A Class Action was filed in Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, Canada, Case No. 500-06-000760-153 against 50 Respondents including the Attorneys General of Quebec and Canada, the City of Sainte-Anne-Des-Lacs, Hydro-Quebec, and approximately 40 corporations involved in the manufacture, production, servicing and transmission of Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMFs) and Radiofrequencies (RFRs), for their contributory roles in the transmissions, products and services that emit

in excess of one milliGauss of magnetic field, 0.6 V/m of electric field, or 0.1 microWatt per square centimeter of microwave power density for general populations in uncontrolled environments; or 0.3 milliGauss of magnetic field, 0.2 V/m of electric field, or 0.01 microWatt per square centimeter of microwave power density for sleeping environments or for sensitive individuals (children, pregnant women or persons who are electromagnetic hypersensitive) from any one or any combination of anthropogenic the listed electromagnetic field (EMF) sources… [Pg. 6]

Anthropogenic EMF is measurable throughout Quebec attributable to technologies and infrastructures ranging from the low frequency power distribution grid through to high frequency mobile telecommunications networks. Not isolated systems, EMF from one system may couple onto an adjacent network compounding health effects, particularly for electro-sensitive individuals. [Pg. 7] [CJF emphasis]

Not only is anthropogenic [man-made] EMFs measurable in Quebec, but throughout entire global communities where various microwave technologies are prolific, e.g., cell, stingray and GWEN towers, Wi-Fi, AMI Smart Meters, 3G—4G and “trial communities” for 5G communications networks, plus antenna arrays and radar facilities.

Those technological “advances” have been implemented and allowed to be placed everywhere without proper environmental and human health impact studies—at least in the USA—being made available to consumers and the public at large. If such studies exist, they are not privy to public knowledge nor are warnings about adverse health reactions, e.g., electromagnetic hypersensitivity, etc. However, that information probably can be found during the Discovery process of any lawsuit, unless such ‘proprietary information’ may not be divulged due to “trade secrets”!

Charles O’Brien is the Attorney of Record for Marcel Durand, Evelyn and Myles Mahon, the Petitioners. The document presented to a Canadian Superior Court was signed July 27, 2017, on behalf of

All persons who reside, work, study in any part of the Province of Quebec, well as flora, fauna, pets and animals that are exposed to a level in excess of one milliGauss of magnetic field, 0.6 V/m of electric field, or 0.1 microWatt per square centimeter of microwave power density for general populations in uncontrolled environments; or 0.3 milliGauss of magnetic field, 0.2 V/m of electric field, or 0.01 microWatt per square centimeter of microwave power density for sleeping environments or for sensitive individuals (children, pregnant women or persons who are electromagnetic hypersensitive) from any one or any combination of anthropogenic the above-listed electromagnetic field (EMF) sources, who suffered moral, physical, psychological and/or genetic damages as a result EMF pollution. Pursuant to the precautionary principle, those born, not of the age of majority, are nonetheless claiming as class members given the pervasive, escalating and cumulative effects of EMF pollution (as appears from the Threshold Exposure Standard below): [Pp. 43-44]

In reading the 64-page document, I found it extremely exciting to realize a member of the legal profession was “calling to task” corporate behemoths for product liability ‘negligence’, plus other stated accusations, and especially their FAILURE to inform of potential exposure to EMFs from their wireless products, services, etc., including their FAILURE to encourage means to reduce EMF exposures:

Air Canada for inflight cabin Wi-Fi;
Apple Canada for all its tech products producing EMFs;
Arris Canada for Internet protocols and satellite transmissions;
BCE, Inc. (Bell Canada) for cell towers, cell and smart phones, etc.;
Cisco Systems Canada Co. for modems, networks, and Internet of Things;
Ericsson Canada, Inc. for cell phones and mobile broadband;
ESIT Canada Enterprise Services for PCs, digital imagining, semiconductors;
Facebook Canada Ltd;
FCA Canada, Inc. International for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Apple car;
Fido Solutions Inc. for cell phone, telecommunications equipment;
General Electric Canada for every GE product, MRI and X-ray machines;
General Motors of Canada for Apple car, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi;
Google Canada Corporation for cell phones, laptops, cloud communications, and fraud;
Hitachi Data System, Inc. for telecommunication systems, cloud based services;
Honeywell Limited for computers, thermostats, security alarm systems, flight management systems;
Hydro Quebec for improperly installed and located power lines, wireless smart meters, EMF-generation transformers;
IBM Canada Limited for computer hardware, ATMs, Internet of Things;
Koodo for cell phone, telecommunication equipment, mobile broadband, mobile and fixed networks;
Ledvance Limited for lighting and high EMF light products, dimmers;
Lenovo Canada for computers, smart phones, smart TVs;
LG Enterprise Canada, Inc. for smart speakers, cloud based services;
Marriott International for providing free Wi-Fi;
Mattel / Fisher Price Canada for baby monitors; plug-in kids’ toys, DECT devices;
Microsoft Canada for cell phones, Bing, computers, cloud services, Xbox, MS operating systems, software applications, HoloLens VR headsets;
Panasonic Canada for digital TVs, electric shavers and household appliances, failure to inform customers about EMFs;
Philips Electronics Ltd. for wireless baby monitors, DECT, electric breast pumps and toothbrushes, failure to inform customers about EMF exposures;
Restaurant Brands International for providing free Wi-Fi;
Rogers for cell phone towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi transmission; failure to warn about EMFs;
Royal Society of Canada for gross negligence and fraud in its description of science and safe levels of EMFs;
Sainte-Anna-des-Lacs for authorization for tower; permission to Hydro Quebec to install dangerous wires near houses;
Samsung Electronics Canada for cordless phones, cell phones, smart TVs, smart refrigerators, large screen 3D movies, GalaxyX8 virtual assistant Bixby, failure to advise the dangers of EMFs;
Siemens Canada Ltd. for test bed 7 exposing Montreal Municipal water system to excessive levels of EMFs, rail automatic systems;
Silicon Labs, Inc. for semiconductors, Internet of Things, network equipment;
Sony of Canada Ltd. for cell phones, Play Station, and its gaming division;
Starbucks Corp. for instore Wi-Fi;
STM for Montreal Metro system EMF in stations and buses, etc.;
Tesla Motors for high EMFs within Tesla cars, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, failure to notify about EMFs;
Telus for cell phone towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi, failure to notify about EMFs;
Texas Instrument Canada for semiconductors, computers, failure to notify about EMFs;
The TDL Group Corp. for Tim Horton’s Wi-Fi at every location;
Toshiba for cell towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi, failure to notify about EMFs;
Videotron for cell towers, cell phones, TV transmission, failure to notify about safe use;
Virgin Mobile Canada for wireless voice, Wi-Fi transmission, failure to inform users about EMFs;
Volkswagen Canada for Apple car play, Wi-Fi, EMF from vehicle power, failure to use modes to reduce EMF exposures;
Whirlpool Canada L.P. for residential consumer and commercial equipment and appliances;
Xerox Canada Inc. for printers, photocopiers, scanners, failure to inform of potential exposures to EMFs.

The above represents only a fraction of the citations, which I chose to use as examples for each corporation, since each company has extra citations. If you would like to read all of them, start at page 24 and end with page 35 of this link.

The Attorney General of Canada was cited for

failure of Canadian government; especially Health Canada, to fulfill mandate of “. . . ensuring best health of Canadians”; capitulation with industry to suppress health risks, conflicts of interest; willful negligence in reviewing/considering relevant recent research for updating EMF safety guidelines;

and the Attorney General of Quebec:

Failure to apply its environmental legislation, permitting of EMF pollution, failure to make operational and enforce the EMF provisions in the Environment Quality Act, conflicts of interest with the industries employing EMF, Letter R-4, which constitutes in-beddedness, suppression of evidence and intentional interference with citizens’ health, intentional breaches of both Charters, sub-delegation of jurisdiction to Hydro-Quebec. WiFi in schools (attractive nuisance and addictive). False information to Quebec doctors complicitous behaviour;

Other interesting aspects of this filing, in my opinion, are as follows,

X. Whether by failing to adequately regulate and apply laws, regulations, codes or bylaws, the governmental entities named herein were at fault, acted in bad faith and willingly participated in or sanctioned […] EMF pollution and the breach of class members’ fundamental rights; [Pg. 35]

BB. Whether children are at particular risk due to cell phone […] radiation and its links to cancer, as indicated in American pediatrics radio frequency (RF) guidelines produced as Exhibit R-24 ; [Pg. 35]

EE. Respondents including the Provincial and Federal governments:

(i) hid information concerning EMF pollution and its effects, which caused prejudice to those subjected to EMF pollution;

(ii) willfully and intentionally caused prejudice to the Quebec population, its flora and fauna, children, pregnant women and the EMF hypersensitive by covering up technical information, carcinogenic nature, and other health risks due to cumulative EMF exposure; [Pg. 36]

JJ. What amount should farmers effected [sic] by “stray voltage” in excess of the standard proposed by Petitioner, namely, one volt from the ground, be compensated and what measures must be taken by Defendants to ensure that stray voltage in farming communities is curtailed ? [Pg. 37]

LL. […]
Is section 48 of the Quebec Charter which protects the right every handicapped person against any form of exploitation breached? [Pg. 37]

NN. Does one have the right to not be exposed to EMF emissions above one milliGauss of magnetic field, 0.6 V/m of electric field, or 0.1 microWatt per square centimeter of microwave power density for general populations in uncontrolled environments or 0.3 milliGauss of magnetic field, 0.2 V/m of electric field, or 0.01 microWatt per square centimeter of microwave power density for sleeping environments or sensitive individuals (children, pregnant women or the electromagnetic hypersensitive and for pets and animals); [Pg. 37]

9. The conclusions sought by the Petitioner are too many and are cited at pages 39 through 42.

This filing, in my opinion, indicates what may be considered a long-arm reach of the law, in Canada at least, being applied to the unbelievable usurpation of corporate overreach, plus the lack of proper government agency enforcement to protect human and animal wild life (fauna), the environment, trees and other flora being impacted by electrosmog, plus what’s strategically subverted and denied by all who deal with microwave technologies, i.e., the non-thermal radiation adverse health effects and damage to humans and our DNA, and what’s called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or medically known as idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI).