Above is the keynote from Rodney Palmer, who was a longtime journalist for the CBC and CTV. He blew the whistle on journalistic integrity- or lack, thereof- regarding COVID and left the mainstream media.

Funnily enough, I opened the event with my talk, which was about precisely the same subject: Canada morphing into a tyrannical, totalitarian, surveillance state.

Here is the document promised to all registrants at our fundraiser, which is an AI-generated analysis that I carefully constructed. All of the bills I discussed, and what Rodney indirectly referred to, are included. This is certainly not legal advice of any kind, but is to be shared with legal professionals in the hope that they’ll ACT with litigants to defeat these horrendous pieces of legislation.

https://pdfhost.io/v/jMu3NWfVDd_CCCan_-Weisdorf-Canada_Telecom_Internet_Bills-Critical_AI_Analysis-_July_2026

Additionally, here is a companion piece describing administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs”) and civil asset forfeiture, which are the legal enforcement mechanisms employed to make people and corporations bend the knee to the government. We truly need a constitutional amendment to bar them without a criminal conviction required to take place first. Canada and the US, both. Enough is enough.

https://pdfhost.io/v/kZ3GsxU632_CCCan_-Weisdorf-AMPs_in_Canada-History__Creation__and_Evolution-_July_2026

Make no mistake about it: these bills are the next, great, legal battleground as they grant the government sweeping powers to gain a stranglehold of all telecom and internet services in Canada. Streaming (C-11) and online news (C-18) regulations have been in force for the past three years. You’ve already felt their effects.

The new bills include the following:

● Bill C-8: the executive branch may employ a “kill switch” to ban anyone from the internet. Permanently– with a gag order that may also be permanent, similar to what Nicholas Merrill fought for 11 years in the US

● Bill C-9: hate speech definitions are added and expanded, with no religious exemptions

● Bill C-22: vacuum cleaner-type surveillance, which is indistinguishable from Russia’s long-time SORM electronic surveillance system

● Bill C-34: surveillance of social media and AI tools, a ban on underage usage, with digital ID verification for all to ensure only legal age persons use them

Small and medium-sized internet services providers will be under heavy pressure to sell out to Bell and Rogers to act as unpaid spies for the government, and to foot the capital and operating costs for this totalitarian surveillance regime. That means no competition for internet services going forward, complete control over your internet service, with secret proceedings, secret service bans and secret gag orders.

We have a lot of work to do. The Adamson BBQ / Adam Skelly challenge is the first and most important piece to pave the way for victories for whoever decides to challenge these bills. They are, and have always been, highly interconnected with our efforts. We stand at the ready to assist prospective litigants and counsel.

Nearly five years ago, Adam Skelly became the first business owner in Canada charged criminally for defying a public health order. What followed was a five-year legal battle — six separate proceedings, hundreds of pages of expert evidence, and a fight that has now reached the Court of Appeal for Ontario following the Superior Court’s ruling this past March.

This case is different from every other COVID-era legal challenge still standing. It’s live. It has standing. And it rests on the evidence of six independent experts — spanning pharmacology, epidemiology, statistics, economics, virology and immunology — whose reports have never been refuted by the government in cross-examination. Concerned Constituents of Canada (CCCan) has sponsored this fight from the outset, and the road to the Court of Appeal isn’t cheap.

That’s where you come in.

Join us for a relaxed backyard meal in North Burlington — good homemade food, honest conversation, and a real update on where the case stands and what comes next.

Saturday, July 11, 2026 | 4:00–10:00 PM
(Rain date: Sunday, July 12, 2:00–8:00 PM)
North Burlington / Brant Street & Ester Drive area(exact address sent upon registration)
$30/person — covers a full homemade food spread (salads, cheeses, specialty breads, hot and cold meats, baked beans, veggies, dessert; vegetarian and vegan options available)
Please bring your own chair and alcoholic beverages

Featuring:

● Rodney Palmer — former CTV analyst & CBC investigative journalist, on “How Our Trusted Media is Continuing to Fail Us and Erode Democracy”

● Adam Skelly (joining remotely)

● Jody Ledgerwood — TFM Report

● Ian Perry — litigator on the Adamson case

● Chris Weisdorf — on Bills C-8, C-9, C-22 and C-34

● Michael Alexander — litigator on the Dr. Mark Trozzi case

● Vincent Gircys — retired OPP

Registration is required by Wednesday, July 8 — space is limited, and the exact location will only be shared with confirmed guests.

All proceeds support Concerned Constituents of Canada (cccan.org) and the ongoing costs of appellate litigation. Beyond the ticket price, donations of any size are deeply appreciated — this case has already cost over half a million dollars to bring this far, and every dollar helps carry it to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Register by e-transfer to ccoc4freedom@protonmail.com

As official sponsor of this legal challenge, the Concerned Constituents of Canada is disappointed, disheartened and, frankly, disturbed at the outcome of the application hearing that concluded roughly a month ago. As the application judge said near the end of the hearing, she would judge this matter on its merits. Unfortunately, she did not.

From the outset of my involvement at the beginning of 2021, I made it clear to all involved that this was substantially a legal action based upon the preponderance of expert evidence that challenged the premises of the pandemic. By April of that year, as coordinator of evidence at the time, I had assembled a team of six experts who would table 11 reports (6 initial reports and then another 5 upon reply). The government’s lone expert did not refute any of the evidence submitted.

Absolutely nothing changed from April/May of 2021, when all of the evidence was sworn, until September of 2024 when the evidence proffered from five of our six experts was re-sworn. Expert #1, a former Chief Medical Officer of Health of Manitoba, refused to re-swear his evidence. No real reason given. Because our public health expert was out, this necessarily kicked our scheduled hearing from early October of 2024 to one at the eventual end of February of this year. It took six months to replace that expert with Dr. David Gortler, a former didactic professor of pharmacology and biotechnology at Yale and Georgetown, with impeccable credentials at the FDA.

The government did everything it could to prevent this challenge from ever being heard. As recently as January 10th, I feared it would not be heard, given the financial realities of seeing it through. But it was. When it became apparent it would be heard, the government decided to ignore all of our expert evidence, spanning roughly 500 pages. None of it was refuted. None of our experts were cross-examined. None of our experts were challenged on their credibility, reliability or impartiality. They and their evidence were quite literally disappeared.

The expectation was of a fair hearing where all of the evidence would be weighed on the balance of probabilities and its preponderance, which lies at the heart of British common law doctrine, tradition and practice. And it has for many centuries. That did not occur. Our experts and their evidence were disappeared once again, only this time by a judge whose sworn duty is to impartially weigh evidence upon its preponderance and the balance of probabilities. She did not.

The principles of fundamental justice are rooted in the pursuit of truth, fairness and unbiased proceedings. We can’t speculate on what happened here, only that the truth-seeking function of the court was plainly and obviously unfulfilled. The courts are to rule based upon the evidence in front of it- not what they wish were in front of it, what would be most convenient to judge, or what they may impute by taking judicial notice of facts that have been vigorously contested by the very experts whose evidence is to be impartially judged.

All this, in addition to the fact that the application judge got Adam Skelly’s name wrong at the outset of the decision on the style of cause, got Adam’s motion decision citation wrong back in 2021 twice, and ignored fundamental questions of law and precedents brought up in written and oral argument. Most importantly, the application judge did not in any way address public interest standing, which was argued both orally and in writing, and backed by an affidavit specifically sworn for that purpose. The judge concluded the application hearing by clearly remarking in open court at the public interest in our challenge, given that the courtroom was packed to the point that it was standing room only. Absolutely no mention of it in her decision, whatsoever.

Naturally, an appeal is forthcoming as the decision written was obviously rushed and not what one would expect from any level of court, particularly Superior Court. It would be inexcusable coming from a newly sworn Justice of the Peace in provincial court, let alone a judge sitting on the high court bench for several years.

This challenge has always been predominantly about the lopsided, preponderance of evidence which has weighed heavily in our favour ever since April/May of 2021 when it was initially sworn. The application judge mentioned the province’s lone expert, Dr. Hodge, 16 separate times in her decision; and Dr. DeVilla’s name or the “MOH” abbreviation over 100, separate times. The number of times she mentioned one of our experts? ZERO. None of our evidence was weighed. At all. Could any reasonable person somehow see this as fair, just, or true?

Regardless of political slant or ideology- agree or disagree with Adam Skelly’s actions back in November of 2020- it is extremely troubling that a Superior Court Justice has disappeared 500 pages of unrefuted, expert evidence in a case that hinges upon it. She also made findings of fact that clearly contradicted what our experts expressly submitted. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

The fact is, there were reasonable alternatives that could have been employed in place of the emergency measures imposed and they could have cut short the state of emergency and mandates imposed in Ontario by nearly a full year. The government knew, or ought to have known, about said reasonable alternatives. This must be known and judged by both the courts and the people of this country- not to mention those outside of Canada who don’t have the benefit of challenging any of said emergency measures years after the fact.

The decision rendered is not listed on CanLII which is quite telling, given the public interest and importance of said decision. Please don’t be demoralized. Don’t give up and NEVER give in. Know that we will fight this to the end, until we exhaust all of our appeals. We just need your continued financial support to do so. Please consider giving. Every bit helps.

—Chris Weisdorf

Co-founder and director,
Concerned Constituents of Canada

Reasons for Decision – Skelly v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario et al. – Leiper J. – March 17, 2026
https://drive.proton.me/urls/FXJ9Y9CXTM#nA2ZQM4CgSv5

Aide Memoire summary of expert evidence-
https://drive.proton.me/urls/H6XVWMPWC0#sRakAcr3KXuI