Ethical doctors across Canada in recent years have been persecuted for telling the truth. Any doctor who went against the Covid narrative faced suspension or revocation of their license to practice, and their professional reputation was also attacked, making it unlikely they would ever work in their chosen field again.

Few in Canada have been more vocal in telling the truth than Dr. Mark Trozzi, who’s license was revoked last year.

Mark is represented before the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons by lawyer Michael Alexander, who has been working a very clever strategy since day one of the CPSO’s actions against Dr. Trozzi. A strategy that assumed that the CPSO would conduct a kangaroo court to punish Dr. Trozzi for speaking out against the narrative. Which they did. But it is a strategy that also backed the CPSO into a legal corner, in which justifying their persecution can only be done under violations of their own rules.

That strategy is about to come to fruition.

The CPSO, in the upcoming final hearing on the case of Dr. Mark Trozzi will either have to exonerate him and reinstate his license, or engage in an obvious gross miscarriage of justice in front of thousands of witnesses. With no justification whatsoever for their actions.

That hearing will take place on October 8th.

And this case carries far more significance than just Dr. Trozzi’s right to practice, and to do so in an ethical manner. With Bill C-293 before the Senate this fall, a bill which will pass into law the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, a draconian document that will enable our government to surveil, censor and control us all, to attack our food supply and our resources, our right to move freely, to dictate to us supposed health measures we must follow, and to do all of this at the behest of a foreign power, the World Health Organization, a loss for Dr. Trozzi will mean the end of our rights to freedom of speech in this country.

Michael,
thanks so much for giving us your time today to give us this update on this very important case with Dr. Mark Trozy. We’ve discussed this several times in the past with yourself and Dr. Trozy. And of course, what we’re talking about is the CPSO,
suspending or actually, I think, revoking at this point in time his license because he basically just pulled people the truth about vaccines, about COVID, as has happened with many doctors. And this is such an important case because,
as you and I were discussing before the interview, with things like Bill C -293 coming, which is going to be the Pandemic Preparedness Act in Canada, which is just chock full of future violations of our rights.
We have to protect the rights of people to be able to tell the truth. So I’d like to start by just, we have done this before. We’ve done a number of interviews on this, but for people who haven’t seen them, please give us a very short summary of what’s happened with Dr.
Trozy from the beginning to now. Okay. So Mark Trosey was leading a private life in the fall of 2020. He was an ER physician in Bankrupt,
Ontario. He ran the ER unit in the hospital, and he was a university professor. He’s taught at three medical schools in Ontario. And he was in charge of preparing his ER department for the pandemic.
So masking protocols. He went beyond the call of due, I think, in terms of putting protocols in place. So he had everyone Fully prepared. Let’s fast forward to late fall 2020.
There are news reports all over the country that hospitals have overwhelmed with COVID patients and ER departments in particular are heavy problems. Meanwhile, Marks Department is totally empty.
Right. Nobody’s showing. As were many. As were many of them across the country, as has been proven over and over and over again, empty departments. And the when they were manufacturing, suppose it over -prouded emergency departments.
They were shipping patients in from all over the place into a particular hospital so they could then show that that hospital was overflowing with patients while the rest of them were all empty. Yes. And Mark verified this because he started calling colleagues around Canada and the U .S.
They all reported that their ER rooms went. Okay. So then he said, what is going on here? So the professor in him, you know, turned him to research and he started looking into the shots and the ingredients and said,
oh, oh, these are not vaccines. This is gene therapy. It’s not, you know, if the shots are being misrepresented to the public, this could be dangerous. It’s very experimental. And he decided to go on sabbatical in January of 2021 to do a deep dive on COVID science.
And he started publishing the results of his research on Dr. Trozy .org, which is a newsletter website that he’s created in early 2021. Well,
of course, somebody at Sick Kids Hospital, a research scientist, complained to the college that Dr. Trozy was spreading misinformation. So they began to investigate him and was led to a prosecution.
And it’s taken three years to get through the college process. but we finally got a decision from the college’s Discipline Tribunal, and they revoked his license because apparently he’s incompetent,
unprofessional, has violated the standard of practice, and all this because he wrote a few medical exemptions for COVID -19 shots, but in their view,
the real problem was he’s guilty of the crime of spreading misinformation. In other words, disagreeing with the narrative. And I think we have to make it very clear just how quickly they did this. As you said, he was on sabbatical.
Lutschku, who had been, I also represented her. She had been suspended for totally spurious reasons. She was accused of writing one medical exemption, but they have absolutely no proof of that. And so,
yeah, so, I mean, she had an elder care practice for the most part. So I suggested that Mark and Dr. Krishemaker come in and fill in for her. And yeah,
they weren’t there but four hours and the college closed it. Right. But now you’ve come up with, I think, an extremely clever defense, and you’ve been planning this from the beginning with the CPSO,
where you’re going after them on something called the standard correctness. Please explain exactly what that means. Okay. So why have we hung in there through this three -year process with the college to get to this point?
Well, the Supreme Court made a decision in 2019 that has really changed the power relationship between the individual and the administrative state. And the Supreme Court said that if you are facing off against the tribunal and there is a statute -based right of appeal under the home legislation for the tribunal,
in other words, a right of appeal into the court system, you go into the court system on the standard of correctness, which is the highest standard of review for a court. So that’s the same standard applied by an appeal court or the Supreme Court candidate itself.
And this standard requires the court to look at the decision of a tribunal and test to see whether it got the right answer or the correct answer on every material issue of law.
Now, under the old system, if you went on a statute -based appeal, you would go in on a low standard called reasonableness, where the court was just kind of looking for due process issues,
where both sides heard, did everybody get a right to make written submissions, was there any bias on the part of the decision makers, that kind of thing. But there’s great deference shown under this old standard to the tribunal’s interpretation of the law.
So the tribunal is allowed to come up with a number of reasonable outcomes on every legal issue. But those days are over it. Even though the Supreme Court changed the standard in 2019. We have not had a major case that challenges the administrative state on the standard of correctness in Ontario or other parts of the country.
So this is a first, and we worked our way through this arduous three -year process at the college in order to get into the court system on the standard of correctness because I believe that the college will lose on that standard.
And by the way, the CPSO has never been challenged on its core legal principles on the standard of correctness in its entire history. practice.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has said that administrative bodies that establish policies, guidelines, statements cannot rely upon those things.
Let’s just call them guidelines in general. Administrative bodies cannot use guidelines and enforce them as if they are the law. So they’re just recommendations.
They’re just really a body saying, so in the case of the CPSO, the CPSO has COVID -19 guidelines. I mean, they would refer to them as restrictions, but they’re guidance. And one of those guidelines is that no doctor may say anything that calls into question,
you know, public health policies and recommendations regarding COVID -19, or you’ll lose your license. So this is one of the so -called guidelines that were used against Dr.
Trozen. So, you know, the Ontario courts have taken this very strong position, and yet the college and the tri – the administrative state in general and reaffirmed that it has fundamental limits on its power.
Now, essentially what happened with the CPSO, with suspending licenses, revoking licenses, it is a basis form of censorship. But as you pointed out,
under freedom of expression laws, the government can censor threats of assault, death threats, inciting violence, child pornography, and hate speech, And nothing that Mark said falls under any of those categories.
Right. Those are all… They’re going after him for things that he said, as you said before, on his website, Dr .Trosy .org, but that’s not covered under any of this.
That’s right. Those are the exceptions to the guarantee of freedom of expression. So their exceptions, because they don’t advance any of the fundamental purposes of free expression. They have nothing to do with the pursuit of the truth,
for example, or the perfection of government. So those are exceptions. Mark obviously, as you pointed out, does not fall into any of those categories. So they have gone after him simply because he has expressed a minority or dissenting point of view on COVID issues.
And so my reading of our constitutional law from 1939 onward is that minority or dissenting opinions deserve absolute protection,
whether you’re under the Old British North America Act or whether you are under the charter. And we’ve got case law, even in the charter era, to establish that. It’s just on passing strange that no lawyer in the country has made this argument during the COVID period.
We will be the first people to make this argument that it is absolutely wrong to shut anyone down, simply because they’re expressing a minority opinion on an issue of public importance. Now,
if I’m understanding the notes that you sent me correctly, though, we do have a bit of a challenge in terms of the precedent that was set with the Jordan Peterson case in regards to minority opinions. And what’s that challenge? Let me tell you something.
There’s a way to distinguish the Jordan Peterson case. So the court in Peterson said that the college wasn’t trying to, the College of Psychologists, was not trying to regulate Jordan Peterson,
the substance of Jordan Peterson’s views, just the form in which he expressed them. His rhetoric was a little too inflammatory. And so, really, we’re just going to re -educate him about the use of the language and the appropriate use of language.
We’re not really trying to shift down his views. So the court says, that’s fine. You know, that’s fine. You can regulate form because you’re not trying to regulate substance. That’s a very problematic decision because,
of course, once you start regulating the form to the degree the College of Psychologists would like to, you are going to regulate substance because every Peterson will have to wonder, well, every second verb, am I using the right verb?
Am I using the right adjective? Am I being too inflammatory today? This kind of decision will obviously have a chilling effect on the substance of speech. But anyway, this case in the eyes of the court is about form, not substance.
The Trozy case is about substance. Because they are taking issue with the substance of his views. Their concern about some of his political rhetoric is a secondary concern. Okay.
We want to win on the issue of substance. Now that gets into his tribunal hearings where he presented two very well -researched documents to support everything that he said and the CPSO brought in their supported three expert witnesses,
none of whom were able to or even really tried to refute what he said. Yeah, so this is, let me take this in two parts, Will. So, you know, the purpose of the regulated Health Professions Act in Ontario is to prevent patient harm.
So normally you have to proceed against a physician, you know, if you’re going to prosecute a physician or even investigating a physician, you have to have some reasonable belief that in all probability the physician has caused harm or will cause harm.
There’s no proof here that Dr. Trosey has caused any harm. There’s no patient complaint. There’s no complaint from anyone about patient harm. So they’ve got a big problem here.
They have not even met the most basic, you know, a standard for even investigating him. Okay. So they didn’t, during the tribunal hearing,
they weren’t able to make the case that the actually caused patient harm. Okay. So that’s part one of that. light expert report.
It was eight pages long. Only three pages were devoted to science. There were just a handful of scientific references there. And the expert took the position that,
yeah, Mark had a minority view on COVID issues. He didn’t say that Mark had violated the scientific consensus. He just said he had a minority view and then said having a minority view violates the standard of practice.
So that’s a big problem in there. But we had a right of reply to that initial report. So Mark provided a 30 -page report with 29 scientific and statistical references from mainstream scientific sources like the New England Journal of Medicine,
the Journal of the American Medical Association. He had stats there for public health Canada, statistics Canada, and so on. They’re no junk science. The college’s expert witness on science did not reply to Mark’s reply.
He had a right to, under the rules to reply. He didn’t. He just sent us a one -page letter, essentially saying, oh, I’m right, you guys are wrong. So we provided a reply to that.
We provided quite a lengthy reply. So we actually had two replies. That was never refuted. So Mark provided close to 200 scientific references from well -respected peer -reviewed journals and other legitimate sources.
And we got their expert witness to admit on cross -examination that he did not address even one of those citations and did not attempt to refute Mark on any of his scientific conclusions.
So here we have the college’s expert witness who’s supposed to, you know, who’s supposed to prove that Mark is wrong. He never even attempted to do it. the supposed harms from resulting from spreading misinformation about public health.
So she testified about those harms in general. But she did not attempt to connect any of those harms, anything that Mark said or did. In fact, I got her to admit on cross -examination.
She didn’t even really know anything about Mark. Okay. So this is wrong as a matter of law. You cannot take conclusions reach from an external source.
unrefuted on COVID science. I believe that to be the case, and we’re seeking to have that vindicated on appeal. So we’ve got three supposed expert witnesses for the CPSO,
none of whom came up with anything of any substance, one of whom admitted she didn’t even know who Mark Trosey was essentially. Now, at the same time, you brought in some expert witnesses, one of whom was Dr. Peter McCullough,
and the CPSO tribunal refused to consider his testimony. Why was that? Well, that’s really amazing. I mean, you have something called a voir dire, which is a mini -hearing when you bring in an expert witness,
because the expert witness has to be qualified as an expert. So the tribunal gets determined. Do we want to hear him? Is he or she truly an expert? So we got through that. They couldn’t deny, I mean, McCullough presented,
like, you know, a thousand publications for them. Yes. We can’t deny The band’s an expert. Absolutely one of the most qualified heart and kidney specialists out there who’s co -authored,
I don’t know, hundreds and hundreds of papers. There’s no denying he is absolutely an expert. Plus, he’s still running a practice where he is seeing patients and treating them for COVID and seeing the people who are being harmed by the vaccines.
You’re not really probably going to find a much better expert witness than Dr. McCullough. And Yet, they refused to hear his testimony. Yes, well, they heard his testimony. I mean, they tried to disqualify him.
We did get him in for about half an hour in the end after a two -day battle. I mean, he was very good with the college counsel assigned to the expert witness,
Wardier, hearing. I mean, he just manhanded her, actually. So I didn’t have to do too much. But The point with his testimony is that the tribunal said that it,
that Dr. McCullough, during his cross -examination by college counsel, indicated that he was not in complete agreement with all the secondary sources he cited in his expert report.
So just think about that for a moment. They de legitimized his expert testimony on that basis. So if you’re a high school student, you learn that you can cite a passage from a book or an article on a point that you think is persuasive.
That doesn’t mean that you have to agree with everything in the book or the article. I mean, anybody who’s written anything knows that you have to use your sources critically and you will pick and choose according to your own, you know,
the argument that you want to make. So this is, you know, So they’re suggesting that this whole approach to putting a paper together is fundamentally wrong. So just think about the implication of this.
The moment that you cite an article, if you do not agree with everything in the article, you can’t cite it. And this is where I have to stop you and ask what I think is an extremely important question. Because you’ve just made that clear that they’re going to ignore Dr.
his testimony because he’s honestly said, of all of these references I’ve cited, I don’t necessarily 100 % agree with everything they said. But here’s the important stuff that I do agree with. And you’ve just made this point,
very good point, that say you’re a high school student, you take a quote from a book or whatever. It doesn’t mean you agree with the entire book. So they’re disallowing on the basis that he does not agree 100 % with everything in the sources he cited.
Is there anything in writing by the CPSO that makes that rule clear. Oh, that was the position they took in their closing arguments.
And they tried to prove this on cross -examination. And it was very ham -handed, I would say, Jeune. And this is where McCullough really handed it to them. Because, you know,
scientists like Dr. McCullough, they look They look at empirical articles with a lot of data in them. And they don’t necessarily accept the conclusions of the articles. They take the data out and they crunch their own numbers to see whether the conclusions hold.
And if they don’t, then they use the data to reach different conclusions. This is very standard. This is what people do in the field of science. And so we explain to them. And in some cases, even just taking the data from the articles and,
you know, rejigging the numbers, rethinking the data in order to reach his own conclusion. So this is decision.
Right, but I’m driving to an important point here. I’m trying to, I kind of trying to play a lawyer if you’ll forgive me, because I am driving to a point. I’m going to ask that question again. Prior to this decision,
is there anything in the CPSO’s guidelines, anything written down anywhere that says that you can’t accept someone’s evidence cited from whatever,
a journal, whatever, unless you agree with everything in that article. Nothing whatsoever will. So my point is, they made it up on the spot because it suited them. They made it up on the spot because they were losing.
Right. Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. So now, this gets back now to a conclusion that you drew of,
and I’m not a very obvious one, of bias towards Mark Troese, please explain the elements of that bias. Okay. They will,
our experts, you know, we’re more persuaded by them for various reasons. Even though they’ve only cited a few studies, we find them more persuasive than Trosey’s 200 studies. So it’s open to them to say them.
But to do that, of course, they have to demonstrate that they grappled with Mark’s evidence, and they didn’t. They don’t even mention Mark’s two self -authored reports. So I think this whole decision falls on that very point because that’s something in law called a palpable and overriding error of fact.
And if you have that in a decision, the decision goes away. Okay. Now, you have been fighting this war now for three years. And I have to say, I have so much respect for your approach,
Michael, I think it’s extremely clever because you were expecting to end up here. This is where you’ve been driving towards. And to put them into this corner. They’re going to have to defend their standard of correctness, and from everything you’ve shown me,
they can’t. So where are we at right now? We go to a hearing on October 8th. Both sides have submitted their factums, which are the legal briefs.
Both sides have submitted the evidence they want to rely upon. And now it’s just up to the court to review that evidence and our briefs. And then we fight it out in court.
And what, can you make any kind of projection on what you think is going to happen? Or maybe the fairer question would be this. If they decide in Mark’s favor, what happened as a result of that?
If they still decide against him, how in the world do they justify it? Well, we’re going before the divisional court And the Divisional Court has heard a number of cases on this lower standard of reasonableness.
So even if you don’t have a statutory right of appeal, you know, you can still go into the court system to challenge a tribunal. But if you do it without this statute -based right of appeal, you do it on this lower standard of reasonableness.
And so cases so far by the Divisional Court have been decided in favor of the college of bodies, you know,
because they showed a lot of deference to the way the bodies interpreted their case law and their home statutes. So it’s going to be an existential moment for this court,
because we will probably get some of the same judges who have made those decisions on this lower standard. The issue here is, will the judges stand up and look at this case on the standard of correctness and forget about what they did under the old standard?
okay this is this case is much more important than people realize,
and I want to outline folks why. You will have recently seen my interview with lawyer Lisa Mira on Bill C -293, which has gone through the House,
has passed the first reading of the Senate. If we don’t stop it, we’ll very likely get passed before the end of this year. This is the Canada’s Pandemic Preparedness Act, and it’s chock full of future violations of our rights,
not just the stuff that happened during the pandemic, but more than that gets into surveillance and all. this case,
that’s setting this country up for further tyranny and the silencing of any qualified voices that speak out against it. I don’t think the importance of this can be overstated.
That’s absolutely right, Will. That is what is the state. I mean, if Mark is defeated on this, then really no professional, no academic, with expertise in a particular area,
a particular area can just stand up and say, I disagree, and here are the reasons why, and take a look at my science, take a look at my thinking, whatever. It’s over. So this is what’s at stake here.
And it’s something, too, that’s of importance to citizens across the country. I mean, if they can censor the Dr. Trozes of the world and the Jordan Peterson’s, they won’t think twice about censoring you.
So we are trying to get the court to recognize that it is wrong. but it applies to everybody.
So if we can’t win on this argument, I’m telling you freedom of expression is over in this country. Yes. Now, you and Mark are in a position where you need some financial assistance, some fundraising.
Give us the details on that because folks, this is so important. And if you can help, please help because we ought to win this case. It’s so important. Well, we’ve been raising money over the past 18 months.
The first year of my representation of Mark was funded by the Justice Center in Calgary, but in the past couple of years, we’ve had to rely almost exclusively on donations. I have not received any money for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of work I’ve put into the case.
Any money that we have raised by way of donation has gone to pay third -party contractors. There are many, many expenses involved in carrying forward a case like this just to bring in production personnel for a virtual hearing costs about $3 ,000 a day.
And we had seven days of a seven day hearing with money. So things get expensive pretty quickly. So we have got to bring other people on to assist for our hearing on October the 8th.
And so we are trying to raise money with that aim and view. So if people would like to donate to this cause, they can go to our website, which is www .W .W.
Justiceformedicine .com. Okay. So justice for medicine .com. And there’s a donate button there, and that will take you to a page where you can donate online or you can send us a check if that,
if you’d prefer. Okay. And now the hearing, I guess, I’m using the right term is October the 8th? How, Is that likely to be a one -day thing or is it could a stretch out for a while?
Yeah, it’s going to be a half -day. It’s going to be a half -day hearing. It could go into the early afternoon. So I think each side gets about an hour and a half to present its position.
And it will be live. It will be, I mean, it’s going to be an in -person hearing. It’s not going to be virtual, okay? So, I mean, there’ll probably be some streaming available from the court and we’ll provide information about that at Justice for Medicine.
But this is going to be an in -person hearing. And it will be at Osgood Hall, which is at the corner of Queen University in Toronto at 10 a .m. on August 8.
So if you want to come out and hopefully see justice in action, you’re entitled as a member of the public to sit in and watch the perceivance.
How many people will that room hold, Michael? I’m not sure right now. It varies from room to room, but I would guess about 200. All right.
Well, as you know, and as many of my viewers know, I’m also the founder, Strong and Free Canada. We have some 30 ,000 people on our mailing list. I’m going to make it a personal mission to fill that room. Thanks.
Well, I think it’s important that the public show up and that the college and the court be aware that people are deeply concerned about this case and we’re deeply concerned about the status of their basic rights.
And because it’s much, much harder for the courts to get away with this kind of tyranny when they know they’re being watched. Yes. I’d like to see it that way.
I Yeah. You know, the press, of course, will be there. So I think that’s important because, you know, we want to make sure that there’s no temptation to buy us on the part of anyone who might hear this.
And we’re hoping for fair questions and fair comments. So we’re hoping that public exposure will ensure that that will be the way the hearing will be conducting.
Fair questions, fair comments, in short, justice. Right. Michael, thank you so much for your efforts. And, of course, folks, we will keep you posted on this. I’m assuming by the evening of the 8th,
by the British by the morning of the 9th, you’ll have an update for me to tell me what happened. Absolutely will. Thanks so much for having me on today. All right. Thank you, Michael.