MEDIA PARTNERS - FOR THE LATEST UPDATES PLEASE VISIT OUR FACEBOOK PAGE

The Peace-Bond Application

Alex Nuttall did this in a way that denied him plausible deniability, as he came fully prepared, with a lawyer, paid for by taxpayers, who knew his motive for a quick fix was unlawful and outside the authority of the court.

That apparently did not matter to our barely elected mayor because he made sure he had every advantage, paid for by the citizens of Barrie, and he was apparently determined to show everybody, or at least those he said in court “who mattered to him,” that he would get what he wanted, even if it meant misleading the court through false claims of victimhood, committing perjury multiple times, abusing his authority, and seemingly tampering with a witness - more on this later. First, Alex Nuttall was quick to tell the court that he was the mayor of Barrie, even though he claimed to be there on a personal basis. He then went on to lament about his role in city politics several more times, like when his lawyer stating that her client had to go to the “Big City Mayor’s Conference” on the proposed second day of the hearing.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

I was self-represented because I am an altruist who invests in those who need help, and money is not my motivation. Between 2015 and 2025, my team and I donated more than $700,000.00 worth of services to greater than 180 local charities, not-for-profits, and benevolent community groups through the creation of no less than 350 fundraising and educational videos. Through those efforts, we are credited with raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for those in need. That resulted in 2021 with our team being nominated and voted to the highest level for the City of Barrie and Barrie Chamber of Commerce award for altruism. Currently, I am housing half a dozen previously homeless people in my home and studio (section 2), as they had nowhere else to go when our mayor destroyed their forested hamlet of hand-built and insulated cabins without providing an alternative.

These abuses, that are in line with policies of social murder, harm or kill Canadian citizens.

Alex Nuttall attacked our service through various abuses, resulting in real and potential harm being afflicted on every charity, not-for-profit, and benevolent community group in Barrie. In 2023, we were forced to reduce our benevolent charitable production services, and chose to use our large production facilities to provide a benevolent means of helping the those trapped in the homeless community to transition back to normal life through short-term sanctuary. Many of those fellow human beings were at risk of dying by exposure, due mostly to the cruel and callous policies of our Mayor, Alex Nuttall.

Passersby see the blue box, but often miss the depth of our services.

Like Dr. Who's TARDIS, the interior seems to go on forever.

In the back we had offices and creative space.

We converted them into living space for those in need.

Our dogs are valued members of the family, and very loved.

Our yard is deep and can be used for organizing incoming property.

Literally 'in our backyard', as we needed shelter to sort property.

We have a dog run 110 x 15 feet, that is open to visiting puppers.

Our residents help around the house, running errands, etc.

We use our building as a base for benevolent outreach services.

Our large studio area pulls triple duty these days, . . .

. . . a creative space, for organizing donations, and emergency shelter.

Previous Next

We provide 24/7 shelter to eight people, or roughly ten percent of what the City of Barrie provides in total, for three couples and two individuals. We do not push our residents out in the morning, and we include private rooms, full access to the kitchen, in-house laundry, computers with unlimited access, use of a workshop, access to a gym, a large backyard, and a sense of community. Unlike our mayor and council, we see these people as human beings.

We have so far helped more than a dozen people, as well as their dogs, by using our Big Blue Box studio as a launch pad from which to find stable housing, yet all Alex Nuttall has done is abuse his position to attack us.

When an application for a Section 810 peace bond (preventative recognizance) is levied against a journalist in Canada, it triggers distinct statutory limits and constitutional protections. While a standard individual faces Section 810 for general fears of personal injury or property damage, the Criminal Code contains a specialized provision—Section 810.01, that is specifically designed to protect journalists and justice system participants from external intimidation. If a peace bond is sought against a journalist because of their reporting or investigative activities, the legal process must satisfy strict evidentiary thresholds and balance pressing constitutional principle.

For reasons that will hopefully be assertained through an investigation by the Justice of the Peace Review Council, and potentially a follow up investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police, the Justice of the Peace, Henry Tso, did not seem at all concerned that Alex Nuttall did not appear to have much in the way of direct evidence pertaining to his allegations, which is normally essential when arguing to deny the rights of another person in a court of law, and especially a journalist.

I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but I understand the requirements of a prima facie case, as would have been required if this application had been made in the proper venue of jurisprudence, which is the Superior Court. The demands of the high court are likely the reason Nicole Cook of Barriston Law took her client through the "Kangaroo Court" of the Justice of the Peace, who is not a lawyer, has not studied law, has not passed the bar, but is a politically appointed positon. It goes without saying that the Justice of the Peace is most likely less knowledgable of the law than would be a judge in the appropriate venue, who had studied law, who had passed the bar, and who had many years of legal experience before putting on the robes.

It is also a level of jurisdiction that is claimed to be more easily manipulated by political influence and special favours for people of influence.

According to every source available to us, from Google and AI legal research tools, through to the law library at Canlii and the rulings of both the Superior and Supreme Court, the Justice of the Peace is not afforded the authority to grant the relief sought by Alex Nuttall; that being ex post facto censorship of an already published and well-established media report that had been online for more than a year. That should have been known by Nicole Cook and Justice of the Peace Tso, both of whom are sworn officers of the court whose apparent bilateral action will now be an issue of investigation.

According to what we have learned while preparing for an appeal, previous rulings from higher courts that overturned the use of S.810 applications for political editorial purposes were treated by Justice of the Peace Henry Tso as moot - at least in his courtroom during a case that seemed unlikely to be appealed. From day one of the three day hearing I was discussing a likely need to appeal, as repeatedly the rules were twisted into metaphoric balloon animals by a man who had been appointed by Doug Ford and Doug Downey, both of whom are Conservative friends and/or close political allies of the complainant, Alex Nuttall.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

In this case, when a friend of Doug Ford was being exposed, established case law from higher courts was ignored by the Justice of the Peace, even though Henry Tso did not have the authority to do that.

According to our research, that loyalty meant ignoring the rulings of higher courts, exceeding the authority of the application, and making a ruling based on law that did not exist until Justice of the Peace needed it to help those he was working to assist. The Conservative appointed Justice of the Peace, who receives $178,014.51 per year from the people of Ontario, was, after all, dealing with somebody who was not represented, who was not wealthy but still philanthropic, so who was going to stop him from winning favour where he could get it?

The Hearing and the Treatment of Evidence

During the 810 Peace Bond Application, which was held over three days between May 29 and July 8, 2026, Mayor Alex Nuttall made a wide range of unsupportable allegations and assertions, many of which were exposed during cross examination. Amongst the many false claims, only some of which I noted, Alex Nuttall claimed:

1. We post about him “4, 5, 6, 7 times a day:” but he could not cite a single time we ever did so, even to the smallest number.
2. He did not know where I lived: after three years of us reporting about Alex Nuttall's multiple abuses of authority and violations of the Charter rights of taxpaying citizens; and I live in one of the most unique buildings in Barrie, a Big Blue Box on a major intersection, to which the City of Barrie has sent multiple “officials” to harass us immediately after I notified Alex Nuttall of my intent to file an ethics complaint against him regarding multiple Charter violations at the homeless encampment in Berczy Park.
3. He had spent “A lot of time with police officers discussing the matter:” but he could not name one of them, nor provide more than the most basic description of any of them. Alex Nuttall also failed to present any kind of police report. He claimed that as he sits on the police board for Barrie, there was a conflict of interest, but could not explain why he had not requested help from the South Simcoe Service or the Ontario Provincial Police where no conflict existed. The mayor of Barrie then claimed he had been to speak with "officers and detectives at South Simcoe" but again could not name any of them or provide more than a child's level randition of what they looked like. Although police involvement is not required, and a police report is not a mandatory documentation, in a case based on allegedly serious threats or danger, or claims made against a journalist, the complete absence of any prior police contact can be a relevant weakness—particularly in a case like this when there is little other independent evidence.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

Abusive Conduct

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

An overview of the "Standards of Conduct" by the Justices of the Peace Review Council and "Public Access to Court Proceedings" revealed: Allowing a sustained, face-to-face verbal confrontation to continue without intervention, separation or warning would not be the expected course of courtroom management. In a peace-bond proceeding — where one party claims to fear the other — the complainant verbally assaulting the accused is particularly significant and should ordinarily be addressed both as a security issue and as potentially relevant evidence."

Regardless, the supposedly neutral Justice of the Peace, Henry Tso, said NOTHING, and just kept motoring on as if the verbal assault, committed in close proximity, that was angrily vomitted into the courtroom by a 300+ lb psychotic-acting man, had never happened. However, that same "impartial" Justice of the Peace who ignored Alex Nuttall’s unwarranted outburst snapped at me for asking Alex Nuttall if “everybody who matters to him,” as he said in court, included members of the White Christian Nationalists. In fact, Justice of the Peace Henry Tso was so quick pulling the air out of my question that I did not manage to speak the third word. This is all recorded by the court, and will be part of the official transcript we will be sharing here.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

Justice of the Peace Henry Tso chose to ignore Alex Nuttall’s abhorrent threatening behaviour, and the officer of the Barrie Police Service who was in the room, apparently to "serve and protect" only the mayor, did nothing.

Section 810 is limited to reasonable fears of personal injury, property damage or an intimate-image offence. It is not intended to resolve disputes over political criticism, unwanted journalism or demands to remove published material. Based on the facts, as recorded in the court, there were no threats, violence, approaches to the mayor’s family or police evidence supporting an immediate safety concern. The reporting had also remained online for more than a year before the application. Those circumstances raise serious questions about whether the proceeding was being used to prevent harm or to pressure a journalist into removing lawful reporting. However, the stronger legal arguments are that the section 810 threshold was not met, that the application should have been dismissed, and that any attempt to restrict or remove journalism required separate constitutional scrutiny under freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

There is also justifiable reason to perceive bias by the willingness by the Justice of the Peace to yield to Alex Nuttall. According to the Ontario Court of Justice courtroom protocol, the Ontario Court of Justice states that:

“The presiding Judge or Justice of the Peace has overriding responsibility to maintain courtroom decorum and to ensure that court proceedings are conducted in a manner consistent with the proper administration of justice.” It therefore seems highly unlikely that any ethical person who was deemed worthy of presiding over matters, and who was acting in a non-biased manner, would not know how to interpret Alex Nuttall's actions as bullying, especially when Justice of the Peace Henry Tso was a Superintendent and Officer in Charge of Federal Serious and Organized Crime and Financial Integrity. What could cause such a man of presumed integrity and intelligence to choose to ignore serious crimes like perjury, that are worthy of up to 14 years in prison, and verbal assault and intimidation in a court room? If that is not enough, there was also considerable evidence to support that a witness had been intimidated. to change sides, unethically betray confidence, and then seek to protect themself from prosecution.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

It was also antithetical to the principles of law, and various case law, that his “Worship” Justice of the Peace Brian Tso, allowed large quantities of third party evidence to be submitted to the record by the lawyer for Alex Nuttall, but not for me, a journalist who had broken no laws, as was later admitted by Tso. One of the strangest is a video presented by Nicole Cook that we had no part in making and which had no connection to me. It was not shared on our Facebook or website pages, and the subject of interest did not mention my name, nor that of Five Points Media. Regardless, Alex Nuttall had seen it, and he really wanted the judge to see a comment made by a homeless man I do not know, had never met, and to whom I have no connection, in a documentary produced by an amateur Toronto based documentary producer I do not know and could not question about his video. Regardless, Justice of the Peace Henry Tso permitted it to be presented as an example of a “threat” to support Alex Nuttall's anorexic allegations against me, a journalist who he does not want reporting about him through access to debates and other public events. In fact, under the current order, which is most likely headed for appeal, I cannot even provide the link to the YouTube video "Canada’s Drug Apocalypse – Barrie’s State of Emergency!!!" by Producer Chris Must List, to which we have no connection of any kind.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

That is like a RCMP officer charging somebody randomly with Nazi war crimes solely because they had watched and enjoyed Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

For purposes of claification, in that video, Reverend Canon Simon Bell of St. Margaret Anglican Church in Barrie, stated:

“I’m tired of talking to the mayor. I’m tired of being shouted at. I’m tired of being insulted. I’m tired of sitting through meetings for hours and hours and hours, when he’s belligerent, and horrible, and nasty, and insulting to us. So, I’ve given up on that conversation. And so, for me personally, I’m organizing active defiance. That’s what I’m doing. If you have greater access to the mayor, use it. Honestly, use it. We are living in a very strange time. It’s hard to believe I am living in Canada at the moment.”

What kind of a man, who claims to be a devout Christian, could bring out that kind of vitriol from somebody who, from my personal experience speaking with him, must have one of the purest souls I have found even while travelling in the Holy Land and while training with Buddhist monks? Worst yet, the essence of his comments were repeated by two other members of the local spiritual community, and the conservative appointed Justice of the Peace would not listen to any of them. These people of faith live for redemption and belief in the human spirit, and it sounded like they wanted to burn an effigy of Alex Nuttall, or maybe hold an exorcism ;-).

Given the apparent political motivation behind this abuse of our judicial system, it is not suprising that Henry Tso, the former RCMP Inspector turned Justice of the Peace, who was chosen by Doug Downey, a good friend of Alex Nuttall, suppressed valid damning evidence while permitting the mayor to present whatever he wanted.

Justice of the Peace Henry Tso also adamantly refused to accept evidence sourced from a paralegal named Mathew Lund, which confirmed Alex Nuttall had been overheard admitting he was abusing the purpose of the court to silence his critics, which directly influenced the validity of the application for the S.810 peace bond.

It is explicitly noted in rulings by higher courts that the S.810 order is not intended to be used by politicians to circumvent or attack journalists, and both Justice of the Peace Henry Tso and Alex Nutttall’s lawyer, Nicole Cook would know that.

Mathew Lund had been summonsed, very much against his wishes, as in a messenger chat, which I advised him I was capturing, he noted:

---

“If you need an affidavit I was in the court the day he (Nuttall) was seeking the peace bond and heard him tell his crony this was going to silence all critics.”

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

It seems most likely that in a higher court, presided over by a judge who had graduated law school and had real experience adjudicating evidence, where this matter should have been heard, this electronic document would have been seen as a smoking gun to derail Alex Nuttall's abuse of the purpose of the application. However, Justice of the Peace Henry Tso did everything in his power to ensure that this one piece of physical evidence was never included in the record; first by saying it had no weight without the witness, and then by haughtily dismissing the writer without explanation after demanding that I had to tell him what I was going to ask the witness I had summonsed before the answer would be included on the record.

What kind of a judge or justice blocks key evidence that would have proven that Alex Nuttall was abusing the true intent and purpose of an order of protection to block the reporting of a critical journalist?

The Canada Evidence Act, ss. 31.1–31.8 is clear that a printout or screenshot of a Messenger conversation can be admitted as electronic evidence before an Ontario Justice of the Peace and is not inherently weaker than an email, Facebook post or text message; many of which were submitted without contest by Justice of the Peach Henry Tso when requested by Alex Nuttall's lawyer. Its evidentiary weight depends on whether the conversation can be authenticated, attributed to the alleged participants, shown to be complete and unaltered, and supported by surrounding context or firsthand testimony. Where the message reports what someone allegedly said, authentication alone does not prove the underlying event; live testimony or a sworn affidavit from the witness, particularly where cross-examination is available, will ordinarily carry substantially greater weight.

I did both, by providing the document and then summonsing the writer as a witness, and Justice of the Peace Henry Tso blocked both without any legal explanation, while using only spurious logic.

Professed Fear Alone Is Not Proof Under Section 810

A Section 810 peace bond is a tool of preventative justice, and it cannot lawfully be imposed merely because another person claims to be afraid. Without that protection, it could be used to force a neighbour to move so the complainant could buy out the defendant’s house, for example. The Criminal Code permits an application where an informant fears, on reasonable grounds, that another person will cause personal injury to them, their intimate partner or child, damage their property, or unlawfully distribute an intimate image. The justice must then be “satisfied by the evidence adduced” that reasonable grounds for that fear actually exist.

The benchmark has two parts. First, the informant must demonstrate an honest, genuine and subjective fear, and second, that fear must be supported by objective facts. Ontario courts have confirmed that both conditions must be established before a defendant can legally be ordered to enter a recognizance. The applicant carries the burden of proving the case on a balance of probabilities. A sincere fear may therefore still fail the legal test. Personal anxiety, hostility, suspicion, speculation, exaggerated interpretations or unsupported accusations do not automatically become reasonable merely because the informant insists they are genuine. Relevant evidence may include actual threats, violence, escalating conduct, repeated unwanted contact, stalking, messages, recordings, corroborating witnesses or a meaningful history of related misconduct. The court must consider credibility, contradictions, delay, context and whether the evidence establishes a real connection between the defendant’s conduct and the feared future harm.

The simple truth is that Alex Nuttall could show NONE of these things, and all he presented were third party materials like the Toronto producer's video and comments by people visiting my Facebook page.

The Supreme Court of Canada describes peace bonds as preventative rather than punitive. Their purpose is to prevent reasonably feared future harm: not to punish past conduct, to settle personal disputes, to suppress lawful criticism or to provide one party with leverage over another.

The feared injury does not have to be certain, and the informant does not have to prove a completed criminal offence. However, a justice cannot simply accept fear as its own proof, especially when no reason for fear of the defendat is shown. That, however, is exactly what Justice of the Peace Henry Tso did, almost as if he had been instructed to do so. Fear may open the courthouse door, but evidence must justify the order, and Alex Nuttall had nothing that would pass muster in a real court of law. In this case, Justice of the Peace Henry Tso admitted on the record that there was no evidence of actual harassment or threat, and the only real issue was the publication of materials that Alex Nuttall waited 14 months to show concern about. It could not have been more obvious that Alex Nuttall was faking the "concern" in an attemp to restrict our reporting during the election, but Justice of the Peace Tso rubber stamped the order regardless of reality.

The testimony provided by Alex Nuttall was also riddled with curious beliefs and what sounded like paranoid delusions. For example, a third party had posted on our page that "Tubby had better hope there is never a purge." The way I interpretted it is as part of the English vernacular, intended to describe people being fired on masse in offices, etc. However, to the apparent delusions of Alex Nuttall, it was a "threat" from a low budget horror film, or so I am told as it is not my kind of entertainment. Apparently, to the paranoid mind of our mayor, that film is real, and for some unexplained reason, he saw the people of Barrie rising up, to kill all sorts of innocent people, starting with "Tubby", who we agree was probably in reference to Alex Nuttall.

---

And "Tubby" had the nerve to call me "mentally ill" because I don't agree with his methods of brutality.

---

As can be seen in this third party video about the potential abdication of King Charles, according to the paranoid logic of Alex Nuttall, incoming King Willian is going to butcher Queen Consort Camilla, and not simply remove her from offical posts through a 'purge' of her influence.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

Regardless, Alex Nuttall had no physical evidence to support anything beyond his word, including any evidence to support cause for his claims of fear that had gone unmentioned for 14 months. He also contradicted himself repeatedly, suggesting he was misleading the court. All he had were a few benign posts on my website, most of which he deliberatly misread or misinterpreted due to his own issues, that are protected by Section 2B of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Also, most of the posts were comments by other people who Alex Nuttall's lawyer, Nicole Cook, conveniently failed to summons for cross examination, as she made clear I was required to do regarding Alex Nuttall's comments as heard and noted by a paralegal about the mayor's intent to abuse the court to silence his critics.

That is why the "honourable" mayor of Barrie had to rely on third party video that had no connection of any kind to me or Five Points Media. Nicole Cook also cited links to other third party websites and Facebook pages that carried the exact same information that was supposedly threatening on my media service, such as real estate websites featuring videos and photographs of his home, that again had nothing to do with me or Five Points Media. When asked under oath if he had taken any action to quell those publications, Alex Nuttall had to admit he had not because “He could not compel them to do so” or words to that effect. However, for the journalist who is critical of his administration, as he enters into an election, he would spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to inhibit our right to tell the truth, as presented to a Justice of the Peace who was appointed to the bench by his good buddy Doug Downey.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

Justice of the Peace Brian Tso Went A Long Way To Help Doug Downey's Good Friend

1. The S.810 Peace Bond is specifically noted in the case law of higher courts not to be used to censor media.
2. Alex Nuttall had no evidence outside of old Facebook posts that were not threatening unless somebody chose to view them that way, like the purge comment by a follower of our our page and a third-party video to which we have no connection, yet Justice of the Peace Tso chose to accept them.
3. In sharp contrast, and contradictory to the rules of evidence and case law, Justice of the Peace chose to refuse the videos we shot of clergy who all reported Alex Nuttall was a viscious bully, or words to that effect.
4. Section 810 of the criminal code of Canada does not expressly authorize a Justice of the Peace to edit, redact, delete or order the removal of media content from a website or other publication.
5. According to case law from higher courts, the Justice of the Peace is not empowered to use the S.810 application to censor or redact established media posts.
6. Justice of the Peace Henry Tso went so far to assist Alex Nuttall that he dismissed a paralegal, Mathew Lund, who had been legally summonsed by me as a witness to confirm he overheard Alex Nuttall confessing to a plan to abuse the S.810 to silence critical media.
7. Mathew Lund had betrayed my trust, met with Nuttall's assistant in violation of the rules of the Law Society, and he was so engrained in whatever underhanded activity was in play that he invoked his Section 13 rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the provision of which dictate:

Some facts about the S.810

Section 810 does not grant a justice of the peace a standalone authority to redact media reporting or order material removed from a website. At most, it permits a narrowly tailored condition imposed upon the defendant where:

1. The applicant has established a reasonable fear of personal injury, property damage or the specific conduct covered by s. 810 - not applicable;
2. The condition has a direct connection to that feared conduct - not applicable;
3. Less restrictive conditions would be inadequate - not applicable; and
4. The restriction is precise, proportionate and Charter-compliant - not applicable.
5. Justice of the Peace Brian Tso not only ordered that all references to the address be removed, but due to a false claim of breach, caused by a lack of action by Nicole Cook that was ordered by the court, police and prosecutors added a whole slew of other conditions, including further redactions, that are absolutely beyond their legal authority.

A broad order requiring a journalist to remove references to a politician, family member, residence or previously published reporting—without proof that the publication itself constitutes the feared unlawful conduct would be highly vulnerable to challenge as outside the purpose of s. 810, unreasonable, overbroad and contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter. The exact validity would ultimately depend on the evidence, the wording of the order and the reasons given by the justice.

1. The article published was about how the City of Barrie was using taxpayer resources to pay for a security guard to sit outside Alex Nuttall's home, reportedly due to concerns of backlash by members of the homeless community over his Draconian policies of subjugation and deportation.
2. The people who are paying for the service have a right to know where and why their money was being spent on a third-party service, no different than if Alex Nuttall had used city resources to cater a party at his home.
3. By extending services paid for by taxpayers to secure his home, Alex Nuttall lost all rights to privacy regarding where those were being used for private purposes.
4. Alex Nuttall admitted that during a 425 day period, or 14 months, not one homeless or other person had travelled to his home or in any way disturbed his family or himself.
5. Alex Nuttall admitted in court that he had never seen me near his house, I had never contacted any member of his family, and I had never in any way contacted him outside of the occasional email that pertained to my responsibilities as a journalist.
6. Justice of the Peach Henry Tso acknowledged all of these facts before granting the career conservative politician with a tool that he had admitted was being used to "silence all critics," which both Justice of the Peace Henry Tso and Alex Nuttall's lawyer, Nicole Cook, knew was an abuse of the purpose of the S.810 peace bond, which is intended mostly to protect women and children from abusive ex-partners.
7. Justice of the Peace Brian Tso, assigned to his lofty position by Doug Downey, a personal friend of Alex Nuttall, ordered that if I did not sign the recognizance that unlawfully restricted my rights as a journalist, I would immediately be put to jail, conceivably for as long as a year.
8. No crime had been established, and no law had been broken, yet like something out of North Korea, I could face a year in prison, losing my home, my dogs, and all I cared about due to nothing but the paranoid unsupported ramblings by a barely elected official who had screamed at me in court, purjured himself repeatedly, and presented no tangible evidence that I was any kind of threat.
9. Given the consequences to me if I did not comply, I signed the recognizance "Under Duress".
10. Section 810 contains no specific website-takedown or media-redaction power. Any such requirement would have to be justified, if at all, as a “reasonable condition” under s. 810(3.02). The condition must be directly connected to the fear proved at the hearing, necessary to prevent the feared conduct, precisely worded, proportionate and consistent with freedom of expression and freedom of the press under s. 2(b) of the Charter. If those requirements are not satisfied, the condition should be refused or set aside.

Ontario Privacy Laws

Ontario recognizes the tort of public disclosure of private facts. The plaintiff must establish that:

1. the defendant publicized an aspect of the plaintiff’s private life;
2. the plaintiff did not consent;
3. the information or its publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
4. the publication was not of legitimate concern to the public.

That fourth requirement is crucial. In Jane Doe 72511 v. N.M., the Ontario Superior Court adopted this test and found liability because the publication involved an intimate video for which there was no legitimate public concern. However, our reasons, as journalists, are materially different and protected. The use of municipal employees, contractors or taxpayer money to protect an elected official’s private residence is plainly capable of being a matter of legitimate public concern. Consequently, Alex Nuttall would face difficulty proving the fourth element, particularly where the address helps establish precisely where the publicly funded service was being delivered.

There is also a history of Alex Nuttall abusing public resources and city personnel to unlawfully evict a homeless encampment in Berczy Park that was located around the corner from his home. It was at that time the only encampment to be cleared, and Alex Nuttall had noted in other media video that he wanted to ensure they could clear out the playground where his children liked to play. Also, in court, while under oath, the mayor of Barrie was recorded making less than complimentary comments about the people trapped in the world of homelessness, and he stated words to the effect that he did not ever want to see them in his neighbourhood. The rest of us have to deal with society's less appealing aspects, but for some reason that does not apply to Alex Nuttall, a supposed devout Christian and "servant of the people" who has sworn to serve all of the residents of Barrie, which would include the unhoused.

It was immediately after I advised Alex Nuttall of my intention to advise Suzanne Craig, the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Barrie, of my discovery of his apparent abuse of city resources and personnel that we started being harassed by uniformed bylaw personnel, who threatened to take my dogs, and City of Barrie Building Standards personnel, who threatened me with as much as $200,000 in fines for damage to my eavestrough caused by falling ice. Both of those threats were ultimately dropped when pushed to a tribunal, but not before I was arrested by officers of the Barrie Police Service for being a journalist working in a public park recording Charter violations being committed by city staff and police officers against occupants of an encampment. That was also ultimately dropped when I pushed the citation to a trial and the City of Barrie legal representative also had to admit there was "zero chance of conviction" or words to that effect.

Apparent Interference With A Witness

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Section 13 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Canada’s answer to the Fifth Amendment in the United States. The primary difference is that in Canada a witness can be forced to answer, but their answer generally cannot later be used to prosecute them. Why would Mathew Lund, a paralegal and officer of the court, call on a protection that is most often used by people who know they had something to hide, and in this case involving the current mayor of Barrie?

Justice of the Peace Tso repeatedly refused to allow the document sourced by paralegal Mathew Lund in which he advised me 'If you need an affidavit I was in the court the day he (Nuttall) was seeking the peace bond and heard him tell his crony this was going to silence all critics., to be entered as evidence in the trial and only agreed to allow him to be summonsed as I insisted on respect of my rights, and I surmised I could drag out the arguments until we were forced to carry the matter over to another day which would give me the time to summons the officer of the court as a witness by subpoena.

Mathew Lund’s appearance in court, on video, appeared to rattle Justice of the Peace Henry Tso, making him edgy enough that he had to call a recess to “review the case law.” Then, in a very agitated state, Justice of the Peace Tso demanded that I explain myself and what I wanted to question my witness about. I can only surmise that his “Worship” knew what was coming and wanted to block the testimony as apparently his ruling had already been made regardless of the facts and evidence.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

We have to consider the possibility that Justice of the Peace Tso was coerced into doing a favour for the conservative government who are relying on Alex Nuttall to win in Barrie to maintain political stability.

When A Justice of the Peace Bends Section 810 For Political Favour

There is no specific offence called “abusing Section 810.” However, a Justice of the Peace who uses a peace-bond proceeding to benefit a friend, satisfy a politician, punish a journalist, or advance a partisan interest could cross several serious legal boundaries.

The first benchmark is legal error, through which a justice may be overturned for applying the wrong test, accepting fear without supporting evidence, denying procedural fairness, ignoring binding law or imposing conditions that Parliament never authorized. That may justify an appeal or judicial review, but even a spectacularly wrong decision does not automatically prove corruption.

The next benchmark is reasonable apprehension of bias. The question is whether a reasonable and properly informed person, examining the circumstances realistically and practically, would believe that the justice might not have decided the case impartially. Judges and justices are presumed to be neutral, so allegations of bias require credible and persuasive evidence, such as undisclosed relationships, private communications with a party or political official, statements suggesting the result was predetermined, unequal treatment of the parties, refusal to consider relevant evidence or reasons revealing hostility, favouritism or a partisan objective.

A Justice of the Peace may also face allegations of judicial misconduct. Ontario’s standards require judicial officers to remain independent, impartial and free from political influence, personal interest and public pressure. Knowingly manipulating Section 810 to reward an ally or silence a critic could therefore constitute misconduct even where a criminal offence cannot be proven.

The most serious benchmark is criminal wrongdoing. Breach of trust by a public officer requires conduct representing a serious and marked departure from the standards of public office, combined with an intentional use of authority for a dishonest, corrupt, oppressive or otherwise improper purpose. Judicial bribery may arise where money, employment, office or another valuable benefit is offered or accepted in exchange for a judicial act. Deliberate interference with a court proceeding could also engage obstruction-of-justice provisions.

The critical issue is evidence of motive and connection. An unsupported or legally indefensible ruling may establish error. A pattern of one-sided conduct may support an allegation of bias. Political patronage requires something more: communications, benefits, favours, undisclosed relationships, evidence of political intervention or proof that the justice deliberately used judicial power to produce a preferred result.

A justice does not become corrupt merely by getting the law wrong. The benchmark is evidence showing that the law was not simply misunderstood but deliberately bent—and identifying who benefited from it. We are not qualified to speak to all of this, but there is little doubt several of the decisions made in that court of law are listed here as grounds for investigation and disciplinary action.

Rules of Confidentiality

Paralegal Mathew Lund admitted that after our confidential online conversation, which should have been protected under the rules of the Law Society of Ontario, he went to Shawn Gibson, the personal assistant of Alex Nuttall and told him everything he knew. It was also revealed in the courtroom that Alex Nuttall’s lawyer, Nicole Cook of Barriston Law, knew the details of that meeting. Under the rules of the Law Society, who are being looped in on the apparent abuses, Lund was locked into an ethical obligation to respect confidentiality. Given the nature of our communication, and the reasonable assumption of it being a privileged conversation, Nicole Cook had no place even speaking with Mathew Lund, and whatever she or Alex Nuttall told or promised him is likely the issue Mathew Lund is trying to conceal through the use of Section 13 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The matter of conduct by both Mathew Lund and Nicole Cook is going to be addressed with the Law Society after the appeal.

Why Mathew Lund grovelled to Alex Nuttall offering to violate the covenant of trust is unknown, but it travels the same path as Justice of the Peace Tso willfully ignoring existing law from higher courts so he could write his own chapter in pencil, as apparently nobody was supposed to hear about it after the deed was done.

The Censorship Order, Section 810 and Press Freedom

The only thing of any substance that Justice of the Peace Tso gave to Alex Nuttall was an order to censor our content to satisfy his paranoia. Regardless of the ability to find that information elsewhere, the act of abusing an S.810 peace bond to surpass the proper procedure should be of great concern to many of Canada’s larger media sources.

The order by a Justice of the Peace to censor our online content, the address of where a taxpayer funded security guard had been assigned on private property, is not supported by law, as the premise has already been ruled upon by orders of the vastly more powerful Superior and Supreme Courts. That means it is apparent that Justice of the Peace HWe have to consider the possibility enry Tso went rogue on the bench by writing his own law, limiting the Section 2B Charter rights of a journalist, and contradicting several decisions of higher courts.

The seriousness of this matter extends far beyond the removal of online content. A Justice of the Peace imposed a censorship order affecting legitimate journalism, allegedly relying solely on false information, demonstrably inaccurate information, and testimony that was easily proven to be deceptive. The salacious nature of the testimony was in fact so obvious that Justice of the Peace Tso made a joke about it on the second day of the trial.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

Apparently, for Justice of the Peace Tso, perjury is funny when it is used by friends of "the family" to deny a citizen, veteran, and philanthropist their rights under the Charter.

The censored information identified the location where a publicly funded security guard had been stationed on private property, the home of a highly paid politician, which created an issue of legitimate public accountability, not a threat or unlawful disclosure. If the order exceeded the narrow powers granted under a peace-bond proceeding, it represents a grave intrusion upon freedom of expression and freedom of the press, particularly where superior courts have already established that publication restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and supported by compelling evidence.

The fact that the address was already public, was searchable on Google, and had been left unchallenged for more than a year, strengthens the argument in support of journalistic freedoms. It suggests the issue is not simply one of privacy, but whether the politician is objecting because the address became relevant to public accountability reporting during an election cycle. According to all available case law, the journalist should still be ready to explain why republishing the exact address was necessary to the story and why the public interest outweighed any privacy or safety concern.

The fact that our viewership has exploded from 300,000 views per month to 1.5 million, while Alex Nuttall’s popularity has plummeted, heavily due to exposure of his many abuses of authority and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is likely also a contributing factor, as was demonstrated by Alex Nuttall’s need to verbally assault me at full volume while under the protection of a courtroom and assigned police officer.

The concern to be considered by larger Canadian media organizations reflects the broader dangers; permitting a lower judicial officer to censor lawful reporting without proper authority, reliable evidence, or procedural safeguards creates a precedent capable of silencing any journalist who scrutinizes a powerful public official.

Protection of the rights of a journalist is black letter law that is now threatened to fade to grey if such leaps of authority are permitted to go unchallenged.

Special procedures are in place through the Superior Court as follows:

To compel removal of an existing media report, the applicant must ordinarily:

Identify an express statutory deletion power or commence a proper civil proceeding, establish that the publication is unlawful, satisfy the applicable injunction test and obtain a narrowly tailored order from a court possessing that jurisdiction.

An ordinary s. 810 peace-bond application contains no comparable deletion mechanism. It does not define journalistic material as prohibited, provide a process for adjudicating the truth or legality of a news report, or expressly authorize a Justice of the Peace to order the public record rewritten.

Using s. 810 as a shortcut around the proper statutory or civil process would therefore raise substantial questions of jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and freedom of the press. An s. 810 application may be filed, but it cannot properly be used as a stand-alone procedure to censor or retrospectively redact an otherwise lawful existing media report

Both Nicole Cook of Barriston Law and Justice of the Peace Henry Tso should know that.

It is also a fact that the information was online for 425 days, or 14 months, and no person had harassed Alex Nuttall or any of his family members at his home, which was a principal claim upon with the application was based. Also, at no time did Alex Nuttall, his assistant, any member of staff, any lawyer, or any officer of the Barrie Police Service ask or even suggest removing it.

It does not take much to see that this application, and the apparently biased decision, which coincidentally timed perfectly with the pending election, serve only to hinder our reporting, and neither would appear to have anything to do with fear, danger, or any kind of “threat” as is necessary for any action to be ordered based on a s. 810 Peace Bond application.

No man who acts genuinely to protect his family takes 14 months to do the absolute minimum possible.

No reported Canadian decision has been located recognizing that an 810 application has the authority to censor the media. An exceptionally narrow condition addressing independently unlawful or demonstrably dangerous ongoing content remains theoretically arguable, but that unresolved possibility is fundamentally different from censoring facts of interest to the public by lawful journalism.

Where no statutory process of censorship applies, a person ordinarily must commence a proper civil proceeding in the Superior Court and establish an independent legal wrong; for example, defamation, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement or disobedience of an existing court order. If proven, the claimant may then request a mandatory injunction requiring removal.

For an interim mandatory order, the Supreme Court requires a strong prima facie case; proof of irreparable harm if removal is not ordered; and a balance of convenience favouring the injunction of the Section 2B rights of the journalist. None of those were presented in this claim, and I advised Justice of the Peace Henry Tso of the requirements and provided him with case law.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

Why Section 810 Cannot Rewrite Journalism

According to our research, which was conducted by specialized journalistic research tools using hundreds of sources, both legal and media, there is not a single recorded case of a Canadian decision in which an ordinary s. 810 recognizance was used to compel the retrospective removal or redaction of otherwise lawful journalistic material. The ordinary s. 810 recognizance (peace bond) predates modern Canadian legislation, tracing its roots back to English common law. It was incorporated into the original 1892 Criminal Code and has applied uniformly across Ontario ever since.

So, what made our reporting about Alex Nuttall’s abuses and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so important, seemingly also to Doug Ford and Doug Downey, that a Justice of the Peace would be required to break 134 years of stable legal precedent by using it to censor legitimate journalistic content?

The results of the extensive search returned: “I could not locate any reported or publicly indexed Canadian decision in which a Justice of the Peace used an ordinary s. 810 recognizance to compel a journalist or media organization to retrospectively remove, delete, or redact otherwise lawful journalistic material. No reported Canadian case has been found in which an ordinary s. 810 peace bond was used to force a journalist or media outlet to remove, redact or retract an otherwise lawful story”.

Peace bonds are preventive. They address a reasonable fear of future harm. They are not designed to rewrite the public record, decide defamation disputes or impose retrospective publication bans. Courts may restrict future communication where necessary for safety, but only if some kind of threatening interaction had occurred, which is not the case here, as was admitted to by Alex Nuttall while under oath. That is fundamentally different from ordering lawful journalism erased after publication.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

When Parliament intends to authorize online deletion, it creates an explicit legal process with notice, evidence and appeal rights. Section 810 contains no such power.

Why the Absence Is Legally Significant

The standard s. 810 is framed as a preventive and prospective provision. The information must allege reasonable grounds to fear that the respondent “will cause” personal injury or property damage, or “will commit” the intimate-image offence in s. 162.1. The resulting recognizance is intended to keep the peace and secure good behaviour for a maximum of 12 months. Conditions must be reasonable and directed toward securing the respondent’s future good conduct.

Nothing in s. 810 expressly authorizes a justice to:

• adjudicate the legality or accuracy of an existing news report;

• determine a defamation, privacy or publication dispute;

• order correction or redaction of past reporting;

• require deletion of material that was lawful when published; or

• impose what would effectively be a permanent remedy through a temporary preventive recognizance.

The Department of Justice likewise describes a peace bond as protection against conduct that a person appears likely to commit, with conditions designed to prevent future harm.

Canadian courts have repeatedly warned that extraordinary restrictions cannot be imposed merely because someone claims to feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or exposed and afraid of repercussions for their own actions. The evidence must justify the order, and the remedy must be narrowly connected to a proven danger.

Regardless, Justice of the Peace Tso apparently took it upon himself to write new law, which seems to be far beyond his authority, especially when considering the case law below, some from the Supreme Court, which dictates the peace bond cannot be used for the purpose of censoring political commentary in legitimate media.

>Justice of the Peace Tso even noted on the record that he recognised me as a journalist and that I run a legitimate and well-established media company.

Controlling Case Law and the Appeal

In R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2018 SCC 5, the Crown attempted to force CBC to remove identifying information from an article already published online. The Supreme Court of Canada classified the proposed takedown as a mandatory injunction—an extraordinary order compelling positive action—and restored the original decision refusing it. The Crown had failed to establish the strong case required to justify removing existing journalistic content. The Court also cautioned that an injunction is a remedy, not an independent source of judicial authority.

The Supreme Court reached a similarly restrained result in A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2012 SCC 46. Although the Court allowed a teenage cyberbullying victim to proceed anonymously, it refused to ban publication of the non-identifying material. Once the child’s identity was protected, the Court found little justification for suppressing the remaining content. Even in a case involving a vulnerable child and sexualized bullying, press freedom and the open-court principle prevailed beyond what was actually necessary for protection.

Ontario courts have also overturned peace bonds when the evidence or reasons did not support the serious restrictions imposed.

In Carter v. Antler, 2025 ONSC 6091, the Ontario Superior Court quashed a previously issued s. 810 peace bond. The Justice of the Peace had stated conclusions but failed to explain why one party’s disputed evidence was accepted and the other party’s evidence was rejected. The appeal court emphasized that peace bonds restrict liberty and expose defendants to criminal prosecution if a condition is breached. They are not to be imposed casually or supported by conclusions that prevent meaningful appellate review.

In R. v. Whyte, 2016 ONCJ 824, the court refused to issue a peace bond where the complainant’s fear was not objectively reasonable at the time of the hearing. Ten months had passed with almost no contact and no further troubling behaviour. Section 810 is written in the present tense: the court must assess whether a reasonable fear of future injury or property damage presently exists—not whether tension or concern existed sometime in the past.

Together, these decisions establish an important firewall against abuse of authority by Justices who might be loyal to a political party or government. Those rules apply directly to Alex Nuttall’s application for this order in many ways, ranging from deliberately misrepresenting the facts of his true intent, as were noted by Mathew Lund before he changed his story and requested Chapter 13 protection after admitting he had visited with Shawn Gibson, the personal assistant of Alex Nuttall, in a way that Nicole Cook was aware of the details.

I am a first-person eyewitness to these events and will be replacing my account with details from the official court record when the transcript becomes available - J. Ironside, Five Points Media

Claimed Fear, Accountability and Personal Risk

Nuttall, a man approximately 6'6" tall and weighing 320 lbs, has been identified by various people as a "bully" who is said to be abusive toward councillors, city staff and even clergy. According to his own testimony, as is consistent with what happens in a schoolyard after a bully meets that kid who won’t surrender his lunch money and instead fights back, Alex Nuttall ran to the schoolyard monitor, or this case a Justice of the Peace, and complained about how he was afraid of his constituents and what they might do if they knew where he lived.

His emphasis was projected onto those Canadian citizens trapped in the homeless community, regarding whom Alex Nuttall has a track record of policies that align with social murder.

That concept was first introduced by Friedrich Engels in his 1845 work "The Condition of the Working-Class" with regard to the living and working conditions of the Victorian era English working class. In it, Engles states a simple concept that is relevant to the factual reason Alex Nuttall had filed an s. 810 application, with the true intent being to try to silence our voice during an election cycle:"

"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, [...] knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains."

As most of our followers know, we have, for almost three years, exposed the abuses of Barrie Mayor Alex Nuttall, whose policies that align with those of social murder have brought harm and an increased level of avoidable death to those trapped in the homeless community. That is substantiated by a recent report by Simcoe County that exposes a much higher rate of death within the homeless community in Barrie then in other local communities.

Our mayor, who is sworn to serve all residents of Barrie, including the homeless and our media service, and to respect Charter rights, instead tried to intimidate us through various municipal services.

No matter what Alex Nuttall threw at us, we defeated him; no matter if it was threats against my dogs, absurd fines for ice damage, and even arrest by officers of the Barrie Police Service. EVERY time I took the facts and evidence to the appropriate court or tribunal, and City Hall dropped the allegations and yielded to the absurdity of their own abuses.

Alex Nuttall’s attacks against us started in 2023, after we released an accurate video report about council’s intent to starve out the homeless and potentially cause avoidable death by exposure. Their clandestine goal was to make it a finable offence for any taxpayer to support anybody in need through the donation of spare change, food, clothing, the necessities of survival, or just giving them a life sustaining bottle of water on a hot day.

We are told that our factual report enraged Alex Nuttall, and that in response, as reported by three independent local business owners, he is reported to have used the Barrie Chamber of Commerce to attack our benevolent community service. In doing so, Alex Nuttall, the mayor of Barrie who is sworn to serve the constituents of our city, brought real and potential harm to every charity, not-for-profit, and benevolent community group in the city of Barrie and the county of Simcoe.

Alex Nuttall’s goal, we are told by multiple sources, was to shut down Five Points Media, and force our Charter protected progressive voice into silence, presumably so he would not ever again be “attacked” by people with different points of view and a comprehension of compassion.

Alex Nuttall demonstrates contempt for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by goosestepping over the rights of the homeless, and by violating the rights of journalists; both of whom are as protected by the Charter as are “everybody who matters to him.” He also blatantly ignores orders of the Superior Court that apply directly to the treatment of the unsheltered in our city, and he demonstrates a mindset of holding total power without restrictions. This was explained clearly by Reverend Canon Simon Bell of St. Margaret Anglican Church in Barrie, who noted as follows:

“I’m tired of talking to the mayor. I’m tired of being shouted at. I’m tired of being insulted. I’m tired of sitting through meetings for hours and hours and hours, when he’s belligerent, and horrible, and nasty, and insulting to us. So, I’ve given up on that conversation. And so, for me personally, I’m organizing active defiance. That’s what I’m doing. If you have greater access to the mayor, use it. Honestly, use it. We are living in a very strange time. It’s hard to believe I am living in Canada at the moment.”

A Pattern of Municipal Pressure

This story is personal, as we are directly involved. It is NOT however a whinge session. Alex Nuttall has done a lot of back-room scheming, we have documented how he has abused his authority many times, and that he frequently violates the Charter rights of many people, pushing aside Canada’s highest law whenever it got in his way.

Throughout the past almost four years, the people of Barrie have endured a restricted view of their community, as all other providers are motivated to serve City Hall so they can gain access to the Marketing & Communications budget, valued at $1,500,344.00. We are the only media service in Barrie who will discuss Alex Nuttall’s often abusive actions fully and in an honest manner. That bold honesty has caused us to increase in influence which appears to be seen as a “threat” to Alex Nuttall, in the same way that Nicole Cook said my refusal to yield to Alex Nuttall’s demands was a “threat”. That feeling of exposure is the true reason for the application for the s. 810 Peace Bond, and it truly should be obvious to any impartial judge of the facts.

There is only one kind of person who sees noncompliance as a threat, but we are not qualified to address the issue of a diagnosis and how exactly fitting it is.

We will not yield to his demands, so Alex Nuttall has repeatedly abused his authority to try to shut us down. Then a few weeks or months later, staff from the City of Barrie legal department have been forced to admit the frivolous nature of their actions whenever we pushed a claim to court or a tribunal.

So far, the score is three for three in our favour.

In March of 2025, I advised Alex Nuttall of my intent to file an ethics complaint against him regarding the abuses he ordered in Berzy Park in September of 2024. That was when staff for the City of Barrie and officers of the Barrie Police Service evicted a homeless encampment in contradiction of the section 7 Charter rights of the residents and an order of the Superior Court by Justice Michael J. Valente that directly applied to their unlawful actions.

It is also relevant that up to that time, Berczy was the only park in Barrie that had received such special attention.

Then, as a journalist, I learned of a probable conflict of interest when I confirmed that the mayor’s then home on Gunn St. was around the corner from the park, and that he had publicly stated that he wanted his children to be able to play on the playground, but felt it was not safe due to the presence of the encampment. This is paraphrased but consistent with the message.

Within days, bylaw was knocking on our door threatening to take my dogs. I challenged their claim and exposed that their action was based on them scouring our Facebook posts for pictures of dogs, and that it had nothing to do with what they claimed was a complaint. They ran away, and were immediately replaced by staff from Property Standards, who threaten me with up to $200,000.00 in fines for ice falling off my roof.

Both claims were then abandoned by the City of Barrie when they realised I was going to force their abuses to a court or tribunal.

Then, several months later, in September 2024, I was arrested by officers of the Barrie Police Service for working as a journalist in a public park while recording staff for the City of Barrie and officers of the Barrie Police Service, violating the Charter rights of Canadian citizens forced to live in the homeless community. Once again, the City of Barrie cut and ran, and had to confide to a judge that there was “no chance of conviction”, or words to that effect.

All of these actions were nothing but Huff, Puff, and Bluff, so why should this latest attack be treated any differently?

Mayor Alex Nuttall has twice been accused of election fraud, and he is reported to have been excommunicated by the federal PC party due to his misconduct. He was also reportedly told not to run for a second term. Barrie’s “honourable” mayor has also entered into a two-million-dollar contract with a Brampton security company, strictly on his own authority, skipping the required bids and tenders process that is intended to prevent fraud by favouritism.

That is not only high suspicious, but it also leaves taxpayer for the City of Barrie unprotected from potential fraud.

There is also no justification for stepping so far out of our own city when Barrie has several qualified security companies that are already vetted. Alex Nuttall is sworn to serve our city, so why would he hire these services from a business more than an hour away? It also appears highly unlikely that it is merely a coincidence that Patrick Brown, a former City Councillor and MP for Barrie, who Alex Nuttall calls his “brother” just happens to be the mayor of that city, where he is known to have a portfolio of various business interests.

To the best of my knowledge, no other local media service reported on the apparent conflict of interest, which says a lot about who is running local media.

Political Context and Judicial Independence

The law is clear, yet for reasons as yet unknown, Justice of the Peace Henry Tso, a 24-year veteran of the RCMP, who is not a lawyer, who never studied law, and who never passed the bar, felt sufficiently protected from accountability for his actions that he disregarded the limitations of his authority, filtered or ignored the facts presented, and chose to ignore precedent from higher courts, where the judges did go to law school, did pass the bar, and are lawyers with many years of experience defending the rights of Canadians.

The RCMP, which honed Justice of the Peace Henry Tso, is known for violently abusing the Charter rights of citizens who will not blindly toe the line to government authority. Statistically, police officers are known to support the Conservative party far more often than any other, and the polices of Doug Ford and Doug Downey regarding the political ideologies of judges and Justices of the Peace adds a strong political bias to how this kind of abuse is permitted to happen.

According to multiple sources, Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has spent years reshaping the province’s lower courts, favouring candidates with backgrounds in prosecution, policing and the military over those rooted in criminal defence. The process began after Doug Downey became attorney general in June 2019. By that autumn, he was proposing changes to Ontario’s judicial appointment system. Legislative amendments followed in 2020 and 2021, expanding the attorney general’s influence over selection committees, candidate lists and appointment criteria.

The results are striking. A 2024 review of Downey’s first 90 Ontario Court appointments found that more than 70 per cent came from prosecution backgrounds, making them likely Conservatives, while fewer than 15 per cent came from criminal defence. Among 114 justices of the peace appointed since June 2021, 26 were former police officers and five had military backgrounds.

The intent became harder to ignore in February 2024, when despite having engaged in manufacturing biased representation within the ranks of the Justices of the Peace, Premier Doug Ford openly announced he wanted “like-minded” judges and justices, who would be “tough” on crime.

Downey then designed and defended the appointment changes that made greater political control possible. Legal organizations have warned that selecting judges for ideological compatibility risks weakening judicial independence, public confidence and the appearance of impartial justice. Tso's appointment by the Conservative caucus occurred 2022, before the official announcement by Ford, but after the process of selective appointments was well established. This suggests that the decision to call Justice of the Peace Henry Tso to the bench was politically motivated.

This is not a conspiracy theory, but a path of logic supported by credible evidence as laid out to show a pattern.

It is not hard to follow the dots when you remember the Conservative government under Doug Ford has repeatedly abused the intent of the notwithstanding clause and used unlawful abuses of process in vain attempts to break public-sector unions. It is also the same party whose leader, an alleged former drug dealer, noted passionately his desire to make public the address of a judge who did not rule as he wanted in a case involving the rights of those trapped in the homeless community.

In Ontario, under Ford, it is acceptable, at least for him, to threaten a Superior Court judge and long-time veteran of the armed forces for showing compassion and honouring the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, to this Justice of the Peace, appointed by Doug Ford caucus, it is wrong for a progressive journalist to advise the public where their taxpayer dollars are being wasted satisfying the unreasonable fear of a mayor, who declared holy war on the homeless community, yet they showed more class than he would ever know by declining to taken any action against his home or family for more than 425 days.

The political bias was reminiscent of that displayed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed the federal documents case against President Donald Trump, who had appointed her.

Ontario PC Government Shows Considerable Interest in Five Points Media

We have no doubt it is "purely coincidence" that multiple members of the Ontario PC caucus suddenly started monitoring our publications almost three months ago, about the time this matter was brought before the courts. Their interest has since been so high that they currently account for about a quarter of the total traffic to our website, mostly focused on our three exposé articles about Alex Nuttall.

A few weeks ago, on April 27, 2026, we posted a story entitled “If Big Brother Is Watching, We Are Doing Something Right” in which we freely showed the data that reflected hundreds of visits by members of the Ontario PC Party to the exposé articles hosted on our website.

We are rolling back to this now because updated data shows that since April 26, 2026, those same visitors from our sitting government have hit our articles so often as to represent the second highest number of visitors, adding up to as much as 30% of our traffic. We have also learned that the reason might go much deeper than the whining demands of Alex Nuttall.

We cannot accurately assess their traffic on our Facebook page, but it seems likely they are keeping up with current affairs with matching vigour. If true, and there are pros and cons to the argument, they would account for as many as 600,000 hits based on our current traffic level of 1.5 million views per month.

No matter how you look at it, that is obsessive behaviour, and an indication that something we are doing is deserving of free rent in Doug Ford’s head.

As seen in the graphic provided, the Blackberry Browser, on an iPhone, represents 16.42% of our traffic, and the Safari on the iPhone represents 25.52%. We can show, using relevant data like IP and Mac addresses, that many of our visitors came to our exposé articles using the Blackberry app and then switched to Safari, likely for convenience. Also, past data, collected over a period of three years, shows that prior to the Blackberry visits, Safari usually represented less than 10 percent of our traffic.

In this case, the principles of Occam's razor apply.

In that fully documented article we noted:

“... the Ontario Government, under Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives, is doubling down on ‘digital sovereignty’ by mandating high-security software for official business. While the era of physical BlackBerry handsets has largely faded, displaced by government-issued iPhones, the BlackBerry Access browser remains a cornerstone of the province's security infrastructure.”

We understand that just those factors do not confirm that most or at least many of Doug Ford’s Conservatives are watching our content, but it seems more likely when you consider also, “Usage of the BlackBerry Browser on iPhones in Canada is currently negligible (near 0%) in terms of general consumer market share. While the original BlackBerry OS and its native browser were decommissioned on January 4, 2022, a specialized version called BlackBerry Access exists... The only people using a "BlackBerry browser" on an iPhone today are enterprise or government employees whose organizations require BlackBerry Access for secure access to work intranets and apps.”

An enterprise business is a large-scale, for-profit organization characterized by its complex organizational structure, significant resources, and extensive operational reach, none of which would have any interest in our community reporting.”

According to StatCounter’s June 2026 Canada mobile-browser statistics, Safari represented 50.64% of online traffic, Chrome 42.6%, Samsung Internet 3.63%, Firefox 1.15%, Brave 0.75%, and Opera 0.41% — with BlackBerry not listed at all among reported mobile browsers.

So, a super secure browser, Blackberry Access, represents zero public use, and is essentially exclusive to security conscious governments services . . . who are spending more time on our website than we are.

By far, the most frequent Blackberry visitor is from right here in Barrie, and as Alex Nuttall is not part of the Ontario caucus and is unlikely to have one of the secure networked phones at his disposal, the most likely user is Doug Downey, as he is the Attorney General of Ontario, and the province’s top lawyer. That one phone is responsible for more than 100 page visits on our website, mostly the three exposé articles, but also including materials not related to our ongoing exposure of Alex Nuttall’s many abuses of voter-granted authority and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, it would seem, somebody is trying to figure us out, likely with the end intention being how to shut us down.

Of course, as it is the government, we are dealing with proxy servers, shadow accounts, firewalls, and all manner of methods to disguise the identity of the visitor. Due to all the security, we cannot say with confidence who exactly is visiting, except for their use of the specialized high-security browsers. What we can say is that the sudden outpouring of interest started almost to the day that Alex Nuttall’s filed his abusive action before a Justice of the Peace.

Justice of the Peace Henry Tso was an inspector with the RCMP, a service that is well-known for abusing citizen’s rights as are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2022, when he was called to the bench, Doug Downey wanted judges and Justices of the Peace who would be hard on crime. That means Justice of the Peace Henry Tso was hand picked to represent the kind of oppression he seemingly enjoyed during his long term with the “King's Cowboys”: A derogatory term used to imply heavy-handed or aggressive policing by a federal police force.

We are also expected to believe that it is "purely coincidentally" that both Doug Ford and Doug Downey are personal friends, or at least close political allies of Alex Nuttall, the mayor of Barrie who was elected to office with only 12.91% support of the full electorate, and whose popularity is dropping rapidly, at least partially due to our growing exposure. It is therefore not a stretch to believe that Tso, who was so dedicated to the Mounties, would likely feel a sense of loyalty to the men who granted him such a lavish and well paid retirement present.

Institutional and Media Follow-Up

The transcript, evidence, and case law of this matter, now being readied for appeal, will be forwarded to Canada’s most prominent media services, and also to the “Justices of the Peace Review Council” where it will be investigated for any personal or political bias that could have prejudiced Justice of the Peace Henry Tso’s decision, or caused him to exceed his authority. If they fail to find that connection, they will have to assess Justice of the Peace Henry Tso’s worthiness to sit on that bench based on the flaws of this decision.

Given the nature of the apparent abuse of authority, it is likely the appeal will also draw a lot of media attention, especially as we are sending out a press release to every major news service in Canada, and to an online resource that is accessible to hundreds of independent journalists like ourselves. Many of those journalists are associated on a part time or sporadic basis with larger news services, and it seems likely, based solely on the dangerous precedent set by this ruling, that they will pitch the story to the larger audience. Journalists tend to take Section 2B of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Freedom of Expression, seriously, and also possible abuses of justice meant to curtail it for political reasons.

We expect this story and soon to be accompanying videos to be viewed by more than 100,000 people, as is consistent with our exposé articles.

Next Steps and the Wider Charter Implications

We are reaching out to media services like the CBC who have the ability to fight abuses of Charter rights as they pertain to media, as appears to be present in this case. In the strongest authority against compelling removal of previously lawful reporting, R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2018 SCC 5 and 2018 ABCA 391, interveners included, CTV, a Division of Bell Media Inc., Global News, a division of Corus Television Limited Partnership, The Globe and Mail Inc., Postmedia Network Inc., Vice Studio Canada Inc., Aboriginal Peoples Television Network and AD IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, all of which we are contacting.

These massive corporations are motivated to step up as if it is not challenged, this decision could become precedent that would come back in future years to be used against their journalists as a tool of government censorship and media oppression.

We are also seeking probono help from lawyers and funding from organized labour, legal advocates, media advocates, and others who would have a vested interest in exposing this seemingly obvious abuse of media rights in our democracy.

What Alex Nuttall, and apparently Doug Ford and Doug Downey, wanted was to make us go away quietly and without fanfare, but their plan has blown up into a Charter challenge that will expose much more than they were prepared for, and reach far more voters than they likely thought possible.