I dont think that was the transcript, he was arguing against a fine for more than 10 people gathering, which was against their covid rules. He just subpoenaed the health official and ask for evidence the virus had been isolated and they admitted it hadnt been. So how can you mandate retrictions for a virus that you cant prove exists
Seems like a text without a context. What are you trying to prove, exactly? Alberta's restrictions were, in fact, removed, so you may wish to start over. Or, FO.
It would be hard for me to believe that this case didn't get the attention of the government and influenced them to some degree, but by how much can't be said. Just keep an eye on him as his case winds through the courts, but no sense in putting all your eggs in one basket believing everything he said.
I don't know anything about Canadian law or Canadian courts, but that particular snipet doesn't prove anything, one way or another.
Bottom line: Did he WIN or LOSE his case? On what LEGAL basis did he WIN or LOSE his case?
Improper subpoena. He didn't win or lose. He was ignored.
I dont think that was the transcript, he was arguing against a fine for more than 10 people gathering, which was against their covid rules. He just subpoenaed the health official and ask for evidence the virus had been isolated and they admitted it hadnt been. So how can you mandate retrictions for a virus that you cant prove exists
Seems like a text without a context. What are you trying to prove, exactly? Alberta's restrictions were, in fact, removed, so you may wish to start over. Or, FO.
I mentioned this could be a possibility in the original thread and got downvoted and ridiculed.
'The crown'
Still a colony...
It would be hard for me to believe that this case didn't get the attention of the government and influenced them to some degree, but by how much can't be said. Just keep an eye on him as his case winds through the courts, but no sense in putting all your eggs in one basket believing everything he said.