In mid-June 2024 our close friends and allies at Vaccine Choice Canada were forced to drop their Covid-19 Mandate case against the Canadian Government.

While judicial impartiality and the fair ‘rule of law’ is critical in any supposed democracy, it isn’t our main focus at Canada Health Alliance. However when one of the largest and strongest cases against the government, that exposes how they lied about the pandemic to sweep aside everyone’s rights and freedoms in order to consolidate the government’s power, is derailed, that impacts all of us. Hence we believe it does need to be discussed and exposed.

Although Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) has a very solid and comprehensive case and a mass of compelling evidence to demonstrate the clear breach of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they now no longer believe that they can get any sort of fair ruling. Back in mid June, VCC made the painful, but very telling, decision to suspend their case after a great deal of analysis and discussion that forced them to face the reality that they simply can not win fair justice in the current political environment. This is because our legal and judicial systems are no longer impartial, therefore those systems can offer little protection from predatory exploitation, especially from the government itself.

Given this extremely serious situation, it means that we no longer live in a country where all citizens are protected by the law as they should be in any working democracy that respects basic human rights and equality. To put it bluntly, we now live in a lawless country where the political elites leverage weaponized ‘lawfare’ as a means of intimidating and silencing anyone with whom they disagree with, or who disagrees with them. This is straight out of the Communist play-book and is a strategy that has been honed by every Third-World dictator over the last 50 years or more.

And as with all corruption and ‘leverage’ of well-intentioned systems, this erosion of judicial impartiality has been happening in Canada slowly but systematically over the last few decades to bring judges more under the influence of their political ‘masters.’

This started with the seemingly innocent up-weighting of ‘judicial notice.’ The concept of judicial notice is to relieve parties from having to prove facts that are “not in dispute.” Thus, when judicial notice is taken of a supposed “fact”, no formal evidence of that fact must be introduced at the trial or hearing.

The original purpose of taking judicial notice was, and still is, to shorten the proceedings. However you can imagine the issues that can be impacted if, as has been the case in Canada, questionable statements such as “all vaccines are safe and effective” or that “gender identity and gender expression are not limited to oppositional binaries” are taken as ‘judicial notice.’

According to Chuck Black, writing on the ‘Historic Concept of Judicial Notice’ in his Substack column in May 2024, “Over the last few years, the concept of ‘judicial notice,’ has been twisted by the courts to include highly controversial political concepts such as ‘climate change’, ‘systemic racism,’ and ‘fourth wave feminism,’ especially when bolstered by official government statements, whether or not a consensus exists that “the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed.””

This became entrenched in April 2023, when the Law Times reported that based on two recent precedent-setting cases, the “Courts can rely on government recommendations on Covid-19 vaccination.” In their analysis of this, the Law Times concluded that “Both cases tell us that Government-published edicts are admissible as ‘reliable hearsay.’” Basically this means that whatever the government says is now acceptable (at least in an Ontario court of law) as ‘reliable hearsay’ under section 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act. As Chuck Black so accurately points out, in essence, “…if the government says it’s true, then it’s true.”

This certainly does not help the cause of justice and fairness in our law courts, especially in light of all the recent peer-reviewed scientific research (that the government is still resolutely ignoring) that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Covid-19 vaccines were anything but ‘safe and effective.’

Hopefully the courts, burdened by the precedents supporting previous decisions and hampered by the use of judicial notice to support those earlier decisions, will now find it increasingly difficult to reconcile current and future court decisions with the reality of what is actually going on.

Unfortunately though, in Canada this issue of an over-reliance on judicial notice is nothing new. As far back as the early 2000’s, experts were beginning to note the overuse of the concept of judicial notice in Canadian courts. In the 2003 paper ‘Judicial Notice: How Much is Too Much,’ (see the link below), Justice Ian Binnie said that “…the use of judicial notice has become the rule in Canadian courts, not the exception”. This was more than twenty years ago, so you can imagine just how bad things have become by now!

Unfortunately much of this ‘creeping change’ within the judicial system went largely unnoticed by the general public. However, in 2019, the Trudeau government, perhaps in anticipation of the coming ‘Great Reset’ started actively engaging in the ‘mandatory’ training of judges on issues central to their woke agenda. It started with Trudeau himself dictating this mandatory training for judges to the then Minister of Justice, David Lametti. For many observers this was extremely concerning and heralded the imminent end of judicial independence in Canada.

Judicial Independence obviously requires that judges are free from any sort of government influence. The sort of questions that were raised at the time – and which are still relevant now – include; who can decide what kind of training the judges should be forced to attend? What research are judges being told to rely on, especially when it comes to judicial notice? Are judges now required to rely on the ‘education’ they receive or on the information presented in the court? How will parties to a proceeding know what ‘government approved education’ a judge has been indoctrinated with? And is this government ‘education’ being fast-tracked into unquestionable judicial notice, which we have seen hamstring so many otherwise very valid Covid-19 cases, such as the above mentioned Vaccine Choice Canada case?

Of course none of these questions have been answered and over the last five years, judges, through judicial training centres like the National Judicial Institute (NJI), are being ‘trained’ in accordance with what is tantamount to government-approved indoctrination. And the range of issues on which judges have been ‘re-educated’ is significant, and includes: climate change; gender identity; LGBTQ+; Indigenous matters; Covid-19 and the Covid mandates such as vaccination (which directly impacts us as Canada Health Alliance) and, most deeply concerning, the “attainment of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.”

In addition to the leverage and manipulation of judicial notice, it appears that, through this steadfast campaign of judicial ‘education’, the integrity and judicial independence of the courts has been compromised, just as was predicted back in 2019.

Although the court cases of Dr. Rochagné Kilian and a group of her patients have been used to set ‘judicial notice’ precedent to the detriment of other similar cases, there is at least one case which gives cause for hope, and may be a sign that perhaps ‘common sense’ (to quote Pierre Poilievre) might be returning to the battered Canadian judiciary.

That hopeful case is Dr. Charles Hoffe’s recent disciplinary hearing with the BC College of Surgeons and Physicians. Dr Hoffe has been given the legal right to challenge the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccines (which had previously been taken as a fact of ‘judicial notice’).

Due to the courts finally reconsidering the sacrosanct judicial notice around concepts such as ‘vaccines are safe and effective’, persecuted doctors such as Dr. Hoffe and Dr. Kilian, should be better able to defend themselves and protect essential rights of all Canadians as their legal cases go forward.

Hopefully the reconsideration of judicial notice will also allow for the evolution and updating of court rulings as new evidence, research and real-scientific knowledge comes to light, just as our judicial system is supposed to, and was always intended to.

Alan Brough

I would like to sincerely thank both Chuck Black and Kari Simpson for their tireless work in driving public awareness of the extent and danger of the manipulation and leverage of our supposedly impartial judicial system in Canada, and how this has dramatically increased since the launch of Covid.

Sources for this article include:

The Art of Lawfare: The U.S., China, and Law as a Weapon of War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP_8yq8wANo
https://chuckblack.substack.com/p/the-historic-concept-of-judicial
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/covid-19-judicial-notice-julien-payne/
https://ca.vlex.com/vid/judicial-notice-how-much-875309865
https://www.lawtimesnews.com/practice-areas/family/courts-can-rely-on-government-recommendations-on-covid-19-vaccination-find-two-recent-rulings/375205
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii324/1997canlii324.html