To all of our supporters:
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
