Court File No.: _______________
SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO
FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE INC;
Trueman of the Tuck Clan aka TRUEMAN TUCK;
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA;
MINISTER OF HEALTH;
MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE;
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY;
AFFIDAVI T OF RICHARD BEEMER
I, RICHARD BEEMER, of the City of Burlington, in the Province of Ontario
MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am the sole Director, Officer and Shareholder of the corporate Plaintiff and, as such,
have knowledge of the matters herein deposed to.
2. I am further a member of Freedom of Choice in Health Care Inc. and supporter of the
Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom.
ENCOUNTER WITH HEALTH CANADA
3. My first major encounter with Canadian federal criminal regulatory authorities were
went I received a letter from Kristy Matthews dated August 7th, 2002. Ms. Kristy
Mathews identified herself as a Compliance Officer with the Drug Investigations Unit of
Health Canada on Midland Avenue in Scarborough. Her letter stated as follows:
(a) Complaints had been received in regards to the product GHR15.
(b) My website, www.biehealth.com, information, pamphlets and ingredient list had
been reviewed by Health Canada. Ingredients such as arginine, lysine and
tyrosine are amino acids and are considered to be drug products.
(c) BIE was required to comply with the Food and Drugs Act to be able to sell my
product in Canada. GHR15 is a drug and I was required to have a DIN. As
GHR15 did not have a DIN assigned, she advised that the product should not be
offered for sale in Canada.
4. In June 25, 2002, Lesley Beaton, a Compliance Officer for Health Canada, then wrote
to Mr. Steve Tuck, Publisher, B.C. Interior Edition, Forever Young and stated the
(a) Their office received an inquiry in regards to the advertisement of my product,
“GHR15: The Reverse Aging Miracle” I had placed with Forever Young, B.C.
Edition in March 2002 wherein the advertisement made claims for medical
conditions such as AIDS, cancer, angina and diabetes, which are Schedule „A‟
diseases under the Food and Drugs Act.
(b) He further states, “The advertisement of a food, drug, cosmetic or device to the
general public as a treatment or cure for any Schedule ‘A’ diseases is a violation
of the Food and Drug Act and its Regulations.”
(c) The claims of this product placed it in the category of a pharmaceutical drug
category. Food and Drugs Act and Regulations state that a drug cannot be sold in
Canada without a Drug Identification Number (DIN) which allows the customer
to know that the product has undergone and has passed tests by Health Canada for
safeness and effectiveness.
5. On October 2, 2002, I received a letter from Kevin Chin, another Compliance Officer
with the Drug Investigations Unit of Health Canada, also working at the Midland,
Scarborough office of Health Canada wherein he states:
(a) Complaints had been filed against BIE advertising GHR in Forever Young edition
of the Toronto Star in August 2002 wherein the advertisement make therapeutic
claims, such as, increased sexual potency, reverse baldness and reverse many
degenerative disease symptoms.
(b) GHR15 is infringing the Food and Drugs Act and Drug Regulations in violation
of section 9(1) of the Act and C.01.014 of the Regulations.
(c) BIE was directed to immediately stop the promotion and sale of GHR15 until
such time as the product is brought into compliance with Health Canada‟s
6. I researched the situation and found that in 1999, a Standing Committee on Health
made 53 recommendations regarding the regulation of natural health products. Two of
these were that Health Canada review the diseases listed in Schedule „A‟ of the Food and
Drug Act and initiate a review to determine whether 3(1) & (2) of the Act or all of the
diseases listed in Schedule „A‟ should be deleted.
7. I also became aware that in October 2002 as a result of our Health Freedom
delegations meeting with senior Ottawa Health Canada and Department of Justice
officials that a memo was sent to the then Minister of Health stating,
“Current regulations do not provide sufficient penalty to strongly
encourage compliance while Department of Justice considers that
the current provisions would probably not withstand a Charter
Challenge. Forthcoming under separate cover is a legal opinion
of a possible charter challenge on the grounds of freedom of
8. I responded to these allegations by forwarding a letter to the Drug Investigations Unit
of Health Canada on October 8, 2002 wherein I stated we do not have in possession the
product for sale neither do we distribute the product in Canada. I clarified that our
company was solely operating as an international call center and that all product was
being shipped in accordance with the applicable Canadian laws.
9. Compliance Officer Christie Canivel of the Drug Investigations Unit with Health
Canada stated the following in response in her letter of October 21, 2002:
(a) If any of the activities listed in the definition of “sell” are performed, it is
considered a sale. The list is not inclusive.
(b) Because GHR 15 is distributed by BIE Health Products as indicated on my
product label and my advertisements, BIE Health Products is selling GHR 15.
(c) Importation of Human-Use Drugs for Personal Use Enforcement directive does
not apply to the activities conducted by my company. If any amount of this
product is sold or offered for sale within Canada, it does not fall under this
(d) Because GHR 15 contains Amino Acids, it is not subject to special measures and
therefore requires a DIN. My advertisement also validates that this product is not
subject to special measures as it states in Schedule „A‟ claims for HGH.
Although this is not a direct claim for GHR 15, it is a claim by association and is
(e) I was requested to immediately cease sale and advertising of these products, until
all regulatory requirements had been met, including the assignment of a DIN. If
this request was not fulfilled, stronger enforcement actions would be initiated.
10. On October 25, 2002, I wrote to Kristy Matthews, Kevin Chin and Christie Canivel,
Compliance Officers with the Drug Investigations Unit of Health Canada stating the
(a) BIE was compliant with the current legislation.
(b) Explained in detail the legislation and how my business works.
(c) Having reviewed Section 9(1) of the Food and Drug Act, BIE would no longer
advertise GHR in Canada.
(d) Requesting that one of the three Compliance Officers respond to my letter and not
all three. How many times would I have to answer the same questions to different
11. On November 1, 2002, while acknowledging my intention to no longer advertise in
Canada, Christie Canivel, Compliance Officer with Health Canada, stated the following:
(a) BIE GHR 15 is infringing the Food and Drug Act and Food and Drug
(b) BIE must immediately cease sale of these products until all regulatory
requirements were met, including a DIN.
12. I responded on November 12, 2002 to Christie Canivel, of Health Canada, indicating
that labels for GHR 15 would be changed to show the distributor as being BIE Health
13. On January 8, 2003, Christie Canivel, of Health Canada, wrote to me and stated the
(a) A copy of the revised label, as well as, notification of when the revised label was
first used was required.
(b) If BIE Health Products is not the distributor of GHR 15 and it is in fact distributed
by BIE Health Products America, it should be clear to the buyer that this product
is not offered for sale in Canada at quantities exceeding personal use as outlined
in the Importation of Human Use Drugs for Personal Use Enforcement Directive.
(c) All contact or order information indentified on the web site making reference to a
Canadian source should be removed from the site to avoid violation of Section
14. I responded by forwarding a copy of the U.S. label and altering the Registrant,
Administrative and Technical contacts to show the U.S. Company and its address
15. On June 6, 2003, Compliance Officer Christie Canivel, of the Drug Investigations
Unit with Health Canada wrote to me and stated the following:
(a) They have received more complaints about GHR 15.
(b) GHR 15 is infringing the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug
(c) By July 7, 2003, BIE must have a plan to comply with the legislation.
(d) GHR 15 must not be offered for sale or advertised to the Canadian Market.
16. On July 14, 2003, Compliance Officer Christine Canivel, of the Drug Investigations
Unit of Health Canada, wrote to 50 Plus Magazine and stated the following:
(a) There have been complaints about the advertising of GHR 15 in their magazine.
(b) Advertising GHR-15 infringes sections of the Food and Drug Act and Food and
(c) No future advertisements are made in 50 Plus Magazine for GHR 15.
17. On August 6, 2003, Compliance Officer Christie Canivel, of the Drug Investigations
Unit with Health Canada, wrote to me and stated the following:
(a) There had been at least nine (9) complaints regarding BIE Health about the
advertising of GHR 15.
(b) Health Canada had on several occasions requested I cease advertising GHR 15.
(c) Since October 25, 2002, advertisements for GHR 15 have been placed in several
publications, such as Toronto Life Magazine (March 2003), New Directions
(June/July 2003), and 50 Plus Magazine (June/July 2003) submitted by Richard
(d) I am in violation of Section 24 of the Food and Drugs Act.
(e) After being informed, Richard Beemer of BIE Health America was responsible
for all advertising; the US Federal Trade Commission was contacted and made
aware of the web site. Confirmation that the web site is owned and operated by
BIE Health in Canada has been communicated to the US FTC.
(f) I was requested to cease all advertising for this product, including the Internet.
18. On August 26, 2003, I wrote to Compliance Officer Christie Canivel, of the Drug
Investigations Unit with Health Canada, stating the following:
(a) Health Canada was out of their jurisdiction regarding their statements about my
(b) Mr. Russell Beemer was no longer associated with BIE Health America and our
president, Mr. Robert Paskus, located in California, would be more than willing to
work with the U.S. authorities but as Health Canada does not have cross border
jurisdiction, he was not prepared to entertain their erroneous comments.
(c) The 1998 Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health found that s. 3(1) was out
of sync with modern legislation and recommended repealing both s. 3(1) and
Schedule „A‟. Further, the transition team struck by Minister of Health, Allan
Rock, stated in its Final Report, “Sections 3(1) and 3(2) and Schedule A of the
Food and Drugs Act are no longer relevant. They do not serve any purpose that
cannot be accomplished adequately by other sections of the legislation or
regulations. More importantly, the schedule does not reflect contemporary
scientific thought. The weight of modern scientific evidence confirms the
mitigation and prevention of many diseases and disorders listed in Schedule A
through the judicious use of NHPs. It is time that the legislation and regulations
reflect the prevailing sciences.”
(d) Section 2 of the Constitution gives the following rights: Section 2(b) freedom of
thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other
media and communication. Additionally, Section 52(1) states, “The Constitution
of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of inconsistency, of no force and
19. Jean-Marc Charron, of the Ontario and Nunavut Operational Centre Manager for
Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate, responded on August 29, 2003 by stating:
(a) He advised me of the head office location at 3201 Midland Avenue, Toronto,
Ontario with the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily except for weekends and
(b) Staff members are not to be contacted at their homes under any circumstances.
(c) Should there be any dealings with Health Canada officials at their personal
dwelling of a threatening nature, it may generate a response by the local law
20. In August/September 2003, I received a letter from Health Canada advising me what
had transpired with my recent shipment of drug product. They advised:
(a) When a shipment of drug products is screened by the Canadian Customs and
Revenue Agency (CCRA) for entry into Canada, it may be referred to Health
Canada for further examination, who examines the shipment to determine if the
importation would be permissible according to the Food and Drugs Act and
(b) Authorization from Health Canada has not been obtained for the marketing of
GHR/GHR 15 in Canada. Safety, quality and efficiency have not been
(c) The actual shipment remains under the control of the CCRA. It is our
understanding that CCRA returns such shipments back to their origin whenever
(d) An enclosure of the Report of Examination for Customs Entry was signed by Jim
Daskalopoulos on August 29, 2003.
21. I returned from a trip to the Dixie Road Postal Sorting Station and found out that
approximately 30 packages were being held in customs of which Jim Daskalopoulos had
signed an order holding these. Neither my clients nor I had been informed that these
packages were being held.
22. Trueman Tuck wrote to Jim Daskalopoulos, a Supervisor with the Drug
Investigations HPFBI in Health Canada, and stated:
(a) “Soft Seizure” is not an appropriate legal procedure under the legislation and can
be argued to contravene not only my constitutional rights, but those of the 30 plus
individuals whose packages were being held.
(b) “Soft Seizure” can also be argued to be in violation of Section 337 of the Criminal
23. On September 9, 2003, Trueman Tuck wrote to Jean-Marc Charron, Operations
Centre Manager of the Drug Investigations Unit with Health Canada, stating the
(a) Requesting an immediate release of my goods pending the meeting between,
Trueman Tuck, myself, Jim Daskalopoulos and two other colleagues, asking for
specific legal verification in writing of the status of my property.
(b) Mr. Daskalopoulos indicated that a form 60-10 was being forwarded by mail to
the importer. He advised that all other shipments were being stopped.
(c) Mr. Daskalopoulos stated that it was departmental policy to increase regulatory
enforcement with importers who refuse to comply with written demands, and as I
had been corresponded with for over a year, I had been warned.
(d) The original Food and Drugs Act legislation strongly limits the federal role and
the junior officials‟ allegations of fraud and non-compliance are violating my
constitutional rights. The officials have failed to charge me, yet they contact my
customers, suppliers, US regulatory officials to interfere with my economic
interests. They have stated to suppliers that I was “breaking the laws.”
24. Jean-Marc Charron, Operation Manager with Health Canada, responded stating the
(a) The requested release of copies of signed or issued documents by the officials
may contain personal information as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act.
(b) An Access to Information request should be filed to ensure that any such records
are appropriately released in accordance with the Access to Information Act and
the Privacy Act.
(c) Christie Canivel and Jim Daskalopoulos have acted entirely within their lawful
(d) As the matters in relation to which you seek a meeting are currently the subject of
ongoing investigations, judicial review proceedings, or prosecutions, Health
Canada is not of the view that it would be helpful at this time to meet with you as
25. On February 7, 2004, Trueman Tuck wrote to Sharon Merkley, a Compliance Officer
with Health Canada, stating:
(a) Health Canada had been illegally interfering with BIE Health Products‟
shipments, specifically signed by Sharon Merkley on December 17, 2003, January
21, 2004 (x2), and January 28, 2004 (x3).
(b) Health Canada‟s policy states, “The Food and Drug Act and Regulations do not
regulate the importation of drugs for personal use unless the drugs sought to be
imported are listed in Schedule F to the Regulations.” Further, “It has been the
policy of the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate to permit individuals
to import a three-month supply of a drug for their own personal use unless
prohibited by law.”
(c) Health Canada, via Sharon Merkley, on January 22, 2004, to Mr. & Mrs. Dennis
Seber in Calgary, advising them, “GHR does not meet the requirements set out in
the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. As such, it is not authorized for sale in
Canada,” and “Since GHR is not authorized for sale in Canada and because GHR
is offered for sale, and orders are received for sale, in Canada, a recommendation
has been made to the Canada Border Security Agency, formerly known as the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency that your package be refused entry into
(d) The product was approved by the FDA and manufactured in an approved facility
in the U.S. and is classified as a “Dietary Supplement”, or “Therapeutic Food”
under both the U.S. and Canadian Legislation.
(e) There is no legislative foundation for the Personal Use Policy and therefore
cannot be any violations under 9, A.01.040, C01.004, C.01, and C.01.014.
26. On February 18, 2004, Trueman Tuck wrote to Bobbie Chiu, a Compliance Officer
with Health Canada, stating:
(a) Health Canada, via Bobby Chiu, continued to illegally interfere with BIE Health
Products shipments, specifically, February 3, 2004 (x4) stating, “GHR/GHR-15
does not meet the requirements set out in the FDA and NHPRs. As such, it is not
authorized for sale in Canada,” and “In accordance with the NHPRs, prohibits the
importation of a natural health product for sale in Canada, the sale of which in
Canada would constitute a violation of the FDA or the NHPRs. Since
GHR/GHR-15 is not authorized for sale in Canada and because GHR/GHR-15 is
offered for sale, and orders are received for sale, in Canada, a recommendation
has been made to the Canadian Border Security Agency, formerly known as the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, that your package will be refused entry
(b) Health Canada‟s policy states, “The Food and Drug Act and Regulations do not
regulate the importation of drugs for personal use unless the drugs sought to be
imported are listed in Schedule F to the Regulation.”
(c) The scope of the PUED applies to all drugs in dosage form (including biologics)
for human use only. It is a policy of the HPFBI to permit individuals to import a
three months supply of a given drug for their own personal use, once during each
quarter of the year.
27. On February 26, 2004, Trueman Tuck, wrote to Christie Canivel, a Compliance
Officer with Health Canada, stating no acknowledgement or response was received from
the February 7, 2004 letter.
28. On March 2, 2004, Colin Broughton, Regional Director with Health Canada,
(a) The shipments of GHR/GHR-15 that have been recommended for refusal at
Customs, since orders and payments are taken by BIE Health Products, we
consider the sale of these products to occur in Canada and the importer to be BIE
(b) The shipments in question are imported by BIE Health Products and as such, the
Health Products and Food Branch Inspecorate Importation of Human-Use Drugs
for Personal Use Enforcement Directive does not apply.
29. On March 5, 2004, Trueman Tuck responded by stating:
(a) They had been dealing with these matters for over 7 years.
(b) He thought that at least the courtesy of a meeting would have occurred and that all
harassment towards BIE Health Products would have been temporarily suspended
pending the meeting.
(c) Section A.01.044 has nothing to do with this matter legally, because Health
Canada‟s staff exercise the most extreme criminal police powers available to any
police enforcer in Canada and have not asserted any probable cause for criminal
charges, nor laid any criminal charges, thus there is no violation of the legislation.
(d) A Health Canada Compliance Officer, if they have solid probable cause alleging
BIE Health Products is breaking the law pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act, do
their duty and charge him or just back off.
(e) Legally, these are USA manufactured products, FDA approved as “Dietary
Supplements”, with no safety issues with the FDA, that are being shipped from
the USA directly to the end user in Canada for personal consumption.
(f) These products are legal foods in the country of origin, and there is no published
policy on the personal importation of foods and beverages.
30. On June 9, 2004, Trueman Tuck wrote to Terry Swanek, Peter Diponio, and Robert
Burfield, with the Canadian Border Services Agency, the following:
(a) Further to the meeting in August and September 2003 with BIE Health Products
objecting to the officials interfering with personal use shipments addressed to
individual Canadians of FDA approved dietary supplements from the USA
(b) We were still waiting for the office‟s finding in regards to the filed complaint on
behalf of BIE Health Products and their Canadian clients.
(c) This matter seemed to be resolved with shipments proceeding normally in
October through December 2003. A recurrence in seizures began in December
2003 with: 1 shipment in December 2003, 2 shipments in January 2004, 24 in
February 2004, 215 in March 2004 and 27 in April 2004.
(d) BIE Health Products was forced to terminate business activities to Canada as a
direct result of the officials‟ illegal and unlawful interference.
31. Following Trueman Tuck‟s letters of March 8, 2004, March 18, 2004 and March 31,
2004 and his meeting with Alain Jolicoeur, President of Canada Border Services Agency,
he wrote on June 9, 2004 stating:
(a) BIE Health Products was still waiting for the office‟s findings in regards to the
complaint filed on behalf of BIE Health Products and his Canadian clients.
(b) Global Health Products Inc.‟s business in Canada has now been 100% destroyed
as a result of the continuing return of their personal use shipments of USA dietary
supplements to addressed individual Canadians.
(c) BIE Health Products need written confirmation that he can safely resume shipping
as he is holding over $175,00 worth of new orders, plus have had over $250,000
of orders that were returned and were forced to rebate funds for.
32. In July 9, 2009, Trueman Tuck had still not received a reply from his letter of June 9,
33. In a telephone conversation with Sylvia Fournier, of the Canada Border Service
Agency, on July 14, 2004, he was informed that the July 9, 2009 couriered package was
sent to an old address and it was tracked down and she would be responding to the letter
in approximately one week.
34. On July 26, 2004, J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, wrote to the
Import Process Division stating:
(a) On July 7, 2004, BIE Health Products was forwarded a letter from Buffalo, NY
by way of the United States Postal Service. Affixed to the letter was a US Postal
Services Custom Declaration describing the contents of the letter as documents
with a value of $2.00;
(b) In accordance with the Customs International Mail Processing System and the
Customs Act, an Agency Inspector may not open any mail that weighs 30 grams
or less, unless the addressee or sender gives authorization. The letter weighed
less than 30 grams and no authorization was provided. BIE Health Products
request justification to its opening the Letter without proper authorization;
(c) The letter did not contain prohibited goods and should have been released
immediately not requiring another governmental department or agency to review
(d) The letter contained no drug or food related items, but only documents, and there
was no justification for forwarding the letter to Health Canada or any government
(e) The inspection label left on the letter by Health Canada, Inspector, Sharon
Merkley, indicated the contents were not examined. However, it should have
been clearly stamped “Examined” or “Released by Customs”.
35. On July 27, 2004, J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, wrote to Jean-
Marc Charron, Operations Manager with Health Canada, stating:
(a) Global receives requests for dietary supplements from Canadians via internet or
telephone orders for Human-Use Drugs for Personal Use are adhered to.
(b) In compliance, Global only ships a three-month supply of a dietary supplement to
an individual and directly to their residences and only invoices them directly.
Global does not and will not ship to commercial entities in Canada.
(c) The Canadian Border Services Agency has deemed the exports to be commercial
in nature and outside the boundaries of the Directive. The reason is unclear and
no review of the agency‟s conclusion has been released to Global.
(d) Global requests to convene a formal hearing to review the decision to exercise its
enforcement powers to recommend to the Agency that it refuse entry of Global‟s
dietary supplements into Canada.
36. On August 6, 2004, Jim Daskalopoulos, of Health Canada, spoke with Michael
Salvatori, of Imagination Plus, seeking his voluntary cooperation in withdrawing the
Internet services that pertain to the advertisement of GHR in regards to BIE Health
37. On August 19, 2004, J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, requested a
hearing with Health Canada, Health Products & Food Branch Inspectorate, and the
Canada Border Services Agency to review the seizure of BIE Health Products GHR
product and enclosed a Canada Customs Adjustment Request.
38. On September 8, 2004, Jim Daskalopoulos, of Health Canada, wrote to me the
(a) Health Canada had previously communicated the requirements of a DIN before
this product can be marketed in Canada.
(b) BIE Health Products is requested to cease and desist sale of this product until
market authorization is obtained.
(c) Health Canada has concerns regarding the ingredients, particularly, pituitary
(bovine source) and hypothalamus. Different types of animal-sourced materials
obtained from animals infected with Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
(TSE) will possess varying levels of infectivity.
(d) An assessment to support the safety of identified animal-sourced materials with
respect to TSE is requested.
39. I responded to Jim Daskalopoulos on September 13, 2004 the following:
(a) A certificate of analysis for bovine content was included.
(b) According to FDA website, the source Argentina is specified as a non-BSE
(c) The request for information assessment is non-applicable due to the above
qualifications and lack of any stated regulations.
(d) To pre-empt any future perceived risk, porcine biologics is now available in
substitution pending cooperation with your department.
40. On September 22, 2004, J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, to the
Canadian Border Services Agency the following:
(a) The refusal of BIE Health Products was based on Health Canada.
(b) Health Canada indicates they have the ability to recommend refusal, but the actual
decision to refuse is that of the Canada Border Services Agency, therefore any
appeal of that decision must flow through their appeal system.
(c) Health Canada has determined the shipment of certain natural health products
were commercial in nature and therefore any appeal in regard to their turn back
again fell to the Canada Border Services Agency.
41. On October 4, 2004, Jean-Marc Charron, of Health Canada, wrote to J.A. Bradford,
of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, that Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate
may convene a formal hearing to achieve compliance with legislative requirements.
However, the Inspectorate is not convening a formal hearing since they are concerned
with the activities of the Canadian importer of GHR, BIE Health Products Inc. and may
consider a meeting with the company.
42. On October 8, 2004, J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, wrote to Jean-
Marc Charron, of Health Canada, the following:
(a) He acted for Global and not the company named BIE Health Products. Global
does not export any items to BIE Health Products but directly to individuals in
(b) As the Inspectorate is rejecting Global‟s request for a formal hearing, Global
requests that the Inspectorate implement its internal appeal process to facilitate a
resolution of Global‟s concerns.
He further wrote in a second letter:
(a) There were numerous copies of reports for custom entry wherein Global is
properly named as the exporter, but the name and address of the individual
importer is, placed in the product description box.
(b) The importer is being named BIE Health Products and Global does not sell any
products to BIE Health Products.
43. On November 1, 2004, Pierre Richard, of the Canada Border Services Agency, wrote
to J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, stating:
(a) The goods were refused entry into Canada on the basis that they did not meet
requirements of the Food and Drug Act.
(b) Health Canada is responsible for the administration and the Canada Border
Services Agency enforces the act at the border based on the recommendations
made by Health Canada.
(c) As the goods were returned to the exporter, no decision or enforcement action was
taken by the Canada Border Services Agency under the Customs Act so there is no
authority for the CBSA to review your case.
44. On November 5, 2004, Jim Daskalopoulos, of Health Canada, wrote to me the
(a) A health hazard assessment on GHR has been completed by Health Canada and
the product is deemed to be of a Type I Health Hazard, meaning there is
reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a product will cause serious
adverse health consequences or death.
(b) The specific risk is that a patient will stop conventional human growth hormone
(HGH) therapy and only consume the product.
(c) There is no evidence that HGH is effective when administered orally, so
consumers may not receive any therapeutic benefits from the product.
(d) Any disease requiring HGH therapy are serious diseases which require specialized
diagnosis therapy and followed up by specifically trained physicians. A public
warning will be issued by Health Canada.
(e) BIE Health Products sells the product to Canadian residents importing the product
from the US. BIE is considered the importer. It is also known that BIE is
shipping the product from Ontario to its customers within Canada.
(f) GHR has been classified as a Biological Drug due to the Pituitary extracts listed
in Schedule D and the listed drug benefits for GHR, mostly amounting to
(g) Confirm before November 10, 2004, to cease the sale of GHR, provide a
corrective action plan addressing the violations, and the quantity of GHR
currently in BIE‟s possession.
45. On November 17, 2004, J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, wrote to
Scarlett Russell, Senior Program Officer with the Canada Border Services Agency, the
(a) Health Canada only provides recommendations to the Canada Border Services
Agency, but they do not have the power to enforce these recommendations.
(b) Canada Border Services Agency through the Customs Act has the authority and
power to refuse the goods. He disagreed that there was no “enforcement action”
taken by the CBSA under the Customs Act.
(c) Is it correct to assume the CBSA does not consider or review requests from other
agencies before it exercises its statutory power?
(d) When the CBSA exercises power under the Customs Act, that exercise of power
must be subject to a form of administrative appeal.
46. On November 18, 2004, J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, wrote to
Jim Daskalopoulos, of Health Canada, to provide more details on what was the basis
for their allegations and what prompted such a response.
47. A meeting was scheduled with Health Canada, via Jim Daskalopoulos, for December
7, 2004, however, Mr. Beemer, of BIE Health Products, was unable to attend and
Trueman Tuck, through Power of Attorney, would speak at the meeting.
48. Following the meeting of December 7, 2004 with Health Canada, BIE Health
Products on January 10, 2004, through Trueman Tuck, that he refused to cooperate
voluntarily with an unsubstantiated request or demand of the officials. The product is a
food and should be referred to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for border access
review. He disputed that he physically imports any product for sale and disputed their
conclusions that legally he can be deemed to be an importer for commercial purposes.
49. On January 10, 2005, Trueman Tuck wrote to the Appeals Unit of the Canada Border
Services Agency requesting a confirmation of a formal hearing and in the meantime, the
agency would not stop and return any more shipments.
50. On January 17, 2005, Henry Peters, an Appeal Officer with the Canada Border
Services Agency, forwarded the letter to the Trade Disputes Policy Section.
51. On February 15, 2005, Craig Turner, Director with the Canada Border Services
Agency, wrote to J.A. Bradford, of O‟Flynn Weese Tausendfreund, the CBSA assists in
the administration of the Food and Drugs Act at the border on recommendations made by
Health Canada. The CBSA does not vet the recommendations of Health Canada in
determining compliance with the Food and Drug Act as they have neither the technical
expertise nor legislative responsibility for making such a determination. There is no
legislative mechanism available under the Customs Act when goods have been retained
under section 101 and exported from Canada.
52. On February 17, 2005, Christie Canivel, a Compliance Officer with Health Canada,
replied to Trueman Tuck explaining the Health Hazard Assessment procedure and the
usage of a numerical designation to indicate the hazard classification relative to the health
hazard of the product. The letter included their full report dated February 1, 2005.
53. On April 6, 2005, Robert Neil, Acting, Regional Director with Health Canada, wrote
to me the following:
(a) Replying to the letter of March 7, 2005 of Trueman Tuck.
(b) BIE‟s intention not to comply with the request to cease and desist importation and
sale of GHR/GHR-15 product in Canada.
(c) Health Canada has previously denied the request for a formal hearing being that
GHR/GHR-15 is a new drug product requiring a new drug submission and
marketing authorization (DIN) before importing or selling in Canada.
(d) Prosecution of the tools used by Health Canada to protect and enhance the health
of Canadians may be considered.
(e) BIE is considered the importer of GHR/GHR-15 and Importation of Human-Use
Drugs for Personal Use Enforcement does not apply.
(f) Health Canada will not change its position with regard to the status of
54. On April 15, 2005, Trueman Tuck wrote to the Border Compliance and Monitoring
Division of the Canada Border Services Agency requesting the status of their response to
BIE‟s letter of January 17, 2005. No response was received on April 24, 2005.
55. On May 12, 2005, Scarlett Russell, of the Canada Border Services Agency, wrote to
Trueman Tuck stating that the letter of April 15, 2005 was being forwarded to the Trade
Disputes and Policy Section.
56. On June 7, 2005, Jim Daskalopoulos, of Health Canada, wrote to me that the enclosed
Public Warning would be posted on Health Canada‟s website, “Health Canada Warns
Consumers Not to Use Human Growth Hormone Drug Called GHR-15.”
57. On June 26, 2005, Trueman Tuck wrote to Robert Neil, Regional Director with
Health Canada, to either lay criminal charges on BIE Health Products or discontinue
harassing particularly when the new Natural Health Product Regulations had never been
58. On June 25, 2005, Trueman Tuck wrote to the Trade Disputes Section of the Canada
Border Services Agency requesting the status on the response to his previous letters of
which were forwarded.
59. No response had been received from Robert Neil, Regional Director of Health
Canada, as of July 5, 2005 following letters dated June 24, 2005 and April 6, 2005.
60. I issued a Notice of Libel in July 2005 making the defendants aware that I considered
the June 10, 2005 Press Release to be defamatory and provided them every opportunity to
rescind, apologize or allow me equal opportunity to provide my side for a fair and proper
coverage of the issue.
61. BIE Health Products have been held up to ridicule, contempt and disrespect in the
eyes of the public, clients and potential clients due to the defamatory broadcasts.
62. I believe that the actions of the defendants constitute a callous and flagrant disregard
of my rights.
63. I make this affidavit in support of the Application and for no other improper purpose.
SWORN BEFORE ME THIS ______ )
DAY OF _______________, 2009 )
AT THE CITY OF ________________ )
IN THE PROVINCE OF ____________ )
________________________________ ) ______________________________
A commissioner, etc. RICHARD BEEMER