I watched it and it's pretty convincing but I had to temper my enthusiasm after watching Viva Frei's reaction (he's a Canadian lawyer on YouTube and freedom advocate). Frei says Stew Peter's subpoena was improperly filed, which allowed the health official to ignore it. Frei did not comment on the last part of the video and "no material evidence" of the virus, etc.
Two facets, the judge recommend he file to compel evidence... and he did so through basically a sheriff... when it should have been through a judge... and the judge did not tell him therefore violating his rights and as a resolution to compel evidence valid.
The health official then refused to provide the evidence, either because they didn't have it or literally couldn't be bothered with it giving Stew his win. Its sorta in the vein of certain fines the government gives that would get tossed out in court if the victim showed up to contest it, and since they occasionally do show up once they do the government immediately forfeits rather than fight the court battle and still makes a profit for all the people who didn't show.
Basically, the government forfeited the case allowing for the ruling to be positive for the people. At least as I understand it.
I watched it and it's pretty convincing but I had to temper my enthusiasm after watching Viva Frei's reaction (he's a Canadian lawyer on YouTube and freedom advocate). Frei says Stew Peter's subpoena was improperly filed, which allowed the health official to ignore it. Frei did not comment on the last part of the video and "no material evidence" of the virus, etc.
Two facets, the judge recommend he file to compel evidence... and he did so through basically a sheriff... when it should have been through a judge... and the judge did not tell him therefore violating his rights and as a resolution to compel evidence valid.
The health official then refused to provide the evidence, either because they didn't have it or literally couldn't be bothered with it giving Stew his win. Its sorta in the vein of certain fines the government gives that would get tossed out in court if the victim showed up to contest it, and since they occasionally do show up once they do the government immediately forfeits rather than fight the court battle and still makes a profit for all the people who didn't show.
Basically, the government forfeited the case allowing for the ruling to be positive for the people. At least as I understand it.
It seems odd that AG's from Ottawa were there just for a case they couldn't be bothered with. Especially one with implications of such magnitude.
Government employees being easy and only wanting to deal with easy marks is a possible explanation.
Another is the AG might have secretly wanted him to win to get a ruling to change the awful policy.