Ballsy Move by Tim Hortons’ President. Now Let’s See Whether The Food Professor Asks Him Real Questions.

Leave a comment

Tim Hortons Faces the Storm

“Ask why Canadians are increasingly angry every time they walk into a Tim Hortons and wonder what the hell happened to the place.”

By Donald Best

The President of Tim Hortons is on The Food Professor Podcast this week. (link at bottom)

That is a ballsy move for Tim’s Axel Schwan, and for Duncan Fulton – Chief Corporate Officer of Restaurant Brands International, Tim Hortons’ parent company – who also appears on the show.

Credit where it is due. Tim Hortons is in the middle of a growing public-relations mess over temporary foreign workers, local hiring, the visible demographic transformation of customer-facing staff, declining customer confidence, and the growing perception that many locations are no longer the clean, reliable, Canadian coffee shops that built the brand.

The Food Professor (Dr. Sylvain Charlebois) says the interview will cover Tim Hortons’ “new growth strategy, store expansion plans, Canadian employees,” and whether Dunkin’s return to Canada represents a serious threat.

Good. Ask about growth. Ask about Dunkin’. Ask about the planned new stores and renovations.

Then ask why Canadians are increasingly angry every time they walk into a Tim Hortons and wonder what the hell happened to the place.

Because that is the real story.

Dunkin’ Isn’t the Threat. Tim Hortons Is Its Own Worst Enemy.

Tim Hortons does not have a Dunkin’ problem. It has a trust problem. It has a local-hiring problem. It has a franchise-accountability problem. It has a customer-service problem. It has a cleanliness and food-confidence problem. Above all, it has a Canadian-identity problem.

For decades, Tim Hortons wrapped itself in the flag. Hockey. Small towns. First jobs. Coffee on the way to work. A doughnut after the kids’ game. The friendly local counter. The familiar voice in the drive-through. The company sold Canadians not merely coffee, but belonging.

Now many Canadians look behind the counter and see something very different from the Tim Hortons they knew and loved.

They see stores staffed by recent arrivals, international students, temporary workers, former temporary workers, and new permanent residents. They see young Canadians unable to get entry-level jobs. They see order errors, language problems, dirty tables, messy washrooms, weaker service, and a chain that often feels less like a Canadian institution and more like a foreign-labour franchise machine wearing a maple-leaf costume.

That is the issue Tim Hortons does not want to discuss in plain English.

The 3.6 Percent Talking Point Doesn’t Answer the Question

The company’s preferred answer is that only about 4,000 of its 110,000 Canadian restaurant workers are currently employed through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Tim Hortons says that is about 3.6 percent. It also says about 45 percent of its Canadian restaurant workers are aged 15 to 24, and that it is launching a campaign to hire 10,000 local workers.

Those are useful numbers. They are also the beginning of the questions, not the end of them.

“Current TFW” is a narrow legal category. It says nothing about how many Tim Hortons workers arrived as international students, post-graduate work-permit holders, open or spousal permit holders, refugee claimants, or other temporary residents. It says nothing about how many arrived as temporary workers and later became permanent residents. And it says nothing about how many franchise owners rely on the immigration-labour pipeline while the company points to one number and says, “See? Nothing to worry about.”

Canadians are not stupid. They also understand something Tim Hortons should not ignore:

Many customers now perceive that a growing number of franchise operators, managers, and hiring decision-makers are themselves newer to Canada, and that some locations appear to hire heavily from their own ethnic, national, religious, family, student, or newcomer networks before hiring local applicants.

The religious element should not be airbrushed out. In real life, hiring networks often run through temples, gurdwaras, churches, mosques, community associations, family circles, caste or regional connections, language groups, student networks, and immigration contacts. Pretending that religion is irrelevant is evasion.

In some communities, customers perceive that certain Tim Hortons locations are staffed overwhelmingly from one identifiable community network – Sikh, Hindu, Punjabi, Gujarati, South Asian, student, newcomer, or otherwise – while other locations reflect a different but equally narrow hiring circle. The point is not that every customer can identify the religion or background of every worker. The point is that Canadians can see when a local workplace no longer appears to hire from the local community, but instead from a closed or semi-closed network connected to the owner, manager, recruiter, school, religious community, family, or immigration pathway.

That perception may vary by location and should be tested with real data. But it is real, and it matters. When a local teenager applies to the Tim Hortons down the road and hears nothing back, while the store appears staffed almost entirely by recent arrivals from the same background as the owner or manager, the public draws its own conclusion.

Maybe the company has an explanation. Maybe the applicants were unavailable, unqualified, or unwilling to work the shifts. Maybe the franchisee hired through friends, family, college networks, or word-of-mouth because it was easier. Maybe the local labour pool was weak.

But if Tim Hortons wants Canadians to believe that local hiring is real, it must provide more than national slogans and corporate percentages. It must show whether franchisees are hiring openly, fairly, and locally, or whether some stores have become closed ethnic, religious, or newcomer employment networks operating under a purportedly Canadian brand name.

Tim Hortons’ Axel Schwan (L) RBI’s Duncan Fulton (R)

Who Paid Whom to Get the Job?

Tim Hortons already knows that foreign workers have been abused inside its own restaurants. It has happened. A Tim Hortons franchisee was stripped of his two stores after an RCMP investigation into foreign workers who said they had been cheated out of overtime pay and threatened with being sent home if they complained. So the company cannot pretend the next question is theoretical.

And the next question is worse, because it is about money flowing the other way. Has any Tim Hortons franchise owner, manager, recruiter, immigration consultant, related company, or middleman ever taken money from a foreign worker in exchange for a job? In exchange for a Labour Market Impact Assessment, the federal document an employer must obtain before it is allowed to hire a foreign worker? In exchange for work-permit support, a promotion, a better schedule, housing, or a path to permanent residency?

Start with what is already on the record. In 2024 a joint investigation by CBC News and the Investigative Journalism Foundation found an open black market in Canadian jobs. Reporters tracked more than 125 online ads across 17 cities offering LMIA-approved jobs and work permits for cash. The price ran from $25,000 to $45,000. One seller asked an undercover reporter whether she wanted the job with the LMIA, or just the LMIA without the job. The schemes came two ways. A real position, or a fake one… complete with forged pay stubs and tax slips to fake Canadian work experience.

Charging a foreign worker for one of these documents is illegal. It is fraud. The sellers were doing it in the open anyway, on Kijiji and Facebook Marketplace, because the demand is enormous.

Desperation creates a market.

For a young person overseas, a Canadian fast-food job can be the door into Canada. It can mean a work permit, Canadian experience, and a possible path to permanent residency. Families in India and elsewhere have reportedly paid ruinous sums for that door. They sell property, borrow from relatives, and empty savings to get one person into Canada.

And it has already landed inside a national restaurant chain. In Oakville, Ontario, a foreign worker said he paid his own wages for a cook job that did not really exist. He had arrived from India through a licensed immigration consultant, on a permit tied to a government letter approving his employer to hire two cooks. When he got here he was given almost no hours. Instead, he says, he was told to hand his employer about $3,000 a month in cash, which was then run back through the books as if it were his pay. The Canada Border Services Agency has a name for the trick. They call it payroll cycling. The restaurant was a franchise of a company that owns more than fifty Canadian chains. When the company was shown what was happening, it gave the franchisee ninety days to leave the system.

That is one worker, at one franchised restaurant, found because a reporter found him. Nobody at head office caught it.

Now bring it to Tim Hortons by name. A Toronto-area recruiter was fined in 2025 for charging foreign workers thousands of dollars to place them in Canadian jobs. Two of her former employees told the Globe and Mail she charged the workers for the entire process, and that she recruited foreign workers for Tim Hortons and A&W. She denied it. She was fined anyway.

She is not a special case. A Burger King franchisee who owned eleven outlets in British Columbia told the same newspaper he gets calls every week from consultants offering him money in exchange for giving their clients jobs. One offered to charge workers $25,000 a job and hand him a cut. He said it is done everywhere.

The recruiter who got caught is the symptom. The system that makes her useful is the disease.

Because Tim Hortons corporate does not have to charge a worker a dollar. It does not even have to know that anyone did. The recruiter charges the worker. The consultant charges the worker. And the franchisee, the independent owner who does the actual hiring and holds the work-permit paperwork, can take his own cut quietly, in his own store, with his own recruiter, on books head office never sees. That is exactly what the Burger King operator was offered. A cut. The franchisee is where the money changes hands. He is also the one place corporate has arranged never to look.

That Tim Hortons hiring arrangement has a name. It is called plausible deniability.

It works in layers. The worker pays a recruiter, so corporate can say it charged no one. The franchisee pockets the cut, so corporate can say it knew nothing. The store is independently owned, so corporate can say it is not responsible. Each layer covers the one beside it.

And here is the part that should bother people the most… Head office can sit on top of all of it and be telling the literal truth when it says it had no idea. The ignorance can be completely real. It is also completely built in.

The rule already closed that door. An employer is not only forbidden from charging a foreign worker. It must also ensure the people recruiting on its behalf do not. So “we use independent recruiters” does not protect the company. Under that rule, the company is responsible for what those recruiters do whether it looked or not.

Tim Hortons owner Restaurant Brands International – The Record

The chain does not stop at Tim Hortons. It is one of four brands owned by Restaurant Brands International, the Toronto company that also owns Burger King, Popeyes, and Firehouse Subs. Tens of thousands of franchised stores, the same model, the same recruiters working the same pipeline, the same wall of independent owners between the workers and the parent corporation that collects the royalties. When a Burger King operator says the kickback offers arrive every week, he is describing the system Restaurant Brands International built and profits from.

So the question is not whether one recruiter charged fees. One did, and was fined. The question is how many recruiters, consultants, and agents the Tim Hortons system relies on, how many of them charge workers behind the company’s back, and what Tim Hortons and its parent have ever done to find out. A company that audited its recruiters, demanded disclosure, and asked its own workers what they paid could answer that in an afternoon. A company that prefers not to know cannot.

Define “Canadian Employees,” Mr. President

Start with the phrase itself.

How many of your Canadian restaurant workers are citizens? How many are permanent residents, international students, post-graduate work-permit holders, or current and former TFWs?

How many stores have more than half their staff drawn from temporary residents or former temporary residents?

How many Canadian teenagers applied to Tim Hortons last year and were never hired?

How many franchisees use the TFW program, immigration consultants, or recruiters, and how many provide housing to the workers they employ? Does Tim Hortons require franchisees to disclose every recruiter, overseas agent, and related-party business involved in hiring foreign workers?

These are not “gotcha” questions. They are the questions that matter if Tim Hortons wants to keep marketing itself as a Canadian community institution.

Tim Hortons’ own recent behaviour shows that the company understands the danger. It did not announce a national campaign to hire 10,000 local workers because everything was fine. It did so because public anger was growing. The company was being mocked, boycotted, and accused of selling out Canadian young people.

“When a brand that built itself on local first jobs suddenly has to reassure the country that it still hires locals, something has gone badly wrong.”

Food Trust Is Intimate. Tim Hortons Is Losing It

The labour issue is only half the problem. The other half is customer confidence.

Food service is intimate. People eat what your employees prepare. They drink what your employees pour. They must trust your staff to wash their hands, keep washrooms clean, avoid cross-contamination, handle food properly, report illness, clean surfaces, maintain equipment, and understand customer requests about allergies, substitutions, and mistakes.

Once that trust goes, the brand goes with it.

Tim Hortons now faces a widespread perception that many locations are dirtier, sloppier, less friendly, and less competent than they used to be.

Social media is filled with complaints and videos about wrong orders, language barriers, filthy washrooms, dirty tables, poor service, and staff who appear poorly trained or indifferent. Some customers blame corporate cost-cutting. Some blame weak franchise owners. Some blame understaffing. Many directly connect the decline to rapid demographic change in staffing and ownership.

The politically correct response is to pretend this is all racism. That is lazy, dishonest, and dangerous for the brand. Customers do not need an ideology lecture when the washroom is filthy, the table is sticky, the order is wrong, and the employee at the counter cannot understand a basic question.

Culture Does Not Disappear at the Airport

Tim Hortons should not pretend that culture does not matter. Culture matters everywhere, in everything, all the time. It shapes assumptions about cleanliness, public behaviour, hierarchy, customer service, food handling, language, authority, illness, sanitation, and what is considered normal.

No serious person believes that every worker from every country arrives with identical cultural standards or hygienic habits. No serious food company should behave as if a short training session and a uniform magically erase two decades or more of hygiene assumptions, habits, and culture formed in a country where open defecation, polluted water, corruption, and low-trust public behaviour remain normal for hundreds of millions of people.

India is central to this discussion because it has become one of the major source countries for Canada’s international students, temporary workers, and new permanent residents.

India also has a recent and well-documented sanitation history that is dramatically different from Canadian expectations and standards.

India’s own government launched the Swachh Bharat Mission because open defecation is a national crisis involving hundreds of millions of people.

International agencies describe the campaign as affecting nearly 500 million people and so far providing toilet access to more than 100 million additional rural households. This campaign is still in place and has a long way to go.

Nor was the problem merely a matter of plumbing or poverty. India itself knows that sanitation is still a behavioural and cultural issue requiring an ongoing massive public campaign.

This is not an argument that every Indian worker is unhygienic. It is an argument that Tim Hortons and its franchisees have a duty to recognize reality. When a company rapidly employs large numbers of recent arrivals from countries with very different sanitation histories, language environments, and food-handling assumptions, the company must prove that training and supervision are real and ongoing.

A food-handler certificate is not enough. A checkbox training video is not enough. A manager saying “we trained them” is not enough. Tim Hortons should be able to show store-level enforcement of handwashing, glove use, washroom cleanliness, food-temperature control, illness reporting, cleaning routines, pest control, cross-contamination prevention, allergen communication, and customer-service language ability.

If a company wants the benefit of imported labour, it also owns the burden of training, testing, continual supervision, and discipline. That burden is greater, not lesser, when workers come from cultures and environments with materially different sanitation and service norms.

One Viral Hygiene Video Can Destroy a Million Dollars in Advertising

This is where the Tim Hortons brand has real exposure. A single viral video of disgusting food-handling conduct can do more damage than a million dollars in advertising can rectify.

Customers do not wait for peer-reviewed studies before deciding where to eat. They look at the washroom. They watch the counter. They notice the employee handling food. They hear the language barrier. They see the filthy, sticky table. They make a judgment and leave.

So The Food Professor should ask whether Tim Hortons tracks hygiene and language complaints by store, franchisee, and staffing model, whether it requires customer-facing employees to meet a minimum English or French standard before working the drive-through, whether stores with heavy temporary-resident staffing are audited more often, and how many franchisees have been disciplined or terminated for repeated cleanliness or food-safety failures.

Those questions go directly to corporate responsibility.

The Franchisee Dodge Won’t Cut It

Tim Hortons will no doubt say that restaurants are operated by franchisees. That answer should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. Tim Hortons corporate cannot take credit for the brand when it wants to sell hockey nostalgia, charity campaigns, and Canadian community values, then hide behind franchisees when the public asks about labour practices, dirty restaurants, housing arrangements, language barriers, and food-safety standards.

If the sign says Tim Hortons, the public holds Tim Hortons responsible.

Tim Hortons Evicts Canadian Tenants For Temporary Foreign Workers

Foreign Labour, Worker Housing, and the New Company Town

The housing issue is another serious area requiring direct questioning. There have been credible reports of franchise-linked housing arrangements for temporary foreign workers, including a widely circulated Prince Edward Island case in which a Tim Hortons franchisee was reported to have evicted Canadian tenants to make room for temporary foreign workers.

Tim Hortons should be asked about that PEI case directly.

Does corporate know which franchisees provide or control housing for foreign workers? Does it prohibit owners from profiting from housing, audit the accommodations, and require disclosure of ownership and rent deductions? Are the workers free to leave without risking their jobs? Have any long-term Canadian tenants been displaced to make room for them?

If the answer is “we do not know,” that is not good enough. A company that sells itself as a Canadian community brand cannot be indifferent if franchise owners are using foreign labour and worker housing in ways that damage local communities.

There is an ugly phrase from the old labour world: the company town. Work for the company, live in company housing, buy from the company store, and never get far enough away to be truly free. Canadians are right to recoil at any modern version of that model, especially when it is tied to low-wage foreign labour in a country already suffering a housing crisis.

Growth Into What, Exactly?

Tim Hortons should not be permitted to bury this issue under talk of “growth strategy.”

Growth into what? More stores staffed through immigration pipelines while local kids stay unemployed? More maple-leaf advertising while the community connection it sells quietly disappears?

These are the questions serious journalists should be asking.

The Food Professor Has the Right Guests. Now He Needs the Right Questions.

The Food Professor is well placed to ask them. He understands the food industry, retail, supply chains, margins, labour costs, franchise operations, and consumer confidence. That is why this interview matters. It should not become a polite corporate fireside chat in which Tim Hortons’ president recites talking points about expansion, renovations, Dunkin’, and “Canadian employees.”

“Canadian employees” must be defined. “Local hiring” must be measured. “Temporary foreign worker” must not be allowed to exclude every other temporary-resident category. And “franchisee responsibility” must not become the escape hatch through which corporate accountability disappears.

Tim Hortons has every right to defend itself.

If the company has real numbers, let Canadians see them. If franchisees are being disciplined, say how many. If local hiring is the priority, define what “local” means. And if the 3.6 percent figure is not a distraction, provide the full immigration-status breakdown of the workforce.

Canadians have a right to ask because Tim Hortons made itself part of the national story. It did not market itself as just another foreign-owned fast-food chain selling coffee-like beverages from anonymous franchise outlets. It marketed itself as ours.

That is why the anger is sharper. People are not merely disappointed in a restaurant. They feel conned by an institution that took their loyalty, wrapped itself in their flag, and then quietly adopted labour practices many Canadians believe work against their own children and communities.

Dunkin’ may return to Canada. It may succeed or fail. That is a business story.

The Tim Hortons story is larger. It is about what happens when a national brand trades on nostalgia while its customers no longer recognize the reality behind the counter.

So yes, the President of Tim Hortons going on The Food Professor Podcast is a ballsy move.

Now let’s see whether The Food Professor has the stones to ask him what Canadians are actually asking:

Who is working in Canadian Tim Hortons stores? Who is not being hired? Who is being housed, and by whom? Who is disciplining the franchisees?

And what, exactly, is still Canadian about this purportedly Canadian coffee shop?

Donald Best

 

Article Links

The Food Professor interviews Tim Hortons…
Podcast – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/axel-schwan-president-of-tim-hortons-canada-u-s/id1512660219?i=1000772171491
Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/6PCVWLFJrPQNfjTiX7P5Lp
X = https://x.com/FoodProfessor
Website = https://www.dal.ca/sites/agri-food.html
The Food Professor: Dr. Sylvain Charlebois
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.
Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world’s most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal.

NOTE: Author Donald Best provided a draft of this article to Dr. Charlebois on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at about 745pm ET.

As of the posting of this article, Best has not listened to the podcast interview, which was pre-recorded some days prior to writing this article.

Best has written publicly “Looking forward to listening to the whole interview. I greatly admire The Food Professor and his work. We will see whether he covers all of the areas in my article.”

License to Kill: No Justice, No Legal Recourse in Canada’s Ostrich Cull

Guest Column by Human Rights Lawyer Bath-Shéba van den Berg

Lawyer Bath-Shéba van den Berg

British Columbia – Canadian federal government agencies culled hundreds of beautiful healthy ostriches, for ‘regulatory’ reasons.

The Supreme Court of Canada, our highest court, denied the farmers’ application to appeal. No justice, no legal course, no political recourse.

What happens to a people, to a country, when there is nowhere left to turn for help to defend our fundamental rights and freedoms – and all decisions to stamp out our fundamental rights and freedoms are justified under the auspices of regulatory frameworks? When the law is used as a tool to oppress the people instead of to protect the people, we have a problem with our social contract.

“What happens to a people, to a country, when there is nowhere left to turn for help to defend our fundamental rights and freedoms?”

I woke up to CTV News labelling protestors as ideologically motivated and potentially violent, which is mean-spirited name-calling, libellous, and wrong. Love is not ideological; it is human emotion fundamental to our survival. Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) at the University of Saskatchewan, is not a lawyer and she is not a politician. Yet, her words carry weight in the public as the CTV chose her to speak above everyone else: Virologist Rasmussen is said to believe that “the amount of politically driven ideologies connected to this conflict could lead to “rational arguments” being nullified.” And that “This is language that does incite violence” (CTV: Cull has Political Implications)

Rasmussen and CTV have tarred and feathered good people standing up for what is right, and what is right is to stand up for our human rights and animal rights. The two are at play here. This case is yet another grotesque example of Canadian federal government overreach and impunity.

What would be a sensationalist heading?

This case is an example of the government of Canada’s license to kill, quite literally this time. Under the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, the federal government gave license to freeze people’s bank accounts,  and I called that “extra-judicial financial killing”.

Surprisingly, this CBC news release is an example of somewhat balanced journalism and provides footage of what was done on the farm. (CBC: Shots at BC Ostrich Farm)

Direct from the farmers: Save Our Ostriches

Bath-Shéba van den Berg is a Human Rights Lawyer and the founder of Egronomy Law. She is called to the Bar in both Alberta and Ontario. Her distinguished career began in international criminal law at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), where she contributed to landmark cases arising from the Balkan conflicts.

She has lectured in international law at The Hague University and served as a Rule of Law Advisor to the British Army – providing counsel on laws of war, human rights, and the counter-illegal wildlife trade.

Bath-Shéba has worked extensively across Canada, the United Kingdom, Kenya, Nigeria, Togo, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, and Afghanistan… always advancing the principles of justice, accountability, and the Rule of Law.

Since returning to Canada, she has appeared before the Federal Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, Alberta Court of Justice, and the Calgary Indigenous Court.

Grus Sentencing – Affidavits Needed

Update: Grus Defence Affidavits

Template Now Available

To assist in creating your draft affidavit, consider using these templates.

The Draft Affidavit in support of Detective Grus has two parts – a Draft Affidavit, and a Draft Letter to the Tribunal Officer that will be an attachment to the affidavit.

The instructions are at the top of each template – the Affidavit and the Letter.

Use your own words, make it heartfelt.

Affidavit Template V2

Letter Template V2

You can do this! Your affidavit is valuable no matter who you are.

Update: Saturday, August 15, 2025 – 9am ET

The response has been outstanding — many drafts are already reaching the defence team, showing we are united and determined.

SEND YOUR DRAFTS NOW – and remember this is the sentencing. Your drafts should stress the reasons why you believe the judge should not penalize Detective Grus. For instance…

  • A heavy sentence will cause police officers to be deterred from self-initiating any investigations because they see that their on duty, good faith diligence might destroy them, their careers, their families.
  • A heavy sentence will undermine the public’s faith in policing, in the independence and non-political nature of the police.
  • Any other reason you can think of.

This project is strong, growing, and will make a real difference.

Original Article here…

Urgent Call to Canadians, including Serving & Former Police Officers

Affidavit Testimony Needed for Sentencing of Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus

Sentencing Hearing: September 3 to 5, 2025, Kanata, Ontario

Affidavits Needed Now: Canadians Must Speak for Detective Helen Grus – and for All Canadian Police Officers

This is an urgent call to Canadians – including serving and retired police officers – to support Detective Helen Grus by preparing a simple sworn affidavit for her upcoming sentencing hearing.

The defence team will help ensure your affidavit is relevant, admissible, and properly formatted. It’s a straightforward process – and your voice is needed not only to support Detective Grus, but to stand against a dangerous precedent that threatens the independence and integrity of every police officer in Canada.

(Note: PDF Copy of this Article download here)

A heavy sentence – or firing – will send a chilling message to all serving officers: do not use your professional judgment, experience, or investigative initiative to pursue crimes that carry “political and societal ramifications’ or involve ‘public officials’ as suspects. 

If you do, you too may be charged, convicted, and professionally destroyed.

Background

While on duty in January 2022, Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus – a respected member of the unit responsible for investigating infant deaths occurring outside of hospitals – began looking into a troubling spike in unexplained infant deaths, reported to be three times higher than normal. She gathered information, reviewed police records related to the deaths, and began considering whether the mothers’ COVID-19 vaccination status might be a relevant factor.

Like thousands of Canadian police officers, Detective Grus had previously been commended for taking initiative and self-starting investigations. Every day, officers across the country independently initiate criminal and other investigations – without needing prior approval.

But in February 2022, Detective Grus was suspended, investigated, and later charged and convicted with ‘Discreditable Conduct’ under the Ontario Police Services Act.

The written Tribunal decision states that Detective Grus was convicted for self-initiating an investigation without permission “due to the political and societal ramifications” of her inquiries. The written decision also found her guilty of “unauthorized criminal negligence inquiries on public officials.”

In other words, the Tribunal found that even though Detective Grus made her inquiries while on duty, and believed she was fulfilling her lawful responsibilities under her Oath of Office – she (and all police officers) must now ask for permission before investigating crimes that have “political and societal ramifications”, and crimes potentially committed by “public officials.”

Why This Matters to All Canadians

The case of Detective Helen Grus is no longer just about one officer. It is about whether police in Canada remain free to follow the evidence wherever it leads – or whether politics now dictates which crimes can be investigated, and which cannot.

The Tribunal’s written decision has established a dangerous and far-reaching precedent: that police officers must seek permission before investigating potential crimes involving government officials or matters with “political and societal ramifications.” This strikes at the very heart of police independence and the rule of law.

If this precedent stands:

  • Investigations involving powerful individuals or politically sensitive topics may be shut down before they begin.
  • Frontline officers will hesitate to act on their training, experience, and judgment for fear of being disciplined or fired.
  • The public’s trust in law enforcement as an impartial institution will be further eroded.

Canadians must understand: this is not a local labour or internal discipline issue. It is a national concern involving constitutional principles, the impartial application of justice, and the core function of policing in a democratic society.

The sentencing of Detective Grus presents a final opportunity for the Tribunal to recognize the public interest and avoid compounding the injustice. That is why your sworn affidavit matters – not just for one officer’s fate, but for the future of accountable policing in Canada where police officers – not political influence or interference – direct investigations and outcomes.

Grounds for Sentencing Submissions

Detective Helen Grus has already been convicted by the internal tribunal. The upcoming hearing on September 3–5, 2025, will determine the penalty.

Under Ontario law, and in line with principles of natural justice and sentencing in police discipline cases, members of the public may submit sworn affidavits for consideration at the sentencing phase.

These affidavits can address a wide range of legally recognized and relevant factors, including:

  • The public interest in maintaining confidence in the police
  • The seriousness and nature of the misconduct (in this case, an officer investigating infant deaths while on duty and in good faith)
  • Detective Grus’s service record, commendations, and prior conduct
  • The impact of a penalty on the officer, her family, and future police conduct.
  • Detective Grus has already personally spent $400,000+ in legal fees – despite acting in the line of duty. This is a heavy penalty in itself.
  • Whether a harsh sentence would deter other police officers from doing their duty and obeying their oath in politically sensitive situations
  • Whether the penalty would be consistent with similar cases, or disproportionately harsh
  • The broader chilling effect on police independence and investigative integrity.
  • The Tribunal’s discretion to impose no penalty at all – including a reprimand or warning

You do not need to have personally known Detective Grus to make a relevant contribution. Your affidavit might express:

  • Your professional opinion as a serving or retired officer, lawyer, or health care worker
  • Your concern as a parent, citizen, or member of the public
  • Your support for the principle that police must be free to investigate all potential crimes – even when politics or public officials are involved

Affidavits must be truthful, respectful, and focused on sentencing issues – not on re-arguing the facts of the case. (An appeal will be filed, but this is not the time to argue it.)

The Grus legal team will assist with formatting and legal relevance. What matters is that your voice is heard – and that the Tribunal sees that Canadians are watching.

Who Can Submit an Affidavit?

Anyone can submit a sworn affidavit for consideration at Detective Helen Grus’s sentencing hearing.

You do not need to be a lawyer, police officer, or expert witness. The Tribunal should hear from Canadians of all backgrounds and from every part of the country – not just from Ontario or Ottawa. A single-page affidavit from an ordinary Canadian living far from the capital could tip the scales between Detective Grus being fired – or receiving no penalty at all.

What matters is that your testimony is truthful, relevant to sentencing, and offered in good faith.

The following categories of people might want to participate:

* Serving or retired police officers and concerned citizens

— who understand the importance of investigative discretion and the risks of political interference in policing

* Former prosecutors, judges, or legal professionals

— who can speak to legal norms, due process, proportionality, and precedent

* Medical professionals, scientists, or researchers

— who can address the importance of evidence-based investigation, institutional accountability, or systemic oversight by independently-operating public employees.

* Vaccine-injured individuals and bereaved families

— who can speak to the importance of open, independent, and politically untainted police investigations

* Parents and concerned citizens

— who are alarmed by the precedent being set and its broader implications for child protection, law enforcement, and democratic oversight

* Journalists, academics, ethicists, and historians

— who can contextualize the public interest, the erosion of police independence, or similar past abuses of institutional power

* Anyone who believes this matter is too important for them to remain silent

You do not need to comment on every legal point. A short, honest statement of your perspective – even a single page of a few paragraphs – may be all that’s needed to make an impact.

The Grus legal team will review all draft affidavits BEFORE THEY ARE SWORN to ensure they are admissible, properly formatted, and useful to the Tribunal.

What to Include in Your Affidavit – Template

Your affidavit doesn’t need to be long or complicated. Even one page can make an impact.

The goal is to provide truthful, relevant evidence that the Tribunal can consider when deciding what penalty—if any—should be imposed on Detective Helen Grus.

Here’s a simple outline you can follow:

  1. Who You Are
  • Full name, city or town, and province. Exact address not required in the affidavit as long as the legal team knows it.
  • Brief personal or professional background
  • If something in your background gives you a special perspective on the case, please include that too.

(e.g., “I am a retired police officer with 25 years of service in Alberta”; “I am a mother of three and a concerned citizen in Nova Scotia”; “I am injured by the vaccines that Detective Grus was investigating”; “I lost my son, brother to the vaccines that Detective Grus was investigating.”)

  1. Why the Grus sentencing matters to you
  • You do not need to know Detective Grus personally, or even have been aware of the case until recently. Perhaps you are just hearing of it now.
  • Simply explain why this case matters to you. Some examples, but there are many more and more personal to you…
    • As a citizen concerned about justice and police independence
    • As a professional who understands the risk of political interference
    • As someone affected by vaccine injury or loss, and concerned about whether police can do their jobs without fear
    • As a parent worried about child safety and the erosion of police discretion
  1. Your Main Message
  • Express, in your own words, why you believe the Tribunal should impose no penalty, or the minimum penalty available (e.g., a reprimand or written warning)
  • You may wish to refer to:
    • The danger of chilling police initiative
    • The fact that Detective Grus was on duty, acting in good faith
    • Her prior commendations and public service
    • The excessive financial and emotional cost she has already borne
    • The public interest in protecting investigative independence
    • The importance of not punishing officers for following evidence
    • The risk that a heavy sentence would undermine public confidence in policing – and signal that officers may be punished for pursuing evidence that challenges politically established narratives or involves powerful institutions
  1. Closing Statement
  • Reaffirm that your statement is made truthfully, voluntarily, and in good faith
  • State that you respectfully submit your affidavit for the Tribunal’s consideration

Keep in Mind:

  • This is not the time to argue that the Tribunal made a legal error or to re-litigate the case. That will be addressed on appeal.
  • Stick to sentencing-related topics: character, fairness, proportionality, and public interest
  • The Grus legal team will help ensure your draft meets legal requirements before you swear it

You can email your draft to the legal team using the instructions in the next section. They’ll assist with formatting and guide you through the process of having it sworn before a notary or commissioner.

How to Submit Your Affidavit (Step-by-Step)

Submitting your affidavit is a straightforward process. The Grus legal team will assist at each stage to make sure your testimony is properly formatted, legally admissible, and ready for submission to the Tribunal.

Follow these steps:

Step 1: Familiarize Yourself with the Case

Before writing your affidavit, read the background information provided in this article, and in various media – including articles listed at the ‘Detective Grus Case’ page of this website.

Detective Grus Case Page Here

You could also read the written decision of the Tribunal. The sections where the Tribunal officer states that officers should ask for permission before investigating crimes that have “political and societal ramifications” or involving “public officials” is on page 28.

Decision-with-Reasons-Det-Grus

Review the list of acceptable sentencing topics and decide what issue(s) you want to speak to – such as Detective Grus’s character, the chilling effect on police, the public interest in police independence, and any other sentencing factor you’ve seen discussed publicly or that you believe the Tribunal should consider.

Step 2: Draft Your Affidavit Using the Above Template

Use the above template to guide you through what to include – your name, background, main message, and closing statement. Don’t worry about any formatting or legal header as the Grus lawyers will format it all for you.

Keep it honest and to the point. One or two pages is usually enough. You can write it in plain language. No need to be formal or legalistic. It’s your affidavit, not anyone else’s.

Step 3: Email Your Draft to the Grus Legal Team

Send your unsigned draft affidavit by email to the Grus legal team using the subject line:

“Grus Affidavit Submission” to email: info@egronomylaw.com

Bath-Shéba van den Berg
Egronomy Law

1800-330 5th Avenue SW,
Calgary AB T2P 4L0

info@egronomylaw.com
Telephone: 1-587-952-8911

In the email, be sure to include:

  • Your full name
  • Your contact email
  • Telephone number.
  • The draft affidavit in Word or PDF format

Step 4: Legal Review and Formatting

The Grus legal team will review your draft and assist with formatting or minor edits to ensure your affidavit is legally relevant and admissible. They may contact you to clarify details or suggest edits for clarity and grammar.

Step 5: Swear or Affirm the Final Version

Once your affidavit is finalized, the legal team will send it back to you as a ready-to-swear document in Word and pdf file types.

You will print this out and take it to a local:

  • Lawyer
  • Notary Public
  • Commissioner of Oaths (many courthouses and city offices offer this service)

They will witness your signature and administer the oath or affirmation.

Step 6: Scan and Return the Signed Affidavit via Email

Scan or photograph the signed affidavit and email it back to the legal team at the same address.

Make sure your scan is legible and complete. The lawyer who witnessed your affidavit may scan it for you and email it directly to you and Grus legal team. Most law offices are set up to assist you with that in about two minutes.

Deadline Reminder – ASAP

Send your draft affidavit immediately. Every day counts and the sooner it is received, the stronger the impact.

Time is needed for legal review, formatting, and swearing. The Grus legal team will submit affidavits as soon as possible prior to the hearing.

Each of us can make this happen!

Note: I, Donald Best, am not an agent or representative of the Grus legal team. I am publicizing this urgent need for sentencing affidavit evidence from Canadians. I am not involved in reviewing submissions, vetting witnesses, or forwarding communications to legal counsel. All affidavits and questions must be sent directly to the Grus defence team as directed above.

Arrest Liberal MP Paul Chiang for Criminal Counselling of Kidnapping

Ex-Police Officer Chiang Knew The Law

In January 2025, Liberal Member of Parliament and former York Regional Police Sergeant Paul Chiang publicly counselled supporters of the Chinese Communist Party to abduct Conservative candidate Joe Tay and deliver him to the Chinese Embassy in exchange for a $1 million bounty.

The threat was not theoretical or a joke. The Chinese regime has issued a warrant for Tay’s arrest due to his pro-freedom videos, filmed and published from Canada. Chiang’s incitement to have a Canadian citizen kidnapped on Canadian soil for foreign powers is a direct violation of Canadian criminal law—and a dangerous escalation of foreign interference in our democracy.

Paul Chiang served as a police officer for 28 years. He retired as a York Regional Police Sergeant in 2020 and knows full well that counselling an abduction is a serious Criminal Code offence.

Counselling a Crime in Canada

In Canadian law, you don’t need to address a specific person to be guilty of counselling a crime. Broadcasting the encouragement to a general audience is enough, provided two conditions are met:

1.The message is deliberate and intended to encourage the offence.

2.The offence being counselled is serious and clearly defined in the Criminal Code.

This principle is upheld in precedent, most notably:

R. v. Hamilton, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 432 (opens in new tab)

Hamilton sold email packages with instructions for credit card fraud and bomb-making. He was convicted of counselling fraud and mischief—even though he never communicated with specific individuals, and no crimes were proven to have occurred.

Key takeaway from the Supreme Court:

“Counselling” can occur even where the person being counselled is unknown or never acts—as long as the accused intended their words to encourage the offence and it is reasonably foreseeable someone could act on it.

Criminal Code Provisions

Section 464 – Counselling an Uncommitted Offence

Even if no one follows through, it’s still a crime to counsel an indictable offence:

464(a):

“Everyone who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment…”

This applies to public speeches, videos, blogs, or social media posts encouraging serious offences like abduction or forcible confinement.

Section 22 – Counselling Committed Offences

If someone acts on the counselling—even in a different manner than originally suggested—the counsellor is legally a party to the crime and fully criminally liable.

Section 279 – Kidnapping

279(1):

“Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent:

(a) to confine or imprison them;

(b) to transport them out of Canada;

(c) to hold them for ransom…”

Penalty: Indictable offence, punishable by life imprisonment.

The Rule of Law Demands Criminal Charges

Time to Act

Paul Chiang’s public incitement to kidnap a Canadian citizen for a hostile foreign power is a textbook case of counselling a serious crime. The law is clear. His status as a sitting MP and former police sergeant only aggravates the offence.

It’s time for law enforcement to do their job—no special treatment, no political protection.

Paul Chiang must be arrested and criminally charged.

Donald Best

March 31, 2025

 

The Secret JFK Files: How Australia and the CIA Hid Assassination Warnings About Soviet Ties

Declassified Documents Reveal a 60-Year Cover-Up of Australia’s Role in Suppressing Key JFK Assassination Leads

For decades, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) played a largely unknown role in suppressing critical evidence related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Newly analyzed declassified documents confirm that ASIO’s chief, Sir Charles Spry, personally lobbied the CIA to keep Warren Commission Document CD-971 hidden from public view. This document detailed anonymous phone calls to the U.S. Embassy in Canberra warning of Soviet financial involvement in JFK’s murder.

These revelations, combined with the fact that portions of ASIO’s correspondence remained classified until 2023, suggest that Australian intelligence agencies were more deeply entangled in the cover-up than previously known. Even though CD-971 was partially declassified in 1976, intelligence agencies on both sides of the Pacific continued redacting and withholding critical details about the Canberra calls for six decades.

CD-971: The Assassination Warnings Intelligence Agencies Buried

CD-971 is a CIA memorandum from November 29, 1963, documenting two key anonymous phone calls made to the U.S. Embassy in Canberra, Australia:

  • October 15, 1962: A caller warned of a plot to assassinate President Kennedy.
  • November 23, 1963: Hours after JFK’s murder, a second call suggested that the Soviet Union had financed the assassination.

The caller, claiming to be a Polish chauffeur working for the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, provided specific intelligence that was forwarded to U.S. Naval Intelligence and later to the CIA. However, the CIA only became fully aware of these warnings on November 24, 1963—one day after Kennedy’s death.

While mainstream news reports have framed these calls as “crank calls,” intelligence memos from the time suggest otherwise. If the CIA and ASIO truly believed these were hoaxes, why did they fight for six decades to keep CD-971 suppressed?

ASIO and the CIA’s Coordinated Cover-Up

President Kennedy

Newly released records confirm that Sir Charles Spry, head of ASIO, personally wrote to CIA Director Richard Helms in October 1968, urging him not to declassify CD-971 despite increasing pressure for transparency. A memo from the CIA’s Far East Division Chief, William Nelson, also supported Spry’s position, marking this as a coordinated international effort.

According to a recently unsealed letter from Helms to Spry, dated November 1968:

“There is not, at the present time, any intention to release [CD-971].”

Helms further assured Spry that if the issue arose again, ASIO’s objections provided enough justification to keep the document secret indefinitely.

This wasn’t just a routine classification issue—it was a deliberate, high-level suppression of intelligence that could have altered the official narrative of JFK’s murder.

Even After 1976, the Cover-Up Continued

While CD-971 was partially declassified in 1976, it has now been revealed that significant portions of ASIO’s correspondence with the CIA remained classified until 2023. A News.com.au investigation found that ASIO and the CIA fought for nearly 60 years to prevent public access to the full unredacted records.

This raises disturbing questions:

  • What exactly was redacted or withheld in the 1976 release?
  • Why did intelligence agencies continue suppressing these records decades later?
  • Did ASIO have deeper knowledge of Soviet connections to the assassination than publicly acknowledged?

ASIO’s Role Was Likely Stronger Than the CIA’s

A 1968 Naval Investigative Service memo, previously overlooked in news reports, states that U.S. Naval Intelligence had no objections to declassifying CD-971—but still required clearance from ASIO.

This means that ASIO wasn’t just consulted as a courtesy—it had an active veto over whether U.S. intelligence could disclose the document. This revelation places Australia’s intelligence agencies at the center of the decades-long suppression effort.

What Was the Real Purpose of the Canberra Calls?

The most explosive claim in CD-971 is the assertion that the Soviet Union may have put up $100,000 to finance Kennedy’s assassination.

This raises two possibilities:

  1. Genuine Intelligence: The calls contained real information about Soviet involvement, which intelligence agencies later suppressed to avoid Cold War escalation.
  2. Disinformation Operation: The calls were part of an effort to shift blame to the Soviets, muddying the waters in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

Regardless of which scenario is true, the fact remains that ASIO and the CIA actively buried this intelligence for decades.

A 60-Year Suppression Finally Exposed

For over 60 years, ASIO and the CIA worked together to keep critical JFK assassination warnings from public view. The newly uncovered files confirm that Australian intelligence played a far greater role in hiding key leads about Soviet connections than previously known.

Even after CD-971 was declassified in 1976, Australian and U.S. intelligence agencies continued redacting and withholding key documents—only fully releasing them in 2023.

Key Unanswered Questions:

  1. Why did ASIO fight so aggressively to keep CD-971 classified?
  2. What exactly was removed or altered before its 1976 release?
  3. Did ASIO have direct knowledge of Soviet financing for JFK’s assassination?
  4. What other intelligence records remain hidden?

With today’s JFK files shedding light on one of the biggest cover-ups in Cold War history, it is time for researchers and historians to demand the full, unredacted truth.

Sources:

NOTE: Artificial Intelligence (a.i.) Used to Develop this Article

This article by Donald Best was developed with extensive assistance from ChatGPT-4o (paid version) over the course of several hours and multiple revisions. While AI played a significant role in structuring and refining the content, the final article is the result of independent research, fact-checking, and verification by Donald Best.

Early AI-generated drafts contained serious inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. For example, ChatGPT initially claimed that Warren Commission Document CD-971 had never been released, when in fact, a quick online search confirmed it was declassified in 1976 and widely available for download.

This serves as yet another reminder that AI is a powerful tool but must never be relied upon without human verification.

Readers are encouraged to fact-check, provide feedback, and share insights in the comments or via email at donaldbestonline@proton.me.

Disgrace on the Bench: How Canadian Judges Betray Public Safety

Thug-Pampering Judges: Robert F. “Get Out of Jail Free” Goldstein, Lise “Bleeding Heart” Favreau, Jonathan “Hug a Thug” Dawe

With No Way to Remove Them, Our Only Option Is to Name and Shame

Canada’s justice system isn’t just out of touch – it’s actively hostile to public safety, with each reckless ruling exposing judges driven by a dangerous agenda.

Judges in Canada are appointed, not elected. They have a job for life.

With no viable removal mechanism, our only course of action is to publicly name and shame judges who betray Canada and Canadians.

So here we go…

A Gangland Shooter Walks Free

No Prison for Gang Shooter

The latest outrage? Toronto gang member Terrell Burke-Whittaker fired a loaded handgun toward a busy highway during a bar shootout that left two wounded – yet he won’t serve a single day in jail.

That’s right. While law-abiding Canadian gun owners are harassed and disarmed, criminals can fire indiscriminately in public – and walk away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

The Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged that Burke-Whittaker’s conditional sentence was demonstrably unfit but still refused to impose real prison time – allowing this armed thug to continue serving his sentence in the comfort of his home.

Justice William Hourigan dissented, warning that this decision “undermines our credibility.” No kidding!

Hourigan didn’t mince words:

“If an offender can bring a handgun to a funeral, fire it towards the busiest highway in the country, ultimately avoiding incarceration, then it is evident that this court’s warnings about handgun violence have been rendered futile.” Justice William Hourigan dissenting opinion R. v Terrell Burke-Whittaker

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert F. “Get Out of Jail Free” Goldstein led the charge in letting this gunman off easy. His excuse? The thug had started a vending machine business and signed up for firefighter training. Apparently, that was enough to erase the fact that he brought a loaded gun to a gang gathering and fired toward a highway.

You can’t make this up.

Then Ontario Court of Appeal Judges Lise “Bleeding Heart” Favreau and Jonathan “Hug a Thug” Dawe upheld the disgraceful sentence.

Favreau even admitted that deterrence should have mattered more but still refused to overturn the sentencing decision. Dawe, going even further, actively defended the leniency. If this isn’t judicial corruption in action, what is?

“If these judges and their families had to live in the crime-ridden neighborhoods they neglect, they wouldn’t be so eager to let gang shooters walk free.”

This Isn’t Just One Case – It’s a Pattern of Betrayal

Burke-Whittaker isn’t an isolated case. Canada’s courts have been on a downward spiral for years, routinely siding with criminals over victims, gutting deterrence, and turning sentencing into a complete farce. Consider just these few examples:

  • R. v. Gladue (1999) – Established a two-tier justice system with special sentencing considerations for Indigenous offenders.
  • R. v. Nur (2015) – The Supreme Court struck down mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, enabling lenient rulings.
  • R. v. Lavallee (2017) – Citing the offender’s Indigenous background and difficult upbringing, a Manitoba judge imposed no jail time for a severe assault that left a victim permanently injured.
  • R. v. Vader (2017) – Travis Vader was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder in the deaths of elderly couple Lyle and Marie McCann. He received a life sentence but with parole eligibility after just 7 years.
  • R. v. McClintic (2018) – Terri-Lynne McClintic, convicted in the murder of 8-year-old Tori Stafford, was transferred from prison to an Indigenous healing lodge. Public outrage eventually forced her return to maximum security.
  • R. v. Husbands (2019) – Christopher Husbands, who opened fire in Toronto’s Eaton Centre food court killing two and injuring several others, had his murder conviction reduced to manslaughter. He is allowed to apply for parole after 16 years.
  • R. v. Bissonnette (2022) – The Supreme Court ruled that even mass murderers deserve a chance at parole after 25 years.
  • R. v. Khill (2021) – A homeowner who shot an armed intruder was put through legal hell while real criminals walk free.
  • R. v. Sharma (2022) – The Supreme Court further weakened sentencing for serious crimes under the guise of “systemic discrimination.”

Canada’s judges have betrayed their duty to the public. They treat criminals as victims and law-abiding citizens as the real offenders. Their moral compass is so broken they can’t tell justice from absurdity – or right from wrong.

Tuesday afternoon gang shootout in Toronto’s Blue Jays Way district. A child runs for cover as rapper Dimarjio Jenkins is slaughtered on the street.

A Gang Funeral, a Highway Shootout, and Judges Who Looked the Other Way

The May 26, 2020, the gangland assassination of Dimarjio Jenkins (rapper name Houdini) went down on a Tuesday afternoon in broad daylight in Toronto’s Blue Jays Way entertainment district. Jenkins was stalked and executed as his gang-affiliated “friends” exchanged fire with the assassins – sending children and bystanders running for their lives.

Toronto Police confirmed it was a gang shootout. A 15-year-old boy and a 27-year-old woman were also shot and injured. Jenkins was DOA at the hospital.

That gangland murder led directly to the “memorial” gathering where Burke-Whittaker armed himself and fired toward Highway 401 – one of Canada’s busiest highways.

Burke-Whittaker and other gang members return fire to a car on Highway 401

The media calls it a “memorial.” Let’s be real – it was a gang summit.

Armed thugs gathered at a bar at 55 Beverly Hills Drive to honour one of their own, knowing full well that another shootout could erupt.

And what did Terrell Burke-Whittaker do? He packed a loaded gun and got ready to kill. The Court of Appeal even admitted he wasn’t acting in self-defense. He was there, locked and loaded, waiting for a fight.

The bar is adjacent to Highway 401, and at 11:22pm a dark vehicle stopped on the highway shoulder and rival gang members unleashed a barrage of shots at persons in the bar parking lot.

When bullets started flying, Burke-Whittaker fired towards rival gang members and Highway 401, one of Canada’s busiest highways, where innocent drivers and bystanders could have been killed. Two people were wounded in the shootout.

Despite all this, Burke-Whittaker avoided a prison sentence because he started a vending machine business and applied to be a firefighter.

Read that again… Despite all this, Burke-Whittaker avoided a prison sentence because he started a vending machine business and applied to be a firefighter.

Are we supposed to believe that having a job magically erases the gravity of his crime?

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who dare to protect themselves are relentlessly prosecuted. If you store your legally owned firearm incorrectly, expect jail time. If you defend your home against an armed intruder, expect to be charged. If you refuse to bow down to activist judges and their twisted ideology, expect to be vilified and labeled a menace to society.

Enough is Enough

Canadians deserve judges who prioritize public safety over criminal sob stories. We deserve laws and sentences that actually deter crime instead of encouraging it. And we deserve judges who treat criminals like criminals – not misunderstood souls in need of a hug.

Until we purge our courts of these activist judges, Canada will continue its descent into lawlessness. Gun crime will rise. Criminals will grow bolder. And ordinary Canadians will be left to fend for themselves while our so-called justice system ties their hands.

These judges aren’t just failing us – they’re betraying us. The courts have become sanctuaries for criminals, while law-abiding Canadians are left defenseless.

It’s time for relentless public pressure, naming and shaming these disgraceful judges until there’s no place left for them to hide.

Donald Best – March 13, 2025

Here is the disgusting decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario…

R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142: 2025onca142

 

Bombshell FOI Emails: Will Theresa Tam Finally Face a Reckoning?

Emails Expose Secret No-Consent RSV Palivizumab Vaccine* Experiments on Inuit Children.

What Else Are They Hiding?

by Donald Best   February 25, 2025

For three years, Canadian officials used Inuit children as guinea pigs for an experimental RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injections program – without parental consent and without the knowledge or involvement of the Inuit population. This shocking revelation, buried in newly uncovered Freedom of Information (FOI) emails, is completely unrelated to COVID-19 – yet it raises damning questions about the government’s approach to public health experiments on Indigenous communities and all Canadians.

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, knew about the ethical concerns. So did other top public health officials. In a December 16, 2019, email to Tam and others, Dr. Tom Wong, Director General of the Office of Population & Public Health at Indigenous Services Canada, explicitly warned them that health care workers had raised serious red flags.

“Some ethical concerns were raised by health care workers regarding the guarantee of a free and informed consent from parents or caregivers, as well as the absence of involvement of Inuit population in the decision and implementation process.” — Dr. Tom Wong to Dr. Theresa Tam and others, December 16, 2019

Yet rather than halt the program, the government pressed forward. Parents were kept in the dark, as were Inuit leaders and the broader community. Worse, the experiment had already failed – the RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injections didn’t work as intended. But officials concealed this and continued using an Indigenous population as unknowing test subjects.

December 16, 2019 email confirms ‘No-Consent’ Medical Experiments on Inuit Babies

This isn’t the first time Canada’s medical establishment has used Indigenous children as test subjects without consent.

From the 1940s-50s nutritional experiments in residential schools, where researchers deliberately starved Indigenous children to study malnutrition, to the 1933 tuberculosis vaccine trials on 600 Indigenous children in Saskatchewan, where nearly 20% died, history has already proven that officials were willing to sacrifice Indigenous lives for so-called “science.” (ref **)

“The difference between medical research’s clinical trials and human experimentation is patient consent. Given the very unequal power relationships between medical staff and patients, coupled with often perplexing language barriers, and the widespread perception that many Aboriginal people would not willingly accept treatment, patient consent for treatment was often simply taken for granted.” (Lux, M. Separate Beds, University of Toronto Press, 2016, p.112)

Canada’s medical establishment deliberately starved Indigenous children in secret experiments.

The RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injection experiments on Inuit children are not an isolated incident – Canada has a documented history of using Indigenous children as non-consenting test subjects in government-run medical experiments. One of the most shocking examples took place in the 1940s and 1950s, when Canadian scientists deliberately starved Indigenous children in residential schools to study malnutrition.

Newly uncovered historical research confirms that the Canadian government and top nutrition scientists saw Indigenous children not as victims, but as research opportunities.

“Two separate long-term studies that went so far as to include controlled experiments conducted, apparently without the subjects’ informed consent or knowledge, on malnourished Aboriginal populations in Northern Manitoba and, later, in six Indian residential schools.” (Mosby, 2013, p. 145-146) (ref**)

The experiments were brutal in their design:

•Some children were fed vitamin-enriched food, while others were deliberately left malnourished as a “control group” to see how they deteriorated.
•Researchers withheld dental care, believing that “improving dental health might skew the results.”
•Some Indigenous children were subjected to these experiments for up to five years, without their knowledge or consent.

“From the perspective of Tisdall, Kruse, and the other nutrition experts involved in the study, it was clear that the levels of malnutrition witnessed… were a tragedy, but also an unprecedented research opportunity.” (Mosby, 2013, p. 152)

This wasn’t a one-time crime—it was a blueprint. Before the government starved Indigenous children in the 1940s-50s, it had already run tuberculosis vaccine trials on Indigenous children in Saskatchewan in 1933—without their parents’ knowledge.

Page References from Mosby (2013) (Available below for download)**

•Lack of Consent & Secret Experiments: p. 145-146
•Children as Test Subjects: p. 151
•Researchers Saw a ‘Scientific Opportunity’ in Malnutrition: p. 152
•Children Were Denied Treatment for Study Integrity: p. 163

These horrific practices set a clear historical precedent – one that makes the secretive RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injection experiments on Inuit children even more alarming.

If the Canadian government has done it before, what else have they done – and what are they still hiding? One thing is certain: During the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, Informed Consent wasn’t just ignored – it was obliterated.

The Sears FOI Releases: A Crack in the Wall

Bret Sears

This chilling discovery is only the beginning. Credit goes to Bret Sears, a relentless New Brunswicker who pried 1,818 pages of internal government emails loose through FOI requests – 447 pages of which are now public. Many of these emails shift focus to COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines, hinting at what officials knew as the crisis unfolded.

Over the next year, hundreds of thousands more pages are set to be released – a potential goldmine that could expose hidden deals, suppressed risks, or even darker truths.

A New Age of Citizen Investigators

Thanks to Bret Sears (X = @Bret_Sears), everyday Canadians are now tearing into these documents at unprecedented speed. Over the past three days, I joined citizen groups using AI tools like ChatGPT and Grok to analyze hundreds of pages of the emails, associated news stories, regulations, and government policies. This isn’t like past whistleblower leaks: this is crowdsourced investigative journalism on steroids with A.I. instantly making connections that usually take weeks or months to discover.

Someone spots a red flag – “Look what I found!” – and instantly, others connect the dots, “That ties to this!”

“The truth is coming together faster than ever before. This level of synergy is something I’ve never before witnessed. Tam and her colleagues should be terrified.” Donald Best

Indigenous children in Canada’s residential schools—many of whom were subjected to secret government medical experiments without consent.

The Big Question: Could This Lead to Criminal Charges?

As a former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective), I have one question…

If these emails or the flood still to come prove that Theresa Tam and other officials knew the mRNA injections caused significant harm and fatalities, yet continued pushing them on the public and Indigenous communities while concealing the truth – could this support criminal charges?

The answer could be yes. Potential charges could include Criminal Negligence Causing Injury or Death – and that’s just the start.

The Truth Is Breaking Free – Join the Hunt

The Tam FOI emails are now searchable.

NOTE: See Tam FOI for all released files RIGHT HERE

Below, you’ll find the first two .pdf files as released by Bret Sears. (Bret Sears can be found on X: @Bret_Sears)

Original Documents:

ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part1

ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part2

Since the government released these files as non-searchable PDFs, I have used Adobe Acrobat OCR to make them fully searchable. Now, you can use the ‘find’ function of your computer to quickly scan for key terms and find critical information.

Searchable OCR Versions:

🔍 ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part1 OCR

🔍 ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part2 OCR

The December 16, 2019 email from Dr. Wong to Dr. Tam is on page 410 / 1818 and is located in the second file (Part 2).

New Find – Report downloaded from a link shown on page 410 – OCRd and searchable:

‘Evaluation of new palivizumab immunoprophylaxis
recommendations in Nunavik infants : results for 2014
to 2017’

‘report_palivizumab_immunoprophylaxis_nunavik_infants_cor OCR’

Now It’s Your Turn

These emails are just the beginning. With each new release, the full scale of government deception may finally come to light.

Were Theresa Tam and other officials knowingly complicit in secret medical experiments on Indigenous children—without consent, without oversight, and without accountability? Did they push dangerous COVID-19 vaccines while concealing the risks?

The truth may be buried in these documents—but not for long.

Dig in. Expose what they never wanted you to see. Your work, your analysis, could be the discovery that shatters the official narrative and triggers criminal investigations into Theresa Tam and other government officials.

Good hunting.

Donald Best – February 25, 2025

NOTE: See Tam FOI for all released files RIGHT HERE

* References – RSV Palivizumab Vaccine* Injections

I had used the colloquial term ‘vaccine’ for the RSV Palivizumab Injections to communicate that these were ‘no-consent / no-knowledge’ injections, but as with the mRNA COVID-19 injections – the Palivizumab Injections are not true ‘vaccines’.

A reader and medical professional asked me to clarify that the injections were of ‘monoclonal antibodies’ and not a true vaccine. As he said…

“The real issues as you’ve identified are the ethics when parents have no knowledge of, and did not consent to, having their children injected with anything in a secret medical experiment.”

I am informed by ChatGPT… Palivizumab (brand name: Synagis) is a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections in high-risk infants and children. It is not a vaccine but works by providing passive immunity against RSV.

** References

Canada has a documented history of conducting unethical medical experiments on Indigenous children without consent. Two of the most notorious cases include:

1. Nutritional Experiments in Residential Schools (1940s-1950s):

Between 1942 and 1952, Canadian government researchers deliberately starved Indigenous children in residential schools to study the effects of malnutrition. Essential nutrients, vitamins, and even dental care were withheld from at least 1,300 Indigenous individuals—about 1,000 of them children—without informing the children or their families.

• Source: Mosby, I. (2013). Administering Colonial Science: Nutrition Research and Human Biomedical Experimentation in Aboriginal Communities and Residential Schools, 1942–1952. Histoire Sociale/Social History. PDF download

2. Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials (1933):

In 1933, Canadian researchers conducted tuberculosis vaccine trials on 600 Indigenous children in Saskatchewanwithout parental consent. Nearly 20% of the children died from preventable illnesses like gastroenteritis and pneumonia, exacerbated by the poor conditions of Indigenous reserves.

• Source: Lux, M. (2016). Separate Beds: A History of Indian Hospitals in Canada, 1920s-1980s. University of Toronto Press.

Trump Defends Christians – Trudeau Fuels Anti-Christian Hate

Trump’s Executive Order: A War on Anti-Christian Bias

Across the Western world, Christians are under attack. In a bold move to combat hostility toward Christians by United States government institutions, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on February 6, 2025, titled “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.”

The order establishes a Task Force within the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Pam Bondi – to investigate and eliminate discrimination against Christians in federal institutions, address targeted legal actions against Christians, and put an end to what Trump calls a “war on Christianity” in the United States.

While Trump’s new administration is taking active steps to protect Christians, their faith and institutions, Canada has moved in the opposite direction. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, anti-Christian sentiment has been encouraged and promoted by Trudeau, his Liberal Party colleagues, government-paid legacy media, and by governments and institutions at all levels.

Biden’s Legacy of Christian Persecution

Trump’s executive order explicitly condemns the persecution of Christians – citing Biden government-driven legal harassment, unjust prosecutions, and targeted actions against Christians and Christian organizations.

The order also directly addresses the FBI’s 2023 memo labeling Catholic groups as potential domestic terrorists, making it clear that federal agencies must not single out Christians for their declared faith, beliefs, and peaceful expressions of their faith.

President Trump declared:

“The previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses. The Biden Department of Justice sought to squelch faith in the public square by bringing Federal criminal charges and obtaining in numerous cases multi-year prison sentences against nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities…

At the same time, Catholic churches, charities, and pro-life centers sought justice for violence, theft, and arson perpetrated against them, which the Biden Department of Justice largely ignored. After more than 100 attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning this violence and calling on the Biden Administration to enforce the law.”

Trudeau’s Canada: Where Church Burnings Are Justified 

Trudeau: Burnings “understandable”

Contrast President Trump’s order with Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government have presided over a climate of escalating hostility toward Christianity—most notably during the church burnings and vandalism that followed the 2021 Residential Schools “mass graves” hoax.

In 2021, over 100 Christian churches across Canada were burned or vandalized, largely in response to false claims that “mass graves” of Indigenous children had been discovered at former residential school sites. Despite the lack of a single exhumed body (even to now 2025), Trudeau and the media pushed the narrative as true and proven without any evidence. When asked about the destruction of churches, Trudeau justified and inflamed the violence by stating that while attacks on churches were “unacceptable,” he also understood the anger behind them.

“Trudeau condemned the actions of all Christians and churches during the founding of Canada – justifying violence and destruction in conjunction with his ‘understandable’ rhetoric. He knew what he was doing.”

Harsha Walia “Burn (Christian Churches) all down”

Other Canadian public figures went even further. Harsha Walia, then the head of the BC Civil Liberties Association, infamously tweeted, “Burn it all down,” in response to the church attacks. Instead of facing legal consequences for publicly inciting violence, she kept her position for weeks before quietly stepping down. The anti-Christian establishment protected Walia whereas public personalities and officials criticizing non-Christian religions or foreign cultures are regularly and immediately torn to pieces in the public square.

(As an aside, I can’t help but think of Don Cherry who the woke left totally destroyed for one comment criticizing immigrants who don’t wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.)

Meanwhile, the Canadian government has actively suppressed Christian speech and expression under the guise of progressivism and ‘hate speech”. Canadian Christian adoption agencies, schools, and organizations have been pressured to comply with Trudeau’s radical social policies or lose funding.

Calgary Police Knelt with BLM Protesters Violating COVID Restrictions—But Arrested Pastor Artur Pawlowski for Leading a Church Service

The COVID Double Standard: BLM Protests vs. Christian Worship

Leadership is top-down with government institutions inclined to reflect, adopt, and repeat the values and examples of their political and organizational leadership.

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and police officers across Canada (including several Chiefs of Police) knelt in solidarity with Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters – despite these mass gatherings egregiously violating the public health laws restricting the number of persons allowed to meet.

While thousands of BLM demonstrators flooded the streets in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Peterborough, Sudbury, and Thunder Bay—with police not only allowing but joining them – police services raided, locked, and fenced off Christian churches. Pastors were dragged from their pulpits and jailed for simply practicing their faith.

Among those persecuted was Pastor Artur Pawlowski, who was arrested multiple times, including being dragged from his car at gunpoint for holding prayer services. Pastor Henry Hildebrandt was charged despite holding a drive-in service where worshippers stayed in their cars – proving that compliance with public health measures made no difference if the state targeted your beliefs.

Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church in Alberta was jailed for 35 days for holding church services – while malls, liquor stores, and big-box retailers remained open. Police guarded the fenced off church, treating peaceful worshippers like criminals while BLM marchers roamed free.

Pastors Steve Richardson and Aaron Rock were also arrested and charged for praying in a group. RCMP handcuffed and arrested People’s Party leader Maxime Bernier for simply meeting supporters in an open field.

The glaring double standard could not have been clearer: BLM protests were encouraged. Police and even Chiefs of Police took a knee. Not one marcher was arrested—but Christian pastors and worshippers were dragged away, fined, and jailed.

Defending Christian Faith vs. Attacking Christians

Trump’s order signals a shift back toward recognizing Christianity as a vital and foundational part of America’s cultural and moral fabric. By contrast, Trudeau’s Canada has long promoted and justified the marginalization of Christians and the destruction of their institutions.

As I said earlier, leadership is a top-down function – and Trudeau’s leadership has inspired and empowered anti-Christian elements in government and law enforcement.

Anti-Christian OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique

One small example is that the head of Canada’s second largest policing organization implemented an anti-Christian policy in social media and public communications. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Thomas Carrique erased Christmas, Christianity, and Jesus from the public sphere in 2024. While celebrating and naming nearly every other religious and cultural tradition with zeal, Carrique and his OPP refused to even utter the word “Christmas”, “Christ” or “Jesus” in any official capacity or communication.

Such is the influence and empowerment of Trudeau’s anti-Christian leadership throughout Canada.

President Donald Trump is taking decisive action to protect Christians and their institutions. He is restoring their place in American society after years of government hostility.

The Choice for Canada: Resist or Watch Christianity Be Erased

Under Trudeau, Canada has become a country where Christianity is ridiculed, its leaders arrested, and its places of worship burned—with the tacit approval of those in power.

This isn’t just bias; it’s a systemic effort to erase Christianity from public life, replacing it with an ideology that punishes faith while celebrating lawlessness.

Will Canadians shrug and accept this, or will they push back before it’s too late? Because history shows that when governments target religious groups, things only get worse. The choice is clear: resist or watch as Christianity in Canada is driven underground.

Donald Best

Published: February 9, 2025

Vincent Gircys – Case Update Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus

Detective Grus believes Police Officers should challenge unlawful orders

by Vincent Gircys – OPP (retired)

I had the opportunity to chat with Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus following her police disciplinary hearing final submissions. This historic case involves one of Ottawa Police Service’s finest members noticing a spike in infant deaths.

Helen took action where others failed. While following a hypothesis based on the best available evidence, her preliminary inquiry was shut down, as the consequences of exposing the truth became unacceptable to the national narrative. She was subsequently silenced and charged with bringing discredit to the organization.

First and foremost, Helen is so grateful for the prayers and support she’s received throughout the process.

She is in this challenge because she believes in the principles of policing: preservation of peace, prevention of crime, and the protection of life and property. She knows there are countless amazing officers risking their lives daily to do just that.

Her heart and soul believe that when unlawful orders are given by police supervisors, officers must challenge them respectfully using the authority all officers are granted by law. It is clear that this challenging time in Helen’s life, dealing with the allegations against her, will not break her.

Although the financial costs of a legal defense are tremendous, she understands the implications this case will have on the entire Canadian police community if the truth and investigative process associated with this remain buried.

One underestimation in the attempt to silence and set an example of her was that whoever concocted the ridiculous, unprecedented Discreditable Conduct charge against Helen simply doesn’t know her. Perhaps they thought she’d take a plea and hunker down quietly. They didn’t realize that Helen doesn’t worship money; she worships God. She doesn’t love money; she loves life!

Regardless of the outcome of this disciplinary hearing, Helen seems convinced that Truth, Love, and Compassion will prevail.

This is far from over, and I have no doubt that the full version of her story will eventually become mandatory reading in every police academy across Canada, as Helen knows that Courage, Integrity, and Truth in law enforcement must and will prevail.

Ottawa Police Detective Grus Warned Chief Sloly in 2021 About Pfizer, Vaccine-Linked Myocarditis, Unexplained Infant Deaths, Evidence of Criminal Activity

Neglect of Duty: Deputy Chief Patricia Ferguson, Chief Peter Sloly, Chief Steve Bell

Neglect of Duty at the Highest Ottawa Police Ranks

During December 2021 and January 2022 meetings, Detective Helen Grus warned Chief Peter Sloly, Deputy Trish Ferguson, and other senior officers that the Pfizer vaccine had never been tested on pregnant women. As a police detective, she expressed concern for the welfare of pregnant women receiving these experimental COVID vaccines.

In the context of widespread vaccine mandates and public health policies, Detective Grus highlighted that adverse effects were going unreported, and that persons were not being informed of potential adverse effects – which she described as potentially criminal. As an example she told the senior officers of an Ottawa motorist who had a medical event and collision when driving home from being vaccinated. The motorist died 2 days later.

This from evidence presented during the internal trial of Detective Grus – who in July 2022 was charged with one count of ‘discreditable conduct’ for allegedly initiating an ‘unauthorized’ investigation into nine unexplained infant deaths. She was exploring the possibility that the vaccination status of the mothers might be a factor in the fatalities.

The internal trial resumes January 6, 2025, almost 3 years after Detective Helen Grus was suspended.

Toronto Hospital for Sick Children Advisory

In the December 2021 meeting, Detective Helen Grus also informed the Command Officers of an August 6, 2021 Toronto Hospital for Sick Children advisory* that documented a troubling pattern of child myocarditis cases associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including the following findings:

“Since April 2021, there are increasing reports of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine and Moderna mRNA-1233 vaccine).”

“International and national reports of myocarditis/pericarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have emerged.

These reports indicate that:

• Cases have been seen after the first dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, but are more commonly reported after the second dose

• Symptom onset was typically within several days after vaccination, with most cases being reported within 7 days after vaccination

    • Cases were mainly adolescents and young adults
    • Cases were more often males compared to females”

A Cluster of Unexplained Infant Deaths

Detective Helen Grus

During the second meeting with Chief Sloly, Detective Grus informed him of how the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse unit had noticed an increase in unexplained infant deaths. Grus urged that COVID vaccines be examined as a potential contributing factor, citing them as a significant and recent variable.

So the Chief of Police and other Command officers were directly briefed by Detective Grus in December 2021 and January 2022 that medical authorities and others were already reporting serious injuries and deaths associated with the new vaccines.

The Command officers knew that there was a recent increase in unexplained infant deaths noticed by the Ottawa Police unit responsible for investigating such occurrences.

Yet – these Command officers neglected their duty and public safety. No investigation was launched.

Then when Detective Grus continued to follow the evidence to determine if there could be a connection between the experimental injections and the unexplained infant deaths – the Ottawa Police Command shut down her investigation, suspended her from duty and eventually charged her with ‘Discreditable Conduct’.

Ottawa Police Given Pfizer Documents in May 2022

During a May 12, 2022, compelled interview with Sgt. Jason Arbuthnot of Professional Standards Unit (‘PSU’), Detective Grus submitted her entire file of evidence, including Pfizer documents that revealed the manufacturer and health authorities had documented vaccine-related harms and deaths over a year earlier.

During her statement Grus further informed PSU that the clinical trials were incomplete and would not conclude until 2024. These trials explicitly excluded pregnant women and breastfeeding infants – rendering the injections experimental and untested for this vulnerable population.

Detective Grus explained that Pfizer sought to suppress its clinical trial results for 75 years, but a U.S. court ordered the reports released. The documents revealed ten pages of known side effects, including myocarditis, hepatitis, and multi-inflammatory syndrome.

She stated that knowing these serious side effects exist and suppressing or using misleading information to encourage people to get vaccinated is criminal negligence.

Neglect of Duty: Sergeant Jason Arbuthnot

Sergeant Arbuthnot didn’t follow up on the evidence. Instead he placed it in a drawer never to be looked at again. His failure to act on this evidence represents not just neglect, but a willful disregard for public welfare and justice.

Now, three years later, a growing body of reports and peer-reviewed studies validate the link between mandated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and serious injuries and deaths.

Yet, the Ottawa Police persists in prosecuting and persecuting Detective Helen Grus, a committed officer who acted in defense of vulnerable mothers and their infants. Despite fulfilling her sworn duty, uncovering the truth, and working to safeguard public welfare, her actions have been met with systemic retaliation—an alarming reflection of an institution prioritizing self-preservation and coverups over accountability.

1 2 3 … 22