Legal Foundation
Applicable Criminal Code Sections
| Section | Offence | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| s.504 | Private prosecution — laying of Information | Any person who believes on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed may lay an Information before a Justice of the Peace. No police involvement required. |
| s.46(1) | High Treason | Levying war against Canada or assisting enemies. Applicable to intentional structural dismantlement of sovereign defence capability. |
| s.46(2) | Treason | Using force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province. Applicable to institutional capture vectors. |
| s.380(1) | Fraud over $5,000 | ArriveCAN ($54M to GC Strategies), Phoenix Pay ($2.2B+), procurement fraud patterns documented across multiple AG reports. |
| s.122 | Breach of Trust by Public Officer | Officials who wilfully breach a duty connected with their office. Applicable to PHAC mandate fraud, MAID financial conflicts. |
| s.219 | Criminal Negligence | Doing or omitting anything that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. Applicable to MAID expansion without adequate safeguards. |
| s.241 | Counselling or Aiding Suicide | Applicable where MAID is administered to vulnerable persons who lack genuine informed consent or where financial incentives drive referrals. |
Domestic Instrument
Form 1: Private Prosecution (s.504 Criminal Code)
Information Laying — Universal Venue Doctrine
Section 504 permits any person to lay an Information before a Justice of the Peace in any province where the offence is believed to have occurred. For offences committed across all federal domains simultaneously (e.g., national mandates, federal procurement fraud), jurisdiction is arguable in any provincial court.
Action: Print, complete with specific facts and Criminal Code sections, and swear before a Justice of the Peace at your local provincial courthouse.
Live precedent
Hartman v. Canada (AG) — active ONCA precedent for duty-of-care doctrine
Case: Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General) — Ontario Court of Appeal item 24102, appeal heard January 26, 2026. Plaintiff: Dan Hartman, father of 17-year-old Sean Hartman who died 3 weeks after Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine on September 17, 2021. Plaintiff counsel: Umar Sheikh. Defendants include Pfizer Canada, Health Canada, and the Attorney General of Canada.
Trial decision (March 2025): Justice Sandra Antoniani (Ontario Superior Court) struck the claim, holding there is no private law duty of care to individual members of the public injured by government core policy decisions in the handling of health emergencies. This ruling, if upheld by ONCA, closes tort-law pathways for every Canadian injured by government policy — not just vaccine injuries.
Three issues on appeal at ONCA:
- Whether Justice Antoniani erred in applying the Anns/Cooper two-stage duty-of-care test
- Whether she properly distinguished between "policy" and "operational" government acts
- Whether she erred in striking the claim for misfeasance in public office
Relevance to s.504 private prosecution: if ONCA upholds, civil tort law is closed for policy-caused injuries, making private prosecution under s.504 the only remaining individual-level accountability path for government officials whose "core policy" decisions cause foreseeable harm. See vaccine-injury-accountability.html for the full accountability-closure analysis.
Primary source: coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/24102/index.do · Children's Health Defense Canada · Global News investigation · Western Standard
Process
How to File a Private Prosecution in Canada
Research the Specific Offence
Identify the Criminal Code section(s) that apply. Use the evidence dossiers on this site to compile specific facts, dates, and named individuals or entities. The Information must describe reasonable grounds — not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (that comes at trial).
Prepare the Information (Form 2)
Complete the Information form above with specific facts. Include dates, locations, named accused, and the Criminal Code sections violated. Attach supporting evidence as exhibits (AG reports, court documents, ATIP disclosures, Hansard transcripts).
Attend Before a Justice of the Peace
Go to your local provincial courthouse and request to lay an Information under s.504. You will be asked to swear or affirm the truth of the Information. The Justice must receive it — they cannot refuse to hear you. This is a statutory right.
Pre-Enquiry Hearing (s.507.1)
The Justice may refer the Information to a judge for a pre-enquiry hearing to determine if a summons or warrant should be issued. Prepare to present your evidence at this hearing. The Crown may intervene under s.579 to stay or take over the prosecution.
Crown Intervention (s.579)
The Attorney General may enter a stay of proceedings or take over the prosecution. If they stay it, this is itself evidence of institutional capture — document it and include it in your ICC referral as proof that the domestic system is non-functional.
International Instrument
Form 2: ICC Referral (Rome Statute Article 7)
Communication to the Office of the Prosecutor — The Hague
The ICC may exercise jurisdiction when the domestic state is unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate or prosecute (complementarity principle, Article 17). If the domestic s.504 prosecution is stayed by the Crown under s.579, this constitutes evidence of unwillingness under Article 17(2)(a).
Action: Submit electronically to otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int or by post to the ICC Information and Evidence Unit at The Hague.
Evidence Threads
Convergent Evidence Chains
Each TENET5 investigation thread provides evidence supporting one or more Criminal Code sections and Rome Statute articles. Together they demonstrate a pattern of systematic institutional conduct rather than isolated incidents.
Medical Assistance in Dying Expansion
76,000+ deaths. Financial incentives (Brookfield/Carney). Safeguard removal across 3 bills. Track 2 expansion to non-terminal conditions. Supports s.219, s.241, Article 7(1)(a)(b).
Full dossier →Section 6 Mobility Rights (PHAC Mandates)
22-month domestic travel ban without scientific basis. 6M+ citizens denied mobility rights. Oakes test failure on all 4 criteria. Supports s.122, Article 7(1)(d)(h).
Full dossier →ArriveCAN & Systemic Procurement
$54M to two-person firm (GC Strategies). AG findings of systematic procurement failures. Phoenix Pay $2.2B+ in damages. Supports s.380(1), Article 7(1)(k).
Full dossier →Carney-Brookfield Conflict of Interest
PM with $1T+ asset management ties. No independent blind trust. MAID expansion benefits long-term care asset holders. Supports s.122, Article 7(1)(h).
Full dossier →Foreign Interference & Lobbying
Documented foreign interference in elections. 579+ lobbying instances mapped. Hogue Commission findings. Supports s.46(2), Article 7(1)(h).
Full dossier →CDS Accountability & Veterans Betrayal
CFNIS/MPCC failures. Operational capability degradation. Equipment procurement failures. Veterans abandoned. Supports s.122, Article 7(1)(k).
Full dossier →The Institutional Malice Pattern
These are not six separate scandals. They are six facets of a single institutional pattern: systematic extraction of public resources, erosion of citizen rights, and elimination of accountability mechanisms. The s.504 and Article 7 instruments are designed to be used together — the domestic prosecution establishes the legal record, and when the Crown inevitably stays it, that stay becomes the evidence of "unwillingness" required for ICC complementarity.
Related Intelligence