A Long Awaited Court Ruling in Canada Upsets the "Safe and Effective Vaccine" Dogma

Regime media suffer a meltdown over a rare case of judicial dissent as the media themselves are criticized

There are almost too many court cases to list where Canadians seeking to defend their rights to informed consent and bodily autonomy, have resulted in defeats in court. Family Court, particularly in the province of Ontario, has however seen some rare exceptions. The first major exception was the ruling of Justice Alex Pazaratz in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on February 22, 2022 (J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198). That case even gained international attention. (For those with Telegram accounts, you can view a series of key extracts from that ruling starting here.) The Pazaratz ruling, it has to be noted, was overturned only recently. The Canada chapter of Children’s Health Defense has analyzed and critiqued that appeal, pointing out that the three judges were all appointed by Trudeau’s Liberal government, and the Chief Justice was personally appointed by Trudeau himself. One might think there is only bad news—but there has been a second ruling, just this week: J.W.T. v. S.E.T., 2023 ONSC 977.

J.W.T. v. S.E.T., 2023 ONSC 977

1.1MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Ruling by Justice R.T. Bennett

Download

First the Pazaratz ruling, and now the ruling by Justice Richard T. Bennett of the Family Court branch of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice, show some small cracks developing in Canada’s judicial Iron Curtain. Canada, perhaps rivalled only by Australia and New Zealand, has almost entirely locked out anything and anyone questioning the presumably unassailable, infallible, and absolute orthodoxy that has served so well the interests of technocrats, authoritarian politicians, and of course the executives of Big Pharma. Politicians never make mistakes; doctors always know what’s best and really do care; and Pfizer and Moderna invented the most perfect products—it is all so certain it defies any disbelief. Let me leave commentary aside for now, until the end—and I need to stress that a year of studying International Law does not make me a legal expert.

On February 15 The Toronto Star published a propaganda hitpiece about this rare judgment, using equally rare, inflammatory language that it almost never uses when describing a court ruling: “Citing misinformation, GTA judge sides with anti-vax father on ‘extremely controversial’ COVID-19 vaccine”. Right from the headline, The Star’s propagandists do not want to risk readers drawing their own conclusions and straying into the territory of “wrong-think”. But they have good reason to be upset, as the judge also took aim at them in his ruling.

An extract from The Star itself (surprisingly) provides an adequate summary of the ruling, which I will then flesh out with quotes from the ruling itself, below. Here is how The Star summarized the judge’s ruling:

[A] Newmarket family court judge has found that a father who does not want his children vaccinated should be allowed to call expert evidence at a trial challenging the ‘extremely controversial’ position that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

‘When it comes to the issue of government messaging and COVID-19 vaccines, it would appear that most courts have not questioned the messaging of governments,’ [Judge] Bennett wrote. ‘History has taught us that governments and the media does (sic) not always act in a manner that promotes public health.’

He concluded that there was no evidence before him as to why public health authorities have determined that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.

‘The pharmaceutical companies, the public health authorities, the government, and the mainstream media are all telling us that these vaccines are “safe”,’ the judge continued. ‘Many courts have been willing to accept and take judicial notice that because public health is telling us they are “safe” that should be found as a “fact” as to the truth of that statement’.

On the issue of vaccine effectiveness, Bennett said one of the reasons he refused to take judicial notice was because public health messaging on effectiveness has been a ‘moving target’. He referred to guidance early in the pandemic regarding two doses of the vaccine, later updated to guidance that people should get boosters, along with changing guidance on whether or not to wear a mask.

Bennett took direct aim at Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Kieran Moore, who was caught on camera at an indoor social event last year without a mask just days after urging people to mask indoors amid a spike in respiratory viruses.

‘That leaves this court with the question of which Dr. Moore this court should be expected to take judicial notice?’ Bennett wrote in his ruling.

‘The “Monday Dr. Moore” who strongly encourages the use of masks while indoors or the “Thursday Dr. Moore” who apparently either does not believe his own recommendation or does not see fit to follow his own recommendation?’

Bennett said the proposition that the vaccines are safe and effective ‘is to this court extremely controversial’. In deciding that the matter can move to trial, Bennett found that there are ‘reasonable people’ who appear to have some considerable degree of expertise who have an opinion different to that of the public health authorities as to the effectiveness of the vaccines….

Judicial Notice: Cover for Dogma

The legal concept of “judicial notice” has been at the core of how the courts in Canada have rejected such a great number of lawsuits seeking defense against the arbitrariness of lockdown and quarantine fines, mask mandates, vax mandates, and so forth. As explained in an article by Children’s Health Defense,

Judicial notice is a legal doctrine that allows a judge to assume a fact as truth without proof of evidence. Judicial notice is rarely used in Court and for good reason: Judicial notice i) dispenses with the need for proof of facts, ii) it does not require proof by evidence under oath and iii) is…not tested by cross examination. All three are hallmarks of a fair, independent and impartial legal system that has evolved over centuries to counter bias.

Justice Bennett devotes considerable attention to the problems with “judicial notice” when it comes to the unproven “facts” of the “safety” and “effectiveness” of a “vaccine” that requires a number of boosters (yet never provides lifelong immunity) and whose long-term effects are simply unknown.

Justices Bennett and Pazaratz are not the only Canadian judges who took “judicial notice” to task on the subject of the Covid-19 gene therapy prototypes. Bennett’s ruling indicates this:

In August 2022, Justice Corkery of this court released a decision with respect to motion that he heard February 25, 2022, relating to the vaccination of a 12-year-old daughter. [M.M. v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580 (CanLII)]....

Justice Corkery concludes that he is not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.

He states that even if he did take such judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of a vaccine he still had no basis for assessing what that means for this particular child.

Justice Bennett discussed judicial notice below:

As with the issue of whether or not the vaccines are “effective” there have been as cited, multiple courts that were prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that the vaccines are “safe” because that is what public health is telling us.

454. Those courts were prepared to take judicial notice of the “safety” of the vaccine as a “fact” without the requirement of expert evidence.

455. This court finds that in making any decision, we need to know what we know but equally importantly, we need to know what we don’t know.

456. These vaccines, at the time that the court heard this motion, with children in particular, had only been administered for a relatively short period of time, and to younger children, for only a few months and to older children for approximately one year.

457. It is therefore impossible to know what the long-term side effects are of these vaccines as there are no children to whom the vaccine has been administered for more than approximately one year.

458. The pharmaceutical companies, the public health authorities, the government, and the mainstream media are all telling us that these vaccines are “safe”.

459. Many courts have been willing to accept and take judicial notice that because public health is telling us they are “safe” that should be found as a “fact” as to the truth of that statement. Courts have thereby effectively mandated the vaccination of children over the objection of a dissenting parent.

460. Continuing on with what we don’t know, because of the passage of time or lack thereof, no one can say with certainty what the long-term effects are of these vaccines on children as no child has been vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine for long enough to have any ability to tell for certain based on a sample size of individuals who could be studied.

461. Public health is asking us to rely on their opinion and predictions that these vaccines are “safe”.

462. This court asks the question that is “clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute.” [R. v. Find, at para 48]

463. The court has no evidence before it as to the basis on which public health authorities have concluded that COVID-19 vaccines for children are “safe”.

464. We know that anyone who claims (including public health authorities) that the vaccines are safe, is clearly speculating certainly based on any possible long-term negative side effects.

465. The question then becomes, is it reasonable to take judicial notice of such speculation where public health authorities are claiming that the vaccines are “safe”?

466. This court could find simply that it is not prepared to take judicial notice of a “fact” based on what is clearly speculation.

467. However, the court finds that there are additional reasons why this court should not take judicial notice of the public health authorities’ pronouncements that the vaccine is “safe”.

468. As this court pointed out earlier, simply because there is someone who still believes that the earth is flat, does not mean that is a “reasonable dispute”.

469. As has been pointed out in other cases, governments have been wrong before in a number of areas and when it comes to public health recommendations.

470. For example, the government belief and “messaging” at the time, with respect to the drug Thalidomide, was clearly wrong [Note: Justice Pazaratz referred to the Thalidomide scandal in his own ruling, which Justice Bennett read and cited].

471. This was later proven to have been wrong and unfortunately because many pregnant women relied on the advice that they were receiving at the time from public health authorities, it resulted in a number of children being born with deformities.

472. We cannot lose sight, however, of the fact that public health at the time and the government of the day was promoting a drug which ultimately was proven to have had very serious and detrimental side effects.

473. As has been noted in other cases, there are many individuals who are “sounding the alarm bells” with respect to both the short-term and long-term possible side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the administration of those vaccines to children.

Bennett was also careful in noting that the current crop of mRNA investigational medical prototypes do not meet previous definitions of “vaccines”:

The court finds this as another concern as to why the court should exercise extreme caution in being asked to take judicial notice of vaccines as being “safe” when it appears that the uncontradicted evidence is that the mRNA vaccine is different to “conventional vaccines” and that the timeline in their “invention” and testing was far shorter than with other vaccines.

482. For all of the above reasons, the court is not prepared to take judicial notice of any pronouncements from pharmaceutical companies claiming that the vaccine is “safe”.

Bennett thus directly challenged Big Pharma’s sales narrative, with a simple, basic, and most reasonable demand: prove it.

Beware of the Grand Vax Narrative

Bennett proceeded to throw in doubt the current orthodoxy:

486. History has taught us that governments and the media does not always act in a manner that promotes public health.

487. It was not that long ago that the media depended on tobacco companies and companies selling wine, spirits and beer for advertising revenue.

488. At a time when there were a number of experts opining that tobacco caused lung cancer and other experts opining that alcoholic products could cause cirrhosis of the liver, among other diseases, the media and governments continued to allow those companies to advertise and continue to rely on those companies for advertising revenue.

489. Once those advertising revenues were no longer available to mainstream media, were those advertisers to a large extent replaced with advertisements paid by large pharmaceutical companies?

490. For those reasons among others, this court is not prepared to take judicial notice of any “messaging” from mainstream media....

This last point apparently outraged the editors/censors at The Star, Canada’s paper of record when it comes to inciting hatred and indulging lustful fantasies of violence against “anti-vaxxers”. The Star attacked the judge for allegedly citing a “debunked anti-vax conspiracy theory,” for questioning the mainstream narrative, and even for believing that planet Earth is spherical, but allegedly for the “wrong” reasons. Of course, The Star is right to be worried, and we will get back to that later.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Poisoned Its Own Well

There is a totally forseeable problem with a medical association threatening the careers of doctors, monitoring their speech, and punishing them for not repeating dogma: it invalidates doctors’ opinions as reliable and trustworthy expertise. Called upon to testify, family doctors and their recommendations can now be dimissed. Justice Bennett made this clear. In response to the common argument that takes the form of “But our family doctor recommended we vaccinate our children”, Bennett responded:

495. There is no evidence before this court, that the doctor in this case, or for that matter in the other cases, has done any independent research in order to form their own opinion as to what are the risks of the COVID-19 vaccination.

496. In fact, what they merely stated is that public health recommends vaccination of children against COVID-19, except in cases where there is evidence that a particular child is at higher risk.

497. Dissenting parents in other cases and the father in this case before this court, have questioned whether or not doctors in Ontario are free to give opinions that are contrary to public health edicts without having any professional consequences.

498. There have been cases cited in the media whereby doctors have been disciplined by their governing bodies where the doctor has issued letters of exemption to patients from the vaccines or where the doctors have prescribed medications which the public health authorities have not been recommending for the use with respect to COVID-19.

499. Can the courts therefore take judicial notice of the fact that family doctors issuing a letter, are doing so totally independent of any concerns from sanctions from their governing bodies?

500. This court finds that one cannot and should not take judicial notice of that fact.

But Google Says It’s Misinformation!

Here Justice Bennett takes aim at the censorship regime, and turns the fact of censorship against itself:

501. Courts in other cases have discounted Dr. Malone, for among other reasons, because he was banned from Twitter (when Twitter was under previous ownership) for spreading “misinformation”.

502. By determining that a position taken by someone is “misinformation” simply because Twitter, Facebook, Google, or some other social media platform bans someone for declaring what they are saying as “misinformation” is by extension taking judicial notice of the “fact” that the owners or “regulators” of these platforms are independent and have made a determination has to what are “facts” and what is “misinformation”.

Further it presumes that this determination is uncontroversial.

503. The court does not find that we should be taking judicial notice of a determination by an owner of one of these platforms as to what is “misinformation”.

More Reasons Why Regime Media Hate This Ruling

Canada’s regime media simply cannot abide by this, so destroying this judge’s analysis will now be top priority. Justice Bennett ruled:

517. Does the mainstream media have a “narrative” that they promote?

518. One wonders why some stories in the news are, “front-page headlines” for each news cycle for a number of days and for some cases weeks and months, while on the other hand, other stories, which arguably are also very newsworthy, are either not reported at all or are buried in the middle of one newscast and not repeated thereafter.

519. This court is not prepared to take judicial notice that simply because the CBC or any other mainstream media outlet reports something as being “untrue” that the court accepts that as being something of which the court will take judicial notice.

520. For all of the above reasons, this court is not prepared to take judicial notice of the public health claim of that these vaccines are “safe”.

521. To be clear, the court is not taking judicial notice of any of the representation set out in the father’s materials are in fact accurate or are “facts”.

522. The court is merely stating that since it finds that it cannot take judicial notice, by extension expert evidence is required for the court to make a finding of fact.

Dismissing Parental Rights for the Crime of “Wrong-Think”

Justice Bennett also criticized how parents who dissent have been treated by the “justice” system in Canada:

527. In fact, some courts, as cited herein, have even taken away decision-making authority from a parent who they find is the better parent generally to have that authority. The decision-making authority has been taken away from them simply because they dared to question the public health messaging.

528. Doing so, raises huge concerns for this court based on the “slippery slope argument”….

He added:

536. However, as can be seen from some of the cases cited here in, courts have also been prepared to make orders censoring parents who have a dissenting opinion.

537. Orders have been made precluding those parents from sharing any such opinions with their children or allowing their children to view any such dissenting opinions either on the Internet or otherwise.

538. The court well understands, as is ordered typically in family law cases that the courts discourage, as does this court, parents from involving their children in adult disputes.

539. However, issuing an order which precludes a parent from allowing their teenage child to view something that is contrary to the public health narrative is deeply concerning to this court. Hasn't the education system particularly since the 1960s, encouraged and promoted children to be critical thinkers?

540. Yet it would appear that any time anyone challenges the mainstream “narrative” they are immediately tarnished with a brush as putting forward “misinformation”.

Then The Star confirmed the judge’s very last point, by tarnishing him with a brush for putting forward “misinformation”. As we know, “misinformation” is anything that does not fit within our worldview.

The state, through the courts, supplanting parental authority—and thus effectively taking hold of children—while enforcing censorship, is something that one expects of the most extreme dictatorships. Justice Bennett:

541. There are countries where the courts follow the government narrative and do not permit the dissemination of opinions that vary from that government narrative. This court would expect that one could take judicial notice of the “fact” that Canada should not be such a country.

542. The hallmark of justice is that courts must be viewed to be independent and impartial triers of fact.

The Courts and the Media Have Been Wrong Before

Blind faith in the society’s dominant institutions/institutions of domination, can itself perpetuate grave harm. Here the judge asks Canadians to do what is seemingly impossible for them, and almost unthinkable—learn from history:

579. Having said that, should courts be prepared to take a risk with a child's life based on simply following public health messaging because that is an efficient way of operating?

580. To this court the answer is clearly no. While it may be expensive and inconvenient, this court finds that it is a necessary exercise in order for courts to be assured that we are not requiring something that is potentially harmful to a child.

581. History has taught us, as set out in some of the examples herein, that mistakes have been made in the past which have been extremely detrimental to individuals upon whom the results have been imposed.

582. Governments and public health authorities have been wrong before. The court has cited the example of Thalidomide.

583. The media is promoting a message that is based on representations by public health, the government and pharmaceutical companies who manufacture these vaccines. Therefore, if any of them are wrong, then the media message is by nature also wrong.

584. Courts as well have been wrong before. The Mother Risk inquiry taught us that simply because many courts have been willing to accept a certain “fact” does not mean that well-meaning courts cannot be wrong in their assumptions.

585. This court finds that we should learn from history and to the greatest extent possible not replicate mistakes that have been made in the past.

Have a Reasoned Debate

Counter to the censorship regime, Justice Bennett merely wants to see experts from all sides called upon to present their arguments and evidence in this case:

587. The whole purpose of this court raising these hypotheses is to demonstrate that the proposition of public health authorities that the vaccines are “safe and effective” is to this court extremely controversial and one of which according to the criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada can be challenged by reasonable people and therefore this court should not be taking judicial notice of that proposition as being true.

Popularity and Natural Immunity Issues

Justice Bennett went through numerous preceding rulings by other judges on directly relevant matters—it is really striking material in that it provides a summarized history of family court rulings in Canada under the Covidian, pandemicist regime. Some of his colleagues rejected testimonies from experts like Dr. Byram Bridle, only because they were cast as being out of the “mainstream”. Another was immensely impressed by the mere fact that the Washington Post criticized Dr. Robert Malone, and that Malone had been barred from Twitter. They ruled like highly impressionable, status-conscious teens unable to perceive reality beyond popularity ratings (my words, not Justice Bennett’s).

On page 36 we are also treated to a classic representation of how so many Canadians “think” about natural immunity, having been conditioned by the state, by medical technocrats, and regime media to dismiss it altogether. Referring to the pro-vax mother in this case, Justice Bennett notes:

“She challenges the father’s belief that the children have natural immunity from COVID-19 as a result of having had COVID-19”.

The children had Covid, had no ill effects, and are healthy. She thinks that natural immunity is a mere “belief”.

Why is this Case Important if it can be Overruled?

In some key respects, Justice Bennett’s ruling echoed opinions advanced by Justice Pazaratz. The latter made these points on pages 1-2 of his ruling, points which are apparently controversial in Canada:

[1] When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the courtroom?

[2] And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers? Especially when children’s lives are at stake?

[3] How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?

[4] Should judges sit back as the concept of “Judicial Notice” gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence?

[5] And is “misinformation” even a real word? Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent? To de-legitimize questions and strategically avoid giving answers. Blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system. Each party always has the onus to prove their case and yet “misinformation” has crept into the court lexicon. A childish – but sinister – way of saying “You’re so wrong, I don’t even have to explain why you’re wrong.”…

[7] Because when society demonizes and punishes anyone who disagrees – or even dares to ask really important questions – the resulting polarization, disrespect, and simmering anger can have devastating consequences for the mothers, fathers and children I deal with on a daily basis….

[9] The motion before me is a typical – and frightening – example of how far we are drifting from cherished values….

[12]We’re all weary. We all wish COVID would just go away. But pandemic fatigue is no excuse for short-cuts and lowering our standards. We all have to guard against the unconscious bias of thinking “Why won’t these people just do what the government tells them to do?”

As I cautioned above, I am not a legal expert. However, I can sometimes be heard to claim that I am a professor of anthropology. As an anthropologist, I know something about orthodox dogma, and how it reacts defensively when challenged by heterodox thinking. Once a challenge has been expressed, and is imprinted in the society’s record of itself, it cannot be undone. It forces the defenders of the regime to attack it—precisely because the challenge now exists, it is a fact, and it cannot be ignored especially when it comes from within the folds of elite ranks. The public sees the regime’s defenders sweat. The public sees their worried faces. The public hears their shrill tones. Suddenly, what was once unthinkable, has now been broached. The armour may not have been pierced—not yet—and there may not be a fatal wound—not yet—but there is that unmistakable, embarrassing little dent. Everyone has seen that dent, and it cannot be unseen. A precedent has been established. And as we saw, to some extent the Pazaratz precedent served Bennett well. Now Bennett will have to be addressed. His ruling is a matter of record.

Canada’s Iron Curtain has now officially been dented. We need many more such dents. Put simply: Canada needs to get dented.

---