system. It requires the Court to hold the lower decision-maker to the single, right answer on every point of law.

In my written and oral submissions before the Court , I argued that the College Tribunal had failed to consider relevant evidence and had otherwise misrepresented relevant evidence. The Tribunal did not even mention Dr. Trozzi's two scientific reports on Covid-19 science, which were tendered to respond to the expert witness report provided by Dr. Andrew Gardam, the College's main expert on Covid-19 science. Dr. Trozzi's reports contained references to over 160 articles from internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals, dozens of articles waiting for publication approval and statistics taken from Public Health England, Our World in Data, Statistics Canada and Public Health Ontario, while Dr. Gardam's brief report referred to less than a dozen sources.

Dr. Trozzi's reports were put into evidence at the Tribunal hearing. They were the subject of my cross-examination of Dr. Gardam, the College's re-direct of Dr. Gardam, and were also hotly debated during closing submissions. Yet, the Court ruled that the reports had never been introduced into evidence and were, therefore, irrelevant. This is an absurd ruling on its face, and flies in the face of the fact that the parties had reached a pre-hearing agreement to put the studies into evidence in a joint book of documents.

In my oral and written submissions, I noted that the Tribunal had failed to even mention my cross-examination of Dr. Gardam, during which Dr. Gardam admitted that he agreed with the major points of science advanced by Dr.Trozzi's reports. In legal parlance, this is referred to as "impeaching the witness." It refers to a mode of questioning whereby the witness is put in contradiction with his or her previous oral or written statements.

It goes without saying that impeaching the College's main expert witness and turning him into a witness for Dr. Trozzi is highly relevant since it subverts the College's allegation that Dr. Trozzi had been spreading misinformation that could cause public harm. However, the Tribunal did not even mention the cross-examination in its decision. That is clear evidence of bias and should have led the Court to overturn the Tribunal decision.

In the course of its decision, the Court approved the Tribunal's failure to grapple with my cross-examination of the College's expert witness on "misinformation," Dr. Noni MacDonald, and brushed over the fact that the Tribunal illegitimately applied mere guideline documents as if they had the force of law; as well, the Court refused to recognize pre- and post-Charter Supreme Court cases that have established the absolute right of every citizen to express a minority or dissenting opinion on matters of public importance. 

While there was always the chance that the Court would affirm the Tribunal decision, since Dr. Trozzi did provide medical exemptions contrary to the College's standard of practice, though without causing any patient harm, and had also engaged, at times, in uncivil discourse, it does not follow that the Tribunal had the right to ignore material evidence or misrepresent guidelines as legal norms. A positive ruling on those points could have been a major victory for all health care professionals, even if the Court had still chosen to affirm the Tribunal's decision.

The Trozzi decision and other recent cases involving doctors dissenting from the public Covid-19 narrative have confirmed the following propositions:

1. Any health college may conduct an unlawful search and seizure of a member's office, which is to say, without establishing reasonable and probable grounds, as required by the Health Professions Procedural Code;

2. Colleges may apply mere guideline and recommendation documents as if they have the force of law;

3. Any College discipline tribunal may ignore or manipulate material evidence;

4. Health professionals do not enjoy the fundamental right to register disagreements with government public health policies and recommendations.

For the time being, we have lost in spite of our best efforts because the Divisional Court of Ontario is perversely committed to enforcing the government's narrative concerning Covid-19, even though we all know that it is utterly false and has caused injury and death to hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

This, however, is not the end of the road. Trump's victory in the U.S. will change the zeitgeist around all public health issues, as will the appointment of RFK Jr. to a Cabinet position.

Further, currently, I am defending municipal council members who have been penalized under a new provincial censorship regime simply for expressing an independent point of view on policy matters. These cases involve many of the same legal principles at play in the Trozzi case. If I am successful in one of the municipal cases, this could lay down some case law that will help our beleaguered doctors and their patients.

Best wishes,

Michael Alexander

---

Related Material

Justice for Medicine: End Game

COVID Injections: Unveiling the Mechanisms of Harm

Genetic Invasion: An Update with Dr David Speicher, PhD