CPSO v. Trozzi – Case Update – November 1, 2023

The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal has ruled that Dr. Mark Trozzi is guilty of professional misconduct and dishonourable conduct and is incompetent in the practice medicine for questioning the government’s Covid-19 narrative. He was also found guilty of professional misconduct and was deemed incompetent for writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections in support of a patient’s right to refuse coerced medical treatment under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2021, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario established three Covid-19 restrictions through website statements — doctors were forbidden from: (i) making any statements that discourage anyone from following Covid-19 public policies and recommendations; (ii) prescribing alternative Health Canada approved medications for the treatment of Covid-19; and (iii) writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections, unless a patient had suffered a severe allergic reaction or developed myocarditis after a first shot. Based on the restrictions relating to freedom of expression and medical exemptions, the College issued investigation orders against Dr. Trozzi in 2021.

This eventually led to a five-day hearing in July of 2023 during which the College Tribunal focused its prosecution on Dr. Trozzi’s daily newsletter at drtrozzi.org, where he had supposedly caused harm by spreading “misinformation” about Covid-19 science. The College was particularly concerned with Dr. Trozzi’s view that neither Big Pharma nor Health Canada had done the due diligence required to prove the Covid-19 injections were safe and effective. The Tribunal concluded that his views were inflammatory, unprofessional and worthy of censure. On November 10th, the Tribunal will hold a penalty hearing to determine whether to revoke the licence of the 25-year ER veteran and former university professor.

Trozzi’s lawyer, Michael Alexander, commented: “The Tribunal wrote up the prosecution’s position on almost every issue. The one saving grace was the College’s acknowledgement that the right to free expression includes the right to make statements that may be wrong or mistaken. However, that position is difficult to reconcile with the Tribunal’s view that Dr. Trozzi can be punished for spreading misinformation.“

He added: “The Tribunal did not address our argument that the College lacked the authority to investigate and prosecute Dr. Trozzi since its Covid-19 restrictions were merely recommendations rather than binding rules or regulations, even though we cited the Ontario Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal in support of our position.”

Further, he stated: “The Tribunal totally ignored our cross-examination of the College’s expert witnesses, which makes the entire decision a complete travesty. On cross, the College’s main expert witness on Covid science, Dr. Andrew Gardam, admitted that he had never responded to the 41-page expert report provided by Dr. Trozzi in which he rebutted Gardam’s own 8-page expert report with 29 scientific citations. As a result, in closing submissions, we argued that Dr. Trozzi was unrefuted on Covid science; yet, the Tribunal made no mention of this fact.”

Finally, he added: “The Tribunal also paid no attention to the fact that the Supreme Court recognized an expansive right to freedom of expression as an inherent feature of parliamentary government as early as 1939, which gives the right a higher status than it enjoys under the Charter. In matters of law, we will appeal the decision to the Divisional Court on the standard of correctness.”

For media inquiries, please contact Michael Alexander by cell at 416-318-4512 and by e-mail at malexanderjd@protonmail.com.