(UPDATED) An e-mail to parties involved in my appeal per the request of Dr. Rogers (Precedential Supreme Court Case Law)

Hi all,

Dr. Rogers asked me to send her this, but I am including you (specific case law).

My factum for the appeal to the Ontario court of appeal will be more in keeping with standard submissions and include appropriate legal jargon and case law, specifying specific errors in law and fact.

The constitutional question will include sections 2a, 2b, 7, 12, and 15.

Here is the Supreme Court case law that I believe is applicable to the situation, specifically for section 2a. (Wait for my factum for all the case law I reference, there may be instances where there are none that are directly applicable)

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2161/index.do

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials.  This understanding is consistent with a personal or subjective understanding of freedom of religion.  As such, a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion.  It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived‑as‑mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection.  The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma.  Although a court is not qualified to judicially interpret and determine the content of a subjective understanding of a religious requirement, it is qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a claimant’s belief, where sincerity is in fact at issue.  Sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief and the court’s role is to ensure that a presently asserted belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice.  Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact that can be based on criteria including the credibility of a claimant’s testimony, as well as an analysis of whether the alleged belief is consistent with his or her other current religious practices.  Since the focus of the inquiry is not on what others view the claimant’s religious obligations as being, but what the claimant views these personal religious “obligations” to be, it is inappropriate to require expert opinions.  It is also inappropriate for courts rigorously to study and focus on the past practices of claimants in order to determine whether their current beliefs are sincerely held.  Because of the vacillating nature of religious belief, a court’s inquiry into sincerity, if anything, should focus not on past practice or past belief but on a person’s belief at the time of the alleged interference with his or her religious freedom.

The CCB and Dr. Rogers did not doubt the sincerity of my beliefs (Per the Form A Hearing Reasons for Decision contesting my Form 33 back in August 27. 2025 - 25-2460 SR)

"SR stated numerous times throughout the hearing that he had ADHD, Williams Syndrome, and that he had been subjected to no-touch torture. It was also clear from SR’s questioning of Dr. Rogers and Dr. Baines, that it was his opinion that they had prescribed or were proposing medication (pharmakeia) for a disorder that was not well understood (Schizoaffective disorder) and that the medication had the potential to kill him."

"In this case, I found that there was clear and cogent evidence that supported the conclusion that SR’s religious beliefs at the time of the hearing were a manifestation of his mental condition, and that his mental condition rendered him incapable of recognizing that his beliefs may be the product of a mental condition. I accepted the evidence that SR grew up in a Christian family where religion was important. I also accepted that SR’s current beliefs were sincere. However, the evidence was that SR’s religiosity did not affect his views about medication and treatment of his mental condition until he became unwell. As he became more and more unwell, his views about religion became more prominent to the point that they took over every aspect of his life. SR’s parents told Dr. Rogers that their religion did not preclude treatment with medication, and Dr. Baines testified that when SR was relatively well, he did not speak about refusing medication as a result of his religion, or that pharmakeia was a sin"

This is an error in fact.

I did refer to it as sin verbatim, repeatedly, to both my parents and Dr. Baines (and many others) back in 2024 , and my Advance Directive/Wish (which was made while I was mentally capable and this is not disputed by opposing counsel or the CCB) states the reasons, including my religion (Christianity), why I did not want to take it (without explicitly calling it sin in that specific document: saying I was against it specifically for religious reasons implies it is sin).

The CCB cited "the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in S.H. v. Prakash, 2023 ONCA 459 " in their reasons for decision (25-2460 SR ON CCB).:

The following paragraph from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in S.H. v. Prakash, 2023 ONCA 459 was particularly instructive (at paragraphs 17-18):

“[17] On the findings, the religious nature of some of the appellant’s beliefs and explanations for his conduct had no impact on the question of incapacity as defined in s. 4(1) of the Act. The appellant’s inability to appreciate that his beliefs and actions may be the product of a mental condition rendered him unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of taking or refusing the treatment. Characterizing the beliefs manifested as a consequence of his mental condition as religious could not affect the ultimate finding of incapacity once the court concluded the appellant was incapable, on account of his mental condition, of appreciating that his beliefs and conduct may be a manifestation of that mental condition.

[18] Counsel for the appellant correctly points out that Charter values can play a role in capacity determinations. The high value Canadian society places on the fundamental right to freedom of religion dictates that the CCB and the courts must proceed cautiously before characterizing a professed religious belief as a manifestation of a mental condition. The evidence must offer clear and cogent support for both the conclusion that the beliefs are a manifestation of a mental condition and the conclusion that the condition has rendered the individual incapable of recognizing that his beliefs may be the product of a mental condition. Decisions of the CCB demonstrate that it has regularly undertaken this analysis in the past: C.R. (Re), 2023 CanLII 24871 (Ont. CCB); G.S. (Re), 2021 CanLII 152914 (Ont. CCB); and E.P. (Re), 2013 CanLII 49102 (Ont. CCB). We are satisfied that that onus was met on this record.” (Emphasis added)

But that is only an Ontario Court of Appeal precedential decision, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the aforementioned Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem case , due to the hierarchy of the courts should be a binding precedent, unless it is “ruled against“ by the Ontario Court of Appeals (see below for reasons as to why).

The volunteer also mentioned that there have been legal disputes surrounding COVID vaccines and religious freedom (I will need to research this further).

In 2020 shortly after I was saved, God warned me not to take "vaccines", use "virtual reality", or utilize "digital currencies" (the impending Central Bank Digital Currencies is what I now believe He was referring to). Even when The Royal (acting on behalf of Canada) forced me to submit to pharmakeia, specifically Clozapine, (which was in a well documented and indisputable fashion killing me: weight gain of 250 pounds, an enlarged heart, high blood pressure and pulse, and prediabetes) during my involuntary hospitalization in 2021-2022, I was able to continue to refuse the COVID vaccine, despite substantial pressure and coercion from the staff and pressure from the patients, even while under the influence of their mind altering drugs. They were unable to force that 'treatment' upon me, too.

My appeal to the Ontario SCJ of the CCB's Decision (Form A Hearing held on August 27, 2025) was BLOCKED by the COURTS.

An audio recording made back in April of Dr. Rogers and I meeting, where she calls my standard Christian beliefs (that I have a special relationship with God applicable to ALL Christians, and that God uses the Holy Bible to speak with his children delusions). This is discriminatory.

What concerns me is this:

An Ontario court cannot rule against a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) precedent due to the doctrine of vertical stare decisis,which mandates that lower courts must follow decisions of higher courts. If an Ontario court appears to do so, it is likely because it is applying an exception, distinguishing the case, or there is a misunderstanding of the precedent's scope. Why a lower court cannot simply overrule a higher court 

• Hierarchy of courts: The Canadian judicial system operates on a clear hierarchy. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court, and its decisions are the final word. 
• Binding precedent: A fundamental principle of common law is that courts are bound by the decisions of courts above them in the judicial hierarchy. An Ontario court is bound by the SCC, which is the superior appellate court. 
• Lack of jurisdiction: A lower court, such as the Ontario Court of Appeal, does not have the jurisdiction to overturn a decision made by the SCC. 

How a lower court might appear to "rule against" a precedent 

• Distinguishing the case: The most common way an appeal court may reach a different outcome is by "distinguishing" the case. This means the court finds that the facts of the new case are different enough from the facts of the previous SCC case that the previous decision does not apply. 
• Interpreting the precedent: The court may interpret the SCC ruling in a way that leads to a different outcome, but without actually overruling the original precedent. For example, the court might find that the precedent's scope was narrower than previously assumed, or that certain aspects of the precedent were not applicable in the new context. 
• Horizontal stare decisis: While not applicable to the SCC, lower courts are still bound by precedent of courts at the same level in most cases. 
• Stare decisis and lower court decisions: An Ontario Court of Appeal does not have to follow a precedent from a court in another province, as it only has binding authority within Ontario. 
• Overruling precedent: A court can overrule its own previous decisions, but this requires compelling reasons. An Ontario Court of Appeal does not have the power to overrule the SCC. 

And then the distinct possibly that my leave for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is dismissed.

Anyway, all I can do is my very best.

If I make it to the Supreme Court of Canada, I will not worry about what I will say, but trust that God will give me the words at the right time. Beside touching up my factum and submitting a detailed and professional notice of leave for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, I will turn my attention elsewhere while I await the hearing.

Due to some of the case law referenced by opposing counsel, I may initiate a request to reconsider a prior precedential decision of the court of appeal as well.

Regards,

Steven

A little one of Christ Jesus

Here are the Oral Arguments I recited in the CV-25-99970 Hearing on October 17, 2025 at the Ottawa Courthouse where the Honourable Judge Kevin B. Phillips only took two hours to render his decision):

Here is a copy (with notes I made today on my ePaper Tablet) of Dr. Roger's Factum where I point out some of the errors in law and fact that were made by her legal counsel and the CCB.