(0:00 - 2:46) In the past few years, many of us have become distrustful of our courts, and often with good reason. Violations of our rights were upheld under the COVID narrative, and to this day many courts are taking the safe and effective mantra under judicial notice, which simply means that judges assume it to be true because the government says it is. It is this kind of complacency on the part of the courts that has enabled the persecution of good doctors, such as Dr. Mark Trozzi, whose license was originally suspended and then eventually revoked by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons for writing vaccine exemptions. And recently the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld that decision, despite the fact that Dr. Trozzi's lawyer was able to demonstrate that the CPSO did not follow correct procedure. In BC recently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons dropped all charges against Dr. Charles Hoffe, restoring his right to practice. Dr. Hoffe has been subjected to the same persecution as Dr. Trozzi, and for the same reasons. He told his patients the truth, and did his best to protect their health. We might hope that the College grew a conscience, but it is far more likely that their decision to drop all charges just days before an evidentiary hearing against Dr. Hoffe was scheduled was based on the fact that the court had already informed the College that they would not take safety and effectiveness of the vaccines under judicial notice. There's no question our courts are no longer, in many cases at least, working in the best interests of the people. But are the courts themselves the problem, or could it be something much more serious than that? So we're here to discuss the state of legal affairs in Ontario, and I have to say as an Albertan, certainly there's been some of that happening in my province as well, but I've been reporting on things that have been happening in Ontario for the last several years now in terms of court cases, and it just, it's so difficult to ever predict what's going to happen, because we get judgments that are all over the place. We've got the case of Dr. Trozzi, who was supposed to be in the interview with us today. Hopefully, maybe he'll show up. We can talk about that later. But right now, Bath-Shéba, I'd like to go to you, because you are representing Detective Helen Grus, and I did a long interview not long ago with Donald Best, a retired detective who knows your case well. But please give our viewers a summary of what's going on with Detective Grus. (2:47 - 6:26) All right, well, thank you. Well, every time I'm asked that question of please give a summary, it turns into a bit of a monologue, because the issue is that a summary would never do justice to what Detective Helen Grus has been going through. It is convoluted, but I mean, I'll start off with that in 2022, she was charged with one count of discreditable conduct, and it is a charge that has never been seen before. Discreditable conduct is normally, people, police officers normally charge as discreditable conduct if they've done something rather egregious, such as shown a knife to the public, sworn at a member of public, pointed a gun at a member of the public, and is often paired with a criminal charge. So, we have a situation here where Detective Grus was charged with discreditable conduct for doing her job. Her job, which is, as she has stated on the record over and over again, to protect the public, to preserve life, to serve the community. And what the discreditable conduct charge includes are several conducts which, quite frankly, don't even, in my view, in what I submitted in the closing submission, amount to any type of prohibited conduct, because they're actually part of a mandate of a police officer per the Police Services Act. And such as she was accused of doing research in the Auto Police Service Records Management System, RMS, for personal reasons, when that was already found to not be true, because she was initially served with a chief's complaint for having looked into the database for personal reasons. That was investigated, and the conclusion was that she was looking into the database for professional reasons. So, there's an issue with that showing up again in the discreditable conduct charge. That it states that she failed to take any notes for these searches or a criminal investigation. She wasn't engaged in a criminal investigation. She was simply at the prohibitive stage. And then the most important part of this discreditable conduct charge, which I believe is what this is all about in terms of where the OPSPSU, the professional standards unit, felt that they could hang their hat on, was an admission she made in an interview for the first allegation, where she said, oh, by the way, I called the father of one of the deceased infants to ask if the mother had taken the COVID-19 vaccination. Now, that call was completely cordial. There was no issue. The father or the mother did not complain. So, there's been no complaint to the Auto Police Service with regards to the discreditable conduct charge. This was a confidential police investigation. This was confidential police information. And if we go back to why this is so controversial in terms of the fact, you know, the reasoning for this discreditable conduct charge, is it had to do with the fact that Detective Grus was informed by her own unit, SACA, that there was a doubling or tripling of sudden infant deaths. (6:27 - 12:02) And, you know, it was so disconcerting to her fellow police officers that they were talking about it like a water cooler conversation. Hey, have you noticed, right, that there's a double or triple increase? And they're talking about these unusual circumstances that the babies were dying. And so, a girl died with an enlarged heart. And that was the daughter of the father that Detective Grus had called, right? And then, you know, less than a month later, another baby dies in mother's arms. So, they both died in mother's arms, which is very, very rare. Normally, you know, babies are born healthy, and they live to grow into adults and produce families of their own and have, you know, enjoying the community. And why I'm mentioning these extra descriptors is because throughout the proceedings, what's really not sat well with me is that people are referring to these sudden infant deaths as if they're a statistic, not human. It should matter to all Canadians that there was a doubling or tripling of sudden infant deaths after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination to pregnant and breastfeeding women. It should concern all Canadians that these babies' lives were lost, that these babies that had a whole future ahead of them, right, producing families. It actually, if we look at the statistical calculation of what that means across Canada, if we're looking at a doubling to tripling within nine months in Ottawa alone, so Ottawa Police Service, so not in the hospitals, we're just looking at at home, right, where there was a flag to involve the police service. We're looking at over 100,000 potentially, right? And that's quite a lot. That's quite disconcerting. And so, in January, when Detective Grus had heard about this doubling to tripling and the circumstances, she thought, well, maybe there's something we should look into. Maybe there's a trend here, right? Because she had come across Dr. Byram Bridle's affidavit in November of 2021, which stated that there was associated risks between the COVID-19 vaccinations and pregnant and breastfeeding women. She had come across this Toronto SickKids protocol that was especially established for myocarditis in children as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination. So, this was a Toronto SickKids hospital policy for treating children with myocarditis because there was an increase in myocarditis linked to COVID-19. So, Detective Grus is looking at this information and thinking there might be a problem. And then when she's discovering that there's a double to tripling, there's a detective, Detective Stewart, that mentions that another baby had just died, right? The second one in my mother's arm. And that mother had taken the COVID-19 vaccination. And then we fast forward, you know, just a few days later on January 17th, she's attending this, you can attend as a public, where it came to her attention that Sean Hartman had passed away because of the COVID-19 vaccination with an enlarged heart. So, automatically, as a police officer, being curious and being concerned for public safety, she thinks about the fact that this baby girl died in December 2021 with an enlarged heart. She thinks, well, maybe there's an issue here. You know, if a boy died with a heart condition after COVID-19 vaccinations, could the same be true for this baby? And could that be the reason why we're seeing doubling to tripling? Well, you know, there could be safety concerns. Well, who knows? She said, well, I'm not a medical expert. So, you know, but her first port was to go to her colleague, Detective Butcher, on January 18th and ask him if he had asked if the mother had taken the COVID-19 vaccination. And he said, well, I didn't even ask that question. And what came out from the evidence of this case is that all the prosecutors' witnesses who were colleagues in Detective Grus' unit, bar one, had not completed the SUTI questionnaire, which is a sudden unexplained death for infant questionnaire that's mandatory to be completed. And it's completed together between the police officer and the coroner or the pathologist. And that Detective Stewart had closed a sudden infant death case in less than 24 hours without having seen the coroner report. And when Detective Grus discovered that, she took it upon herself to help her colleague to make sure that that report was attached as part of the file. But somehow, her asking Detective Butcher about whether the parents had taken the COVID-19 vaccination and trying to help Detective Stewart with this missing coroner report, somehow a rumor came into existence that she had printed off a coroner report. She never did. And then that rumor morphed into allegations that Detective Grus was looking into the database for personal reasons. (12:03 - 12:19) And these are egregious accusations that led to her being served with a chief's complaint. February 3rd, this is through her chain of command, they decided, okay, yeah, must be true. So she was served with a chief's complaint to suspend it. (12:20 - 12:39) When I came onto the case, I noticed that there was absolutely zero evidence as to this coroner report being printed off. And I mentioned this and raised this concern to the prosecutor, and they removed it because it hadn't happened. She had not printed off the coroner report. (12:40 - 13:46) That was an outright misunderstanding or fabrication. It didn't happen. But what worries me is that that was one of the most, I'd say one of the pillars of how she was actually first suspected. And then, as we're aware, that's sort of the nutshell of the history of the first allegation, and then it morphed into a discreditable conduct charge. And that's because of the newspapers and because of the leak. So these rumors that were circulating in the office against Detective Bruce were leaked. So that information then, it's sort of like playing telephone line in a way to how these rumors morphed and became quite far from the truth. There were allegations that Detective Grus had called the parents and called the coroners to ask about COVID-19 vaccination status. And at that point, no one knew that she had called the father. (13:47 - 14:09) So it's important to know that because that information about calling the coroners, calling the parents was published in the newspapers. Private details of Detective Grus' life, private police information was leaked by someone in the police to CBC. Gotcha. (14:09 - 14:46) And then CBC published two articles that are very cruel and have since filed a lawsuit against CBC for harassment, for interference, for economic interference. Because it was in May, on May 12th, that the investigator for Detective Grus, the initial allegation, stated to her, well, we've got a second allegation now. Because of those two newspaper articles, you are now facing a discreditable conduct charge. (14:48 - 17:50) Now, I'd like to clarify one thing, Bath-Shéba, before we move on to Jennifer. And this is very important for the viewers. Detective Grus was the target of disciplinary action because she was asking questions about the vaccination status of the mothers of these deceased infants. But you mentioned this report that they were supposed to file, that that's a mandatory report or questionnaire or whatever. Is it not on that questionnaire that the detective, and I believe this is true, correct me if I'm wrong, anytime there's a sudden infant death, unexpected infant death, it is investigated, that it is mandatory to ask, as part of that questionnaire, about vaccines. Is that correct? So, to answer your question, there's at least five opportunities in this SUTI questionnaire to ask about the medical history of the caregiver, the parents, and the baby. So, there are ample opportunities to put in the information of what medical treatments have the caregiver, the parents, or the babies received. That's very important into understanding the cause of death. And any caring police officer will say to not leave any stone unturned. It's devastating to lose a child. And now when we look back at all the information that we have to hand, we certainly should have our police forces be looking into links between COVID-19 vaccinations and those sudden infant deaths. Because when I look at the data, I can't unsee or unread what I have read. And I am not a medical expert, but I do not have to be a medical expert to draw a conclusion, an inference, me as a lawyer, I do legal analysis, I'm analyzing the documents, and I can see that based on the evidence of the record, that at least five of the babies, that's part of a double, the triple, died in circumstances identical to the adverse effects listed on the Pfizer clinical documentations themselves. Furthermore, as we know, is that those Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines were not tested on pregnant and breastfeeding women. That means they were not part of the clinical trials. However, some of those women fell pregnant or were pregnant at the time that they were part of the trials. And the information that we have is that only 32 of the pregnancies were followed up and one baby survived. That means all the others died. (17:51 - 18:17) And that should be enough information to tell the world at large that the COVID-19 vaccinations, the Pfizer ones in particular, because we have the data for them, are not safe for pregnant or breastfeeding women. And yet our government said they were safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women in May of 2021. And that's when I looked at calculating that double to triple increase. (18:18 - 18:24) Right. Since May 2021 to January 2022. That's all the information we have because it's the case. (18:25 - 18:58) And if I'm recalling correctly from my interview with Donald Best, detective groups found at least nine cases where the questions about vaccination, medical treatment were not asked, even though that is standard procedure. Well, so this nine, to be clear, I need to add a bit of clarification, which isn't really clarification. I cross examined a few of those police officers and I still don't have the answers to where the number nine came from. (19:00 - 26:56) So what it is, is that detective Bruce was not looking at those nine files with regards to a trend, right? There was only the five or six files that she was looking on January 13th of 2022. And the reason why was in preparation for a meeting, a town hall meeting that was being held with the chief of police. Okay. So she was looking, seeing if there was a concern to be raised, but the nine, we don't know where that comes from because it dates from 2020 from files that have nothing to do with COVID-19 or COVID-19 vaccinations. So that was clarified in evidence insofar as the cases that do matter and the cases that don't. But I can tell you that with regards to the files of importance, you know, where there is um, six, uh, babies, cause I say, I say five for sure are, uh, are, um, deceased in circumstances identical to the adverse effects. But one of them is, is, was still, uh, was, um, sort of like a died in sleep, which could arguably be, is one of the, you know, listed adverse effects, but it's not very clear. So I've kind of just been, it's five or six, but those five or six, only one city questionnaire was completed from what I understand from, from the evidence of, of the proceedings. And, and it is part of the, uh, policy, the auto police service policy that that city questionnaire is completed. All right, Jennifer, now you have been covering a case, um, or doing, representing a case that sadly these days is not unusual in Canada. We've been hearing about it a lot. Would you please tell us about that case? Yes. Uh, thank you for having me on this show. So I practiced in family law mostly in, uh, for the last year. And I can tell you that COVID has dramatically affected the way that families operate. We're seeing an increase in divorces. We're seeing an increase in conflict. And unfortunately, I think COVID has added more fuel to the conflict in family litigation. And not only were the vaccines, um, one of the issues that were being litigated in family files, but also parenting time, um, monitoring a parent's ability to leave their house during the lockdown period and that kind of thing. But, um, what we've seen in the courts in Ontario is that they've been trying to deal with this novel issue of, of the COVID-19 vaccines. And we see in 2021, the courts in Ontario, the Supreme Court of Ontario has said, well, we can take judicial notice that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. And so what effectively what that means is the courts are saying, um, we can decide without any evidence needed that we're just declaring the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, which, um, poses a lot of evidentiary problems because judicial notice is one of those unique tools that judges can pull out when there's a highly disputed fact or scenario. And generally judicial notice is only taken when there's a notoriously well-known fact that is not the subject for debate amongst reasonable people. And the issue of, of saying that COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective is that in 2021, we were starting to see a lot of this academic debates about whether they were effective or not. And so, so then the courts are having to deal with, well, our decision to make judicial notice of this issue is, is not relevant. So we have to kind of address that in some way. And the court in Ontario did address that in 2022, in this case called JNNCG. And that was a case that dealt with a mother who had been self-represented and she brought a ton of evidence to the court to say, look, COVID-19 vaccines cannot be just safe and effective because the government says so. There's been plenty of instances where the government has been wrong. And she brought up examples such as thamilohide, the medication that caused serious defects to unborn children. She brought up the issue of, of sterilizing Inuit women. She brought up the issue of, there was a case where mothers were found to be drug addicts and their children were taken away from them, but the evidence was found to be tampered with. So, so here's this mother, very intelligent, articulate woman, who's now had a success in the courts to say, well, hold on a minute. There is reasonable belief that these vaccines are not safe and effective. And I've got a ton of evidence to show that we should not just blindly believe government statements. And so in that case in 2022, that was in February, the courts in Ontario said, okay, we're going to side with the mother on this case and the kid is not going to be vaccinated. Now, at the same time, a month later in Saskatchewan, we have the court of appeal, who's also sided with a parent who does not want their child to be vaccinated. And the court of appeal in Saskatchewan has said, well, we noticed that there's been a regulatory approval of these COVID-19 vaccines, and that on its face is not sufficient information to say that these vaccines are safe and effective. And so that is also another huge win because here we have Health Canada, who's given regulatory approval of these COVID-19 vaccines, and it is presumed the test for regulatory approval of a new medication must show that it is safe and effective. But what we didn't know then, and we do know now, is that Health Canada actually suspended the normal test for regulatory approval of a new medication, and they changed it into this interim emergency authorization based on the test, that it's just more likely than not that these are going to be helpful, essentially. I think the exact wording is, we just need evidence to support the conclusion that it's better to have the vaccines than not. So in that situation, inconclusive evidence is going to be evidence that supports the conclusion that it's better to have the vaccines than not, or no evidence at all, because this is such a novel issue. Nobody has dealt with a pandemic before or a mass issuing of vaccines. So that was not argued in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal case, but then the JN and CG case was taken to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the Ontario Court of Appeal had the luxury of looking at all of this previous case law that had said the courts are taking judicial notice that the vaccines are safe and effective, and they've now said there's reasonable debate not to believe that they're safe and effective, and it's not even reasonable to believe that regulatory approval means that they're safe and effective. The Ontario Court of Appeal said, you know what, we can take judicial notice that regulatory approval is a good indicator of safety and effectiveness. (26:57 - 31:53) And we also can take notice that Health Canada is an expert, and an expert has more information than the trier of fact, and so therefore we must just accept the fact that Health Canada approved this. Otherwise, you know, they've approved it because it's safe and effective, otherwise why would they approve it? And so now that that case was refused leave to the Supreme Court. So there's no higher authority that can review that decision, which basically says Health Canada is an expert, and we can take judicial notice that if Health Canada approved something, it must be safe and effective. So that now stands as one of the strongest authorities on the COVID-19 vaccine. And I was representing a mother who was trying to prevent her five-year-old from getting the COVID-19 vaccine, and I took that case to the Ontario Court of Appeal to try to challenge this JN versus CG case, because we do now have from the work of Sean Buckley, who's now shown that the regulatory approval process was changed during COVID to this emergency authorization. However, my case was unsuccessful. We were not able to get in. I had to apply for leave to appeal, which was denied, and then I also had tried in the Divisional Court as well, and in both cases the courts shut this down. They said that we've already dealt with this issue, this is case closed, the law has been settled, and so unfortunately now the mother has had to get the child vaccinated. But the reason why this child was in the situation of being vaccinated is because the child at five years old is about to go into elementary school, and in order to get into elementary school, the child has to meet all of the health requirements in their municipality, and their municipality required the COVID-19 vaccine as well as the flu vaccine in order to attend classes. And so here's the father who's saying, I'm just trying to comply with the health authorities, you know, my child needs the vaccine, I want my child to go to school, and the mother says, well, why don't we try to work on an exemption? But that was never on the table, and those negotiations failed. But we still have in place Health Canada recommending children under the age of five and above the age of five to get vaccinated. We still have health authorities requiring this to attend public schools. And the judge in the first instance of hearing this case said, you know, to the parties, are you guys serious? We're still dealing with this COVID issue? Like, haven't you guys figured it out? You know, it's been four years, the child's been exposed to COVID twice, the child has had COVID, there's really no risk to having the child, there's no need for the child to have the vaccine. So what is the risk that we're trying to defend here? But it's really just more, the parents wanted to be compliant with what the health authorities and the school authorities have said. And the interesting thing about what's happening in current politics is, the day that JFK Jr. got sworn into the Trump administration, Donald Trump made an executive order to say that he's going to defund the schools that are requiring children to be vaccinated. And, you know, that doesn't seem to be all that radical, or maybe, I don't know, depending on your position, but we need to ask ourselves, it's been five years, why are we requiring children to be vaccinated to attend schools? And I think the thing that I'm seeing a lot in my practice is that a lot of these decisions about the COVID-19 vaccines are coming out of family disputes, where there's lots of litigation, there's lots of contention, and parents are really just kind of, it turns out to be a power struggle between the parents, and the interests of the child are actually just secondary to one parent winning over the other. And so, you know, I would really like to caution parents who are going through divorces, who have children, we need to start thinking critically about these decisions, these health medical decisions for our children, and not make it about a power struggle between you and your spouse, because in the end, it's only the child that suffers. (31:54 - 34:40) And that's quite correct, Jennifer, and thank you, because that's what I was referring to when I said this is hardly an unusual case. I know I've reported on it many times. I know many of my viewers have heard cases like this. But the thing that gets me about the one that you've been talking about specifically is that, sure, there's lots of them where, yes, it says power struggle between the separated parents, and they're using the child as a weapon, which of course is reprehensible. But you're talking about a case where the school is saying, you have to have these vaccines to attend school. At what point in time, and I'm sorry to phrase this question in such a blunt and colloquial manner, did our society lose its collective mind and decide that a school has the right to make medical decisions for a child, rather than the parents of that child? I thought that was pretty much ensconced in Canadian law, that the parents have the right to make the decision for their children, and no one else. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Well, I don't know what goes through people's minds, but what I can tell you from my experience is that if there is any way that one parent can try to win in a divorce, they will do anything, even if it means I'd rather have somebody else make a decision for my children. I'd rather have a judge who doesn't know me, doesn't know my case, has no training in family law. Some of these judges are commercial litigators or corporate lawyers for their careers, and now they're making decisions about whether little Jimmy gets a vaccine or goes to daycare. So I'm seeing a lot of these parents, they want retaliation on their spouses, and then they also, they don't want to make these decisions. COVID was very difficult for a lot of families. People are highly traumatized now, you know, and when people are traumatized, they can't make clear decisions for themselves. And we're seeing people losing their jobs, we're seeing people losing their mortgages and losing their houses, in extreme debt, mental health crisis, and all of that is in the context of the family, the family unit. The family unit used to be the main decision maker for the children, and that's not the case anymore. People are outsourcing those decisions to judges, to their school teachers, to their health care providers, and they defer to them as the experts over their own children. And so we're seeing parents, I don't know if it's just decision fatigue or whatever other circumstances they're going through in their lives, they don't want to make these decisions. So the decisions are being made for them, and sometimes they're harmful to the children. (34:42 - 34:47) Jennifer, thank you. Derek, I want to move on to you now. Thank you so much for your patience. (34:48 - 35:17) Just before we do, I need to give the viewers a bit of a summary about Dr. Mark Trozzi, who we had hoped to join us on this interview, unfortunately can't be here. A lot of my viewers have seen my interviews with Dr. Trozzi and with his lawyer, Michael Alexander, and they know the story, but I'll make it very quick that Dr. Trozzi in 2023 had his license suspended by the CPSO, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons for basically telling his patients the truth about the COVID vaccines. And then subsequent to that, his license was revoked. (35:18 - 38:21) Michael Alexander, his lawyer, appealed on the foundation of correctness and was able, and this is an interview I did with him, and you can see that interview at IronWire. He was able to show that they did not follow correct procedure. And yet, even so, the appeals court upheld the CPSO's decision and have upheld the suspension or the revocation of Dr. Trozzi's license. So you just need to know all of that to put it together with the things that Bath-Shéba and Jennifer have told us. And now, Derek, we come to you because I'm hoping that you can put some sort of framework around this. You are, of course, the leader of the Ontario Party, as we sit here today having this interview. Just yesterday, Doug Ford won a third term. What the heck is going on in Ontario, Derek? Can you make any sense out of this? Well, we're living in a society that is actually deteriorating, and a lot of people are seeing evidence of that, but they don't understand the root cause. And so, people are concerned about the cost of living. They're concerned about the threat of tariffs. They're concerned about increase in crime. They're concerned about increase in housing prices, but they don't really know how deep the rot is. And a lot of our institutions, the legal branch and many other sort of our colleges or professional colleges are really at a point now where they're not really focusing on the truth anymore. They're pushing their own insular narratives. And so, we don't really have a functioning society where you can actually go to court and get your grievances heard in a fair manner, at least not most concerns that would affect an average person. I think at a high level, a lot of business concerns are taken care of quite quickly. If you have an urgent business need, you can get judges on the weekend on a cell phone to take care of some of these high-level corporate things. But when it comes to regular justice, it's just not there. And so, what will it take for people in Ontario to open their eyes? And it's not just people in Ontario. There's a minority of people across the country that are aware and awake to what's going on, but the average person is still not aware of the depth of the sort of disintegration of what we're seeing. So, I'm only hoping that with the work of good lawyers like Bath-Shéba and Jennifer and good politicians and good political parties, hopefully, we can help people to wake up. But it's unfortunately a slow process. Now, of course, in any province or country, and folks, I'm going to apologize, it's been a very, very busy week. I haven't slept much. (38:21 - 45:09) So, if I'm stumbling over my words more than normal, that's the reason why. In any government or, say, province, the legislature and the judiciary are supposed to work together. How much of what's been happening in the Ontario courts would you say that Doug Ford's government, perhaps not responsible for, but could certainly have done something about? Well, anything that you're describing right now could have easily been solved by executive action in some way. I mean, the colleges, the professional colleges are completely under provincial authority. The disposition of family law and sort of requirements at schools and that kind of a thing, that's provincial. There's many things the government, the provincial government could have done to intervene on these cases if they wanted to. The policing, that's a provincial authority as well. So, when we're talking about Detective Grus, the government could have prevented all of these things. Of course, they have no interest in doing that because they were the ones that sort of forced the vaccine on us here. Most people, when we're talking about COVID mandates, most of the mandates that affected most people were primarily provincial in origin. So, if it's a vaccine passport to go and sit down at a When it comes to, you can't gather with more than five or 10 people, provincial in origin, closing down the churches, provincial in origin. So, shutting the schools down, provincial in origin. So, the provinces were the architect of so many of these things. So, they're not going to turn around and say, yeah, you remember that vaccine that we forced you under threat of losing your job and all that to get? Well, it turns out there's more side effects than we thought. Turns out it's caused a lot more harm than we thought. They're not going to do that. And unfortunately, a lot of people are just not at the point where this is the biggest issue. I mean, frankly, with what's going on in the United States and the potential impact to our economy, that is viewed as an existential threat by most people in terms of the potential impact on their livelihood and jobs, the specter of tariffs and so on. So, that was their main worry during this election. And Doug Ford, in a self-serving fashion, used that crisis to win another four years. And he basically took some leadership on that file and then jumped immediately into an election and was able to secure a victory. But people are afraid of that. They're not thinking about, oh, is the COVID vaccine more dangerous than I thought? They're not really thinking about that right now. They're concerned with larger economic issues. So, we'll see how that pans out. As I was saying earlier offline with you and I, regardless of who's running our government, Liberal, Conservative and NDP, our debt is increasing at an astronomical amount. Our schools are having tremendous difficulties with just social breakdown. Of course, we're concerned about what's getting taught in school, but I had a great conversation on the street with a teacher the other day that lives in my own area. And they told me that they don't even send, they didn't even send their kid to a kindergarten at the school that they work at, a public school that they work at, because there's just not enough supports in the school. There's kids there that are threatening to kill themselves on a regular basis. There's just, and this is not like an inner city school in a bad area. This is a regular area in a regular town in Ontario. And there's just a lot of problems there with mental health and families are breaking down, as Jennifer was saying earlier, and it has an impact in schools and so many other places. So, we're going to see the results of our social breakdown. And that's reflected in things like our economy not doing as well, our government debt going up, our cost of living going up. So, people are going to be wondering what the heck is going on and hopefully they'll clue in to the fact that we have to start electing different people and doing things differently. Yes. Thank you. Bath-Shéba, if I could beg your patience for a couple more minutes, I want to cycle back to Jennifer before I come back around to you. Jennifer, I have a question about the law in Ontario because our organization, our freedom organization, Strong and Free Canada, some time ago, we published a document on our website on parents' rights in Canada, where I had to research the various provincial laws all the way across the country. And is it not correct that in Ontario, parents can apply for an exemption to vaccine requirements for their children, at the very least on religious grounds, and I believe also on grounds of conscience? Is that correct? That's a very interesting question. And I don't know what the exact answer is, because I think these exemptions have to go on a case-by-case basis. And I'm currently working with a church that's located in Alberta, and that church is not giving out religious exemptions. So, you know, a parent could apply for a religious exemption against these vaccines, but ultimately it would be up to their church board to decide, are we going to support the COVID-19 vaccines, or are we going to support the religious freedoms to choose not to get these vaccines? So that's kind of a case-by-case basis, depending on what church you go to, at least with the religious portion of that. Medical exemptions are generally based on a person's particular medical circumstances, you know, if they have any allergies to any of the components in the vaccine. And even that might be difficult to prove, since getting a list of the ingredients of the vaccines has been a challenge for a lot of professionals in the last few years. So I think what we are seeing is, to get an exemption is extremely difficult and only done in the rare circumstances, and the people who have issued these exemptions, those decisions have been challenged, just like Dr. Trozzi. And that was one of the complaints made against him, is that he was issuing these exemptions without medical evidence, or something to that effect. (45:11 - 46:03) But I just wanted to say something about Dr. Trozzi's case, because as I was reading it, I was interested to know the timeline that these events were happening, because I think if we remember, there was so much confusion in the early days about which vaccine is doing what, and then, you know, vaccines getting pulled off the market and all sorts of side effects. So, Dr. Trozzi was making these statements between January 2021 and January 2023. And then we have in February 2023, we have this Court of Appeal decision in Ontario that says, well, we can take judicial notice that there was a pandemic, we can take judicial notice that Health Canada has regulatory approval of these vaccines, which make them safe and effective. (46:05 - 48:21) So, I'm just interested about the standard that Dr. Trozzi was challenged on, because the statements he made were before this Court of Appeal decision had weighed in on what the status of these vaccines were. And there's a legal principle of non-retroactivity, that these laws cannot be applied retroactively. And the reason for that is because people need to understand the consequences of their actions, you know. So, I think we have to be compassionate about these people who have, like Dr. Trozzi, who's made these statements, and he's been punished for them, or I guess there's consequences for them. But we also need to ask ourselves as Canadians, you know, what are the standards that we need to hold ourselves to? And do I understand those standards? Because if we don't, then there's some confusion in the law. And that's where people need to go and speak to their MLAs and say, I have a question about this. What is the status of the law? You know, what's the statutes? And at that time, in 2021 to 2023, we didn't really have a clear idea of what was going on with the COVID-19 vaccines. So, I guess just to sum up, just to have more compassion for our neighbours who had a different opinion than us and our friends, and maybe that can help us all move forward as a society, as we are kind of being torn apart right now. Thank you very much, Jennifer, for those comments. I'm going to refer back to those in a few minutes. But first, I want to move on to Bath-Shéba, because I have a final question for you, at least one. My understanding is that the final arguments in the Grus case were heard about a week ago, and that we're now awaiting a decision. Is that correct? Yes, they were heard on January the 13th. So, they were heard a couple weeks ago, and we're waiting for a decision. That's right. I think you meant February 13th, did you not? Nope, nope, it was January. Okay, so it's me who's way off. That means this was about six weeks ago. (48:21 - 49:57) All right, thank you. Yeah, so six weeks ago. So, the final arguments have been heard. Now we're waiting for a judgment. Do you have any indication from having been in the courtroom which way the court is leaning? I don't have any indication, and not one that I would be speaking publicly to, because I'm obviously very conservative with any comments I would have. I'm hoping for a not guilty, and I am of the position that if the hearing officer will render a decision of guilty, that that has detrimental impact on police discretion. And this case is a very important case on police discretion. It is not a police powers case. It is a use of police discretion to preserve life, to keep our communities safe. So, if she's found guilty, I'd be very concerned about my safety, your safety, our safety in Canada to be properly served by the police force. I'd be concerned about the independence of our police force from political influence. The police force is the cornerstone to peace in this country. A police force is the only tool for enforcing the rule of law. I mean, you can say the courts are too, but it's more of an interpretive function. The police are there, boots on the ground, making sure that everybody, including politicians, are held to account. (49:58 - 50:07) So, I'd be deeply concerned on a guilty verdict, and that's all I can say about that. All right. So, now I have one final question. (50:08 - 51:59) Sorry. I would just, if I may, because I appreciate this is a one-to-one interview, but I'm looking at a panel, and I want to make just a couple comments. And I just wanted to state that it's important to always have a positive outlook. It is important to never give up. And there have been some wins. Ms. Miller did mention there was a couple cases that were good wins, right? And we won the Emergencies Act case. Dr. Hoffe won his case. So, we need to look at how are they winning, and how can we replicate that? There have been losses, but if we focus so much on the losses, we lose our will to continue to fight against injustice. We have to recognize when there has been justice, and because that gives us hope. And at the moment, with all the economic downturn, that's causing people to go back into their mode of fear. And that's what happened during COVID-19. And fear compels people to act irrationally, and not have the gift of thinking critically. Hope is a very, very powerful emotion. Hope and compassion together is what we really need to focus on. And in terms of something that Ms. Miller said earlier about the decision fatigue, that is definitely a problem. Hope will help us be able to engage more actively in the community, because it's not enough to be awake. It's not enough to be critical. It is very important that Canadians start knocking on the doors of their MLA, that the Canadians get more actively involved in supporting their neighbours. (51:59 - 52:37) We need to really be more engaged in politics, and that's what's going to change, or make the change right. Thank you, Bath-Shéba. Very well said. And you make a very good point. Yes, it hasn't been all bad. There have been some wins. I think one of the biggest wins that you mentioned was Dr. Charles Hoffe, who in BC was subjected to exactly the same kind of persecution as Dr. Trozzi was, and got completely the opposite outcome. I have great hopes that Dr. Trozzi will be exonerated at some point in the future, and will receive compensation for what he's been through. Now, I do have one last question, and it's for all three of you. (52:38 - 53:58) Bath-Shéba, I'm going to ask you to answer it first, then Jennifer, and then Derek, I'm going to ask you to be the anchorman on this one, because I think this is really what we're talking about today. There have been, yes, cases all over the map, but Jennifer made a really good point when she talked about, on the one hand, we've got things like judicial notice of the courts just saying, well, the government says that it's safe and effective, and therefore we're going to assume it is, and we're not even going to look at the science. But on the other hand, we've got a certain level of societal cooperation with, as she made reference to, churches not writing exemptions. And I've heard that story many, many times in the last four years, that especially the churches that I feel should have been standing up for people's rights wouldn't do it for fear of repercussions. And so the question that comes out of that, because on the one hand, yep, we've got the courts doing judicial notice, but on the other hand, we've got society as a whole supporting this whole narrative and creating this deadweight against pushing back against it. And because I've got two lawyers and a politician here, I think this is the perfect question to ask. How much of this do you think is the courts? And how much of this is just the people? Right. I would say it's the people. It's a psychology. (54:00 - 54:24) It's a mindset. And I'm not sure, I'm sure somebody famous once said this along the way, but sometimes when you're fighting the monster, you end up becoming the monster. And so I'm speaking to people that may have contributed to the breakdown of society. (54:25 - 55:01) And that's why I believe that Ms. Miller and I are both focusing on the compassion. It's so important to be compassionate and forgiving of our neighbours, irrespective of their opinions. We're living in a country where we oust people from our lives, from our community, simply because they have a different viewpoint. That's very dangerous. We all suffer. We just need to all come to the table and quite literally have a meal together and to get to know each other and not punish each other for their thoughts and for things that they're saying. (55:01 - 55:14) We need to really speak up and put our freedom of expression to the test. That was put to the test in February of 2022. We saw how government reacted. (55:15 - 56:20) The actions of government was cruel, unprecedented. But we need to keep on putting our freedom of expression and speech to the test. It's a difficult question to answer because there's a whole lot more going on. You could talk about the breakdown of families and how that weakens the ability of communities to stand together. But what I do see in Canadians now, and I have not seen that ever before for a very long time, is I see people coming together. I see people coming together across the nation. They're coming together by meeting in person, by traveling across the country to meet each other. They're coming together on online platforms. Canadians are coming together more than ever, and they are politically involved more than ever. There is a great momentum that we are now riding on. And so I'm very hopeful for the future. We must not give up. (56:20 - 57:42) We must continue to be compassionate with each other in our fight for justice. Thank you, Bath-Shéba. Very well said. Jennifer, your final thoughts. I think that is a very good question to ask because it's so easy to want to find somebody to blame for all these problems. And I don't think it's fair to blame the judges because judges, their role is the char of facts. They can only make decisions on cases that are before them. And who are bringing these cases forward? A lot of the times, it's the people themselves. And in family law cases, where a lot of the jurisprudence regarding COVID-19 vaccines has come from, has come from mothers and fathers fighting each other. And the judges have had to make decisions in those cases. Back in the day, but 50 years ago, we didn't have quite the extensive family litigation that we have now. And families used to resolve their conflicts by going to the elders in their community, going to their grandparents, going to their neighbors, their church leaders, and helping them resolve conflicts between them individually. (57:43 - 58:14) We don't use those mechanisms anymore. We now turn to the courts. And the courts are funded by our taxpayer dollars. If we take our cases to the courts all the time for disputes that normally could have been resolved for interpersonal conflicts, one, I think maybe that could reduce our tax burden. But also, I think it would strengthen our social cohesion. Because people have been put in this position during COVID to be divisive, to fight each other. (58:15 - 59:51) And they want that third party to hammer down a decision and find somebody at fault. So, that mentality has got to change. Otherwise, we are going to see an increase in judicial decisions that people are not going to like. And the other thing is, if you're bringing a case to court, the judge can only decide on what the evidence is before them. So, for example, in my case, I reached out to, I had a lot of support from other lawyers, Lee Turner being one of them. And he handed me a list of experts and said, you know, talk to these guys, because they have the evidence. So, normally, you wouldn't see that sort of cooperation between lawyers. But we need to see some of this cooperation if we want to get the information out there, if we want to share the evidence. And we need to bring that to the court if we are going to bring cases. Because in the absence of evidence, the judge is left in a position where the judges themselves are not allowed to put their own thoughts forward. So, I think there needs to be a shift in mentality of how we resolve conflicts. And I think there needs to be better evidence brought before the courts in making these decisions. So, I do think the power lies with the people. And I think that, you know, we are in a democracy, where the people hold this power, and people can vote with their feet. What are they going to do? And I hope it's not running to the courthouse for all their disputes. (59:52 - 1:02:52) Derek, thank you once again so much for your patience. I'm going to reward you by giving you the last word. Now, I invited you to this interview, not just because you're an Ontario politician, but because we've done interviews in the past on the Ontario party. I personally have a great deal of admiration for your party's platform. I think it makes a great deal of sense. I also know that you're a man of faith. You're a family man. Your perspective on all of this, courts versus the people. And if it's the people, what do we as a society need to do to fix this? Well, listen, it's a really good question. And I think the courts are afflicted with the same Achilles heel that all of Canada is afflicted with, and particularly our leadership class. And that is complacency and naivety when it comes to the state of things in our country and the state of things in the world. And I feel that, unfortunately, there haven't been enough people willing to kind of step out a little bit and rock the boat. I mean, obviously a case comes before a judge with its own sort of parameters, but I haven't seen much courage, whether it be in the political realm, whether it be in the judicial realm, to really stand up and do something. And we've seen over the years judges that have rewritten our law based on principles that they feel to be moral and have changed the way our society has functioned because they feel that it's time for a change. And so I was disappointed not to see anybody sort of stepping up on many fronts. I think that as in reference to our courts and when things might change, I think that they are, frankly, and you actually have a third lawyer on this show who is not a practicing lawyer, but he did go to law school and did practice for a period of time. But my experience in looking at the history of sort of charter litigation and how our laws have evolved is that our judges, when the broad based opinion, when the elite consensus opinion gets to a certain perspective, they will rule differently than they have before. Now, it usually takes a little longer and when will our elite consensus change? I don't know. We're seeing a significant change south of the border in the leadership class in terms of what they're doing and what they're promoting. But I really hope that that changes here. I mean, when you have during COVID every major news agency, every regulatory agency, every politician more or less pushing a certain narrative, it makes it very challenging. I mean, when you're in that climate, it makes it challenging to think independently about whether you're a citizen or whether you're a judge. And so I really think that there's a lot of factors that have played into it. I think many people are to blame. (1:02:52 - 1:03:30) All the leadership class. But it is incumbent upon the average Canadian as well to get rid of the naivety and the complacency. We need to be involved in what's going on in our country. We need to be aware. We need to be awake. And we can't just be spoon fed what our government is telling us. So I'm seeing positive signs that we're moving away from that. You know, the existence of the Ontario party and the success that we've had wouldn't have been possible even a decade ago. There's never really been a breakaway class of people that last for very long in this province. (1:03:31 - 1:04:03) And it's rare to see that across the country. But there is a growing minority of people who are waking up, who are looking at the foundational pillars of our society. And they're saying, wow, we got to rebuild this from the ground up. How do we do it? And so those conversations are happening. And it's going to take some time. But I'm very positive that we're moving in the right direction. Derek, Jennifer, Bath-Shéba, thank you so much for your time today and for the work that all of you are doing to turn things around in our society. Thank you very much.