Ontario doctors on trial for the future of Canadian Healthcare

by Dan Fournier, published Monday, Dec. 5, 10:00 EST on fournier.substack.com

Screenshot of the interview from Bright Light News for the CPSO Motion Hearing Update posted on November 28, 2022. Top: Dr. Patrick Phillips, moderator Glen Jung, Dr. Crystal Luchkiw; Bottom: Attorney Michael Alexander and Dr. Mark Trozzi.

Introduction

On November 23, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline tribunal (OPSDT) heard three hearings at once for the cases pertaining to physicians, Dr. Mark Trozzi, Dr. Mark Phillips, and Dr. Crystal Luchkiw.

The tribunal hearing is to determine whether professional misconduct occurred by the doctors for not following recommendations by the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario (CPSO) in the treatment of their patients, mostly with regards to Covid-19.

Two days prior to the hearing, Dr. Byram W. Bridle, an associate professor of viral immunology in the department of pathobiology at the University of Guelph who specialises in vaccinology, mentioned that the CPSO was overwhelmed with emails from members of the public who wished to view the hearing, but had resulted in limiting access to the hearing by request only.

Moreover, Dr. Bridle noted that such legal hearings are public affairs in Canada, but that the OPSDT said that no recording or screenshots of the hearing would be permitted, lest violators be fined up to $25,000 under section 29 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

In addition, Dr. Bridle offered his expert opinion, pre-trial, in which he stated:

“In my expert opinion, the overwhelming weight of the peer-reviewed scientific literature shows that these are doctors that had incredible foresight and courage at a time when their views were considered unpopular by less critically thinking physicians. Their abilities to practice medicine have been restricted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Personally, I am keen to observe if this will be a COVID-19-related legal decision that is made based on the weight of the scientific evidence. If so, it will be a conspicuously rare occurrence in Canada where COVID-19-related legal decisions have been made based on anything but the evidence.”

Each doctor had one hour to present their case at the hearing; and once it was over, the OPSDT rendered each case’s outcome as ‘Decision reserved’ which means that the decision will be announced at a later date with no further testimony permitted.

This tribunal only has to decide if the complaints against the three physicians can proceed to the CPSO’s Discipline Committee.

Michael Alexander, a litigation lawyer and expert in the field, also appeared before the tribunal on November 23, assisting the three doctors as his clients against the attempt to strip them of the medical licenses due to their anti-Covid-narrative stances and actions.

Doctors and their lawyer interviewed about the trial

Yesterday, on December 3, Michael Alexander and all three doctors appeared in a Bright Light News interview to update the situation about the trial. 

The nearly one and a half-hour interview revealed a lot of details about each doctor’s sanctions by their respective employers as well as the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario, their provincial professional association.

The interviewer and moderator from Bright Light News, Glen Jung, had many questions for each, beginning with Michael Alexander to explain what exactly was this ‘motion hearing’ that was held on Nov. 23, its process, and what it means.

Alexander answered that in the past 18 months, they’ve been taking to task the CPSO’s restrictions it had placed on the practice of medicine in Ontario, especially with regards to Covid-19.

Specifically, these restrictions included medical exemptions (issued by doctors), the [Covid-19 vaccine] injections, prescribing alternative medications [for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 such as Ivermectin], as well as the gag orders imposed on doctors, forbidding them from saying anything contrary to the prescribed narratives.

Alexander stated that the CPSO’s position is that the doctors have violated these restrictions and are thus in breach of the rules of ‘professional misconduct’, with the consequence of possibly losing their licenses (to practice medicine).

Their position, on the other hand, is that these ‘restrictions’ are not binding rules and cannot be used against anybody for professional misconduct. And that they are merely ‘recommendations’ or ‘guidelines’ which doctors can choose to follow, or not with regards to what they think is best for their patients.

So, this hearing was, affirms Alexander, a challenge to the [proceeding of] hearings against these doctors.

Put simply, this ‘motion hearing’ was to determine whether the restrictions placed upon the doctors were themselves lawful (or not); and, if they were found not to be lawful, then the hearing themselves (the actual trials they want to schedule) would fail because there would be no foundation in law for them.

If successful, it would imply that all other hearings against other doctors across Canada would be put to an end.

Mr. Alexander notes that this problem is not solely restricted to Ontario, but that doctors in other provinces face the same constraints with regards to these restrictions – particularly from their respective Colleges [of Physicians and Surgeons].

Essentially, it is about how the practice of medicine is regulated around the country going forward, Alexander says and then concludes:

“This case is about 38 million people and how they will receive medicine, treatment and prevention around Covid-19. So, it couldn’t be more important.”

Dr. Patrick Phillips, M.D.

Dr. Patrick Phillips stated that he has been suspended since May 3rd, 2022.

He claims that he is being prosecuted by the CPSO for reporting each occurrence of adverse events in his patients, prescribing Ivermectin when treating his Covid-19 patients, and not providing patient files.

When asked to be able to access files of his patients, Dr. Phillips refused on the grounds that he would not do so without the express authorization of his patients, to which he adds that they do not like nor trust the CPSO.

Dr. Phillips further stressed to the College that he would not provide patient files without their consent and that he is helping them defend their right to privacy under section 8 of the Charter (i.e., maintaining their right to medical privacy).  

Talking about the hearing, the family medicine physician stated that it had gone well in one sense, but that Schedule “A” of his hearing notice was rather vague in its charge towards him.

To wit, it only stated that he engaged in “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct” without any specific mention of what these entailed, nor which laws he had breached.

He then referred to the Medicine Act’s ‘Grounds for misconduct’ and stated that the College made no mention of which of the 34 professional misconduct provisions he had contravened as per the regulation.  

With regards to the importance of these proceedings, Dr. Phillips mentions that doctors in Ontario are apprehensive in following their own respective medical judgments in fear that they may violate the recommendations [set forth by the CPSO], be sanctioned, and have their licenses suspended.

That is why very few [medical] exemptions [for the Covid-19 vaccinations] were issued, Dr. Phillips concluded.

Dr. Mark Trozzi, M.D.

“I’m continuing to follow the Golden Rule, I’m continuing to follow the Hippocratic Oath, and I’m continuing to be a real doctor and serve the public…There are certain basic realities, like Ivermectin cures Covid. We speak with doctors all around the world; it works phenomenally. The injections that the CPSO is an accomplice in pushing upon the public are not vaccines, they’re genetic experiments,” Dr. Mark Trozzi first expounds. 

He then criticises the health authorities whom should have known better:

“They predictably would cause a lot of death and injury; they produced a lot of death and injury in the initials trials; the government and the CPSO has a responsibility and should have known that since more than a year ago because Pfizer produced it. Three percent of the people died from the injection for a disease that killed less than 0.3 percent of people. It just doesn’t make any sense. And then there’s an additional 28 percent seriously and ongoingly injured from the injections.”

Dr. Trozzi, then shifts to why the CPSO is going after him, namely, for writing [medical] exemptions for his patients and exercising his right to free speech.

Patients had expressed concern about the “poison death shot” upon which Dr. Trozzi wrote the exemptions.

“We’re in such an unlawful place in history right now in this country. What the CPSO is doing is criminal. We’re here defending ourselves against blatant criminals who have caused death. Look around people, death rates are through the roof; they weren’t through the roof in 2020, they’re through the roof since the addition of these jabs.”

Dr. Trozzi then affirmed that he had written about 20 exemptions for patients who specifically stated that they did not want the injections. “Therefore, it is against the law to give the injections,” noted Trozzi adding, “it’s called assault, and so, they are exempted by the very virtue.”

Dr. Trozzi then cited some data:

“Canadian data shows that people who have taken three of these jabs are three times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid…It’s killing people by all kinds of ways.”

As for the possible exaggeration of this statement related to hospitalizations, the reader should note that up until the time the Ontario government published Covid-19 hospitalization rates by vaccine status, the data did indeed show that Dr. Trozzi’s assertion was indeed factual.

Here is a sampling of such data from May 31, 2022 for Ontario (archived):

Screenshot of archived data from the Government of Ontario: Hospitalization by vaccine status Last updated: May 31, 2022 at 11:23 a.m. (EST)

In fact, the data from above, all things being equal, indicates that vaccinated patients were more than three-times more likely to be hospitalized.

As of June 30, 2022, the Ontario government decided to no longer continue to publish these numbers without explanation. Last week, this author reached out to inquire about the reason behind this decision, but has yet to hear back from them.

Further along in the interview, Dr. Trozzi explains that this trial isn’t about doctors going against the tide; rather, it’s about the questionable safety of the [Covid-19] injections.

“These injections make you more likely to die than of Covid itself, dramatically more than Covid. And that’s just the little thing. They make you more likely to die of cancer. They make you more likely for your cancer to come back. They destroy the immune system. They cause blood clots, heart attacks. They inflame hearts in children. They go into unborn babies…”

The impassioned and outspoken doctor expands his contention that the trial is really about the lives they are trying to save, adding:

“There’s thousands of people being vandalised, abused, coerced, deceived, killed, sterilised, etcetera.”

Dr. Trozzi then observed that he didn’t feel committee members of the trial’s panel was one that was unbiased; and the fact that no questions at all were asked to the three doctors during the hearing was highly suspect as well.

His closing thought is that the real “cleanup” starts when the real criminals are put behind bars.

Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, M.D.

From the time the Covid-19 Pandemic started, Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, continued to make her clinical judgments and assessments based on the policies and laws and standards of care that existed prior to Covid. She followed those principles and protocols from her office.

A complaint was filed against Dr. Luchkiw for her infectious diseases protocol and her social media discussion points, but she was cleared of any wrongdoing.

The family medicine practitioner stated that she witnessed some horrible things occurring at her hospital such as inhumane, unethical treatment. For instance, she states, denying people access to their loved ones while in hospital.

Consequently, Dr. Luchkiw spoke out about these which caused a grievance with her Chief of Staff, Dr. Jeffrey Tyberg, who submitted a complaint to the College’s registrar directly about a patient who said he had an exemption. Luchkiw alleged that it was assumed by hearsay only, and that she was the one who had granted the exemption. And for it, she is being investigated.

Dr. Luchkiw further stated that the College tried to raid her office for whatever reason they wanted, presumably to access private and confidential patient records, and for ignoring certain guidelines she deemed to be harmful for her patients.

She found these actions extremely threatening and abusive.

The College further threatened that if she did not comply, she would lose her license (to practice medicine), she further claims.

And that is exactly what happened, for Dr. Crystal Luchkiw did get her license suspended, as of March 17, 2022.

That did not end there for Dr. Luchkiw, as they put a restriction on her license based on her [medical] guidance statements because she was “not cooperating” to give them [the College] any documentation, including patients’ confidential medical files, where she said:

“There’s laws surrounding that. And the College does not have a right unless they do have permission from the patient.”

Later in the interview, Dr. Luchkiw gave another example for which she felt there was clear abuse. They pressured and coerced her to change the cause of death for that of “Covid-19” on the certificate of a patient who had died of cancer but had tested positive for Covid-19 on the morning of her death, she alleged. They tried to do this on multiple occasions and even with a different party, the doctor stressed.

And the College is taking her to this disciplinary tribunal because of her “non-cooperation.”

With regards to the trial itself, Dr. Luchkiw says there is a huge public interest in their case and hopes it continues. 

At the hearing, she felt that panel members seemed confused as to their role and jurisdiction for the case, they didn’t seem professional, and that their arguments purposely used language to “muddy the waters” and “scapegoat” the three doctors.

Furthermore, she states that there are clear laws that guide their profession, and there are clear limits to their [the College’s] authority.

With regards to transparency, she is also concerned that, as pointed out earlier in this article, they removed public access of the trial so people couldn’t see it.

Her advice for other physicians is that they need to stop worrying about what is going to happen to them, and they should consider why they got into the profession in the first place.

What are the values of our profession? How do we go about treating people? These are questions Luchkiw rhetorically asked, adding that doctors “not participate in anything that is wrong or will harm somebody.”

She concludes with:

“Our whole community of physicians needs to come together. We need the public that has grave concerns to be heard. We don’t dismiss voices. We don’t dismiss concerns. Scientific debate is how we come to progress. Let’s get back to the fundamentals.”

The thoughts of lawyer Michael Alexander about the case

The attorney representing the three doctors, Michael Alexander, brought up a related point about the investigation of Dr. Luchkiw’s alleged offenses. He stated that under section 76 of the Health Professions Act, that such “fishing expeditions” are unlawful since they were not made on specific and reasonable investigatory grounds. Alexander stated, “You can’t write an investigation order to look into anything which [is] literally what the College does.”

Alexander was also given one hour to speak at the hearing, as was CPSO’s counsel, Elizabeth Whitner.

Mr. Alexander stated that he was shocked when he had read the CPSO’s factum which admitted that:

“The restrictions [for the past 18 months] are just recommendations and guidelines that have no binding force.”

That would imply that the College would have thus conceded their case and the whole matter should done with, contended the lawyer upon reading this statement.

He thus made that submission in the first part of his arguments during the motion hearing on November 23.  

What Alexander found insidious was not about the policies themselves, but how the CPSO tried to equate the restrictions as actual policies. In other words, the CPSO was trying to misrepresent these restrictions (guidelines) as policies (which would serve as the basis for establishing professional misconduct) to try to impune his clients, which Alexander deems highly unethical. 

To help defend his clients, Mr. Alexander also referred to section 5.1 of the Medicine Act which states:

In other words, all doctors in Ontario have the right to use non-traditional forms of medicine in the practice of their duties, including for the treatment and prevention of Covid-19.

Therefore, the College is trying to restrict the doctors from their treatment of Covid-19 and are in direct violation of section 5.1 of the Medicine Act, affirms Alexander.

The lawyer also remarked that during the hearing, members of the College’s counsel had no questions for them, and that they seemed ill-equipped to make a just decision in this matter.

Michael Alexander concluded that due to the [imposed] restrictions, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has prevented millions of people from getting effective treatment for Covid-19 and from getting preventative treatment for Covid-19; and, as a result, countless people have suffered serious injuries. “On top of that,” he adds, “people have died who should not have died.”

The outcome of the motion hearing trial has yet to be determined and a decision may be expected by Christmas.

Tweet this article

Share this article on Facebook

Notes:

An abridged version of this article is also published in The Counter Signal.

Disclaimer:

None of the contents of this article is to be taken as medical or health-related advice. Seek independent professional consultation before making health-related decisions. See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.