The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) is alleging Alberta's Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw withheld information from the courts and is requesting further cross-examination. .The new court application follows a lengthy constitutional challenge launched by the JCCF in December 2020 of Hinshaw's lockdown orders..READ MORE: Justice Centre sues province of Alberta over COVID restrictions.The application was filed jointly by lawyer Jeffery Rath of Rath & Company, who represents claimant Rebecca Ingram, and the JCCF, with the help of civil liberties lawyers Leighton Grey and Natalie Johnson, who were contracted by the JCCF to represent Heights Baptist Church, Northside Baptist Church, Erin Blacklaws, and Tory Tanner. .The application requested the court compel Hinshaw to re-attend for further cross-examination alleging she "knowingly withheld evidence from the court regarding her knowledge of the dangers and harms of forced masking on children," said the JCCF in a press release. .It also requests Hinshaw be required to produce all her recommendations to the Alberta government throughout the pandemic and answer all questions previously objected to by Crown counsel based on cabinet confidentiality. .Although Rath and Grey in April completed their cross-examination of Hinshaw in July, documents originally deemed confidential by the Jason Kenney government were ordered released by Justice Grant Dunlop in another court case. Those documents included a memo from the premier's officer that was sent to Hinshaw indicating a "lack of evidence to justify forced public masking" and suggested such orders posed a danger to children. .READ MORE: Alberta judge orders release of 'confidential' government docs from Hinshaw.The application indicates the memo states there is "insufficient direct evidence of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing transmission of COVID in educational settings," and that "there are harmful effects of mask wearing on children." .Johnson told the Western Standard she applauds Dunlop's ruling which compelled the government and Hinshaw to release what was originally deemed confidential documents. ."Justice Dunlop was not buying their public-interest immunity cabinet confidentiality situation because he ruled Dr. Hinshaw is not a member of cabinet; she's a doctor with professional obligations and disclosure of her information is important because of those obligations." .Johnson said when those documents were ordered released, they were compared to the evidence in their Ingram case and found "many inconsistencies and a reason for us to bring this back before the court.".READ MORE: WATCH: Calgary lawyer Jeff Rath reviews Dr. Hinshaw’s ‘questionable’ testimony.Although the Ingram case is not complete and a ruling from Justice Barbara Romaine has yet to be received, all the evidence has been heard and closing arguments filed..READ MORE: EXCLUSIVE WATCH: Calgary lawyer shares closing arguments for Judicial Review of COVID lockdowns."So we are telling [Justice Romaine] there is a reason to open up our case based on this revealing information that proves there's inconsistencies and a lack of candor in Dr. Hinshaw's evidence, Alberta's evidence, and particularly as it relates to Sec. 1 of the Charter because in our case, the government admitted they'd breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our clients," said Johnson. .Johnson said the onus is now on the government to prove its actions were justified "which requires a careful weighing of risk and benefit." .In the unrelated court case, the released documents showed Alberta Health was provided three approaches to ease the healthcare measures for cabinet consideration. .Each approach — labelled Option 1, 2, and 3 — included a three-step process to easing the health restrictions, and listed several pros and cons for each. The cabinet committee was to select from the three options. .According to the cabinet committee minutes dated February 8, it was concluded most committee members were in favour of Option 2 to ease public health measures, using a phased approach.."The documents from this other case revealed the government did not choose the least restrictive means to impose restrictions as they picked a politically expedient one, which calls into question all of the evidence from [the government] in our case." .READ MORE: Released 'confidential' documents show decisions behind easing COVID restrictions in Alberta.She said the documents also reveal the government had information available to them that showed masking was harmful and not efficacious, "but they didn't produce it or disclose it in our case." .Johnson said it is her opinion the scientific advisory group Hinshaw was relying on was not competent and "were not providing her the information on the scientific studies" that were published and accessible by several credible medical journals. .In April, Hinshaw was specifically asked whether she was aware of any harms posed by mask wearing for children in elementary school settings. .The JCCF said Hinshaw answered the question "in the negative," and alleges her answers to this line of questions were false as she "failed to disclose her knowledge of the harms to children from forced masking." .The application also asserts it is "clear that there were a significant number of studies in Dr. Hinshaw's possession" suggesting she would have been aware of the harms to children from forced masking, orders she brought forward for the general public as well as in all Alberta schools. .During the Ingram case cross-examination of Hinshaw lead by Rath and Grey, those documents were not disclosed. ."Dr. Hinshaw needs to be re-examined under oath," said Rath. "That memo contradicts evidence she gave in our case so credibility needs to be taken into account for all her orders." .Rath said Hinshaw was more so offering cabinet an "a la carte menu of options to choose from" rather than "exercising her duties as a medical doctor for all Albertans." .“The Canadian provinces and the country as a whole have been under authoritarian-style rule by health officials for over two years”, said JCCF Lawyer Marty Moore..“The ongoing scrutiny by the courts of the constitutionality of health official’s unprecedented power remains of the utmost importance to Canadians.”.A court hearing has been scheduled for Friday to argue for a reopening of the case based on the new evidence gathered.
