I’ve included my opinions in the hope that readers might be able to use the points below (in addition to other information we’re trying to cover in other posts) in order to protect our rights and get justice for what is being done to us.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2020-c-17/latest/so-2020-c-17.html

Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, SO 2020, c 17

This law supposedly restricts all sorts of behaviour using “COVID-19” as the justification–you can see the details in the text–and empowers the government to make regulations.

Unlike the original law it refers to, which was used to implement COVID-19 measures–the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, it doesn’t mention anything about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 17:

17 Unless it has been terminated before this section comes into force, the COVID-19 declared emergency is terminated and Ontario Regulation 50/20 (Declaration of Emergency) is revoked.

This is the regulation that was revoked:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-50-20/latest/o-reg-50-20.html

Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act

ONTARIO REGULATION 50/20

DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY

Historical version for the period March 18, 2020 to July 23, 2020.

No amendments.

This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.

WHEREAS the outbreak of a communicable disease namely COVID-19 coronavirus disease constitutes a danger of major proportions that could result in serious harm to persons;

AND WHEREAS the criteria set out in subsection 7.0.1(3) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.9 (the “Act”) have been satisfied;

NOW THEREFORE, an emergency is hereby declared pursuant to section 7.0.1 of the Act in the whole of the Province of Ontario.

So that was the original declaration of emergency, and I believe it was based on a lie–on fraud.

It states

the criteria set out in subsection 7.0.1(3) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.9 (the “Act”) have been satisfied

which is not true. I think this fraud needs to be pointed out over and over to officials.

I’m not saying the following is a good law, but it is the original law that was misused in order to declare the “emergency” and introduce COVID-19 regulations:

Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-e9/latest/rso-1990-c-e9.html

First of all, it says

7.0.2 (1) The purpose of making orders under this section is to promote the public good by protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people of Ontario in times of declared emergencies in a manner that is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2006, c. 13, s. 1 (4).

That was never respected. Never at any point during the COVID-19 crisis did the government respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to freedom of assembly, etc.

So they broke this law. That’s another point in addition to fraud.

Notice also that this older Act recognizes relevant laws of all kinds such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which I bet the newer legislation probably doesn’t want anyone to notice when it comes to medical privacy and other issues such as workplace safety laws.

Note the following:

Information that is subject to the order that is personal information within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is subject to any law with respect to the privacy and confidentiality of personal information when the declared emergency is terminated. 2006, c. 13, s. 1 (4).

Quoting from the Act in order to explain my point about fraud:

Criteria for declaration

(3) An order declaring that an emergency exists throughout Ontario or any part of it may be made under this section if, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Premier, as the case may be, the following criteria are satisfied:

1. There is an emergency that requires immediate action to prevent, reduce or mitigate a danger of major proportions that could result in serious harm to persons or substantial damage to property.

2. One of the following circumstances exists:

i. The resources normally available to a ministry of the Government of Ontario or an agency, board or commission or other branch of the government, including existing legislation, cannot be relied upon without the risk of serious delay.

ii. The resources referred to in subparagraph i may be insufficiently effective to address the emergency.

iii. It is not possible, without the risk of serious delay, to ascertain whether the resources referred to in subparagraph i can be relied upon. 2006, c. 13, s. 1 (4).

My point is that these conditions were not met, because there was no lack of resources and they did not act to mitigate harm to the most vulnerable. The “emergency” was exaggerated also and that can be argued against too.

The following documents prove that the Ontario government had no intention to reduce harm to those who were most vulnerable. They moved the most vulnerable out of hospitals and refused care, also claiming that there was no effective treatment (as in other jurisdictions worldwide). This intention to not treat the elderly was expressed in rationing / triage (or “death panel”) policies, including one for Ontario. Ultimately, the number of available hospital rooms increased because of these rationing policies.

Ontario policy: “’triage protocol’ for doctors” “ethically fraught decisions over how to ration critical care beds” “long-term-care patients … no longer…transferred to hospitals” https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/03/29/ontario-developing-last-resort-guidelines-on-which-patients-to-prioritize-if-hospitals-are-overwhelmed-by-critical-covid-19-cases.html

Federal policy: “LTC facilities …admission of non-COVID-19 hospital patients” “If COVID-19 does develop … cared for within the facility” https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/covid-19-pandemic-guidance-health-care-sector.html “palliative care and/or pain management”

CMA policy: “committees” “physicians receive legal protection” from “civil or criminal liability or professional discipline” “priority to younger patients” https://policybase.cma.ca/en/viewer?file=%2Fdocuments%2FPolicypdf%2FPD20-03.pdf

News reports confirm these policies were -carried out: “thousands of seniors discharged to nursing and retirement homes as Ontario, Quebec and other provinces rushed to clear beds” “some hospitals, physicians” and LTC admins “discouraging families from sending infected nursing-home residents to the hospital” “most of … residents who have succumbed to COVID-19… died inside the virus-stricken, understaffed facilities, while many … beds opened for [covid] patients sat empty” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-how-shoring-up-hospitals-for-covid-19-contributed-to-canadas-long/

Financial Accountability Office report confirms that the resources were in excess: Before, Ontario had “906 acute care beds, 357 critical care beds” unoccupied. Measures included “cancelling elective surgeries” and “moving existing hospital patients to alternative places of care” By Apr 23, “9,345 unoccupied acute care and 2,191 unoccupied critical care beds” https://fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/health-2020

News reports also confirmed this reality: “lights … turned off in some … corridors” “not even staffing it with nurses” “more than 11 thousand unoccupied beds in hospitals across Canada” “surgeries-almost 53 thousand-have been cancelled” Apr 29/20 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/all-of-our-rooms-are-empty-hospital-ers-vacant-during-pandemic-1.4918208

They created the situation (sometimes by adding new buildings also) of excess hospital rooms that went unused. Therefore there was no lack of resources. Also, there was no intention to mitigate harm to the most frail and vulnerable–because this was clearly expressed by these policies that were designed to exclude the most elderly from hospitals and ICU treatment. This was in addition to the extreme isolation policies imposed on LTC homes (along with other institutions) and in addition to the blanket refusal to recognize the existence of effective treatments.

Going through the various points in the original Act, the points are not worded in a way that could be used to justify the destructive acts of bankrupting businesses and ruining peoples’ lives in general and destroying rights and freedoms:

Under section 7.0.2, it mentions the need to protect our “welfare” also.

One of the criteria states: “making an order is a reasonable alternative to other measures that might be taken to address the emergency.” This was broken because there was nothing reasonable about “lockdowns” (a prison term) or isolating healthy people in their homes.

7.0.2 (3) states:

Orders made under this section are subject to the following limitations:

1. The actions authorized by an order shall be exercised in a manner which, consistent with the objectives of the order, limits their intrusiveness.

2. An order shall only apply to the areas of the Province where it is necessary.

3. Subject to section 7.0.8, an order shall be effective only for as long as is necessary. 2006, c. 13, s. 1 (4).

There was no consideration to these limitations. These were broken. The orders were totally intrusive, there was no limitation to the areas covered by the orders, there was no consideration to limiting the time of the orders. There was every intention to institute them permanently and to reintroduce them whenever there is an excuse.

Also points in 7.0.2(4) refer to a “specified area.”

---