Each year Whistleblowing Canada publishes a report on our accomplishments for the year.

- Click here for  Year in Review for 2023

- Click here for Year in Review for 2024

Welcome to the Ontario Lawyers Directory for Whistleblowers

This directory is your essential resource for finding legal support. Each listing provides:

• Counsel Availability: Indicates the lawyer is willing to take on whistleblower cases.
• Pro Bono Consult & Case: Shows if the lawyer offers a free initial consultation and/or case representation.
• Contact Information: Includes phone numbers and email addresses for easy communication.
• Description of practice: Includes the special area the lawyer practices in.

How to Use the Directory

Browse the directory to find a lawyer who meets your needs. Each entry is updated regularly for accuracy.

If you have questions or need assistance, please reach out to us.

The recent CTV -W5 documentary “The Problem with Pills” illustrates in horrific detail, what happens when whistleblowers – often experts in their fields - are ignored and not protected, laws to protect the public are not upheld and policies are diverted from the public interest towards a specific interest.  These actions have led us to a place where 22,000 or more innocent Canadians die a year from adverse reactions to legally prescribed drugs.

One W5 participant noted Health Canada had “backed down” from enforcing the many extra powers the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law) gave it. The Food and Drugs Act and Vanessa’s Law are part of criminal law in Canada.  And Health Canada does not uphold it?  The main message from the participants was – do not trust Health Canada to protect you from unsafe drugs.  How have we arrived at such a dark place? 

Here’s how.  In 1996 the top medical regulator from Health Canada, Dr. Michele Brill-Edwards, tried to warn us that not enforcing the law, deregulation and shifts in priorities taking place at the Department were leading to more deaths from unsafe drugs.  She sacrificed her career to speak out in the interest of public safety but her message went unheeded.   Many knowledgeable others have also tried to warn us:

• The Auditor General - warned us and Parliament a number of times about the deficiencies in the regulatory body – Health Canada- which included funding and staff cuts among many others.
• Researchers - starting in 2000 with Wiktorowicz’s work , Shifting priorities at the Health Protection Branch: challenges to the regulatory process. Also, there is the work of 16 researchers in the Fall 2013 issue of The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics on the topic of Institutional Corruption and the Pharmaceutical Policy.  They clarify how certain practices have corrupted medical research, the production of medical knowledge, the practice of medicine, drug safety and Regulatory oversight of pharmaceutical marketing.
• The Media – alerted us over the years with stories of unsafe drugs.

Almost 25 years later, the media and W5 are warning us again, about needless Canadian deaths from unsafe drugs.

The reasons for this are:

• Health Canada’s failure to uphold the law. This started long before the 2014 Vanessa’s Law which according to some really gave the regulator no new powers it didn’t already have.  The problem was not the law but the failure to enforce it – a problem of dysfunctional culture.  The only real reform was to increase the penalties to drug companies for non-compliance.
• The “shift in priorities”.  With deregulation, came a shift in priorities that undermined the intent of the Food and Drugs Act – “to protect the public from health hazard” - and the role of Health Canada for regulating public safety under the Act.   Roles and responsibilities shifted from an approach where Health Canada had comprehensive responsibility for public health protection, to one where responsibilities were now dispersed among government, industry, academia, and consumers themselves.  The pharmaceutical industry was now the main client especially after Health Canada introduced fees to review drugs for marketing approval. 
• The development of a systemic dependency and the policy of deregulation. All of the above flowed from the development of a systemic dependency that undermined our political and regulatory institutions and diverted them from their purpose and their ability to achieve their purpose – otherwise known as “institutional corruption” or “policy capture”.  Political pressures to ensure a thriving economy, create jobs and to secure their sources of political and financial support in industry were part of the picture.  This malfunction was evidenced by “regulation” becoming a bad word, cutting “red tape” a governing imperative and “partnerships” with the private sector an objective.   The conflict of interest inherent in a regulator being a partner with the regulated was not considered.

 Unfortunately authorities did not inform Canadians they were changing the role of Health Canada from guardian of public safety to guardian of the pharmaceutical industry.  

To repair this damage, we must

• Reverse deregulation in the context of public health and safety
• Re-regulate appropriately and enforce the regulations
• Provide effective Whistleblower protection

This is a minimum requirement to convince the public that government and Health Canada deserve our trust. 

Canadians should not have to fear for their lives from taking medications.

And neither should Canadians ever again have to watch the heartbreaking scene of two still grieving parents feeling compelled to travel across the country to warn us about unsafe medications and untrustworthy governments and regulators as in W5's documentary.  If all systems were working as they should, it never would have gotten to this.  So not acceptable.

Welcome to Whistleblowing Canada's Blog series on Whistleblower stories.

The posts on this Blog are those of Canadians who have been struggling for a long time, in most cases years, to have their serious concerns addressed by authorities responsible, to no avail.  The authors have offered significant evidence of their claims, although most have not yet been proven in court.  Their allegations of wrong-doing, detrimental to the public interest, appear to have been ignored.  Further, the authors claim to have suffered reprisals for trying to do their jobs ethically and loyally. These stories shine a light on glaring gaps in our systems for receiving, investigating and correcting disclosures of wrong-doing.  The disclosers require protection, not the wrong-doers.

We hope telling these stories of system failures and harmful consequences to good people and the public interest, will encourage the responsible authorities to take appropriate corrective action. 

Disclaimer

Whistleblowing Canada Research Society makes no representation and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of information contained in these Blog Postings.  The opinions and views expressed in these publications are wholly those of the authors.  They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Whistleblowing Canada Research Society or its members.

Thank you for your interest in Whistleblowing Canada Research Society. We welcome all forms of support to the organization including volunteers, advisory board members and board of directors. In keeping with our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion we invite volunteers from diverse backgrounds and experiences to engage with us in fostering a culture of belonging, dignity and respect as we work to achieve our Mission.

Before we request information from you, let us tell you about who we are and what we do.

What is whistleblowing: Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing wrongdoing by any person with knowledge of a situation they believe is seriously wrong to whomever they believe can do something about it, whether the truth-teller is an insider employee or outsider witness. Allowing the whistleblowing phenomenon and contradiction - of punishment for truth-tellers and often impunity for wrong-doers - to persist means that people who witness wrongdoing frequently don't speak up for fear of reprisals and victimization.  It also raises concerns about legitimizing organizational lawlessness and accepting corruption in government as a norm.  

Who we are: Whistleblowing Canada is a leading Canadian non-profit corporation and registered charity.  Our leaders are volunteers and come from every region of Canada. Our organization’s work builds on decades of experience in the whistleblowing area: protection of freedom of expression, due process for truth tellers, and protecting the human rights of those who speak out about betrayals of public trust.

What we do: We research, educate and advocate. Our Mission is to improve the lives of all through producing reliable, evidence-based knowledge and sharing it publicly to inform public policy dialogue and development; to create safe, speak-up cultures and to improve protections for whistleblowers who are vulnerable when facing formidable, powerful organizations

Here are some of the volunteer positions we offer:

• Advisory Board: Four meetings per year. Any additional time is up to the advisory board member should they wish to further contribute to the functioning of the organization.
• Board of Directors: Six meetings per year and the time it takes to fulfill the role they accept on the board, committees and/or special projects. 
• Facilitator, Whistleblowing Networking and Discussion Group: Ten meetings per year (once a month) including preparation time, wrap up and post-meeting report.
  
• Marketing/ Communications: Assisting the organization in various tasks including writing copy for advocacy letters, press releases, fundraising and social media.
• Fundraising: Assisting the organization with fundraising activities like phone calls, thank you letters, grant writing and appeals. 
  
• Events: Assisting with different events throughout the year including fundraising events, webinars, and conferences.
• Technical Skills: Maintaining web site, managing data base, etc.

To apply for a position, please download the application form below, and email a completed copy of the form along with your resume to: [email protected].

Application Form

Once this form is submitted, we will review your application and get back to you within two weeks’ time.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

We thank you for your interest!

This is the story of a few Saskatchewan Seniors who attempted to report to the proper authorities improper taxation in what they believed was one Saskatchewan Regional Park Authority. Their attempts to get this corrected resulted in years of retribution and eventually the wrong-doing was discovered to be much wider than initially believed. The retribution was in the form of legal tactics, threats,  law suits, Judges and conflict of interest, and stone-walling by political authorities with responsibility for dealing with the situation. They are in jeopardy of losing their homes and saw no other option but to appeal to Canada’s Parliament.

Good day Honourable Chair Sarai and Standing Committee members, 

We understand the Standing Committee is generally focused on broad and evolving issues that affect the lives of everyday Canadians. Perhaps our issues will not resonate within your group because every day Canadians do not usually find themselves in civil court defending themselves against well-funded agents of government. “You can’t fight City Hall” is a saying at least 200 years old. Its origins are founded in the belief that bureaucratic structures spending public money will always fight to the bitter end rather than admit a mistake or deliberate wrongdoing. It’s the same theme that prompted US satirist Will Rogers to say the country was being run by the best politicians money could buy. 

In a terrible example of “progress”, it is now accepted that politicians will lie and will do so without consequence. Lying by misdirection, by omission or by flat propagating false statements are among the broad unspoken approvals in our world of sound byte politics.   

What should be of great concern is that lying in the courts of Canada now come with their own unspoken approvals. The very cornerstone of everything we have been taught since childhood centers around the concept of honesty. This is especially true in courts of law where not too many years ago, those testifying in a court of law did so with their hand on a bible, another cornerstone of our would be “just society”. 

However, in our own circumstances we have been told by a member of the Supreme Court that in court perjury is addressed at the discretion of the judge. The everyday citizen hearing that, has to immediately wonder about the discretion of a judge who would allow perjury. It is especially troubling if you are on the side of the courtroom equation facing the perjury. 

We have been in contact with numerous Canadians who have been on the wrong end of judicial discretion regarding perjured statements. We have witnessed it up close and personal three times in two years, all under the same judge. In a 2021 Canadian Judicial Council review, Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Christopher Hinkson, stated it was within a judge’s discretionary right to ignore perjury. 

In our case the line between justice and politics became very blurred and, in applications seven and eight, perjury prevailed and court decisions were made based on the falsehoods. This was not alleged perjury that might be claimed by a disappointed loser in a court battle; this was material fact perjury verified by Freedom of Information documents received from Municipal Government which disproved the often-used perjury contained in the sworn statements of another agent of Government. 

In practical terms we are helpless to act to protect ourselves simply because we don’t have access to public funds to freely spend on the litigation industry that is always at the center of these disputes. 

If this trend continues it will soon, if it’s not already, be a matter of whoever has the best Liar, wins. 

PERJURY:  a Criminal Code of Canada indictable offence; but go ahead and lie in your affidavit, turns out addressing perjury is a matter of judicial discretion NOT law.