Thread by @ZiadFazel

This lawsuit against:
• Decision by CMOH to lift #COVID19AB mask mandate in schools
• Prohibition by Education Min LaGrange preventing school boards from keeping them as policy
• goes to trial 17-18 Aug
• just in time for school

Please help fund it:

gofundme.com/f/accountable-…

Any reporters covering (or lawyers live-tweeting) 2-day hearing Wed 17 & Thu 18 Aug? Justice Dunlop in QB Edmonton.

@MBellefontaine @cspotweet @cfrangou @KevinCTV @Adam_Toy @Lorian_H @UbakaOgbogu @CAAerosolCltn @FlukerShaun @BankesNigel @cbcjanjohnston @KMartinCourts @CBCMeg

@MBellefontaine @cspotweet @cfrangou @KevinCTV @Adam_Toy @Lorian_H @UbakaOgbogu @CAAerosolCltn @FlukerShaun @BankesNigel @cbcjanjohnston @KMartinCourts @CBCMeg I've been very interested in this lawsuit since I heard of it.

I'm not a party, witness or lawyer, but have seen some of the public documents, and related court decisions across Canada.

I will explain here my understanding, with links to the source documents, and screenshots.

For my usual followers, you know my background to this goes back years. But with the Gov of Alberta's 2022 school mask fiasco in particular, it is this.

Let's just call this an "all of government response".😒

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1485004…

As you read that thread, you will see I was concerned about GoA's false claims the masks they postponed school a week to buy were "medical grade".

8 Feb 2022 is a key pivot point between my reporting this to Health Canada, and the Applicants in this lawsuit deciding to proceed.

So, while I was grumpy @GovCanHealth Medical Device regulators had let GoA off the hook in disclosing the harms to children of the BYD masks it distributed..

@Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 @gilmcgowan took action to protect Alberta children & workers

globenewswire.com/news-release/2…

@GovCanHealth @Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 @gilmcgowan If you remember February, we had the blockade at Coutts, where a cache of weapons was found, and a lengthy insurgent occupation of Ottawa.

In response to the lawsuit, the Premier encouraged protestors to go to the AFL HQ.

Incite violence much?

Here is where I get into some legal details, which I have been learning.

On Mon 14 Feb in Court, the Applicants asked for an injunction against Education Minister's LaGrange's prohibition against school boards keeping their policies on school masks.

globenewswire.com/en/news-releas…

But the Court couldn't order that, because it did not have *evidence* that school boards were taking Lagrange's letter as a Prohibition.

Evidence = filed Affidavit. Which takes time.

For example, on Friday 11 Feb, CBE was still trying to figure it out.

Many of you, my fellow parents, were in limbo as late as Friday about whether masks would be required on Monday 14 February:
• CMOH's Order wasn't up yet
• Minister LaGrange, and in particular Premier Kenney, were spewing manure about teachers

So when your government is messing with the safety of your kids, and lying about the risk to kids, teachers & school staff in full classrooms all day, you take them to court.

And that is what is happening Wed & Thu in Edmonton Court of Queens Bench.

globenewswire.com/en/news-releas…

For those of you familiar with Court, you don't usually file your first document in mid-February, and get a 2-day trial in mid-August.

The Court is definitely treating this as an emergency. School starts in ~2 weeks, Omicron is neither gone nor endemic, monkey pox is here now.

Bear with me - I know many of you don't want your kids wearing masks. You want them going to school, having a normal, happy upbringing.

Don't forget it was GoA who closed schools until 10 Jan to buy 65.6m "medical grade" masks.

You should see what else they knew on 8 Feb...

So after that juicy teaser about what the GoA know, but did not tell us, I just want to say I promise I'll come back to it. I have lots of notes.

At some point tonight I gotta sleep, but let's get through more legal setup together first.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.

This kicked off the lawsuit, which lawyers call an Originating Application. It is filed and public, lawyers can share it publicly, and so can I.

(The identities of the children are protected with initials)

I get my stuff from this kind of research.

Let's digest that Originating Application.

para 1,2 - Judicial Review of "Decision" by CMOH to rescind school mask mandate from December CMOH Order 55-2021, where she has sole legal authority

Judicial Review = "Dear Court: Could you check this Decision was properly made?"

par 3 - Premier sprung this on us last minute. Order wasn't even available until Fri night, to take effect Sun midnight.

par 4 - CMOH not explaining her Reasons for her Decision [it is her job] by saying "my recommendations to cabinet are confidential"

open.alberta.ca/dataset/7ca85f…

par 5 - Education Minister LaGrange issued a "Prohibition" on school mask mandates [even by school boards who had applied it under their own legal authority under Education Act, since Sep 2021]

par 6 - "Dear Court, please check out this Prohibition stemming from CMOH Decision"

(So far, the Application is not limited to any specific group of Albertans)

par 7 - now we get into Charter Rights of children with disabilities, and tradeoff between their right to Education and their right to Health & Life.

For both CMOH Decision & Education Min Prohibition.

K, I am going to give you some reading homework before I go to bed.

First, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.💕💕

Pay extra attention to Sections 1, 7 and 15.

justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rf…

Now, some advanced reading.

Beaudoin v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 512 (CanLII) covers everything:
• Judicial Review
• Section 1 balancing of rights
• Section 2 religious freedoms
• Section 7 health
• Section 15 equality

ttfn

canlii.ca/t/jdt3v

Hi All. I've been multitasking while watching the Alberta School Mask hearing, now on lunch break until 1.30pm.

I won't be live-tweeting - reporters & legal observers do that better than me.

I'll keep adding public documents to this thread to help understand the background.

Now is a perfect time to introduce this professional analysis by @FlukerShaun and @Lorian_H at @ABlawg

They explain:
• background facts & law
• how judicial reviews work
• ongoing "Not Me" between CMOH & Cabinet
• Cabinet privilege v public interest

ablawg.ca/2022/08/02/for…

@FlukerShaun @Lorian_H @ABlawg Sharp-eyed readers will see Profs Fluker & Hardcastle cited Alberta's other COVID-19 Public Health lawsuit against the GoA.

It has not gone to trial yet, but has already been in Court of Queens Bench five (5) times, and Appeal once.

canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc…

@FlukerShaun @Lorian_H @ABlawg Ingram v Alberta is a huge lawsuit, filed in Dec 2020.

JCCF is representing two Alberta churches and two individuals. They call it "Heights Baptist Church, Northside Baptist Church et al v Alberta..."

Jeffrey Rath represents a business owner, Ingram.

jccf.ca/justice-centre…

@FlukerShaun @Lorian_H @ABlawg "Ingram" is kind of a two-headed monster, with two legal teams to represent different applicants.

I believe the documents shown on JCCF website are their filings only.

I don't know if Rath & Company has documents on their website. It appears to be down.

rathandcompany.com/team/

Key difference between Ingram and CM v Alberta (school mask lawsuit) is that Dr Hinshaw provided an Affidavit in Ingram, and is testifying as a witness.

GoA is supporting her all the way, including with two expert witnesses: Dr Simmonds & Dr Kindrachuk.

jccf.ca/wp-content/upl…

In sharp contrast, Dr Hinshaw did not provide an Affidavit in CM v Alberta.

GoA did not provide a single expert witness. They only provided one lay witness.

No, not Olé Witness. Lay witness. Which raises a bunch of legal problems in Judicial Review.

lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/drawin…

Let's get back to the emergency application in Court of Queens Bench on 14 February.

GoA has already lifted the school mask mandate. You would think from the smack talk by Kenney & LaGrange that GoA is itching to fight.

Premier Kenney even had slides!

On 14 Feb, Applicants needed to back in Court ASAP, to reverse CMOH's Decision and nullify Education Minister's Prohibition.

So you would think - a couple of weeks for the CMOH to provide her Record of Decision.

After vacation, early March. Right?

ablawg.ca/2022/08/02/for…

Nope.

GoA behaved like some insurers do with disabled people. They stalled & stonewalled, forcing the applicants to go back to court.

No response until 14 April, with a Certificate by Justice Minister Shandro saying:

"You can't have anything. Nya Nya"

canlii.ca/t/jp9mb

Some ask why @gilmcgowan & Alberta Federation of Labour are in this lawsuit.

And not just as intervenors, but as a party, like guardians of the kids.

Even though @Sharonadactyl & @OrlaghOKelly1 are working for free, litigation has big expenses.

Especially from GoA tactics.

@gilmcgowan @Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 Sharon & Orlagh started this lawsuit on 10 Feb, after Dr Hinshaw notoriously punted the question: "What changed from a month ago?" to Min Copping, who fumbled.

They didn't start this GoFundMe until June, and it isn't even halfway.

AFL covers the startup, and ongoing expenses.

But the AFL's support is way more than financial.

Sharon & Orlagh did good legal research and work to get the AFL as a party right from the start.

Less than a month later, the Supreme Court of Canada made this HUGE decision on Public Interest Standing.

scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/c…

Unfortunately, a tactic dirty insurers take with disabled claimants is to stonewall & lie.

They run up Applicants' legal & medical expert bills, stress them out, and wait for them to get too sick to continue, or die. 😢

This is why you need eg. AFL w Public Interest Standing.

Which brings me back to GoA's conduct in CM v Alberta.

When we looked at the 19 May Decision by Justice Dunlop, he gave GoA until 27 May to complete the Appeal Record.

About Dr Hinshaw & Minister Shandro:

"With respect, that is hard to believe."

canlii.ca/t/jp9mb

On 1 June, GoA finally filed their Amended Certified Record of Proceedings. (I will not call it Amended CRaP).

Classier observers than me started to analyze the evidence uncovered, and raise serious questions. This is when I got a bit more engaged.

My loyal readers will recognize I then turned my fearsome* combination of scientific analytical bent and sleep deprivation onto GoA's Amended CRP.

* fearsome to my parents, who worry about me when the basement computer is on so late.

One of the things that bugged me was the end of Appendix 1, purportedly written by the CMOH on 31 May.

On 1 June, STrueman had bolted on this screenshot about the "Decision making process".

They didn't edit the softcopy - they just bolted on an image.

Despite 27 May deadline from Court, on 31 May Gary Zimmerman McLennan Ross lawyer handling this lawsuit for GoA) still editing "Hinshaw's" Appendix 1.

STrueman had printed Tab 10 - the GoA COVID Stats for Amended CRP. Why are they bolting on an image to Appendix 1 after that?

Interrupting my thread to share this superb reporting by CBC Calgary Courts & Crime Reporter @CBCMeg.

I was happy to see her attend Wednesday's entire hearing by Webex. Other good reporters there too, but I have been reading Meghan's work for years.

The hearing concluded at about 2.30pm today. Justice Dunlop has reserved his decision, which he said won't be released this week.

@Sharonadactyl & @OrlaghOKelly1 are fantastic lawyers. It takes skill & discipline to keep a big lawsuit like this on schedule against GoA tactics.

@Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 I'm listing the 3 Versions of GoA's Certified Record of Proceedings because they are important to the hearings this week.
• 14 April - Only Shandro's Certificate
• 1 Jun - Amended w Appendix 1 & Tabs 1-12
• 12 July - Amended Amended w PICC Powerpoint Tab 13 & Minutes Tab 14

@Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 Hi folks. Just letting you know I am deleting/rewinding these 4 tweets from last night. No problem with them - I rushed to report on yesterday's court hearing and put things out of sequence.

I'm trying to build a roadmap people can reference.
/c @profamirattaran @FlukerShaun

@Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 @profamirattaran @FlukerShaun @CAAerosolCltn @Lorian_H @SOSAlberta @PoPNB_kindness @Protect_BC @Adam_Toy @POP_Quebec @dewigmore @BankesNigel @OhCasavant So let's get back into June, and the Amended Certified Record of Proceedings that GoA had just filed.

I took a deep dive - 67-tweet analysis - of Appendix 1 Spin, and Tabs 1-12.

I also analyzed Education Minister LaGrange's unconscionable Prohibition.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1534781…

Then later this weekend, I will get into:
• GoA's Amended Amended CRP
• Which added Tab 13 Powerpoint presented to Priorities & Implementation Cabinet Commitee (PICC) and Tab 14 PICC Minutes
• Applicants' expert witness Danny Benjamin
• GoA's lay witness/affiant Susan Novak

Now is also a good time to introduce "Improper Purpose" as one of the grounds for Judicial Review.

Interestingly, the best link I could find for us laypeople is from Australia, which would make sense because they're in a similar parliamentary democracy.

armstronglegal.com.au/administrative…

Improper Purpose for GoA's Decision & Prohibition:
• I see getting caught distributing dangerous, non-medical masks to kids.
• Applicants in CM see right-wing pressure on Kenney's UCP ambition.

Could be either/both.

Doesn't matter. Improper Purpose is just one of the Grounds.

@threadreaderapp unroll

I accidentally orphaned @FlukerShaun reply today.

With folks from other provinces watching, see @ABlawg expertise on COVID-19 & Law.

Lots of "Never Waste a Good Pandemic" in emergency powers UCP Ministers gave themselves...

ablawg.ca/category/covid…

At first, I was lulled into a false sense of security from the Amended CRP. We got:
• 7 Feb advice to Premier
• 2 Mar advice to Health Min
• which included DRAFT slides from 7 Feb

So I figured the 8 Feb slides GoA was withholding were fancier versions of the 7 Feb DRAFT. 🤷‍♂️

Justice Minister Shandro certified we can't have the 8 Feb Powerpoint or Minutes, even though he claims Dr Hinshaw prepared the slides to present to Cabinet to facilitate the Decision affecting 4.4m of us.

But we purportedly get Civil Servant Advice to 2 different Ministers?

And so, in our Public Interest, @OrlaghOKelly1 and @Sharonadactyl, still working for free, with expenses paid by @gilmcgowan's AFL, went back to Court to get these records that GoA unacceptably kept secret from us.

In the words of this esteemed legal scholar, they asked:

Now I am going to change horses to the dramatic developments in Ingram v Alberta (Chief Medical Officer of Health).

This 13 May article links to @CBCMeg 26 April article. Read both.

cbc.ca/news/canada/ca…

And I'm tagging @JCCFCanada for reasons that will become clear soon.

@CBCMeg @JCCFCanada Because there was a similar question in Ingram, and then-Justice Minister Sonya Savage certified that Cabinet "Deliberations" could not be released.

So the best the Applicants could get were 3 questions about whether Cabinet restricted more than CMOH.

canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc…

@CBCMeg @JCCFCanada Similar legal framework, but different facts:
• In Ingram, the Court accepted GoA's argument that Cabinet had immunity from disclosing their "deliberations", and therefore did not insist on reviewing them privately.
• In CM, the Court wasn't having GoA's "immunity" argument.

@CBCMeg @JCCFCanada On 27 June, in CM v Alberta, the Court applied the case law differently, and ordered the Powerpoint & Minutes be disclosed to the Justice privately.

And the Court found:
• No Deliberations in Cabinet Minutes
• No Recommendation from CMOH

Oops, GoA!

canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc…

@CBCMeg @JCCFCanada I remember having some thoughts about the Justice Minister who certified that the Powerpoint & Minutes said something different, than what the Court found when it read those documents for itself.

@CBCMeg @JCCFCanada When the Court listed all the titles for that Justice Minister, I thought this was to stress all the obligations to be truthful to the Court.

Then I realized the Minister had listed all those titles himself.

I miss Khaleesi 🙁

@CBCMeg @JCCFCanada Now, I haven't read all of JCCF's filings, but I think they missed the point in Part III here.

They claim the CMOH withheld info about effects of masking on children, which they only learned from Amended Amended CRP forced by the Court in CM v Alberta.

jccf.ca/wp-content/upl…

But I think the larger question is: What if then-Justice Minister Savage was mistaken in her Certificate in Ingram that disclosure of Cabinet meetings would reveal "Deliberations"?

What if @JCCFCanada should actually have received (Powerpoint) presentations and Cabinet Minutes?

Another reason to be impressed with @Sharonadactyl & @OrlaghOKelly1.

Working for free, they got disclosure from inside Cabinet that big teams at @JCCFCanada and Rath & Company were unable to get.

I hope the Applicants in Ingram are able to correct this in time for their case.

I wonder how Cabinet can hide behind the CMOH in Ingram, when their lawyers in CM argue:

"the CMOH, the PHA, s. 29 and all resulting orders were cogs in a much larger machine"

"final policy decision-making authority rested with the elected officials"

dropbox.com/s/wh1vt8hb8bwc…

Here's why I show Leighton Grey the Certificate Sonya Savage filed in Ingram

canlii.ca/t/jnvjm

may be as flawed as the one Tyler Shandro filed in CM

canlii.ca/t/jq2st

@JCCFCanada is NOT my cup of tea, but Justice Ministers should not be able to do that to ANYONE.

@JCCFCanada I know there are divisions btwn anti-maskers & pro-maskers.

Cynical governments foment and exploit those divisions, then get away with saying one thing in one lawsuit, and the opposite thing in another.

All Albertans get cheated by this, and the Rule of Law gets trashed.

IMHO as a non-lawyer, @JCCFCanada making the Ingram documents available on their website, especially these two Affidavits, is useful transparency for all Canadians contemplating Public Health Order litigation.

Download them now; I will explain later.

jccf.ca/court_cases/he…

That ends my weekend trip into the Ingram lawsuit, which was important to compare why the Applicants in CM were able to brush aside the Justice Minister's Certificate trying to cover up the "CMOH Recommendations to Cabinet".

And the purported Cabinet Discussions/Deliberations.

Remembering this is a roadmap about CM v Alberta, so far we've covered:
✔️ Feb Originating Application
✔️ April Certified Record of Proceedings (CRP)
✔️ 2 Interlocutory Applications to get
✔️ Amended, and Amended Amended CRPs
✔️ GoA's claims about cabinet meeting proven false

We're now caught up to July 2022, and Justice Dunlop has now given GoA three (3) chances to complete their Record of Proceedings to explain for the Court:
• Why CMOH made her Decision
• If and Why Justice Minister made a Prohibition
• CMOH/Cabinet Decision-making Process

And GoA has tried (again) and failed (this time) to cover up actual records of CMOH/Cabinet Decision-making process. They fought for this "immunity" more than the mask issue.

Justice Dunlop kindly explains Public Interest Immunity, using the Supreme Court BC Judges precedent.

Justice Dunlop could hear a variety of cases, but he has a particular strength in board governance, corporate liability, and directors and officers liability.

And IMHO, it looks like he is handling this partly like a corporate coverup of wrongdoing.

canada.ca/en/department-…

When I read his decision forcing disclosure of presentation to cabinet, and those minutes

canlii.ca/t/jq2st

it looks like he is "piercing the corporate veil" and stressing the professional obligations of physician and lawyer, regardless of GoA.

mondaq.com/canada/shareho…

Finally, GoA's Amended Amended CRP against:
• Originating Application from @Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1
• Affidavit from @gilmcgowan
• Affidavits from the parents.

Medical/scientific evidence. Judges are not expected to dive into that. That is what Expert Witnesses are for.

@Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 @gilmcgowan I was mistaken in the belief that because the CMOH prepared and signed every version of CRP, that she would be obligated to explain her Decision.

But these are not the Rules of the Court. She actually has to file an Affidavit, as she did (at length) in Ingram, and testify.

But she did not file an Affidavit here.

She did not even put her name to Appendix 1, which was inserted into the Amended CRP after 27 May deadline.

It is argument, like what a lawyer would say to persuade a judge, not the evidence expected in a CRP, like documents & records.

So we have yet another document in the CRP that has no author. Unless I am mistaken, there is nothing in the CRP or in Justice Minister Shandro's certificate that says who actually authored it.

AFAIK as a non-lawyer, there is nothing to compel Dr Hinshaw to testify.

🤔

It's a good thing the Applicants brought an expert witness.

The medical & scientific evidence - even from GoA supports Universal Masking for ALL schoolchildren at Alberta's low level of child vax.

Not just kids w disabilities.

Meet Dr Daniel Benjamin.

pbs.org/newshour/show/…

That well-conducted 7-min @NewshourPbs interview from Aug 2021 is the best way I found for laypeople to understand Dr Benjamin's advice then.

Of course, he and Dr Zimmerman have continued this @AbcCollab work, and he brought their latest to this case.

👀abcsciencecollaborative.org

Drs Zimmerman & Benjamin explained further in NY Times.

Mandatory state-wide reporting of cases allowed them to determine - with universal masking - the secondary attack rate in schools was less than 1% with Alpha.

This is what transparency looks like.

nytimes.com/2021/08/10/opi…

They continued this research in summer 2021, with Delta. Despite this more infectious variant, secondary attack rate still under 2%.

Schools in jurisdictions without masking mandates were 3.5x more likely to have school-associated COVID-19 outbreaks.

abcsciencecollaborative.org/data-finds-uni…

Dr Benjamin's Expert Affidavit was filed in this CM v Alberta case on 12 July.

People became more curious what expert witness GoA could find to support Dr Hinshaw, because she wouldn't even explain her own Decision. 😱

I'm going to be cautious describing the CMOH's sweeping powers under Alberta's Public Health Act, because this area was made even trickier by changes that GoA made last year.

You need to read law professors like
@UbakaOgbogu and @Lorian_H for that

calgaryherald.com/opinion/column…

@UbakaOgbogu @Lorian_H You might hear about Section 29 of the Public Health Act, but as a layperson all I can really say is that it gives the CMOH a lot of power, and it is not clear if and how she can delegate or cede that to elected officials.

That relationship is under sharp focus in this lawsuit.

If you're a lawyer, or are well-versed in government's power to make regulations, or to make administrative decisions, then this essay by @Lorian_H and @FlukerShaun at @ABlawg is for you.

ablawg.ca/2022/08/02/for…

We're now caught up to mid-July, and covered:
✔️ Dr Benjamin's expert advice
✔️ CMOH not explaining her own Decision
✔️ Despite the power she has under S29 to make these COVID-19 Orders
✔️ so the Court ordered her to explain 👇
✔️ Where's GoA's expert?

canlii.ca/t/jp9mb

Remember the overlap with Ingram Lawsuit?
• While CMOH is in Court in Ingram defending why she Ordered masking mandates, yet trying to keep those records secret
• She is ordered by Court in CM to provide records behind her Order to lift mask mandates

canlii.ca/t/jnvjm

AFAIK, there is no overlap with the Impugned Orders.

Ingram Applicants tried to go past June 2021 into September 2021 Delta Orders and beyond, but the Court wouldn't give them effectively a blank cheque.

canlii.ca/t/jmn6p

CM Applicants are focussed on 8 Feb 2022.

My questions are around disclosure.
• 14 April - CMOH files empty CRP in CM
• 26 April - CMOH fights disclosure in Ingram
• 19 May - CMOH ordered to complete CRP in CM
• 1 June - CMOH files Amended CRP in CM

Did CMOH forget her evidence from Ingram
when filing CRP in CM?

On 12 July 2021, Dr Hinshaw affirmed this huge Affidavit in Ingram:
• COVID-19 & Kids
• "unless they have an underlying condition"
• Asymptomatic & Pre-symptomatic Transmission
• Precautionary Principle
• Mandatory Masking + Public Health Measures

jccf.ca/wp-content/upl…

Dr Hinshaw was supported by this 8 July 2021 Affidavit from Dr Jason Kindrachuk from U of M.
• Must read Schedule A (only 20 pages)
• Schedule C has all of his sources for you scientists & healthcare pros
• Total 1,236 pages in Affidavit

jccf.ca/wp-content/upl…

Dr Kindrachuk is widely respected, and well aware of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus, for which we need masking.

He even appeared in this 3 Dec 2020 webinar on "Community-Based Aerosol Transmission" with @DFisman & Bill Dean, the VP of ASHRAE.

cadth.ca/events/cadth-c…

So when Dr Hinshaw was doing three (3) versions of Court-Ordered CRP on what was relevant to her 8 Feb 2022 Decision:
• did she forget the Kindrachuk Affidavit?
• between July 2021 and Feb 2022, had both his Expert Report and her own Affidavit become irrelevant?
• If so, why?

If scientific evidence good enough to file for the STILL ONGOING Ingram v Alberta lawsuit is not relevant, how about the Reasons & Evidence behind CMOH's Jan 2022 Decision to postpone school for a week, to buy 65.6m "medical-grade masks".

Not relevant?

alberta.ca/release.cfm?xI…

GoA decided not to retain Dr Kindrachuk again for this CM v Alberta lawsuit, perhaps because the CMOH is doing the opposite of his recommendations.

For an "expert" to support her 8 Feb 2022 Decision, Dr Hinshaw need only look across the Ingram courtroom.

brownstone.org/articles/great…

I find it ironic that Dr Hinshaw is in court AGAINST Great Barrington Defecation in Ingram —

When IMO it seems her Order for 8 Feb 2022 Decision is FOR the GBD.

Replace "herd immunity" with "hybrid immunity" and pretend children are neigher at risk nor vector for transmission.

BTW, here is CMOH Dr Hinshaw's published position on Great Barrington Defe–, you know.

alberta.ca/herd-immunity-…

Some would argue GoA went GBD anyway:
• 3rd Wave - Alpha
• 4th Wave - Delta, and the spin we were vaccinated enough to"Decouple" Severe Outcomes from Infection

This is where I pause tonight 😴. Later:
• solve the mystery of Who on Earth can GoA find to file an Affidavit in this case?
• what that Expert? Olé Witness? Lay Witness filed
• take another peek at GoA's Amended & Amended Amended CRPs
• get into the 17 & 18 Aug hearings

Well, lookie here.

On Fri 19 Aug, earlier in this thread, I unsubtly cattle-prodded @JCCFCanada to return to court in their Ingram lawsuit, given what we learned in CM lawsuit.

On Tue 23 Aug, JCCF & Jeffrey Rath filed for that, to be heard Fri 26 Aug.

I've said before the Ingram lawsuit is a two-headed monster. You can see that divergence in this week's Amended Application.

Because @JCCFCanada isn't marching to their "Freedom!" drum. They're blowing the perfect opportunity to hold CABINET accountable.

jccf.ca/new-court-appl…

@JCCFCanada JCCF cites "the CMOH, the Public Health Act s. 29 and all resulting orders were cogs in a much larger machine” (which I screamed in my tweet) in their press release.

But the Amended Application?

They don't hold Alberta's UCP cabinet accountable for abusing Public Health Act.

@JCCFCanada What did JCCF do wrong, IMO?

1. They didn't go after interim Justice Minister Savage's Certificate that suppressed representations to cabinet, and resultant Minutes.

This observer felt Tyler Shandro would not be next, but he did the next Certificate.

albertapolitics.ca/2022/01/as-ene…

@JCCFCanada What else, IMO?

2. They only went after Recommendations from CMOH.

As we learned in CM, the CMOH did not make Recommendations. The Health Min made a Powerpoint of Options.

So JCCF should be asking for all Representations made to Cabinet that resulted in the Impugned Order.

@JCCFCanada And what else, IMO?

3. They didn't go after the Minutes.

As we learned in CM:
• representations to Cabinet
• result in Minutes with no Discussion or Deliberation
• that turn CMOH into $600K stenographer w MD & MPH
• "cogs in a much larger machine"

cbc.ca/news/canada/ed…

One last thing, IMO?

4. JCCF let Jeffrey Rath control Amended Application.

This results in criminal-like prosecution of CMOH, but takes cabinet off hook.

They're going after CMOH for not disclosing what Premier Kenney said in press conference on 8 Feb 2022, from this brief 👇

Odd that JCCF & Rath claim they weren't aware of the purported anti-mask "evidence" until 13 July.
• On 1 June, @Sharonadactyl publicly released the Amended CRP
• On 2 June, @JLisaYoung specifically pointed out the anti-mask briefing to the Premier from his political staff

@Sharonadactyl @JLisaYoung So, let's check my CM v Alberta roadmap.
• The next area I was going to show was the GoA's Lay Witness testimony
• Then I learned this morning that JCCF/Rath had made an Amended Application in Ingram
• So our next turn will move up my analysis of 7 Feb Briefing to Premier

I must interject: while I expose skullduggery by GoA, I still want to help you parents as much as possible in preparing your kids for the new school year.

See excellent table by @GovCanHealth. Approved respirators protect your kids better than masks.

canada.ca/en/public-heal…

These are excellent Canadian-made, standards-compliant respirators & masks made by ethical @CAPPEM2 suppliers. See elastomeric & disposables.

cappem.ca/canadian-ppe

Not sure what will fit or suit your kid?
• this sample pack has 6 products for $11.

canadamasq.com/product-page/c…

Dear readers. Before I get back to the Rockem-Sockem of litigation..

Here's more timely advice and bul–, I mean, myth-busting for parents looking at their kids' safety for the start of school.

@AmerAcadPeds are better advisors than Kenney & Lagrange.

Yesterday, the Education Minister issued a Back-to-School letter, to which I responded with a mini-thread.

Social media folks pointed out my reply has about 2x the RT and Likes as her tweet, and I didn't have the UCP caucus & staff boosting mine.

Now I am going to go deeper into GoA's CRP, starting with the Amended CRP filed 1 June.

I made a few comments publicly then, but then decided to save my best rebuttal for AFTER the hearing, rather than tipping off GoA.

Link dropbox.com/s/orslp2p9eg1d…

Let's start with Appendix 1.

You can find it (and all documents in any version of CRP) by choosing "Table of Contents View" in your PDF reader.

This is the most important document for Dr Hinshaw and staff to explain her Decision to the Court. Should be an Affidavit but🤷‍♂️

Most important claim by GoA: Kids were vaccinated enough to drop masking.

But see Tab 5 - Vax Report. GoA's claim is misleading.

It is not 46% with 1 dose + 18% with 2 dose = 64%.

It is:
• 46% with AT LEAST 1 dose
• of which only 18% have 2 dose

Well short of 80% target.

"sufficient time had elapsed for 2 doses to have been received for those families who chose this layer of protection."

False. Age 5-11 Vax started at end Nov. Add 8+ weeks between doses, and EVEN THE FIRST KIDS weren't eligible for dose 2 until end Jan.

alberta.ca/covid19-vaccin…

Look at GoA's graph for 2 doses of vax for age 5-11.

It is going up almost vertically. Parents are rushing to get their kids vax with dose 2 since end Jan, and even pushing for 4-week interval.

Does that look families were done with dose 2 to you?

alberta.ca/stats/covid-19…

Now let's look at Dose 1 for age 5-11.

As of 7 Feb, it was still rising strongly over 46%.

Dose 2 was only at 18%, and rising vertically to catch up to Dose 1.

So how can GoA say families were done giving their kids the dose 2?

Now let's compare to next ages up from Vax report:
• ages 5-11: 1 dose 46%, 2 dose 18% 😱
• ages 12-14: 1 dose 87%, 2 dose 82%
• ages 15-19: 1 dose 87%, 2 dose 82%

Not even close.

In next ages up, 94% of those 1 dose got their 2nd dose too.

Age 5-11, only 39% as of 7 Feb.

Now, you pay me big bucks for math. So here's more.

See Vax Report Exec Summary for the number of doses booked in the next week, compared to population in that age.

👉On a per capita basis, Albertans were vaccinating kids age 5-11 at 7x the rate as those 12+.

I'll show you...

Booked in the next week:
• age 5-11: 11K doses on 391K in group = 1 in 35
• age 12+: 15K doses on 3,3761K in group = 1 in 250*

So at the time, Albertans were vaccinating kids age 5-11 at over 7x the rate as people 12+.

* rushing to get 3rd doses, having seen Omicron 😱

GoA's main point: kids age 5-11 were vax enough to drop masks.

But we can see by their own records:
• kids age 5-11 were under 1/5th of target vax
• parents were scrambling to get them 2nd dose
• GoA misled the Court in Appendix 1

@Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 @gilmcgowan

@Sharonadactyl @OrlaghOKelly1 @gilmcgowan And then what happened to vaccination in kids 5-11?
• 1st dose was 46% on 7 Feb, now stuck ~50%
• 2nd dose was 18% on 7 Feb, now stuck ~37%
• well short of 80% targets

Same thing with Delta in Summer 2021.

GoA's premature call FREEDOM! = Vax stops.

alberta.ca/stats/covid-19…

That results in stories like this excellent one by @Adam_Toy the night before school starts..

..with experts pointing out that Alberta's vax levels in age 5-11 are too low. Lowest in Canada.

The blame for that goes right to CMOH, Health Min & Premier.

globalnews.ca/news/9098390/a…

It looks like GoA misled the Court & Applicants with Appendix 1 - which is 1 Jun 2022 Retroactive Spin to pretend the CMOH Decision & Education Minister Prohibition were justified...

(We saw similar Spin after BEST SUMMER EVER! accelerated Delta.)

alberta.ca/covid-19-alber…

..but was GoA even honest with each other internally?

Nope.

See Tab 6 - the Briefing the Premier directs his staff to send him on the record, for his sound bites.

They tell him % vax
• age 12-19 both 1 dose and 2 dose
• But for age 5-11 only 1 dose
• Not the 2 dose

🤬

SURELY Cabinet was given an honest presentation.

Right? The Priorities Implementation Cabinet Committee that made the Decision on 8 Feb?

No. Health Min Copping only showed them gross number of pediatric doses given.

And % all ages 5+.

NOT % age 5-11 with 1 dose or 2 dose.

🤬

That slide is the only one on Vax. But things get worse with amateur math.

Let's say someone asked "How many kids in the paediatric dose age 5-11?"

And they'd calculate 218,560 doses ÷ 391,430 kids = 56%. Not bad?

Wrong. 46% 1+ dose, of which 18% 2 doses. Bad.

Manipulation.

That's all for tonight. Big day at School tomorrow!

I leave you with:
• Tab 13 - 8 Feb Presentation to Cabinet PICC
• Tab 14 - 8 Feb Minutes of Meeting
• which led to Decision & Prohibition
• extracted from Amended Amended CRP for convenience.

dropbox.com/s/04lkwl68hxk0…