Standing for the rights of
Nova Scotians

About CANS

The Citizens’ Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) is a federally registered non-profit organization that champions public awareness of government actions, decisions and policy through advocacy,  smart activism, education,  awareness training and organizational change management. We are a grassroots organization made up of professionals, educators and families with big hearts and strong community connections. We are committed to protecting the human and constitutional rights and freedoms of all Nova Scotians.

The record as submitted by the Respondents

Download the record

On October 31st 2022, the Respondents in the Strang et al Judicial Review submitted what they term as the record. This data is what was purported to have been used by the Chief Medical Officer of Health in making the decision to impose Covid restrictions on all of the people of Nova Scotia.

Thank you for your interest in this data! Submit your email address below, and you will receive an email with links and a password to access the files. Please note: You can submit an email address only once. If you do not receive an email right away, please check your spam folder.



Bill 419

Interestingly PHIA already has provisions – 31(l) and 38(1)(g) – which allow for the Minister to collect personal health information for the purpose of planning and management of the health system. It also already contains provisions for the Minister to collect that information for the purposes of creating or maintaining an electronic health record at 31(o). The difference now, however, seems to be that custodians will no longer be able to refuse to disclose your personal health information to the government.

Read More »

The Master Rulebook

TO BE CLEAR, policy is NOT law! Nor should policy be made a legislative enactment as defined by the meaning of “regulation” under subsection 2 (1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, seen and established in Canadian Statute.

So if the rule maker makes a new rule which allows this rule maker to share their rule making power and blend their rule making power with the administrators (executive government), would you not agree the rule maker who made a rule to share or blend their rule making power without a rule existing in the Master Rulebook to make that rule, BROKE THE RULES of the Master Rulebook?

Read More »

Save the Planet, Kill Your Patient

The most obvious implication of this plan would be a new generation of physicians and surgeons who are less competent and more “woke” than their predecessors, which is terrifying enough in and of itself: If I’m about to have my gallbladder removed, I want my surgeon to be excellent at removing gallbladders and I don’t care one iota whether he or she can quote Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. And let’s face it, there are only so many hours in a week. Every hour a medical resident spends learning about “anti-racism” and “analyzing the world through the lens of power” is one hour not spent practicing gallbladder surgery.

Read More »

War is Good for Nothing

They say that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Yet sadly, while this weekend marks the 104th observation of Remembrance Day, the world is once again at war.
Many of us grew up attending often large ceremonies at memorials or cenotaphs where elderly veterans were the center of a deeply emotional and reverential experience. Perhaps the waning of such services is a sign only that WWI and WWII are now moving beyond living memory, but there are plenty of other wars and veterans of them deserving of our recognition. A fact which tells me that we don’t remember very well.

Read More »

Support our causes

Funding Archive

On September 02, it was stated that a vaccination pass was under consideration. Mandating such would violate Canadian professional ethics standards and human and constitutional rights and freedoms to name just a few.

In collaboration with Leigh Baker, CANS is helping to support the work going into creating a Position Letter for immediate delivery to key decision-makers in the province. The letter has been written by an experienced Nova Scotia constitutional lawyer and will clearly define all the violations possible should a “Pass” mandate attempt to be implemented provincially.

Please consider supporting this very important cause as we continue on our collective journey to ensure the preservation of our rights and freedoms.

view key points


A society where governments and their agents are held accountable by an engaged citizenry and where transparency in government actions and decisions is the default.

An aware collective with a strong focus on actions that nurture and protect our future generations, are informed by our collective history and which support our love of home, family and faith in the supremacy of God, the Great Creator, with committed real time action to achieve such a future for Nova Scotians to come.


abc - def
abc - def


To enable and support human and constitutional rights and freedoms through fund-raising, community engagement and smart activism. To nurture a safe, healthy and economically thriving environment for our future generations through education and awareness-training.



To organize and streamline the efforts of groups working toward the same vision and mission as CANS; we will achieve this by offering a space for like-minded groups, families and individuals to speak, share resources, collaborate on actions and engage with each other without fear of censorship.


To hold responsible parties accountable for any actions and measures that violate the human and constitutional rights and freedoms of Nova Scotians; we will achieve this by engaging in legal proceedings as well as civic education and awareness sessions.


To rebuild our communities which were negatively affected by political and public health misinformation and propaganda; we will achieve this by enabling networks of doers across the province and applying organizational change management best practices as we transition to a more just future.

Protect our Future Generations

To protect the education and development of our precious future generations; we will achieve this by encouraging and supporting alternative learning systems that are inclusive, collaborative and relevant to our current and desired future state.

Contact Us

Have a question? Send us an email! Choose the Subject category that makes the most sense (it will help us stay organized) and give us as much detail as you can within the word limit.

Newsletter & Member Information

Interested in receiving our newsletter and information about membership? Join Below

Newsletter Archive

2022 CANS. All rights Reserved

Notice of Judicial Review

Form 7.05
2021                                      NO.

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia


Citizens Alliance of
Nova Scotia                         Applicant


Robert Strang
acting as Chief Medical Officer of Health 
of Nova Scotia

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
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
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.

Position Letter Key Points

Section 1 (pp. 1-2) – PURPOSE

  • This is an executive summary of the Position Letter put forward on September 08 2021 by Nova Scotians United, a registered political party in Nova Scotia, and  Citizens’ Alliance Nova Scotia, a coalition, which together represent coalitions of tens of thousands of  our fellow citizens equally concerned with the state of affairs and trajectory in our province. These  organizations are also aligned with a number of coalitions and citizens’ movements across the country,  comprising millions of people who share our concerns- roughly equally to those who have and have not  chosen to accept inoculation with the promoted interventions against Covid 19.
  • The members of these coalitions include not only ordinary citizens, but also lawyers and members of a  number of other professions such as healthcare, policing, the military, airlines, teachers, media, political  figures and otherwise, and therefore demonstrates clearly that these concerns are not specific to any one  demographic regardless of age, gender, race, income, or profession.
  • All of the statements contained in this submission are based on evidence that is readily available to us or  to anyone else who endeavours to seek out the relevant research and experts.1 As this submission is  intended to be an appeal to reason and morality rather than litigation we have not attached it here but are  happy to provide it should you request that we do so.
  • We do not wish to present these concerns in an adversarial manner or to imply that we advocate for  disorder. However, it must be understood that disorder is a consequence of frustration and distrust and  that the reason for this correspondence is an attempt to avoid such outcomes for the benefit of all. It is  we, responsible civic leaders and defenders of the law and our legal processes that have thus far kept any disruptions to a minimum with appeal to reason and good citizenship. It is now up to you to support us in these efforts.

Section 2 (pp. 2-4) – BACKGROUND

  • Governments have adopted an authoritarian stance. A provincial state of emergency has been declared  and kept in place despite some of the lowest case numbers in the world. Freedoms are given back and  taken away without public consultation or debate. Our rights, as protected by the Charter and other  instruments of domestic and international law, are treated as though they are discretionary privileges to  be given and taken away at will.
  • The people are being divided against each other. Those who challenge the repression of our rights are called “anti-vaxxers” even though many may have taken the Covid 19 inoculation or have been fully vaccinated with that exception. Messaging from public officials and the media blames the un-inoculated for ongoing rates of infection, which is patently untrue.
  • We do not want any further divisions in our society. We do not want to forego public events and  celebrations with loved ones who have not taken, or cannot take, these inoculations. We do not want to  see them lose access to emergency health care and other services because of a choice they may not even  be free to make for health reasons. This is inhumane. It is cruel and unusual punishment.
  • We in the legal community would say that rights and freedoms, balanced with responsible behaviours by  citizens, must be respected and honoured based on the rule of law and in keeping with the Canadian  Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the instruments of international law to which we are beholden.

Section 3 (pp. 5-11) – ETHICS

  • Ethical and legal codes applicable to medical research with humans require that the risks and benefits  observed in previous animal and human trials be carefully explained in detail to the members of the  human cohort, with an opportunity for participants to ask questions, make a decision about participation  without coercion, and to withdraw at any point, for any reason. Access to information and ability to  withdraw consent or participation are the minimum requirements of informed consent. Unfortunately,  this is not what happened in the development of the Covid 19 inoculations, according to our experts and  scientific data.
  • Not only are the breaches of ethical and legal requirements in the development and release of these  inoculations troubling, and the fact that full approval2 has been given to inoculations that are known to  have serious side effects and death as outcomes in a statistically significant number of people deeply disturbing, the language used is completely misleading. From the outset, and despite the known negative impacts, the public has been told that these inoculations are “safe and effective” when they are actually anything but.
  • The efficacy of the PCR test as a diagnostic tool is also in question among the experts and medical  professionals in our networks who state that this and subsequent diagnostic methodologies produce  inaccurate results. Dr. Kerri Mullis, the American biochemist credited with the invention of the PCR  test, confirms that the PCR test is useful only as a genetic collection tool, and not for diagnosis of an  infection. Dr. Mullis and others have also asserted that any magnification of genetic sample collected  with this tool beyond a cycle threshold (CT) of 24x will produce false positives, increasing in likelihood  as the CT increases.
  • Physicians are being discouraged from accurately reporting the prevalence of harm and data is being  manipulated to conceal the true risks. Challenges to the narrative and those who dare do so are being  actively sanctioned and discredited. Opposing views or the voices expressing concern are being silenced and  censored. In the meantime, people are needlessly suffering from long term adverse effects or death  because safe treatments have been shelved in favour of a less safe, less effective treatment option.

Section 4 (pp. 11-33) – LAW

  • The choice as to whether or not to accept any medical intervention, whether or not it is potentially a life  saving treatment, is a deeply personal choice based on the beliefs, opinions, lifestyle, needs, risk and  benefits, etc. as perceived by the individual. A choice that benefits from one of the highest degrees of  Charter protection in recognition that the state has no right to control our bodies whether or not they  agree with our choices and any attempts at threats or coercion- such as restrictions on rights, freedoms,  and civil liberties- will never pass Charter scrutiny with respect to that choice.
  • In effect, the government vaccine mandate and any proposed vaccine passports create a forced choice  between personal autonomy and liberty and health which creates a serious infringement of the Section 7  right to life, liberty and security of the person which is not acceptable or Charter compliant in any  circumstances.
  • A vaccine passport is essentially a “social credit” system which divides Nova Scotians into “desirables”  and “undesirables” with respect to access to public spaces, medical settings, educational settings, and  possibly even settings where basic necessities and essential services are offered. This signals to others that the un-inoculated are less worthy of respect, consideration, and concern which is the underpinning of the interpretation of discriminatory treatment pursuant to s. 15 and therefore a blatant and direct  violation of their rights.
  • Although the objective is understood, the means used are completely oppressive and there is no question that the individual is either physically forced or feels compelled to comply under threat of fines or  imprisonment. There should also be no question that this form of detention is arbitrary, as it applies to  all regardless of illness or risk of infection, and when the less intrusive means of wearing a face mask  was deemed sufficient for the travel or respite from isolation for reasons pre-determined as necessary by  the state.3 Therefore, it is alleged that lockdowns, as well as quarantine and self-isolation requirements  constitute a serious infringement of the interests protected under section 9 of the Charter, as well as the  liberty interest protected under section 2.
  • Citing the Nuremberg Code, Canadian Human Rights Act, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act, the  Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a central principle of Constitutional interpretation that any measure that is, on its face, illegal or based on an invalid law, will be deemed to  be unconstitutional. Therefore, we submit that a vaccine passport mandate, as premised on an illegal act  and also prohibited under federal and provincial human rights statutes, is an illegal measure.

Section 5 (pp. 33-end) – SUMMARY

  • It should be abundantly clear at this point that there are serious legal and ethical issues with the measures thus far employed, and proposed, by governments and public health authorities under their jurisdictions  in response to the Covid 19 pandemic, and there are no circumstances under which the rights of the  people, enshrined in international and domestic instruments of law, can be violated or limited unless  reasonably justified in all of the circumstances. We submit that despite the gravity of the situation, these  are not such circumstances and that the means can, therefore, not be justified.
  • If we are to live up to being “the true North strong and free” then governments must honor the rights and freedoms of the people of this country, and of our provinces. The government of Canada, despite the  depths of the crisis, has not declared a state of emergency or invoked the Emergency Act and we  therefore question why the province has felt it necessary to do so, and to extend it for almost 18 months,  when our caseloads have been among the lowest in the country throughout most of this pandemic.
  • We do not feel that any further extension of the provincial state of emergency or invocation of the  Emergency Measures Act is necessary or warranted now that Covid 19 seems to be relatively under  control and a majority of eligible people in the province have accepted the promoted interventions. We  certainly do not feel that any ongoing restrictions or more draconian, divisive and unconstitutional  measures such as vaccine passports and testing and quarantining those who are not showing signs of infection are necessary. We want you to honor the promise to lift all restrictions on September 15th. 
  • We also want truth and transparency from our public officials, and meaningful access to information  upon which to base truly informed consent (ie: an end to censorship and suppression of scientific debate) is also required, as well as accommodation for the needs and circumstances of all Nova Scotians as  required by the Nuremberg Code, the ICCPR, and the Charter.
  • We urge our government to remain vigilant, but to exercise common sense- to be an example to the rest  of the country, and perhaps the world- by navigating the way forward in way that respect the rights and  freedoms of Nova Scotians, demonstrating that we do, in fact, live in a free and democratic society and  that Nova Scotians and, in fact, all Canadians, can be trusted to be responsible and conscientious  citizens.


  1. Citizens Alliance of NS reserves the right to update the evidence as it evolves and more censored experts feel support speaking up against the misinformation being perpetuated by public health officials and politicians.
  2. CANS does not support this assertion of approval: to date, all covid-19 inoculations in Canada are authorized under emergency orders only. None of the innoculations has received approval.
  3. CANS’ position on face masks is that they are intrusive, ineffective and damaging especially to children.