We wish this section could be shorter. But, in view of the complexities, it’s not. However, if you are time-pressed, you can skip to Section D and side-step the background factors set out in Sections A, B and C – though we recommend that you acquaint yourself with the background factors when you can find the time, to facilitate your understanding. THESE CONTENTS ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE – YOUR INDIVIDUAL FACTS MAY NOT APPLY – YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH YOUR LEGAL PROFESSIONAL BEFORE RELYING ON ANY OF THESE CONTENTS.



There is a tendency, when looking at the issues surrounding Covid, to forget that most people are polite. But let’s be realistic, some are not. And social media gives them a voice – sometimes a nasty voice.


Try to remember that no single sentence on this website (or any other website) can capture the totality of any thought or issue. Taking single sentences or words out of context can be momentarily satisfying – but is neither accurate nor fair. Please consider the totality of the messaging on this website when submitting comments.


PLEASE NOTE: In evaluating the legal aspects, please bear in mind the following question: Why the radio silence? Since March 2020, over a lengthy period, the various levels of government (not just in Canada, but elsewhere) could have encouraged people to exercise. Could have encouraged people to improve their breathing (bearing in mind that Covid was primarily a pulmonary problem). Could have encouraged people to reduce their alcohol intake (alcohol use actually went up, with a corresponding increase in fatal car accidents involving alcohol). Could have encouraged people to be careful about their weight (instead, many people experienced weight gain). Could have encouraged people to take Vitamin D and to spend time outdoors. Could have encouraged people be careful about their mental health and to be calm in the face of low death figures from Covid (in the Eastern Ontario Health Unit region, the death toll has been microscopically small). Could have encouraged civility. Could have encouraged people by sharing good news about the reduced fatalities from Covid when appropriate treatment protocols are used. Could have, should have. Why the radio silence? As you are aware, this radio silence is a fact – not speculation. Money was not lacking – as can be seen from the huge amounts spent encouraging vaccines. The Clown Deal (explained below) may help to explain.



It would be naïve to view the legal issues without being aware of the wider context – which consists of a backdrop with enormous amounts of money in play.


The Governments of Canada, the USA and other countries gave the pharmaceutical companies the following deal:


  • Subsidies for R&D: Billions of dollars were provided to the various vaccine manufacturers to develop a vaccine, by various governments, including the Government of Canada – thereby minimizing these costs for the vaccine manufacturers. Government = Taxpayers = You.

  • Marketing Costs: The various governments, including the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in publicity and ads to convince people to take vaccines – thereby minimizing these costs for the vaccine manufacturers. Government = Taxpayers = You.

  • Distribution Costs: The various governments, including the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to set up vaccine centers to give “the jab” to people – thereby minimizing these costs for the vaccine manufacturers. Government = Taxpayers = You.

  • Vaccine Injury Costs: Canada was the only G7 country with no vaccine injury compensation fund, even though it’s not possible to sue vaccine manufacturers for vaccine injuries. The Federal Government is in the process (albeit slowly) of setting one up – thereby minimizing these costs for the vaccine manufacturers. Government = Taxpayers = You.

  • No Royalties, No Profits, No Stock Options, Nothing: Zero stock options from the vaccine manufacturers were provided in return, Zero royalties from the vaccine manufacturers were provided in return. Zero profit participations from the vaccine manufacturers were provided in return. Zero for the taxpayers, which means zero for you. Government = Taxpayers = You.

  • We'll Do the Research - Trust Us: The vaccine manufacturers were allowed by the various Governments to rely on their own research, with billions of dollars in play for them and zero for you. Government = Taxpayers = You.


The latest estimates of the sales figures for Pfizer from Covid vaccines alone are in the range of USD$33.5 billion for 2021. Your share: Zero – that’s right, zero. That’s the share that the various governments negotiated for you: Zero.


It might be wise to expect that, since you received zero, there’s lots left for others. The higher the sales of vaccines (and subsequently from boosters), your share will stay at zero – their share will only go higher in dollar terms. Good for them - not so good for you.


Could you have cut a better deal with the vaccine manufacturers, if you had overseen the negotiations? If you are an actual clown, maybe not. Otherwise, you probably could have done a better job (while at the same time, ensuring that there was NO Radio Silence on the ways in which people could improve their health).


If you were doing something as simple as getting your driveway paved, would you ask for competitive bids? If you were getting thousands of driveways paved at once, would you ask for better pricing? If you were paying for the paver’s asphalt, paying for their advertising, paying for their insurance, would you ask for a better deal? Probably. Unless of course, you're a negotiator in a Clown suit.



There are, broadly speaking, 4 societal groups with respect to Covid issues:


  • Group 1 - The Pro-Vaccine Extremists: This group is both pro-vaccine and pro-mandate. They are true-believers and do not consider that there may be downsides to the vaccines. They are true-believers in their conviction that there is a pandemic, even in the face of death figures that undermine this assertion. They will use any and all means to force people who are vaccine-hesitant to be vaccinated – by way of mandates (i.e.- edicts) the scope of which includes placing vaccine-hesitant people on unpaid leave (even though short months ago, many of them were considered to be heroes for working during the early months), perhaps even denying them unemployment insurance. They are scornful of any person who decides not to be vaccinated. They see no contradiction between closing gyms and allowing liquor stores to stay open. They perceive unvaccinated people as a threat to them, even though they themselves have been vaccinated (which is inherently contradictory – if the vaccines work, they’re safe). Their mantra is: Follow the Science (which is inherently contradictory – if vaccines work, they’re safe). If they were ready to Follow the Science, there would have been no Radio Silence on how to minimize the effects of Covid (another element that is inherently contradictory). Bottom-Line for Vaccine Manufacturers: the Pro-Vaccine Extremists are the most reliable protectors of their profits and do not even question the terms whereby their governments handed to them deals that are hugely profitable. Most importantly, they continue to be fine with the Radio Silence on minimizing Covid’s effects.


  • Group 2 - The Pro-Vaccine Moderates: This group is pro-vaccine but does not embrace mandates to force-feed vaccines on others. They believe in the concept that applies to medical issues: “My Body, My Choice”. They are moderately confident about the vaccines, but not to the point of certainty. They are moderately convinced that there is a pandemic, based on the numbers, but not to the point of certainty. They have been wrong before – so, they have learned that embracing any idea to the point of blind certainty is unwise. They believe in the Charter of Rights and freedom of choice – and they have exercised their right to be vaccinated but do not insist that others follow the same choice. Bottom-Line for Vaccine Manufacturers: the Pro-Vaccine Moderates are less reliable protectors of their profits, but not a threat. They do question why the vaccine manufacturers make so much money from an emergency – since they would not themselves exploit an urgent need from their community.


  • Group 3 - The Pro-Choice Moderates: This group is vaccine-resistant (for themselves) but does not embrace the idea that the pandemic is part of a deep conspiracy. Some of them have had allergic reactions to vaccines in the past. Some are pregnant women concerned about the health of their unborn child. Some are sports enthusiasts who have taken care of their health in the past, on their own, with little or no guidance from the medical system. Some are simply stubbornly independent people. Some of them remember mistakes of the past made by Science. Some of them are concerned about the re-categorizations of deaths whereby the deaths of people in their 80’s and 90’s are improperly attributed to Covid. Some of them believe in their Charter rights. Some of them simply like the national anthem lyrics about The True North Strong and Free. Bottom-line for Vaccine Manufacturers: the Pro-Choice Moderates represent a mild threat to the profits of the Vaccine Companies, but not an existential threat. The Pro-Choice Moderates feel that the vaccine manufacturers landed incredibly sweet deals – but are not inclined to engage in protests about them. They are uncomfortable with the Radio Silence but are simply naïve about its continued implementation – since they do not live their lives in a manner that is exploitative of others.


  • Group 4 - The Anti-Vaccine Extremists: This group is strongly anti-vaccine and believes that the Covid pandemic is a Bernie Madoff con job and part of a Global Reset, engineered by a global elite, who are operating according to a hidden agenda. They are deeply troubled by the fact that the past 18 months have resulted in a massive transfer of wealth to the wealthiest people. They are deeply troubled by infringements on their civil liberties, including mask wearing and abridging their rights to be outdoors or participate in events. They are deeply troubled by the overlap between government agencies and the pharmaceutical companies. They are deeply troubled by the prospects that the vaccines were rushed to market and will have serious side-effects. Bottom-line for Vaccine Manufacturers: the Anti-Vaccine Extremists are an existential threat. With massive profits on the line, the Vaccine Companies will endeavor to de-platform and to isolate these Anti-Vaccine Extremists, working with their allies in Big Tech. The scary thing: the Anti-Vaccine Extremists may very well be right. As well, they are vocal about the short-sightedness of the policy of Radio Silence on the ways in which people can improve their health. And, most importantly, very few of them are in it for personal financial gain.


This is by no means a comprehensive list – and there are hybrid situations where individuals will straddle two different groups.


NOTE: Only one group of the 4 has endeavored to purge the comments of the other groups – and that is Group 1 – which has pushed for the suppression of contrary points of view, on-line and in the Media. The Alliance is strongly in favor of the free expression of different opinions and welcomes comments from all 4 groups.



THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS (i.e. – the Evidence)



The Eastern Ontario Health Unit (the “Unit”) covers a 6-county region in Eastern Ontario (the “Relevant Area”) with approximately 213,000 people.



Since the arrival of the Covid virus in North America in or about the month of February 2020, there have been 139 deaths in the Unit’s Relevant Area. This means, that in the Relevant Area, the rate of death has been approximately 5 one-hundredths of 1% (actually less than 4 one-hundredths of 1% on an annualized basis.



The majority of the 139 deaths within the Relevant Area has been among people between the ages of 80 and 100. Not a single death has occurred among people below age 40. ZERO. No co-morbidity information has been provided with respect to the said deaths - information that would be critical to making health decisions.



A survival rate of over 99.95% is not a pandemic. It is a panemic – an epidemic that wanted to be more – but was too anemic to rate as a pandemic. Simply put, a survival rate of 99.95% is positive news. The Unit has characterized the situation in alarmist negative terms, from the beginning and throughout – even though the facts (139 deaths out of 213,000 people, over nearly 2 years) do not align with the proposition advanced by the Unit that there is a “pandemic”.



It would be possible – at least theoretically – to achieve a zero-rate of crime – by giving the police a blank cheque involving enormous, unchecked powers to monitor citizens in a Stalinist society. But none of us would be happy with that society, because chasing one’s tail in achieving a zero-crime rate is an impossible exercise – as well as a dangerous one. Similarly, achieving a zero-death rate becomes a dangerous blank-cheque proposition – providing endless justifications for intruding on the personal decisions of the individual with respect to the health of the person and their families. History has shown, time and again: surrendering rights is not a good proposition. We have seen significant curtailment of rights in the context of a death rate of five (5) one-hundredths of 1%. Statistically close to zero.



If vaccines work, those who are vaccinated are then not at risk – and should not impose on others a choice they should be free to make for themselves.


If vaccines do not work, it is even less rational to impose on others a choice they should be free to make for themselves.


The operative and respectful policy: My Body, My Choice.



The policies that should be adopted by companies and schools and institutions should logically align with the fact that the situation in the Relevant Area is a “panemic” (an anemic epidemic), not a pandemic. The Unit is asking companies and institutions within the Relevant Area to align their policies with incorrect facts. The Unit is asking for a parade of policies that represent the invasion of the personal liberties of people and the intrusion into something as personal as their bodies by mandating vaccines from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.


Pfizer has paid one of the HIGHEST fines for a pharmaceutical company in corporate history in the United States – USD$2.3 billion. The Unit wants the people within the Relevant Area to trust Pfizer, with no memory of its history. The Unit would be well-advised (in terms of giving context) to tell people of Pfizer’s history – to enable them to make an informed decision.


THE CONTEXT OF THE LAW (i.e. – the Legal Aspects of the Evidence)



Whether it is the Crown Attorney in a criminal case or a Plaintiff in a civil suit, the Burden of Proof is on the party advancing the case, not the other way around. The burden for mandating vaccines has not been discharged by the Unit – based on the evidence. Not only has this burden of proof not been discharged, the FACTS (in this case, the Unit’s own statistics) undermine the proposition that vaccines should be mandatory – given the fact that the EOHU statistics (i.e., the evidence) clearly demonstrate the absence of a pandemic, not its presence.



Some will think that quoting the National Anthem in the context of the Law seems a bit lightweight – but it is a very profound statement of our common values. One should think of it as a form of wisdom. There is a significant line in the lyrics of the National Anthem: THE TRUE NORTH, STRONG AND FREE. It is an articulate very targeted statement of what the Canadian Charter of Rights is about. Every person should be mindful of the crisp, succinct nature of this single line. The anthem does not need a lot of jurists sitting around parsing words – a person is either free or they are not.



Under the Canadian Charter of Rights (the “Charter”) Section 1(a) addresses the right to informed consent and privacy. The integrity of a person’s body is fundamental to this concept.



In January 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared that the common law in Canada recognizes a right to personal privacy, more specifically identified as a "tort of intrusion upon seclusion". There are many other legislative protections that govern the situation – and complying with them can occupy an army of lawyers (for both sides) – but the basic principles are contained in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision:

  • Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Ontario (FOIPOP)

  • The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act 2000 (PIPEDA)

  • The Personal Health Information Protection Act 2004 (PHIPA)

  • The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act R.S.O.1990,c.0.1

  • Municipal Freedom of Information and protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56

  • Freedom of Information is set out in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)



If an employer forces an employee, for instance, to endanger their health and safety on a construction project, the employer must accept the risk involved with such activity. And if the employee – quite reasonably – asks to be indemnified before assuming such risks, it is an eminently reasonable request.



The existing vaccines are experimental in nature. Experimental. They are in trial phase until 2023. Medical trials can only be carried out on “select numbers of people”. If EVERYONE is forced to vaccinate, there will be no “select number of people” by which to measure the effectiveness of the vaccines. Logically, the entire population cannot be considered a “select group”. Further (and in a significant historical context), Canada is a signatory to the Nuremberg Code – Article 6 Section 3 clearly stipulates that a person has the individual choice of giving an informed consent, without duress, to any form of medical experimentation. By any measure, threatening a person’s ability to earn a salary to enable them to buy groceries constitutes duress.



The advertising for the vaccines (of which there has been a considerable amount) has departed in a significant and substantive way from the usual advertising for pharmaceutical products – these ads, on radio and television and in print, have contained NO product warnings. There have been no voice-overs explaining possible side-effects. No disclaimers in print ads. Nothing. Basically, the advertising has been a major departure from the prudent norms that are usually associated with this type of advertising, to provide context and to ensure that people are able to give an informed consent. Considering the fact that various vaccine injuries that have in fact occurred, this omission is fundamentally unwise.



We have samples of liability notices that can be given to an employer – BUT an acknowledgement will need to be signed by you, confirming that you have been advised to obtain advice from your own legal representative. This website is not a substitute for legal advice.