CPSO v. Trozzi – Case Update – June 19, 2023

Last week the College put on three expert witnesses to support its claim that Dr. Trozzi committed acts of professional misconduct and failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession. Our goal in cross-examination of the witnesses was simply to extract answers from them that would support our goal of proving that the College’s prosecution violates basic principles of administrative law, and Dr. Trozzi’s right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And we were successful.

The College’s first witness, Dr. Orkin, attacked Dr. Trozzi based on the allegation that he wrote exemptions for Covid-19 injections without having adequate patient information. During a short cross-examination, Dr. Orkin admitted that he did not provide an opinion on whether the College had the right to regulate medical exemptions. This advanced our position, which is that the College’s prohibition on writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections is merely a recommendation that does not have the force of law; as such, it cannot be used as the basis for a prosecution.

The College’s second witness, Professor Noni MacDonald, testified that Dr. Trozzi’s statements caused governments to waste a lot of money battling “misinformation.” Before she testified, we took the position that her expert report was irrelevant because it did not cite anything Dr. Trozzi said or wrote, and therefore could not connect his expression to waste or harm of any kind. Our objection was not recognized, but Dr. MacDonald’s testimony on cross made our point for us.

The final witness for the College was Professor Andrew Gardam, who had written an initial expert report in April of 2021 condemning Dr. Trozzi for making statements that conflicted with the “true” science concerning Covid-19. Dr. Trozzi had responded to that brief report with a 41-page reply in which he cited leading scientific articles and public statistics in support of his views. In cross, Dr. Gardam admitted that he did not cite or respond directly to even one of those references in his subsequent reply. This established that the College has no interest in the “true” science concerning Covid-19.

The admissions made by the College’s experts during these cross-examinations will greatly assist us in making our final legal arguments, where we will prove that the College has been proceeding against Dr. Trozzi without having the law or Covid-19 science on its side.