Michael Alexander: Administrative Tyranny and the War on Free Expression
Ontario’s courts have enabled censorship and overreach by professional regulators under the guise of emergencies.
Lawyer Michael Alexander exposes how the COVID response has exposed a deeper constitutional crisis: professional regulators and courts have abandoned core legal principles in favor of unchecked administrative power. Rather than upholding the rule of law, tribunals and judges have allowed censorship, bypassed due process, and enabled regulatory overreach under the pretext of public health. While some heroic doctors have won their cases through well-funded scientific defenses, most have faced punishment for expressing inconvenient truths. This article examines the legal battles that reveal how “emergency” has become the justification for silencing dissent and rewriting the limits of authority.
This video is from a fundraiser in support of Justice for Medicine, hosted May 24, 2025. You can watch the full event here. Many thanks to Mike Bayer of Free Speech Media for providing on-site video and audiovisual support.
Justice for Medicine has been actively upholding protections of doctors and patients alike. You can support them by donating here:
Website: Justice For Medicine
Donate: justiceformedicine.com/#donate
The Transition to Ignoring Science
When early legal challenges to COVID-19 measures began, it quickly became apparent that Canadian courts and tribunals would not fairly weigh expert testimony. Government-appointed experts were consistently favoured, while scientists who tried to reveal the truth were ignored. In defending my case against the CPSO, Alexander moved away from the purely scientific discussion, instead attempting to challenge the jurisdiction of the authorities imposing the mandates. He argued that governments and regulators were acting beyond their legal powers—often without any legislative basis.
Across Canada, from Nova Scotia to Vancouver, public institutions implemented and enforced COVID-19 measures with no grounding in statute. Success seemed likely by focusing on these constitutional violations. But even strong cases like ours met resistance from courts unwilling to curtail state overreach during a declared “emergency.”
How Science Won—But Only With Resources
Ironically, two of the most significant legal victories for dissenting doctors (Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Dr. Charles Hoffe) were not won on legal principles, but because those doctors were able to overwhelm the regulatory colleges with scientific evidence. In both cases, the defense assembled teams of high-calibre expert witnesses—up to eight per case—supported by external funding and goodwill.
These experts produced detailed, persuasive reports that regulators could not refute. As a result, colleges withdrew charges at the last minute, recognizing that they would lose. These outcomes highlight that, although the science is strong, only those with substantial backing—financial or institutional—can hope to guarantee a win in this climate.
Guidelines Replacing Laws
The most troubling legal precedent, however, stems from the courts’ willingness to allow prosecutions based solely on guidelines and recommendations. Despite well-established precedent that such documents lack legal force, regulators proceeded as if violating a guideline constituted misconduct.
Courts have refused to challenge this behavior. Judges have declined to rebuke colleges for enforcing these non-binding recommendations as if they were law. This legitimizes a system where unelected bureaucrats can invent rules without legislative authority—and punish those who don’t comply.
Freedom of Expression Abolished by Association
Another disturbing ruling held that professionals who join regulated bodies “waive” their right to free expression. Now, medical and legal professionals in Canada can be punished for expressing views that conflict with institutional messaging, even if those views are grounded in science or law.
This is unprecedented. Nowhere in the legislation does it state that joining a profession entails surrendering charter rights. Yet courts have upheld this logic under the guise of public health necessity. Worse, the judges making these decisions appear to have had prior involvement with COVID-19 policy committees, raising serious concerns about impartiality.
Municipal Politics and Federal Expansion
This authoritarian logic is now spreading beyond the medical realm. In municipal politics, councillors are being censured under vague codes of conduct for expressing dissenting views. These provisions, purportedly intended to prevent bullying, are instead being used to silence opposition.
Meanwhile, federally, looming legislation threatens even broader restrictions. The proposed Online Harms Act and "One Health" policy could entrench censorship into every aspect of life—from climate policy to internet speech. Mark Carney has openly advocated for a protest police force and tighter controls on public discourse.
Restoring the Legal System to Legitimacy
Legal action is breaking through in select cases, but it cannot win alone. The administrative state has demonstrated that it will twist guidelines into law, ignore the Charter, and suppress dissent under the pretext of emergency.
Legislators must be encouraged to roll back emergency powers, and clarify that Charter rights cannot be overridden by internal messages or mere recommendations. Victory will require more than courtroom strategy; it will require coordinated resistance through law, politics, and public resistance.
"This authoritarian logic is now spreading beyond the medical realm". I believe we continue to "help" these outrageous problems caused by criminal gov, by not calling ALL their illogical, anti-human behaviors what they really are. "Authoritarian logic" is a too kind way of defining "Nazi fascism". We are losing our right to live in a free country, by watering down what govs have turned Canada into; the opposite of a free country! We continue to help the WEF cult graduates/directors that have cheated in elections to take over Canada called Liberals, by further calling them elites. They are the opposite of elites, they are criminals planning to murder 7 billion people in writing, proving they are premeditating, mass-murderers. They are putting their murder plans into their fake laws every day. We should refuse to call these subhumans elite; they are the opposite. Losers with more money than they can spend in their whole wretched lives, that cannot find anything good to do with their cash except cheat in elections and plan mass-murder. They all will do anything for a penny, yet the rest of us can live without their cash, making them subhumans not elites! They have already murdered at least 1 million Canadians, yet nobody has charged them for anything except illegally using the Emergencies act. They are even ignoring that court decision by rewriting the same principals into the 30-40 laws they have already written and/or passed. I know Mark says it like it is more often than most. Somehow more of us need to do that because our too kind words are helping them destroy Canadian heath, law, police system, courts, and Canada itself!
Michael, you're an inspiration. May your efforts bring positive results. Samson vs Goliath . . .