A Bi-polar Life

Bipolar is not well known, and its effect varies greatly from one person to another. Government's defence against unfair labour allegations and violations under the Human Rights Code was to undermine my credibility by describing me as just someone who was having “emotional problems” and was ‘depressed." And yet, during my time at Organization Staff  Development (special operating agency of Government of Manitoba), all documented evidence showed me to be clearly in an escalated manic state during the weeks preceding termination of employment.

My work history began as a legal assistant to senior partners of some of Winnipeg's top legal minds in the 80s; followed by a successful fifteen year career in direct sales where I was #1 in North America breaking many records. I have several years' experience volunteering in the community as a certified facilitator with Developing Capable People™  (an adult based program working with youth), where I trained at my own expense with Chris B. Rush, Pres. and CEO of the Resiliency Institute Corp. and Pres. of DCP  (Canada). My successes (over the past 20 years, including taking care of my family) is not in spite of being bipolar, but I rather view it as the catalyst that has driven me all my life. People with bipolar are often seen as the “movers and shakers" of society.

Success, for me, is measured in the number of years gone by without hospitalization, now more than a decade. In the nineties, there were six within an eight year span (estimated costs according to 1994 report was $8,000 to $12,000 per hospital stay). It should therefore be in the best interests of government, community, and family to support any and all efforts by individuals to sustain and maintain recovery.

Bipolar is a chronic lifelong illness. It is well known that bipolar is genetic, but it is also personality based. The Manitoba Civil Service Commission's findings from a Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument project it conducted in 2008 on select departments which required all participants to partake --profiling (believed to be against Personal Information Act)--revealed the following characteristics the month prior to getting fired:

...does have a natural inclination towards organization, order and discipline. She dislikes chaos and confusion and needs to make sense of things, putting things in order. There is a need for structure in a practical and procedural sense (methodical approach), step by step. Tasks need to be prioritized. Most comfortable communication approach for her is to have explanation in writing, and the information presented in a brief, clear and precise format. Most natural problem solving strategies include factual analysis, logical, step-by-step process but may not consider feelings.

In Paul E. Jones book, Up and Down Life: The Truth about Bipolar as follows:

Mood elevated, grandiose racing thoughts; like being in a room and not only hearing every conversation in the room but mentally engaged in the thought process of each line of thought, and racing to keep up with all communication.

In an elevated state, the drive, the courage, the intensity of feeling, is common which can make life and work a challenge. Over the years I have learned to view it as a gift that has challenged me to live a fuller and more rewarding life—a life with purpose.

I have read that that 85% of the most successful … are likely to have bipolar-like traits. Those super creative, those spontaneous ‘crazies’ who make risky changes that the norm wouldn’t dare; those tremendously smart; those relentlessly never tiring until they find the answer– all likely characteristics consistent to bipolar traits

...common to have a spiritual experience. God has chosen you for a mission- to go out and affect in some powerful positive way that others would recognize."

In an (audiotaped) investigative meeting of whether there wasI any wrongdoing on the part of MHRC, Ombudsman Investigator Kris Ramchandar was asked if he had any experience or knowledge of uni-polar disability  (tendency more to either mania or depression). Ramchandar acknowledged he never even heard of the term but stated he "doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand the law, and he doesn't have to be a doctor to make a determination of the case." As to whether MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft had any knowledge of mental illness, Ramchandar did not know.  GABS

Flintoft's Assessment did not include a doctor's medical report in her assessment to educate on the unique characteristics of bipolar. Her unqualified opinion (contrary to supporting documented evidence) reflects a collaboration of CSC and OSD smear campaign against a person known to have a disability: GABS

"her problems  were ... just a personality problem...(employers) are not psychiatrists, and were not in a position to realize that a difficult employee who complained and was disrespectful to many of her co-workers had a disability... in addition to her difficulty in managing stress, she had problems with interpersonal relationships, which made the workplace more stressful for her... The nature of her job was stressful as a few positions were vacant..." GABS

In reality, there were three long-term vacancies over several months wherein all duties were given to me and documentation from management stated OSD was in crisis, and when I asked for help, I was told "we have no one else to give the work to." Another flaw in Flintoft's logic:  'many of her co-workers' -- there were none (see below).

By the start of 2008, I was experiencing physical and mental ailments. Additional prescribed medications caused drug-induced tremors and dry mouth, exacerbated due to stress that only surfaced (as witnessed by senior management) in the last months of employment. Government e-mail posting sent out January 2008 to all departments introduced me as the newly promoted "backbone" of the OPCP project, (previously done by a full time Professional Officer--vacant since October 2007--PLUS unceremoniously given the full duties of the Registrar--position-vacant due to an extended sick leave starting January 2008 which CSC didn't bother to fill) all given to me, with the full expectation that I was also to keep up with the full duties of  the position I was hired for back in April 2007.

NOTE:  When the situation was discussed recently with Manitoba Mood Disorders Executive Director, Tara Brousseau, she was not surprised: Of course you could do all that--you're bipolar.

When I left OSD on stress leave in April 2008, only Senior Officers remained: All admin staff had either quit; requested to leave on secondment (stated was "for a change of scenery"), or were on medical leave. When I returned to work, there was no 'back to work re-entry" period (and yet, COO claimed they implemented said procedure--in that they just 'said' they did). According to documents received from CSC in 2010 through Privacy Act, there had been no new hires, no re-entry to work; no response to requests from an employee describing situation as a 'crisis'; no planning strategy meetings to deal with staff shortages and work overload: No response was Government's response.

Would this be allowed in the private sector?

Government's legal defence went with negative stereotypical characteristics in its ensuing investigations describing me as: Just an employee who was being difficult, and now that we know about her mental illness (attacking her credibility over 22 times in LRA and MHRC affidavits in response) --well, I guess that explains everything.

The mobbing and criminal violations were further supported and escalated by Ombudsman Investigator Ramchandar who, during his investigation, belittled me for being  "too intelligent ... in fact (he went on to say)  you know more about [it] than most people I know." The snide remark inferring that I was 'working the system'-- an abuser of a law intended for real disabilities.

The most troubling thing is that the Ombudsman's office was asked to investigate alleged improprieties by commissions: Civil Service Commission and government tribunals--Labour Board, Human Rights Commission--as to the manner in which it conducted its investigations. After all, is that not the job of the Manitoba Ombudsman? It is, according to the face MB Ombudsman presents to the public.

Irene Hamilton has stated the Ombudsman's position as follows: Any investigation should result in the Commission being subject to public scrutiny, not the individuals who come before it". 

Well, Good Night Irene! Clearly, what goes on behind closed doors is not keeping you up at night.

“I'm going to paraphrase Thoreau here... rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth. ”   Jon Krakauer

Electronic signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief"

In the Spring of 2010, rather than risk the matter going to an open public hearing, the MHRC Executive Director Dianna Scarth, MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft and MHRC Board member, *Elliott Leven breached their fiduciary duties (without recourse from the Ombudsman) by allowing Leven to take part in the HRC panel despite assurances by both parties that he would not participate, resulting in further delays and difficulties. They did say "sorry". GABS

• August 31, 2009 through a reference from Workers Organization Resource, in a free telephone consult with legal counsel, Elliot Leven, I had briefly described the situation, naming all the parties involved after time (ten to fifteen minutes into the conversation) Leven then informed me that he was one of MGEU's legal counsel in the matter of the OSD-CSC union exclusion. "The Union has every right to be mad at CSC," Leven declared due to years of uncollected union dues. "But that had nothing to do with you. It's not retroactive." Furthermore, he expressed open annoyance with me: "now because of our conversation" he would have to recuse himself from the MHRC panel once my complaint came forward for review." And it seemed to really anger him that I was way over my head delving into a lawyers' world. "This (Labour Board) is not an investigation. It's a trial by paper and you blew it by not going to a lawyer!"   

In anticipation of moving forward with this complaint, I sent a memo of a complete and accurate account of my lawyer-client consultation with Leven and accordingly--as member of the HRC Board of Commissioners--he would need to recuse himself from participating in any deliberation of my complaint.. Email was sent February 26, 2010 to Executive Director Scarth with copy to Investigator Flintoft.

Scarth replied the same day stating, "you may be assured that he (Leven) will not participate in any aspects of the Board processes pertaining to your complaint...the nature of which may create a reasonable apprehension of bias."

The Board met on April 7, 2010 and to everyone's [sic] surprise - Leven was in attendance. He later claimed not to remember his telephone consultation with me. And both Scarth and Flintoft said they forgot that Leven should not have been in attendance. Because of the "foul play," the decision was made to go with an independent  Commission outside of Manitoba. Three months later, delegation was made to The Yukon Human Rights Commission. 

YHRC's website has a Corner Gas feel to it. The website addresses issues of being short staffed, over-worked, frustrated, underpaid considering most times they're doing multiple jobs. The Executive Director works part time and not likely to be working the summer, or over a long weekend. 

• A Canadian favourite, Corner Gas is a show about people living in Dog River; a great big place full of nothin' but space, who hang around the one and only town's gas station/restaurant.
• Yukon has its own unique challenges in its diversity of meeting the needs of 8 First Nations groupings and 14 tribes/clans where needs go beyond available resources.

Consider the following:  a well-staffed, rich in resources, MB Government took two years to just get started on a preliminary investigation. Meanwhile, the people of Yukon gathered, seemingly overnight, to review a very large complex file consisting of:

1. A 52-page MHRC Investigator's Assessment report "Assessment" (normally maximum of ten pages)
2. MHRC Complaint plus attachments;
3. Government's MHRC Reply plus attachments;
4. My Rebuttal to the Government's Reply plus attachments;
5. Gov't Rebuttal to my Rebuttal to the Gov't Reply -  plus any attachments
6. My Comments to the Assessment (MHRC restricted Comments to 10 pages-included -not in addition to - any attachments) to the 52 page Assessment.

Flintoft in the Assessment stated there was no real documented evidence which fairly reflects that submitted by Government defence lawyer, Robert Olson. However, the real evidence submitted by me of actual Government documents, letters and emails were either given no weight, given no reference, buried -- even deleted (as can be shown). GABS 

A hearing was clearly needed to cross-examine the evidence and witnesses, including but not limited to deponent, Olson who personally signed off on the MHRC Reply in the complaint against the Government but NOT as legal counsel to the Government. Generally when a lawyer signs on behalf of its client, it would state "Rob Olson Per: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, legal counsel for Government of MB." GABS

MHRC accepted a third party's testimony as if he had personal knowledge of the facts and information submitted in the Reply which he was giving second and third hand. Furthermore, shown through FIPPA requests to be false information. What's more, Olson does not have government signing authority. Can John Smith sign on the Government's behalf? GABS

The Likely Legal Strategy:  Better that one man execute the fabricated response (while the Government had his back) than for the Government to potentially expose itself to perjury in stating the polar opposite to that said in the LRA Reply. Brilliant considering private firms and individuals are not bothered by such nuisances like FIPPA, accountability, transparency, and so on. The only trouble though with stretching the truth (so way way out) however is that it usually comes right back at ya with a -- SNAP!!

The standard practice in an HRC investigation now is to have all evidence sent out to each panel member to see if there is enough evidence to warrant going to hearing. This is not to be a decision on the complaint - just a determination on the information presented. Two weeks is the standard amount of time required to review, interpret, and sift through the most critical and relevant issues. Notes are taken in preparation of the day's session(s).

In addition, the parties need to be given notice of, and mutually agree upon a date, time, and location. Dietary restrictions and food preferences ("Traditional", "Aboriginal", "Yukon / First Nations" or "Champagne-Aishihik") need to be respectfully considered. 

And then, one day ... at band camp...

The Yukon accepted delegation on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 and somehow managed to take care of all of the above, and have the dictated notes transcribed, typed up, scanned, emailed and mailed out to me on Tuesday August 3, 2010;  the first day back to work after the long weekend. GABS

So incredible, that I brought this (along with other issues of procedural wrongdoings to Ombudsman Investigator, Kris Ramchandar saying "What? Did they decide to get together over a case of beer over the long weekend to see who gets to use the rubber stamp?" Ramchandar laughed.

 

The Yukon decision was signed by a secretary (she did apologize for not knowing how to insert the Executive Director's electronic signature into the letter). As to the basis as to why the complaint was dismissed, it was basically, 'ditto--what the MHRC said".  GABS

After a two year stonewalling job, this was not acceptable. At the very least, I wanted to know by what authority the secretary had, to sign such an important document beyond what was given, "she has the authority". I insisted that YHRC Executive Director send a properly signed letter with the reasons for dismissal. My email was returned 'blocked' by YHRC. Instead, a response of "Good Grief!" came by way of YHRC legal counsel, advising that "since the Yukon was outside MB, the YHRC was under no obligation to respond". GABS

Although the conduct of the MHRC and YHRC has been brought forward in a formal complaint personally handed to Ombudsman Irene Hamilton on October 4, 2010 at the legislative office, and in the presence of MLA Dr. Jon Gerrard; and the Ombudsman is mandated to respond within 90 days, communications with the Ombudsman Office stopped March 2011. As to further assistance from Dr. Gerrard, other than when he called asking for my support days prior to the election, she has heard nothing further from her MLA. 

Tip to Government:  When you take a leave of your senses don't leave a forwarding address.

Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.

December 22, 2010 report of MB Ombudsman Irene Hamilton stated the MB Labour Board violated its applicants’ privacy rights when it published written Reasons for Decision containing personal information, not authorized under FIPPA, on its website. Among other things, it was recommended that the Board remove from its website all decisions that contained personal information; change its practices (posting online decisions containing personal information began January 2007) and give an apology to the complainant. 

The FIPPA violation complaint, I submitted July 2009 to the Ombudsman's office, took 1.5 years (rather than the mandated 90 days) to respond. An informal resolution was worked out between Ombudsman Hamilton and Chair to the Board, W.D. Hamilton in or about March 2010 which was not revealed to the complainant. Once the government bodies came to an agreement, all communications with me, as complainant ceased. GABS

To date the Board has not complied with the recommendations made in the 2010 report contrary to that claimed in the Ombudsman's 2010 Annual Report accessible to the public; wherein the Board is described as amenable to most of the recommendations. The public report varies from the one given to the complainant.   A check and balance as to the reported changes that supposedly took place to the Board's website would reveal that no real change has occurred. To see just how far the Board takes Cyber Bullying when someone dares to go up against government, see Schwartzman vs MGEU and MHRC- Case Nos. 26/09/LRA and 27/09/LRA DECEMBER 20, 2010, and this is after the Board was put on notice! 

Note:  Since original posting on October 24, 2011, it has been discovered that the Manitoba Labour Board has been forced to clean up its act!! If you recently have viewed the online decision (link above) you will find that all names have been changed to initials to protect the innocent (and the guilty). The original document is 140 pages - this online version is 130. 

Government works in mysterious and not-so transparent ways.

The Ombudsman never submitted any News Release to educate the public of the Board's changes, or to forewarn people of very real concerns regarding privacy issues when one comes forward with a complaint. There is no mention of it on its webpage “Reports Recommendation and Response” nor in its September 26, 2011 release wherein it was asked to provide information as to investigations undertaken. The five public bodies the Ombudsman said it investigated, did not include the Labour Board. GABS

The Ombudsman’s online annual report had stricken from the original report, all unfavorable remarks regarding the Board, seemingly to make the bully seem not so bullish and presented instead a "no harm, no foul" Boards will be Boards tone.   In the December 2010 report, the statement, “…we do not feel that the Board has given due consideration to the harm caused the complainant” are stricken. The frustrations in the Board's resistance to the recommendations are also not conveyed. The truth, albeit understated, is in the original report that "… we (Ombudsman) do not feel that the Board's actions are adequate in the circumstances of the present complaint.”  GABS

The Ombudsman does not have any order making powers and states it herself as so. On the other hand, Hamilton, from the Board sees his powers as equal to that of a judge; and the Board his court. The Ombudsman needed to remind him that the Board is not a Court and that the Board must conduct itself in accordance with FIPPA laws. However, Hamilton is not in agreement with Ombudsman Hamilton's interpretation of the FIPPA Act, and seems to not accept her authority.

So we are at a "Mexican Standoff": the Ombudsman cannot compel a public body to accept or follow her recommendations and we have a man who sees himself as "Master of his own Domain." So what is the point of going through all the time and energy in bringing forward a complaint with the Ombudsman, who appears to be more of a gatekeeper for government stonewalling the process with the hopes that the complainant will just go away? The complainant has still yet to receive an intelligent and responsible resolution to a very serious issue.

Since the year 2000, every organization has had to adapt their business practices to comply with the Privacy Act. People need to feel confident about how their personal information is gathered, stored and used. Compared to the Federal PIPEDA policy, our provincial FIPPA pales in comparison when it comes to protecting Manitobans. 

Ombudsman's report included the fact that "the open court principle should result in the Board being subject to additional public scrutiny, not the individuals who come before it." (underline emphasis added)

As to why the Manitoba Ombudsman failed to send out a press release or public acknowledgement of the Labour Board's wrongdoings, the response was clearly a threat. Despite its past practices of never revealing personal information about a complainant in a press release, the following statement in writing is clearly a warning to stand down when she declaimed "...a public apology or a press release would seem to contradict the very basis of your complaint about privacy."  GABS

The Manitoba Ombudsman has yet to learn that "A pint of example is worth a barrelful of her recommendations."  

Is MB Gov't #WINNING?

Instead of dealing with a situation in accordance with its own stated policies on accommodating employees with disabilities, Government opted to dodge the bullet and hired Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to come down with brute force on a vulnerable, newly unemployed, without union (also questionable), employee without the means to hire legal counsel. Access to total cost borne by taxpayers paying for the Government's defence has been denied, apparently as stated in (see post below) Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman the joke's on us taxpayers. This cover-up is now going into its fourth year and it's time to assess who is winning?

Olson, an expert in labour disputes and co-author of "Dos, Don'ts and Dollars" warns employers don't play hardball in termination matters. I followed all the proper steps to address the issues in a respectful non-threatening manner. And yet, at no time during or after employment would a government official agree to meet with me or even respond to attempts to mediate.

All I wanted was that the reference, as given to an employment agency by CSC Director Anna Schmidt Beauchamp be corrected to properly and fairly reflect the quality of work I had provided to OSD as stated in letter dated March 17, 2008 (as provided by OSD as a true account of only exemplary performance) wherein I was described as "an asset to the organization".


There was only seven work days from the date of this performance review letter (March 17th) to the time I went on stress leave. For the COO to then state that there has been a "personality conflict" with the Supervisor during those seven days is incredibly unfair and grossly misleading in light of the circumstances. Particularly given the fact that CSC was well aware that the Supervisor had a history (four including my complaint) of her harassing other subordinates. And then of course, the fact that disability was then known to be a factor in her changed behaviour. To not correct the wrong would affect my chances for future employment in addition to setbacks to recovery.


The Government's strategy was to stonewall the complaint over the years, and then without reason or hearing, dismiss the complaint (and me). As to Government’s denial to disclose all its legal fees and costs, the rationale was that it was to protect the lawyer’s financial business interests. In reality it is the lawyer’s financial interests that are in direct conflict with any hope of a quick and fair resolution and therefore a conflict of public interest. Clearly it is in the lawyer's financial interest to secure as many $200+ billable hours as it can, and when deep pockets are involved, that is plenty. G


According to MHRC's online policy a person does not need to demonstrate they are disabled at all times to be considered disabled. Some medical conditions can go through lengthy periods where symptoms are not noticeable at all, which is likely why there is reluctance in acknowledging a disability even exists. Considering the Government's initiative in filling the labour shortage, it ought to consider that accommodation in these cases would likely result in no more sick days than that taken by 'healthy' employees without a disability.


My supervisor's (from March 2007-April 2008) recollection even later in 2010 as to how she had viewed me as a candidate for the clerk position: qualifications and employment history, was "WOW!" Desrochers also confirmed to the MHRC Investigator that she had knowledge of the disability and that knowledge went back fifteen years prior to my bing hired. Contrary to Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony, as confirmed by Desrochers, that she had, in fact, advised Beauchamp that changes in my behaviour (just prior to termination) were likely as a result of the mental illness. Beauchamp Schmidt perjured herself in stating 'no one in the department knew of a disability. Talk about Cool Hand Luke! No fear of recourse. 


It is well known that women with intellectual disabilities have a hard time coming forward as noted in Manitoba’s report “When Bad Things Happen”. Unfortunately even real evidence doesn’t stand a chance in the case of a Government cover up. Four years later, I still refuse to be silenced because I believe this is not an isolated occurrence. There are also many people who do not have the fortitude to come forward and cannot (due to disability) articulate what has happened to them and she is compelled to speak for them. Sure the Government likely sees that it is winning, but at what exactly: And at what cost? 


Putting the obvious legal issues aside, you would think Government would feel some moral obligation to do the right thing. To witness this breach of trust firsthand (painstakingly documented) is frightening as it leads to even greater issues questioning Government’s inability to protect all Manitobans' civil rights. Where is the accountability and transparency, and where is due process when there is no one to take your complaint to? The Whistleblower Act (2007) is as ineffective here provincially as that revealed with the Federal Privacy Commissioner scandal which came out December 2010.

No matter what the political consequence, things need to be made right and the public also needs to see that it is handled right. Otherwise, what we are saying is that we have set a lower standard for government. The Labour Board, Manitoba Human Rights Commission and Manitoba Ombudsman office; all staff paid by Government of Manitoba to be its gatekeepers stonewalling due process in an attempt to divert conflict away from government giving them the false belief of #WINNING!

Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman

Those who dare go up against Government generally find themselves fighting a David and Goliath battle where Justice is not weighed on evidence, but on the fact government has unlimited access to resources (funded by taxpayers) and nothing but time on its side. Stonewalling (used by every political party) must be recognized as wrong and measures implemented to put an end to this inhumane and costly practice.

It should be noted that the Manitoba Labour Board and Manitoba Human Rights Commission were first initiated by Government to allow access to those who could not afford to go to court, or may not have had the mental capacity to enforce their rights. However in reality, “Discount Justice” is merely a cruel illusion as noted by the province in "When Bad Things Happen": where complainants felt victimized all over again by the process; feeling 'they' were held in contempt for coming forward and treated in a bullish manner. The process seemingly more intent on a quick dismissal of complaints--especially when one dared to challenge the government's status quo.

 

Statistics speak for themselves that complaints against the government are more likely to succeed through the courts than through the government control quasi-judicial processes: Labour Board and Human Rights Commission. In my case, the initial intent was only that I be given a fair employment reference consistent with that stated in her personnel files.

 

As my requests were repeatedly ignored, November 2010 I posed the question to Manitoba Ombudsman Investigator, Kris Ramchandar:  "Why is it that the Government of Manitoba would feel a need to hire and spend an exorbitant amount of money hiring a private law firm (Thompson Dorfman Sweatman) when they have their own Civil Legal Services (32 lawyers) -- surely myself, a person with a disability and vulnerable would not merit such an aggressive defence?”

 

Ramchandar laughed and nodded in agreement  (audio taped with his permission), “Well now, that would be a question to ask your MLA, Dr. Jon Gerrard:  It would be up to the people of Manitoba to ask that question.”

The protracted length of time, the fabrication of a defence (documented evidence that now supports claims of perjury) and burying a victim in bureaucracy, only adds to Manitoba's growing deficit, as the matter is still ongoing and accumulating more legal fees. The only person not getting paid is the victim. Where accommodation would have cost nothing, the true cost borne by taxpayers remains unknown as CSC has denied access to the overall costs of legal fees and disbursements for both its in-house, as well as TDS (TDS claiming 3rd party privilege). The denial of the request for information was denied by Manitoba Ombudsman Irene Hamilton.


Is this Government accountability and transparency? Or, is this bullish? Send an email, or call your MLA... do what is possible and trust that the impossible will be taken care of.