Since March 2020, my questions regarding COIVD were not being answered by the SHA, nor the Minister of Health, nor the Premier, and especially not by my MLA, Dustin Duncan. Dustin Duncan was a former Minister of Health and was a man who asked me to be his Sask Party campaign manager for at least two elections.

What I found disconcerting, our media, was not asking these same or similar questions.

Wishing to hold our government and local authorities accountable, late into December 2021, I began issuing freedom of information requests. But it seems anything and all things concerning COVID those requests have been a battle.

After they lifted public health orders, my questions persisted. Conversations with certain individuals, whether they be the public or government bureaucrats, I am told COVID is over, get over it! But it’s not over. I will share more on that later.

Also, and here's the rub, we never suffered through a pandemic. Real-world data—consisting of government statistics and scientific studies confirm this realization. I won't get into the specifics, but I can assure everyone that information is readily available. 

The following bullet points summarize what I've learned (and adds to that real-world data) thus far from my freedom of information requests.

•              HF-2021-02-G—page 94 - school boards were agents of the SHA. “On behalf of the Ministry of Health and the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) we are inviting our school (K-12) and education partners to attend an information session on an opportunity to start rapid antigen testing as one more way to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

                FOIP HF2021-03-G—page 633, “The Saskatchewan Health Authority has begun local COVID-19 vaccine planning for children aged 12 and up. Although announced that vaccine would be delivered in the schools, the decision to host vaccine clinics outside of school hours at community-based clinics was made. This will allow parents to be in attendance, if they choose, when their child receives their COVID-19 vaccination.”

                FOIP HF2022-03-RS—page 63, “agents of the SHA? If so, what supports will SHA provide?”

•              DISREGARD DECISION 040-2022, 041-2022, 042-2022, Holy Family Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 140, March 18, 2022 - Holy Family RCSSD, applied to the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to have my LAFOIP disregarded. Their argument—I was being vexatious. Also, within their petition to the OIPC, this Christian school board misrepresented a conversation between me and Holy Family’s Education Director. They would rather disparage a former school board trustee than provide COVID information.

• ED22-21G, asked for COVID communication records between Holy Family RCSSD and the Ministry of Education. in a recorded phone call with the Ministry of Education, they informed me there were 700 pages. Yet, we, the Court and I, were provided 452 pages, and 88 of those pages were redacted. There are discrepancies within those 452 pages that indicate missing documents; primarily broken email chains.

• ED22-21G, like all other freedom of information requests, Authorities count on a requester to accept their response without question. They will also obfuscate and intimidate.

For example, in their decision, REVIEW REPORT 217-2022, Ministry of Education, July 13, 2023, the OIPC ruled in my favour. Yet the Ministry of Education refused to provide records.

Approximately eleven days before our November 7, 2023, King’s Court appearance, the Ministry of Education, knowing they held a weak leg to stand on, released most of the refused records and asked for costs. Once I provided case law, they apologized and withdrew costs.

We await the Court’s (KBG-WB-00017-2023) decision.

•              HF-2021-02-G, HG2021-03-G, HF2022-03-G, school boards blindly followed government and disregarded the DNA Act and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

•              ATIR 2022-05—City of Weyburn blindly followed government and disregarded the DNA Act and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was no critical thinking on anyone’s part in questioning the validity of the mandates.

•              ED04-22G—asked the Ministry of Education for cost/benefit analysis records. NO RECORDS EXIST.

•              HE125-22—asked the Ministry of Health for cost/benefit analysis records. NO RECORDS EXIST.

•              HE103-24G—asked the Chief Medical Officer for cost/benefit analysis records. NO RECORDS EXIST.

•              ECFOI-671-21—asked the Premier’s office for cost/benefit analysis records. Shortly after submitting my request, I received a phone call from the Premier’s office asking for clarification of the records I wanted. After a 45-minute phone conversation, she assured me that she understood what I sought. A week later, the Premier’s office provided me a cost estimate of $388,812.96. Their estimate had nothing to do with what I asked. I challenged their estimate; their final reply was NO RECORDS EXIST.

I concluded that none of the ministries conducted a cost/benefit analysis before issuing public health orders and removing our rights and freedoms.

•              Dustin Duncan, MLA for Weyburn-Big Muddy, (former Minister of Health and former Minister of Education) refused to provide COVID vaccination passport, including booster shots, up to Dec 1, 2023 records. His final email stated it was personal information. This FOIP is now in the hands of the OIPC. This is the response I wanted.

My first FOIP request asking for Vaccination Passport records I sent through the Ministry of Crown Investments; their response was NO RECORDS EXIST.

•              HE97-24P, Former Minister of Health, Paul Merriman also considers Vaccination passports records as personal information. This FOIP is now in the hands of the OIPC.

•              Sadiq Shahab, Chief Medical Officer, refused to reply to a FOIP request seeking his Vaccination Passport records. This FOIP is now in the hands of the OIPC.

I sent a similar request through the Ministry of Health rather than directly to Dr. Shahab. The Ministry of Health’s response was NO RECORDS EXIST.

•              ECFOI-720-23, also requested a copy of Premier Scott Moe’s COVID vaccination records, including booster shots, up to December 23, 2023. The Premier claims NO RECORDS EXIST.

                I am willing to go take these Vaccination Passport requests to King’s Court. My goal is to have the Court rule in favour of the Respondents. Once the court renders a decision, it sets precedence and provides case law preventing future use of vaccination passports.

You can draw your own conclusions regarding Vaccination passports, and the government’s coercion to vaccinate.

•              Access to Information Request 22-23-011—asked the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) for records concerning PCR testing, most notably records of accuracy. I received 9 binders of information, but no records of accuracy.

• Access to Information Request 22-23-011, within Binder 1, page 10, the SHA decided to use PCR testing procedures lacking specificity and sensitivity data. Their own lab informed the powers at be that this test was inappropriate, and they should not use only the PCR test until considering additional diagnostic and clinical factors.

• Access to Information Request 22-23-011—SHA used a commercially provided kit and precisely followed the directions therein with great precision. However, Saskatchewan Health clearly states (see Binder 1 1-15 page 10 “This assay has undergone limited in-house validation, as well as more extensive validation by the institute which developed the assay (BCCBC). Sensitivity has not been determined.” In other words, the SHA had no idea how well the test performed, what the false positive and false negative rate actually was, but relied entirely on the commercial entity that produced the test.

• Access to Information Request 22-23-011, the SHA did not validate positive COVID test samples as being viral (Binder 1 page 10) and without regard for the patients’ rights and liberties, informed their patients that they tested positive for COVID-19, or variants, and that they must quarantine.

•              Access to Information Request 22-23-011—SHA refuses to release PCR records of accuracy. Part of their briefs before King’s Court, they argued my terminology (records of accuracy) was not “defined phrase that has meaning within the field of Laboratory Medicine.” The trouble is, during the year and half seeking those records, the SHA did not seek clarification.

Note: I used “PCR records of accuracy” by design. It was all encompassing, it reflects the standard deviation of the equipment (something every good lab tech should be aware of), as well as taking into consideration false positives, false negatives, and any other considerations.  

Concerning PCR record of accuracy, OIPC stated in their REVIEW REPORT 132-2023, Saskatchewan Health Authority, October 5, 2023,

[58] Unfortunately, SHA has provided very little to my office to support that it was not able to provide responsive records. I would expect something more than the one sentence explanation that the “information is not found in a record that can be produced using the normal computer hardware and software of the SHA”. In addition, SHA did not indicate if the information exists in raw format that can be produced (i.e., does not have to be neatly on one spreadsheet but exists in various ways in other existing records). Also, it is unclear what further steps were taken to locate responsive records for the Applicant after the SHA representative talked to the “Operational Area”. There are just too few details here for a finding in favour of SHA.

•              Access to Information Request 22-23-011 — On February 13, 2024, I self-represented in King’s Court (KBG-WB-00020-2023). The thrust of my argument relied on LAFOIP’S Section 18—Public Interest. Public interest allows exemptions in matters of health and safety.

SHA chose to attack my character rather than dispute my arguments concerning case law and science. The SHA’s briefs colored me as misinformed and scandalous.

King’s Court reserved her decision on February 13, 2024. I do not expect a ruling until after the provincial election in the fall of 2024.

•              The SHA, no matter at what level, does not like to be questioned, or have their authority diminished. My diary concerning the SHA is lengthy, and I will simply say our relationship is contentious.

• HE123-22G–asked for COVID vaccination adverse events. This was my most damaging FOIP, and it ended up going international in the media. During the year of 2021, seven Saskatchewan people died from a COVID vaccine adverse event. 300 others suffered a severe adverse event and were told to get a second shot. Many health professionals and scientists believe this document to be under-reported. i.e., Carol Pearce tragedy.

•              HE104-24G - I asked for records that sought, “Provide the criteria the Chief Medical Officer used to define a "COVID death," or a death by any of SARS-CoV-2 variants.” The official response from the Chief Medical Office was NO RECORDS EXIST.

• HE41-23G, (Applicant Joe Lockhart) and the subsequent review of REVIEW REPORT 063-2023 Ministry of Health October 17, 2023. Mr. Lockhart asked, “Please send me information about vaccine adverse effects for the province between January 1 2021 to August 31st 2022 Or whenever you have up to August. Preferably in a spread sheet for easy filtering.”  Mr. Lockhart should have received similar records as that of HE123-22G, instead the Ministry of Health responded with 141 pages of white. The Ministry redacted the entire document. Mr. Lockhart had his day in court is February 22, 2024.

• HE96-24G mirrored HE123-22G, but I asked for records up to December 2023. On January 25, 2024, I received a letter asking for an extension. We will see how much of my request will be redacted. Will they choose to redact the entire document like HE41-23G?

•              On March 4, 2022, Sask Alliance asked for records that concerned 12 topics relating to COVID. On May 4, 2022, they received a formal fee estimate of $1,991,400.00 to obtain the requested digital records. [1]

•              ED18-23 piggybacked request ED09-21G. Applicant sought, “I am requesting the scientific information you have which led to the decision to mask the school children. I am especially interested in knowing how masks have been extensively tested to prove beyond doubt that breathing carbon dioxide does not harm a developing brain. I’m sure you have documentation to support your decision to put masks on children...an action that two years ago would have been considered child abuse. I would also like the information that supports masking to be effective enough to counteract the negative effects of wearing one ie: staph infection, impetigo, lung infection, not to mention the psychological effects.”  I do not know who the Applicant was.

Within those records provided, the Chief Medical Officer stated on page 89:

“The evidence of the additional benefits of mask use in indoor spaces especially in the face of increasing community transmission continues to increase so in my professional opinion mask use should be promoted within classrooms as well as much as possible and is playing a critical role along with other layers in preventing outbreaks”

Reading through the information provided to me, the Ministry of Education did not satisfactorily provide the requested records. It mostly contained fluff. Because this was a piggybacked FOIP request, I did not pursue with the OIPC.

• HE105-24G—requested records that asked, “Provide citations of scientific studies the Chief Medical Officer studied/considered that suggested/proved that such measures of masking; social distancing, and/or removing our personal rights and freedoms, WOULD flatten the "COVID" curve.”  The official response from the Chief Medical Officer was NO RECORDS EXIST.

• Access to Information Request 23-24-01014—I asked the SHA to provide policies and procedures for DNA chain of custody. They claim NO RECORDS EXIST. This matter is now in the hands of the OIPC for review.

• ECFOI-671-21, ED22-21G, and the Sask Alliance FOIP, shows that the freedom of information process can be lengthy and very expensive.

• Section 7 of the FOIP Act and LAFOIP Act are very beneficial. A response is required within 30 days. A Requestor can save thousands of dollars (if the records are numerous) with a contravention of even one day by the authority.

I could have provided more bullet points. These simply highlight what I’ve learned.

The statement NO RECORDS EXIST, I believe is the use of technicality. The Authorities have the records in a raw format, but do not wish to create a record. Case law compels Authorities to create records from raw data. Even more so with public interest for health and safety as specified in the FOIP Act (Section 19) and LAFOIP Act (Section 18). They are trying to deflect rather than create a record that places them in a more unfavorable situation.  

It is evident the SaskParty wishes to suppress any and all information pertaining to COVID.

As of February 24, 2024, I have authored 42 requests. I have also drafted FOIP requests for others, including a couple of notable doctors. My freedom of information requests will continue until all those involved with this contrived pandemic are held accountable.

As I mentioned in my opening paragraphs, COVID is far from over. Because of the fraudulent pandemic, and coercion to vaccinate, adverse events continue to occur and many instances, death is a result. Litigation is only in the infancy stage.

As more information comes to light (including the freedom of information process), and the masses begin to wake up, hopefully we will see many of these policy initiators (public and private) taken to court for the evil they’ve done.