Skelly was eventually arrested for reopening his restaurant but stood firm in his conviction that small businesses were not a threat to public health, according to Public Health Ontario’s data showing that only 1.3% of cases that led to Ontario Covid-19 outbreaks were caused by restaurants.

Shared from

Dr Mark Trozzi Affidavit


February 2021

Adamson Barbecue owner Adam Skelly held a press conference this past weekend, inviting both the traditional, establishment media as well as independent media to attend.

Having extensively covered Adamson Barbecue’s defiance of Ontario (and Toronto) lockdown orders back in late November, Rebel News was on the scene to hear what Skelly had to say.

In this lengthy press conference, Skelly tells his side of the story, laying out the road ahead as he intends to challenge the constitutionality of the charges issued against him.

Shared from


Scroll to timeline 12:50 the slider link for the interview.


So a lawsuit was brought against the Canadian government in Ontario, on behalf of Adam Skelly and his company Adamson Barbecue, disputing the painful, harmful, and medically useless coronadoom lockdowns. I was one of the several authorities on Skelly’s side, providing affidavits and other support.

The government provided one authority, a physician who really couldn’t bring himself to answer any of our evidence—the arguments of which regular readers will be well familiar.

The trial was scheduled for last Monday. It was finally to be answered whether the government had authority to punish its citizens in a vain effort to keep them healthy—thou shalt not be sick by this list of designated diseases!—or whether the government had made their case that the medical evidence made lockdowns worth it.

The government strung things out, delaying as much as possible. Then, just as the trial was to begin—conducted over an overloaded Zoom, which even counsel could not log onto—the judge declared, “Oops. I don’t have jurisdiction to hear this.”

Which, we reluctantly admit, is a brilliant political move. The judge mumbled some technicality, which those who benefited from the lockdowns thought was wonderful, as it allowed everybody to avoid answering the evidence.

The entire thing is explained well here: The Richard Syrett Show – June 28, 2021 – Adam Skelly Constitutional Challenge.

Chris Weisdorf, one of the advisors on our side, says he did this radio show “with Karen Selick, former litigation director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. Listen at 0:50 for the intro and then from 12:50 on for the interview.”

The National Post has a decent write up: ‘BBQ Rebellion’ gets turned away from court, delaying face-off over COVID lockdowns

The judicial fizzle came as Skelly and his supporters were expecting a titanic face-off during two days of scheduled court time, for which they prepared a full-throttle attack on lockdowns, masks, COVID testing, hospitalization statistics and the danger of the virus itself.

Skelly had put his food business on the back burner for six months to prepare for the constitutional challenge, supported by a war chest of more than $300,000 raised through a GoFundMe campaign…

Skelly became an early focus of anti-lockdown anger. He maintains the order and the government’s response were unjustified and unconstitutional…

Leading up to Monday’s hearing, Adamson Barbeque’s website was pushing his legal case along with his brisket and short ribs, a court challenge branded the “the BBQ Rebellion.”

“My lawsuit has very little to do with my restaurant. It is a constitutional question of the Reopening Ontario Act, and the evidence (or lack thereof) used to justify it,” Skelly said in a written statement prior to the hearing’s start….

Pre-trial procedures, including judicial case management conferences and the examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses, went ahead arguing the wider constitutional issues without any complaint or objection from the province, he said…

Judge Jasmine Akbarali, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, briefly adjourned court to deliberate before returning with her verdict.

“I regret to say, I do not think I have the jurisdiction to proceed to deal with these issues on their merits today,” she said…

Supporters of Skelly seemed upset with the ruling.

“Bullshit,” said one to the court. “This is injustice,” said another. The hearing was terminated just as many others were unmuting their microphones.

This isn’t, as the saying goes, the end.

Shared from

Lawsuit link

Another good story

Risk It for The Brisket

The Barbecue Rebellion & The Great Reject

Jesse Berger Mar 26· 13 min read

O Canada… For the past year, all levels of government have imposed seemingly indefinite and unnecessarily harsh restrictions on Canadians in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, unjustly violating our Charter of Rights. In the name of public health, they have withdrawn permission for people to pursue economic, social, and physical activities without evidence, without due process, and most importantly, without our consent.

Canadians have generally been compliant with government’s social conditioning efforts (such as masks, distancing, lockdowns, asymptomatic testing, etc.), but weariness is setting in as the façade supporting the need for these oppressive measures melts away. The country has been subject to broken promises from politicians, broken models from public health officials, government staff that shamelessly break the rules, and to top it off, our nation is financially broke thanks to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s debt-fuelled spending spree.

Canadians deserve better, but we won’t get it unless we send a strong message back to government. We need to remind them of the simple truth: they work for us, not the other way around. When public servants cross the line, instituting policies that crush our livelihoodsmake us miserable, and harm our health, then it is our duty to push back by holding their feet to the fire.

As an experienced pitmaster, Adam Skelly, the owner of Adamson Barbecue, is no stranger to working with hot coals. Prior to the pandemic he spent his days grilling delicious meats for his customers, but now his attention has shifted towards roasting the turkeys occupying our public offices. For those unfamiliar with his story, here are some of the highlights:

The Adamson Barbecue Rebellion is about a lot more than a license to grill. It’s about avoiding the moral decay plaguing our society. It’s about demonstrating the incompetence of our public servants. It’s about exposing a complicit media that is failing to hold those same authorities to account. It’s about the fundamental human rights of all Canadians. By engaging in civil disobedience (nonviolent protest against unjust laws), Skelly has taken a stand for the principles that make Canada strong and free, defending them so we can get back to creating a brighter future… together.

The first pillar of Skelly’s case deals with Canada’s panicked response to the pandemic. What went unmentioned by our national media when the hysteria began was that Parliament never bothered to invoke the Emergencies Act at the Federal level. This Act is meant to be used during “national emergencies,” such as Covid-19, and contains language instructing the legislature to take the rights of Canadians into consideration. However, Ottawa never declared an emergency. Instead, they shifted the onus of implementing experimental public health measures onto the provinces, circumventing due process and disregarding our rights, taking the WHO’s declaration of a global pandemic at face value.

This is problematic on two fronts. First, the WHO is not a sanctioned governing body in Canada, and as such, has no basis upon which to initiate or propose laws to provinces, and certainly not without consent from Parliament. If our courts are willing to admit that the WHO, not our legislature, determines the laws governing our land, then for all intents and purposes Canada would no longer be an independent nation. Second, as a country serving at the behest of the WHO, Canadians would be taking instruction from an organization whose moral compass is in question. Currently, the WHO is facing a class-action lawsuit by a renowned group of German doctors for misleading the world over Covid-19, and its Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is under investigation for genocide by the International Criminal Court in The Hague after a complaint was lodged by Nobel peace prize nominee, David Steinman.

From the perspective of Justin Trudeau, this may actually be the preferred outcome given his well-documented affinity for tyrannyThe Prime Minister is also openly enamoured with China, the authoritarian country at the centre of this crisis, which has demonstrated outsized influence over WHO policies. The fact that Trudeau and his cabinet refused to acknowledge the genocide being committed by China against one million Uighurs in the western Xinjiang province, even when our legislature unanimously agreed on it, further supports the notion that our Prime Minister would rather bend the knee to China than stand up for true north Canadian values. It’s as if this dystopian nightmare we’ve been enduring is Trudeau’s moist dream come true.

If through some twisted logic the court finds these unprecedented interventions in our legislature to be justified, then we move onto the second pillar of the case. Under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, Skelly will challenge whether or not provinces have the constitutional authority, based purely on preventative concerns, to suspend rights and freedoms with criminal law sanctions and dire emotional, financial, and health consequences.

Covid-19 is unquestionably a civil issue, not a criminal one. Punishing people for deciding on their own level of risk tolerance relating to prevention is an appalling misapplication of law because transmitting a communicable disease through normal behaviour is not a crime. If it were, then why wasn’t anyone penalized during the SARS or H1N1 scares? This is not to say that government doesn’t have a role in health promotion and encouraging preventative measures, but the choice about how to act on that information must always belong to the individual. Without choice, our lives would be ruled by busybody bureaucrats and their conflicted intereststheir abuses of powertheir unethical self-dealings, and their over-inflated sense of self-importance.

High on their own hubris, their policies are putting honest Canadians at a disadvantage through economic repression. They’ve been getting away with it because they have fiat privilege — a term referring to the unfair financial benefits enjoyed by government as a result of its ability to print money. Exemplifying this inequity are the 117,000 federal employees that were granted full paid leave during the pandemic, compared to their less privileged counterparts in Ontario’s private sector, where more than 1.1 million employees were either given pink slips or had their paid hours reduced, leading to the single worst job loss figure in provincial history. Given that the private sector cannot dump their exorbitant bills on taxpayers like our fiat-entitled bureaucracy does, small businesses were forced to take on $135 billion in additional debt as they scrambled for inadequate relief packages and navigated rules that are both unfair and unclear. Unsurprisingly, this caused the Canadian economy to shrink by a record 5.4%.

Beyond economics, these restrictions are also taking a significant toll on our personal well-being. At this point, one would either have to be wilfully ignorant — or be a public servant — to believe that government’s response to Covid-19 (not to be confused with the virus itself) has not had any meaningful negative emotional or health consequences. Given the lack of empathy coming from authorities about the harms they are inflicting, one could be forgiven for thinking that wilful ignorance might actually be a requirement of holding office today.

Despite being keenly aware that those living at long-term care (LTC) facilities were among the most vulnerable to Covid-19, Ontario rejected proposals that could have protected LTC residents. Why? Apparently they were “too expensive.” This contrasts sharply with the “whatever it takes” attitude touted by Ontario Premiere Doug Ford at the onset of the pandemic. Furthermore, the recent statement by Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, that public health “failed the most vulnerable” is a clear admission of her agency’s negligence.

Across Canada, public health restrictions have led to untold heartbreak. Opioid-related deaths surged to record levels. There’s been a notable increase in domestic violenceAnxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts all on the rise. According to SickKids Hospital, there is an unprecedented amount of eating disorders among children and youth hospitalizations for attempted suicide have tripled. As noted by Statistics Canada, “the number of excess deaths has been higher than the number of deaths due to COVID-19, and these deaths are affecting younger populations, suggesting that other factors, including possible indirect impacts of the pandemic, are now at play.” In other words, the emergency measures appear to be causing more death than the pandemic itself.

The brutality of these restrictions was even acknowledged in a report by Ontario Public Health, which said that “a large number of studies on the multiple negative impacts of public health measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic on children and families have been published. The magnitude and number of negative impacts appears to be increasing as well. The stay-at-home orders and school closures enacted in response to COVID-19 are unprecedented in their breadth and duration and this presents a risk to children and families for various physical and mental health problems.”

That sobering statement raises some important questions — why bother with public health’s untested “cure” when the pain and suffering it’s causing is worse than the disease itself? Do officials even realize how devastating their policies are? If not, how can they be so oblivious? If yes, why haven’t they reversed course? No matter the answer, these issues cannot continue to be ignored.

On occasion, members of Parliament and the press have attempted to elicit concrete data from public health officials about the effectiveness of their restrictions on Canadians, but they have not been forthcoming. Neither was the Ontario Medical Association, which made an admission through omission about the lack of scientific evidence in Canada, when they cited China and South Korea as proof of lockdown success in a recent summary decision against one of their critics. In the absence of demonstrable benefits for Canadians, Skelly’s legal team should flatten the province on this challenge. However, in the event that this argument contains some fatal flaw, there is a third and final pillar — The Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the foundation of what it means to be Canadian.

If need be, Skelly will fall back on Sections 2, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the Charter. Without recounting every word, these effectively guarantee Canadian citizens the rights to free speech; to congregate with whomever they choose; to not be deprived of their property; to not have their mobility restricted; and to receive equal protection and benefit under the law without prejudice.

Currently, we are witnessing an unconscionable erosion of free speech here in Canada and elsewhere around the world. Governments and Big Tech companies have unilaterally decided that they have a monopoly on truth. Under this pretense, the free flow of information is being restricted, putting politics above our health interests and starting the world down a slippery slope that naturally leads to the repression of ideas, culture, critical-thinking, and more. Although some doctors have been speaking out about medical censorship and the harms of lockdowns in Ontario, our institutions have failed to engage in honest debate and discussion with them, further entrenching the dominant narrative. This has emboldened some officials to overstep their bounds, like Dr. David Fisman, an unelected member of Ontario’s Covid-19 Science Table who openly called for a journalist to be censored, even though the issue raised by that journalist ultimately led Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown to admit a “policy mistake.”

It would be foolish to have blind faith in government or to believe that they are somehow beyond reproach because they “serve the public.” If anything, as stewards of the public trust, they should be held to the highest standards of accountability and transparency. Normally we rely on media to challenge them and offer impartial insights, but Canadians are increasingly realizing that the establishment press is not holding up its end of the bargain. And it’s probably not a coincidence that viewers are feeling misled while free speech is suffering. To regain both its credibility and its audience, the media will need to engage in candid conversation with ideological opposition. Otherwise, institutions will keep losing the people’s trust, and our fragmented social fabric will continue to tear.

Exacerbating this problem is the degradation of our interpersonal relationships. Public health restrictions have limited how we move around and get together, withdrawing us from one another. Moreover, they blatantly violate our rights by limiting the amount of people that can attend gatheringslimiting the reasons that people can leave their homeslimiting the destinations international travellers can visit, and as was the case in Quebec, limiting the permissible timing for leaving one’s home due to curfews.

At one point this winter, in a display of utter contempt towards its residents, Toronto Police “cracked down” on “illegal” outdoor ice hockey and tobogganing. Meanwhile in Alberta, for the heinous “crime” of holding peaceful Church services, Pastor James Coates was held in maximum-security prison despite voluntarily turning himself in to authorities. And then there was Canada’s so-called “top doctor,” Dr. Theresa Tam, who went so far as to recommend using masks during sexual activities. With no boundaries on their willingness to interfere in our private lives, there can be no legitimacy to their authority.

This lack of restraint has also affected how people are treated under the law. Early on in the pandemic when the “essential” label was applied to certain industries, it unjustly elevated the legal status of some groups over others, introducing a new variant of discrimination to society. And if it wasn’t bad enough that the non-essential class is already struggling against a socio-economic divide, now the government is plotting another unethical divide in the form of vaccine passports. Despite Prime Minister Trudeau saying as late as January that there were “no plans” for these passports, by early March Health Minister Patty Hajdu had engaged in “very live” discussions about them with her G7 counterparts. Vaccine passports are despicable because they medically profile people, segregating us into separate categories in the eyes of the law. To put it bluntly, this idea is devoid of all decency, and it represents a step backwards for humanity.

This is not the first time in human history that a scientific dictatorship, or “biocracy,” has overwhelmed morality and controlled a culture, but our episode doesn’t have to end in tragedy. We still have an opportunity to stop this madness and forge a more compassionate path forward. Concerned citizens across this great land, and everywhere around the world, are keenly aware that there is more to this pandemic — and government’s draconian reaction to it — than meets the eye. When Skelly’s trial gets underway in June, “the science” and law behind it all will take centre stage, raising some difficult questions. What will we discover? Will it be revealed that our government broke the law by circumventing due process? Will the emergency measures somehow be proven to have been beneficial to our health? Will the violation of our rights be justified? Will the evidence supporting the pandemic itself hold up under scrutiny?

Adam Skelly may not be the hero we wanted to fight this battle, but he’s the hero we’ve got. He may not have done everything strictly by the book and he may not be politically correct, but it’s not like he’s competing on a level playing field. In standing his ground to fight for all of our rights, his moral compass is pointing in the right direction. Can we honestly say the same about our authorities? We have seen police make “unlawful arrests,” politicians make “policy mistakes,” a judge commit an “error of law,” and public health restrictions have led to an increasing “magnitude and number of negative impacts.” If the power to govern is meant to be justly derived from the consent of the governed, then as things stand, our consent must be withdrawn, because this government’s actions are no longer justified.

The time has come for Canadians to reject the immoral and illegitimate use of government power; to reject the quasi-science of politicized health mandates; to reject opaque policy formulation and decision-making practices; to reject the double-standards and two-faced rhetoric of public servants; to reject politicians who value their careers over their constituency; to reject the wasteful and ineffective spending of taxpayer money; to reject the fear and insecurity of cancel culture; to reject the deployment of police as a tool for intimidation rather than to protect the peace; to reject the prioritization of an indiscernible “common good” over the rights of all individuals; to reject unwarranted invasions into peoples’ private affairs and associations; to reject censorship and conformity over freedom of expression and open debate; and to reject those responsible for undermining our national heritage and sovereignty.

As Canadians, we like to think of ourselves as a kind-hearted people, but true compassion doesn’t come from blind compliance. It is a learned behaviour, developed through critical thinking and shared activities, emotions, experiences, and ideas; through the genuine human connections that enrich our lives. If we are to live up to our humanitarian reputation, we need to reject the senseless restrictions forced upon us in the name of Covid-19, and we must assert our individual freedoms so that we can truly discover the most valuable ways to serve one another.

Thanks to the Barbecue Rebellion, we can turn the tide. It may very well be the most comprehensive legal challenge against the unethical, unconstitutional, and destructive emergency powers enacted in any province, and its outcome can change the narrative for the whole country. Let’s do the right thing and restore our nation’s righteous roots. Let’s keep our land glorious and free. O Canada, this is the Rebellion for all people — we stand on guard for thee.

Shared from

An interesting twitter feed

Visits :3943
Please Share

By admin