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.
The recent report on Alberta’s COVID-19 pandemic response is a welcomed first step, hopefully of many, towards an open and honest dialogue about the COVID-19 debacle. While much of the information presented isn’t new to those who weren’t lobotomized by the relentless gaslighting, politicians and public health authorities have, until
For simplicity’s sake, let’s just say that in clinical research/clinical trials, you, as a participant, will receive the Cadillac of care: no wait times for imaging, diagnostic tests, prompt medical attention if you experience what is referred to as an Adverse Event (AE). This highlights the sad reality that in
the information in the Your Health NS (YHNS) app is disjointed and partially inaccurate, so if one of the purposes of the app is to allow my future primary care provider, or god forbid, a paramedic or ER doc, to make sense of my medical history in NS; it is
Mootness is the concept that some thing (incident or action) that was relevant at a given point in time is no longer relevant because that point in time for that issue/reason has passed. Most court cases against the pandemic lockdowns, restrictions and mandates across the country have been shut down
“In considering this issue, there are aspects of CANS’ efforts that I accept militate in favour of public interest standing. I agree the issues which CANS raises are of public interest and transcend it as an organization. For the purposes of this motion, I am also prepared to accept that
The Judge listened and seemed very interested in this new approach and agreed to allow me to argue the constitutionality of legislation that has enabled this building official to violate my rights. It will be heard on Dec 19th. We got into some merits of the case, after I presented,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interested in receiving our newsletter and information about membership? Join Below
Please confirm you want to block this member.
You will no longer be able to:
Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.
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:
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.
Section 1 (pp. 1-2) – PURPOSE
Section 2 (pp. 2-4) – BACKGROUND
Section 3 (pp. 5-11) – ETHICS
Section 4 (pp. 11-33) – LAW
Section 5 (pp. 33-end) – SUMMARY
Footnotes:
