Standing for the rights of
Nova Scotians

Form 7.05
2021                                      NO.

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
                                            Respondents

Michelle Thompson
acting as Minister of Health and Wellness
Nova Scotia

Attorney-General of Nova Scotia

Notice for Judicial Review
To; Robert Strang acting as Chief Health Officer of Nova Scotia
1894 Barrington Street, Floor 3 Halifax, NS
Halifax, Nova Scotia,
B3J 2R8
Robert.Strang@novascotia.ca
And To; Michelle Thompson Acting as Minister of Health and Wellness Nova Scotia
Department of Health and Wellness Barrington Tower
1894 Barrington Street, Floor 17 Halifax, NS
B3J 2R8
Health.Minister@novascotia.ca
And To; Brad Johns Acting as Attorney-General of Nova Scotia
1690 Hollis Street, Floor 9 Halifax, NS B3J 2L6

Request for Judicial Review
The applicant requests Judicial Review of the decision of Robert Strang acting as Chief Public Health Officer of Nova Scotia to use coercive means to cause the injection of Pfizer-Biontech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine, Suspension for Intramuscular Injection, Comirnaty or Moderna mRNA-1273 Suspension for Intramuscular Injection, Spikevax (experimental Covid-19 drugs under Emergency Use Authorization by Health Canada) in persons under 16 years of age in the province of Nova Scotia. The decision is contained in section 16.7 and embedded protocol of his RESTATED ORDER #3 OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH UNDER SECTION 32 of the HEALTH PROTECTION ACT 2004, c. 4, s. 1. of October 1st 2021.

The decision was communicated to the applicant on October 2nd 2021
The decision was made under the Nova Scotia Health Protection act 2004
The order is contained in schedule A

Grounds for review

“Both statutory and common law will also impose constraints on how and what an administrative decision maker can lawfully decide. Any precedents on the issue before the administrative decision maker or on a similar issue, as well as international law in some administrative decision making contexts, will act as a constraint on what the decision maker can reasonably decide.” Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII)

The Applicant asserts that the decision is unreasonable because it is not based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis given the facts clearly before Robert Strang and demonstrated by the public statements and internal communication of his department. Further that in causing there to be instituted a coercive regime, (R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 and R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613 para 44) forcing the vaccination of minor children under 16 years of age, he acted in an unreasonable manner without basis in fact or Law.

The Applicant asserts that evidence available to Robert Strang and possessed by his department at the time of the order showed that there is no appreciable danger to the health of those under 16 years of age posed by the SARS-Cov2 pathogen or its associated disease Covid-19, and that knowledge of this fact was clearly stated by him and by representatives of his department in their public statements and correspondence. This constitutes an unreasonable act under his statutory authority, The Nova Scotia Health protection Act 04, c. 4, s. 22. (1) and (2) regarding the issuance of orders.

The Applicant asserts that given the fact that on October 1st 2021 both Pfizer-Biontech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Suspension for Intramuscular Injection or Moderna mRNA-1273 Suspension for Intramuscular Injection (experimental covid 19 drugs under Emergency Use Authorization by Health Canada) state clearly in their product monographs that safety studies have not been completed for children under 16, that major Public Health Organizations recommend against vaccinating those persons under 16, that a solid and growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence existed on and before the date of his order that these injections pose serious risks of adverse life threatening events that may cause permanent unknown harms in children under 16 years of age. Since it was clearly his statutory, professional and moral obligation to avail himself of this information in making his decision any such fault would clearly constitute a failure to act as mandated by his statutory duty.

The Applicant asserts that Robert Strang, acting as Chief Public Health Officer of Nova Scotia, authorized a deliberate and co-ordinated campaign to unlawfully use coercion (R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 and R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613 ) to cause the injection of Pfizer-Biontech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine, Suspension for Intramuscular Injection or Moderna mRNA-1273 Suspension for Intramuscular Injection (experimental Covid-19 drugs under Emergency Use Authorization by Health Canada) in persons under 16 years of age. The Applicant asserts the Record will show the purpose of section 16.7 and embedded protocol of the RESTATED ORDER #3 OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH UNDER SECTION 32 of the HEALTH PROTECTION ACT 2004, c. 4, s. 1. of October 1st 2021 was to cause the injection of the largest number of persons under 16 and served no other purpose and thus constitutes coercion and an unlawful act.
Correspondence shows that this campaign included focused efforts to abrogate parental rights concerning medical treatment and obtain “consent” from minor children through coercive and deceptive methods. The Applicant notes that children are afforded special protection by every civilised society, Canada and Nova Scotia are bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child;

Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

This duty is noted in the preamble to the Nova Scotia Children and Family Services Act, 1990.

WHEREAS the family exists as the basic unit of society, and its well-being is inseparable from the common well-being;
AND WHEREAS children are entitled to protection from abuse and neglect;
AND WHEREAS the rights of children are enjoyed either personally or with their family;
AND WHEREAS children have basic rights and fundamental freedoms no less than those of adults and a right to special safeguards and assistance in the preservation of those rights and freedoms;
AND WHEREAS children are entitled, to the extent they are capable of understanding, to be informed of their rights and freedoms, to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes that lead to decisions that affect them;
AND WHEREAS the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of children and their families include a right to the least invasion of privacy and interference with freedom that is compatible with their own interests and of society’s interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect;
AND WHEREAS the rights of children, families and individuals are guaranteed by the rule of law and intervention into the affairs of individuals and families so as to protect and affirm these rights must be governed by the rule of law 

This places an extra duty of care on every member of Canadian society and the Legislative, Administrative, and Judicial structures of that society to take every step to ensure that no action of the state or its agents is harmful to children and that coercion may not be used to dictate their behaviour in making medical decisions that may have lifelong effects and which they have little capacity to understand.

Order proposed

The Applicant requests that Robert Strang be stripped of all Civil and Criminal protections under c.4 s. 12 Nova Scotia Health Protection act 2004, as he did not in fact act in Good Faith in the performance of his statutory duties.

The Applicant requests a writ of Mandamus and accompanying order of Judicial supervision be issued by the court to Robert Strang and the Minister of Health and Wellness to ensure they comply with The Nova Scotia Health Act Sections 2 and 22

2 Restrictions on private rights and freedoms arising as a result of the exercise of any power under this Act shall be no greater than are reasonably required, considering all of the circumstances, to respond to a health hazard, notifiable disease or condition, communicable disease or public health emergency.

22 (1) Actions specified in an order must be necessary to achieve a decrease in the effect of or to eliminate the health hazard.
(2) Actions included in an order shall be framed as clear directions or requirements to terminate or mitigate the health hazard and a medical officer must give reasons for the order in the order.

The Applicant asserts that the requirement of notice for Mandamus was satisfied by the Applicant’s Letter prepared by Daphne Williamson , LLB and delivered on September 8th 2021. Schedule B

You may participate
You may participate in the judicial review if you file a notice of participation no more than ten days after the day a copy of this notice for judicial review is delivered to you. Filing the notice entitles you to notice of further steps in the judicial review.

Record to be produced
The Applicant foresees no difficulty obtaining the record. The Applicant will assist the decision-making authority in producing the record and believes it will be delivered to the court and the respondents no later than December 16th, 2021. The record will include affidavits and documentary evidence.

Notice to decision-making authority
The respondent, Robert Strang, is required by Civil Procedure Rule 7 – Judicial Review and Appeal to file one of the following no more than five days after the day the decision-making authority is notified of this proceeding by delivery of a copy of this notice for judicial review:

• a complete copy of the record, with copies of separate documents separated by numbered or lettered tabs;
• a statement indicating that the decision-making authority has made arrangements with the applicant to produce of the record, providing details of those arrangements, and estimating when the return will be ready;
• an undertaking that the decision-making authority will appear on the motion for directions and will seek directions concerning the record;
• a summary of reasons given orally without a record and your certificate the summary is accurate, if you gave reasons orally and not on record.

If you fail in this regard, a judge may order costs against you including a requirement that you indemnify each other party for any expenses caused by your failure, such as expenses caused by an adjournment if that is the result.

Stay of proceedings or other interim remedy
The applicant will make a motion for a stay of the enforcement of the decision under Judicial Review. The motion will be made within 5 days of the filing of notice of Judicial Review and will be heard 16th of December, 2021, at the Yarmouth Courthouse, 164 Main Street, Yarmouth

The Applicant gives notice that they will seek a motion for a Prohibitory Injunction preventing the Injection of those under 16 years of age with with Pfizer-Biontech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Suspension for Intramuscular Injection Comirnaty and/ or Moderna mRNA-1273 Suspension for Intramuscular Injection Spikevax (experimental Covid-19 drugs under Emergency Use Authorization by Health Canada).

Filing and delivering documents
Any documents you file must be filed at the office of the Prothonotary 164 Main Street Yarmouth, Nova Scotia B5A 1C2 Phone: 742-4142 Fax: 742-0678
When you file a document you must immediately deliver a copy of it to each other party entitled to notice, unless the document is part of an ex parte motion, the parties agree delivery is not required/ or a judge orders it is not required.

Contact information
The applicant designates the following address: 91-3045 Robie Street, Unit 5. Halifax, NS B3K 4PS

Documents delivered to this address are considered received by the applicant on delivery. Further contact information is available from the prothonotary.

Motion for Date and Directions
At 9:30 AM December 16th, 2021, the Applicant will appear before a judge in Chambers at the Yarmouth Courthouse, 164 Main Street, Yarmouth , Nova Scotia to make a motion for an order giving directions for the judicial review including a date and time for the hearing of it. The judge may make an order or provide directions in your absence if you or your counsel fail to attend, and the court may determine the judicial review without further notice to you.