Adam Skelly and Adamson BBQ v. Toronto and Ontario: Was there government overreach?
An Important Canadian Court Case About Government-Imposed COVID-19 Policies
Five years ago, the case of Adam Skelly and Adamson BBQ v. Toronto and Ontario was dismissed by the judge over what I understand to have been ‘procedural concerns’. The hundreds of pages of scientific evidence and hours-worth of examinations and cross-examinations of expert witnesses were never considered. The case is going to be heard again, in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. It will be presided over by Justice Janet Leiper. It will addresses whether governments overreached when imposing COVID-19-related public health policies. It is supposed to be considered in light of the scientific evidence.
The case will be heard in court this Wednesday (legal counsel for Adam Skelly and Adamson BBQ), Thursday (legal counsel for the Province of Ontario), and Friday (legal counsel for the City of Toronto and their medical officer of health Dr. Eileen De Villa) (Feb. 25, 26, and 27).
A link to register to attend remotely can be found here.
An independent analysis of the case can be found here. Of concern, this assessment noted the following:
“The arguments from the Ontario Government are an interesting contrast to those of Adam Skelly. Instead of presenting evidence for justification, there are typical grounds raised to dismiss over procedural concerns.”
“Just like with the Provincial counterpart, the City of Toronto and Eileen De Villa largely avoid the case that Skelly has brought. The Factum asks the Court to dismiss for other reasons.”
“Anyhow, that is how things are shaping up. We have an Applicant with potentially a very strong case, facing Respondents who would prefer to talk about other things. The hearing is to take place over 3 days, and should be interesting.”
Additional information about the case can be found at this link.
The court of public opinion is important. People can attend the hearing in person in Courtroom 8-5 at 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Or, again, there is the option of attending remotely:
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://ca01web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_R_Rgg5h9SrqbaAK05giHBg
Join from an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 159.124.168.213 (Canada Toronto) or 159.124.196.25 (Canada Vancouver) Meeting ID: 647 3156 3125 Passcode: 689401 SIP: 64731563125@zmca.us Passcode: 689401 After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
Let’s hope this case finally gets judged based on the weight of the objective scientific evidence that is before the court and through a proper interpretation of the Constitution and Charter of Rights (as intended by those who wrote it), rather than legal technicalities, otherwise known as ‘procedural concerns’. After all, every party involved in the case has publicly and proudly stated numerous times that they were simply ‘following the science’. If that is true, then all parties should be confident that an outcome dictated by an in-depth analysis of the science will be the correct one.
I sincerely hope that judicial notice is not brought to bear in yet another COVID-19-related case. Massive amounts of evidence have accumulated over the past several years showing that public health policies were predicated, in part, on scientifically fraudulent evidence. For some examples, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Consequently, every public health assertion related to COVID-19 should have to be defended with evidence in court rather than having this third-party hearsay information granted the status of being unquestionable truth.
I fear the concept of justice could be brought into question if cases are consistently determined by ‘procedural concerns’ instead of the evidence being discussed and contested in court.
One of the most important small-business cases in Canada.
This will probably illustrate again how obscene the system is.
I hope not!
A few points:
1. Judicial notice can only be invoked in the absence of expert evidence, so it won't (and can't) come into play here.
2. It is incumbent upon the government to justify any Charter infringements. They made no attempt to do so here.
3. There are eight experts who have submitted evidence in this case. Six for Skelly, one for Ontario and one for Toronto. All of the government's evidence was challenged; none of Skelly's was.
4. Further, the government has taken the unusual action of pretending that Skelly has no experts at all, let alone any evidence. That does not bode well for them.
5. Former Toronto MOH DeVilla refused almost all of the questions put to her; there are more than 200 pages of her cross-examination. It is incumbent upon her to explain her decision-making process in 2020 in a way that is transparent, intelligible and justified to be considered reasonable in any legal forum. She failed miserably. She never even tried.
6. Cases are decided upon the preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities. This case is heavily tipped in Skelly's favour.
7. With respect to procedure, the city has taken the exact opposite position that it and the tribunal reviewing the MOH's orders made in 2020. It was determined this could only be heard in Superior Court after Skelly was put on notice and then sued for $187K for the cost of calling 253 cops and cavalry on him.
8. Both the province and city take the unusual position they're not responsible for the police actions and deprivation of Skelly's rights. A position that contravenes over 100 years of Canadian common law and centuries of British common law that originated in Ancient Rome.
They're cooked.