On March 27 a press conference will be held regarding a Court challenge of national importance involving an unprecedented violation of privacy in Canada.
On March 30, more than 100 patients of a family doctor are going to Court to challenge the demand for their medical records by the College (regulator of doctors) without lawful justification.
WHY IS THE COLLEGE GOING AFTER THE DR & MEDICAL RECORDS?
The family doctor is targeted for professional discipline for providing COVID mask exemptions to two little girls. The children & parents have not complained. NO PATIENT AND NO OTHER DOCTOR has complained.
Masking policies have been proven to be lacking supportive scientific evidence by Cochrane Review.
Ontario law allows masking exemptions!
Nevertheless, the College is abusing it’s powers of investigation to unlawfully pry into the lives and lifestyles of ALL of this Doctor’s patients for the mask exemptions of the two little girls.WHY IS THIS CASE IMPORTANT?
The College has no business or jurisdiction to go fishing for personal names and information about private citizens using the doctor as bait.
Recently, the Ontario Court ruled that a doctor must hand over unredacted medical records EVEN if the request is unlawful and unconstitutional.
This ruling erases the right to be secure from unlawful and unreasonable search and seizure and invasion of privacy!
WHY SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED?
The right to be secure from government intrusion on individual privacy is a hallmark of a free and democratic society.
This right is under threat in Canada and few Canadians know about it.
Decades ago, Canada’s Supreme Court recognized the great value of privacy in our society as an “essential aspect of a free and democratic society.”1 “Privacy, including informational privacy, is
grounded in a person’s physical and moral autonomy, and is essential for the well being of the individual.”
2 There can be nothing more private than the intimate information we share with our doctor about our bodies and our thoughts. If the Courts allow the invasion of privacy in the confines of the sanctimonious Dr-Patient relationship then nothing is sacred anymore!HOW DOES THIS ISSUE IMPACT THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY?
One of the 8 predictions for the World in 2030 by the WEF is that we will have no Privacy.
Unless we defend our right to privacy, beginning with our own information held by our own doctors, our privacy will disappear much earlier than 2030. Ushering in the way for mandatory digital ID.
1 Hunter v Southam 1984 2 SCR 145 https://canlii.ca/t/1mgc1
2 R. v Dyment 1988 2 SCR 417 & R v. O’Connor 1995 4 SCR 411 https://canlii.ca/t/1ftc6
https://canlii.ca/t/1frdh.
3 https://twitter.com/wef/status/813869325635424256?lang=enGovernments across the globe are lobbied by the WEF to employ digital ID systems to collect a broad range of data including GPS location information and biometric information such as fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and more to share with other governments and as a pre-condition for citizens to access their goods and services.
However human rights groups and recently the High Court in Kenya ruled that mandatory Digital ID systems creates a mass surveillance system ripe for authoritarian abuse and breach of privacy in violation of international law and standards.
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/high-court-of-kenya-suspends-implementation-of-biometric-id-system/
Additional Call to Action: Copy and paste the draft letter below to your email, or write your own, and send to your Member of Parliament to bring this matter to their attention, and also send an email to the following list of Ontario MPP’s. Please contact the MPP’s whether you live in Ontario or not, as this matter affects every Canadian. It is important for you to act now. We cannot allow the CPSO to unlawfully set a precedent.
[1 ] Hunter v Southam 1984 2 SCR 145 https://canlii.ca/t/1mgc1
[2] R. v Dyment 1988 2 SCR 417 & R v. O’Connor 1995 4 SCR 411 https://canlii.ca/t/1ftc6 https://canlii.ca/t/1frdh.
“Respect for individual privacy is an essential component of what it means to be “free”.
As a corollary, the infringement of this right undeniably impinges upon an individual’s “liberty” in our free and democratic society”.