April 30, 2012 Zsuzsanna Holland writes:
Thank-you to Sandra and friends for your interest in my lawsuit regarding dental amalgam mercury poisoning.
My case, Williams Lake matter 09-16471, is ongoing for a second time in the courts against the American, Canadian and British Columbian Dental Associations and for the first time against the BC College of Dental Surgeons and BC College of Physician and Surgeons. (I lost the first dental amalgam case on a technicality.)
During a hearing to dismiss last winter the defendant colleges were dismissed, now on appeal. We are still awaiting the court’s decision regarding the dental associations. The 10-day jury trial set for June 18, 2012 has to be adjourned due to the delayed ruling and the appeal.
My second dental amalgam suit is based on a claim in statute; namely the Business Practices Consumer Protection Act and the Health Care Cost Recovery Act here in BC which gives me right to sue. This suit is unique in that it is not a class action but does contain a compensatory component for relief with respect to research and education as well as aiding the recovery of other dental amalgam mercury poisoned victims. This case is also unique in that BC, I believe, is the last place in North America where a civil trial may still be conducted by jury.
I do appreciate any support for my case as it will impact many others if we succeed.
If anyone would like a copy of the Notice of Civil Claim in this case, I will gladly provided it to them.
Thank-you again for your interest and I do hope to update you and your viewers as this case progresses.
= = = = = = = = = == == = == = = =
Canadian Supreme Court rejects appeal on mercury fillings
A B.C. mother has lost her personal battle against the use of mercury in dental fillings. The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal from Zsuzsanna Holland.
Acting without a lawyer, Holland hoped the high court would hear her claim that she and her children were harmed by mercury use by dentists.
Holland represented herself during her lengthy battle through B.C.’s lower courts, arguing unsuccessfully that 17 mercury-based fillings poisoned her and her children after she had dental work in 1982.
The B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously rejected her case.
Canada’s highest court has now refused to intervene, dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the numerous parties named in the civil case, including the province, the provincial environment minister, his ministry and B.C.’s environmental management branch.
cited DrBicuspid 11Dec09
= = = = = == = = == = =
2. http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/08/15/2008BCSC1582.htm More on the mercury fillings case.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Holland v. HMTQ et al
 On July 25, 2007, Ms. Holland filed a statement of claim in the above action against the Provincial government and various bodies associated with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Environment, the Federal government, the Federal Minister of Health, Health Canada, the American Dental Association, the Canadian Dental Association and the BC Dental Association. This action concerns, among other allegations, an assertion that Ms. Holland suffered from mercury poisoning due to certain dental work (the “Mercury Action”).
 It does not appear that Mr. Bryfogle swore any affidavits in support of Ms. Holland’s Mercury Action. Instead, Ms. Holland signed all of her own pleadings and submissions. The affidavits filed in support of Ms. Holland’s various applications were all signed by Ms. Holland. These affidavits and submissions contained many legal concepts borrowed from American statutes and case authorities. For example, Ms. Holland refers to the RICO statutes, spoliation (which concerns destruction of evidence or suppression of evidence), American case law on the right of commercial free speech, mercury poisoning, government negligence, and negligent advertising. Ms. Holland testified that she wrote these submissions and drafted these affidavits without assistance from Mr. Bryfogle. At most she borrowed his precedents and had access to a detailed index of his American and Canadian law library. She denied that Mr. Bryfogle carried out any research on her behalf. However, Mr. Bryfogle admitted to providing Ms. Holland with more assistance than she acknowledged. In Mr. Bryfogle’s affidavit dated January 29, 2010, filed in the Law Society’s contempt application, he admits to the following assistance regarding Ms. Holland’s Mercury Action:
6. I assisted Ms. Holland by typing her briefs, documents and letters, letting her use my templates, doing legal research. … Respondent kept Ms. Holland’s files and schedule.
 While Mr. Bryfogle attempted to modify this statement during cross-examination on the affidavits filed in the Law Society’s application, I found his explanation to lack credibility. In my view, Mr. Bryfogle’s evidence amounted to a transparent attempt to ensure his version of the events was the same as that provided by Ms. Holland in her evidence. I note that Ms. Holland’s evidence was also an attempt to repudiate the admissions made in the affidavits she filed in support of Mr. Bryfogle’s defence to the Law Society’s application.
 The briefs and affidavits filed by Ms. Holland in the Mercury Action are formatted in a manner identical to Mr. Bryfogle’s affidavits. Ms. Holland’s affidavits and briefs also contain the same type of language used by Mr. Bryfogle and the same legal concepts. Many of his colourful phrases such as “the legal priesthood”, “affidavitted”, and “proffered” are also found in Ms. Holland’s filed materials.
 Mr. Bryfogle did not notify the Law Society of his involvement in the Mercury Action.