1) A major hurdle has been cleared — the court has agreed that the class action lawsuit against Apple and Samsung be allowed to move forward. Of course, the telecoms can, and probably will, appeal. But this is a major case in Canada. The entire decision is at the link below and the summary, provided by attorney Charles O’Brien, is in “Letters”. Please share widely the information about this important legal action.
Remember that the information I obtained from ISED, after more than 2 years, showed that only a few cell phones are tested by ISED, that ISED allows manufacturers to do the testing, and that 90% of the phones tested would exceed the dangerously high SAR limit if they were held close to the body, as they are normally used. I am updating that report to show the true SAR when tested at reduced distances and will share shortly.
The “overview”, starting on page 3/64, provides the details of the legal action.
Quebec Class Action Judgement
2) An investigative report, done in 2017, showing how manufacturers and Health Canada hide/misrepresent evidence that cellphones are dangerous. This has been shared before but given the current Class Action in item 1, and the fact that we have many new members, I think it’s well worth seeing/sharing again.
CBC Marketplace – The Secret Inside Your Phone
“As new science fuels the debate about cellphone safety, we take a closer look at a little known message inside your cellphone’s settings and manual telling you to keep the device 5 to 15 mm away from your body. We ask why this message exists, why it’s so hidden, and whether Health Canada is doing enough to protect us.”
3) Newsletter from C4ST and details for attending Tuesday’s Zoom meeting re. 5G
C4ST Tuesday, Sept 27, 7:30 ET, 4:30 PT.
What You Need to Know about 5G
(click on photo to enlarge)
Dear EMF Experts victims and well-wishers:
Please see our searchable English Authorization conclusions below.
This could be posted on social media to get the good word out.
Charles and Pedro
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF MONTREAL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN IMMER, J.S.C.
… PAGE 61
… FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:
 GRANTS in part the Re-re-Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Collective Action and to Obtain the Status of Representative dated April 1 , 2022
 AUTHORIZES the bringing of a class action in the form of an originating application in damages against Apple Canada Inc., Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Canada et Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
 APPOINTS the Applicants Erika Patton, Zoe Patton, Alex Tasciyan, Mathew Nucciarone and Vito DeCicco as representatives of the persons included in the following class the (“Class”):
Any physical person residing or domiciled in Quebec, who has, since September 1 1 , 2016, purchased or leased and used an Apple or Samsung cellphone;
 IDENTIFIES the principal questions of fact and law to be treated collectively as the following:
1. Do the defendants phones cause the SAR level to exceed 1.6W/kg on 1 g of tissue and if yes, at what separation distance?
2. Does this pose a risk or a danger to the user?
3. Can RF exposure, regardless of separation distance, cause adverse health effects thereby constituting a risk or danger to the user?
4. Should Apple and Samsung have provided instructions to protect users against such risk or danger, thereby triggering their liability under s. 53 CPA?
5. Is this an important fact which Apple and Samsung failed to mention to users, in violation of s. 228 CPA?
6. Should Apple or Samsung pay punitive damages?
 IDENTIFIES the conclusions sought by the class action to be instituted as being the following:
DECLARE that Defendants have contravened section 53 of the Consumer Protection Act;
DECLARE that Defendants have contravened section 228 of the Consumer Protection Act;
CONDEMN Defendants to pay punitive damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined by the Court;
ORDER the collective recovery of the punitive damages;
THE WHOLE with judicial costs including expert fees.
 DECLARES that all members of the Class that have not requested their exclusion, be bound by any judgement to be rendered on the class action to be instituted in the manner provided for by the law;
 CONVENES the parties to a further hearing to hear representations on the request for information, the content of the notices required under art. 579 of the Code of Civil procedure, the appropriate communication or publication of the said notice and the appropriate delay for a class member to request exclusion, such hearing to take place within 45 days of the present judgment, on a date to be determined between the parties and the Court;
 THE WHOLE with costs, but no expert costs but (sic) including publication fees.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/Citizens for Safer Tech
“When you are asked if you can do a job, tell ’em, ‘Certainly I can!’ Then get busy and find out how to do it.” Theodore Roosevelt