Editorial: MB Gov't OK with flipping ‘the Bird’ -- flips off Jesus

As stated in my 2008 Human Rights complaint, my co-worker had a long standing history of constantly swearing at management and staff. When asked to stop, the co-worker responded by cutting out an outline of a hand with a middle finger pointing up and taped it to a stick -- the compromise seemingly being to give people ‘the finger’ instead of swearing. As staff found that more annoying and management took no action, it was eventually accepted over the years that nothing could, or would be done about it.

In order to have a respectful workplace environment there needs to be an atmosphere of mutual respect, responsibility, self-discipline and cooperation from entry level position all the way to the top,  particularly when it comes to human rights and political correctness.

When my mood disorder (bipolar disorder) was exacerbated in 2008 (resulting in intensified religious beliefs) I could no longer accept management's laissez-faire attitude about the co-worker's improper conduct, particularly since the swearing, heard by anyone in the reception area, would associate me with behaviour I abhorred. Had management taken the swearing more seriously, it would have likely stopped especially if the consequence involved losing an annual $40K salary.

I did speak to Potty Mouth (not her real name) on a number of occasions, asking her to stop the swearing. The response was "forget about it, you’re not the first one to ask me to stop. It won’t work. You don’t want me to do to you, what I did to them” and the co-worker laughingly recounted ‘the finger’ story as being the way she would deal with my request.

I  did try to make the co-worker aware as to how often she swore; whenever she would hear outbursts of "Jesus Christ”, "for Christ sake" or for "God's sake" I would say, “He’s probably a little busy right now. Can I help?”

Of course "the finger’ was meant as a joke but is the line not drawn when someone finds the humour offensive? How alarming is it to have a civil servant use a paper cut out of a universally known gesture in responding to a work related request, and management does not respond, or alternatively sees only the humour in it? How does that reflect Government's stated objective of a respectful work environment?

Government did not respond. In fact a Reply was signed and submitted by private lawyer, Rob Olson, and accepted by the Human Rights Commission. Olson (a third party without any corroborated facts to support) stated that the "issues of religious slurs were addressed" and he knew for a fact that I “was aware that efforts were being made" to deal with the swearing despite no documents exist or were presented. The fact that there is no single document, email or note of any action taken to deal with the complaint speaks of inaction by Government and its authorities.

Although the issue of the religious swearing was included in a formal Respectful Workplace complaint filed April 2008 with the Manitoba Civil Service Commission, it appears it was never regarded an issue worthy of investigation. It was not factored in as part of the “three key themes” of the Civil Service Commission's findings conducted by the Supervisor (Chief Operating Officer "COO") for Organization Staff Development, the department where I was employed. Clearly a conflict as the COO, had the allegations been proven, would have "fingered" herself as being responsible for allowing a violation of the Code under her direct supervision. Not surprising then that the religious issue was seemingly just 'flipped off' as not a big deal. Manitoba Ombudsman saw nothing wrong with a government officer investigating her own department..

Had a proper investigation from the Human Rights Commission or Ombudsman's Office occurred, it would have shown that the employer, Government of Manitoba did not do its due diligence in conducting a fair investigation.There was ample time to do so given the complaint was stonewalled for two years in a pre-vegetative state.

After procedures went off the rails, in 2011, I  took it upon myself to access my files through FIPPA; information that could have been easily accessed by the investigative authorities. The file provided indisputable proof that the ongoing swearing was a known problem to management but that management's attempts to deal with the problem were ineffective and quite lax. There is no mention of following procedure regarding behaviour-based issues that continue on even after warning. Instead there are excuses that the co-worker "did try to quit, but she wasn’t able to stop.”

It would seem that Government decided to accommodate a social disability that is not a protected characteristic and chose to not accommodate a person based on religious beliefs further heightened by a mental disability; both of which are categories protected under the Human Rights Code.

It seems The Code, in practice, is served up like some buffet where management and Government authorities can pick and choose according to its personal preferences and tastes.

Employees are to refrain from wishing one another a "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending non-Christian believers. However, there are no restrictions on religious cursing which may in all likelihood offend all Christians.

God help us all if these are the people entrusted with our civil and human rights!

EDITORIAL: Uncivil Behaviour and Civil Liberties

By the time you finish reading the following sentence you will already have pre-determined in your mind what happened and who you will favour, based on who you view as having the higher ‘social ranking’.

A woman with a mental disability filed a complaint against her employer Government of Manitoba with the Labour Board and MHRC, and claims she has been treated unfairly and denied due process of her complaints.

CAUTION:

May appear further from the truth than the way things actually are.

The family watched a documentary of a City of Victoria police officer using excessive force. The 57-second video clip showed a man being kneed and kicked while being handcuffed by another officer. The armchair quarterbacks in my house were totally horrified and stated, “Well, that’s way worse than what happened to you, Mom! I mean, they got it on video and everything.”

The discussion followed as to whether a person getting kicked in the back by a likely  'jacked up' street cop caught up in the moment was worse than someone who was psychologically and mentally abused in a calculated and ongoing basis by various government bodies and authorities over a number of years. 

At first glance, yes the guy was kicked in the back, which is instinctively wrong on many levels. However, on the plus side, the guy was not charged with any crime--nor did the police try to plant evidence on him so they could save face--to support the police acting with brutal force.

The guy has likely gone on with his life. He likely didn't have to explain over and over again to friends, family and acquaintances, "honestly, I did nothing wrong!!" Any physical bruises have likely long since healed, and as to any mental scarring – well that does heal quickly when you are given a tremendous show of support for your pain and suffering by the community overall. He also likely didn't lose his job over it. There is no black smudge on his permanent employment record.

Other positive action in favour of this 'guy': There actually was an investigation of the officer's conduct. The decision to not lay charges on the officer was made in light of the fact that witnesses (not fellow police officers) did support the police's claim that the man did resist efforts to be handcuffed.  There was an acknowledgement from the Criminal Justice Branch that the amount of force used by the officer did call “for close scrutiny" so there is admission of questionable conduct which would likely be reviewed. 

 

In my case I was repeatedly, mentally, 'kicked like a dog' over a number of years by a front line supervisor and then the attacks continued on with high level government authorities entrusted to protect those most vulnerable.  At no time, had I ever been advised that my record of employment was anything but exemplary; and never given an opportunity to correct the misinformation from a smear campaign carried out after I was terminated from employment; there was never a proper (or any) investigation, or hearing, and the online reference of personal information in violation of personal information by the Manitoba Labour Board, as reported in the Ombudsman report, after having it online for 1.5 years, only to then be re-posted by the Labour Board on a different webpage on its website.

This evidence certainly is stronger than a 57-second clip. There is solid evidence spanning over three years of well documented wrongdoing and criminal behaviour. In Canada (where Manitoba is a province of) perjury and obstruction to justice are criminal offences and Government authorities are not (supposed to be) above the law. 

Society does tend to judge without having all the facts based on pre-determined beliefs. Our sense of fair play is based on social norms much like that of the game, Rock-Paper-Scissors. In a conflict situation between a police officer versus a punker with spiked pink hair wearing metal and leather; or a police officer vs. an Aboriginal homeless man, society tends to instinctively side with the police officer. But when society sees a regular-Joe type guy being kicked by a police officer on the news, in the papers and on YouTube, the world reacts on a Paper Rock Scissors mentality and the 'regular guy' is favoured. 

Whereas my story has yet to raise an eyebrow, compassion or show of any support for those most vulnerable to Manitoba Government's undue hardship as evidenced by a petition of 21 signatures (as of the date of posting to over 180,000 YouTube viewers of the guy being kicked): deemed a 'person of inconvenience' by mental association. The invisible-ness of it all even further reinforced when my story is passed over for stories such as   "lies, damned lies and ..."  in Winnipeg Free Press   Driving them crazy  about EGAD!  "...parking spots" A conspiracy going on at the Winnipeg International Airport on the basis that someone had to spend 10 minutes before actually finding a parking spot.

Scissors beats paper – paper beats rock – Rock beats scissors - and Government beats on those most vulnerable with its bullish ways. Is MB Government #WINNING?!!

Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

A likely conversation between MHRC and Government of Manitoba would probably have gone on something like this:

"The complainant says she had been overworked at OSD; and underappreciated even after filling in for chronic staff shortages of 3 vacant positions over lengthy periods of time. She believes that she has been totally ignored due to an 'invisible disability'; And it has been going on for so long that she feels she is invisible. She's waiting at the door for your response. What should I tell her? 

Government: too busy to respond, likely distracted by more important matters tells MHRC:

"Tell her I can't see her," and then sends in for Rob Olson.

I questioned the inappropriateness of Government, thinking so little of my HRC complaint ,that it would just 'farm out' that responsibility to private lawyer, Robert Olson. But MHRC just brushed me off stating "any government authority could sign the Reply on Government's behalf." Well, if Olson did (at the time) have government signing authority, then he cannot claim third party privilege as stated in Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman. GABS

Olson acted without any credible basis for a defence on the backs of Manitoba taxpayers: on the basis of his expertise in these issues, he would have known there was no defence. What could have been cleared up at no cost, instead some legal 'expert' gave some really bad advice: Let's play hard ball.

Evidence would show that Olson used hearsay and primarily fabricated evidence to delay, demoralize, annoy, injure, and harass a person known to have a protected disability under the Human Rights Code. Common sense will tell you that these intentional delays work quite well in compounding legal fees and disbursements.

Why go for a quickie resolution when you can be Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, creator of a Seinfeld case where top level execs make a lot of money protracting a complaint based on a defence of nothing--now held over for its 8th season. GABS

I  was personally responsible for preparation of all documentation, unlike the Government who has access to, and made full use of all its resources: Civil Legal Service has 32 permanent full time on-staff lawyers); Treasury Board Secretariat has permanent on-staff lawyers;  CSC has two to four permanent lawyers as senior executive management; countless Human Resource personnel; .even the union (MGEU) not only has permanent legal counsel on staff, but they too spend union dues on hiring private lawyers (as in the case of Elliott Leven).

This gives us all a whole new perspective on the "Out to Lunch" phenomenon; whenever there’s a free lunch, there will always be herds of people that will show up. As to the issue of double dipping (into taxpayers' pockets), Government should be well advised that dipping more than once is not an acceptable practice to the norm. 

From a Government's perspective, particularly at the onset of the complaint, I could not have been viewed as much of a threat. I was out of work; had no legal representation, and any mental acuity I had going into employment with OSD in 2007 was pretty much fried at the point of termination by summer 2008. And yet Government still called out for "More Cowbell" and rounded up one of  Winnipeg's largest firms, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to join in and, clearly, made 'no bones' about it. GABS

I guess it is true, you can never, ever, have too much Cowbell.

RWP process is a "CLM" (Career Limiting Move)

My former Supervisor, Desrochers (whose harassment charges now numbered at the minimum--four) was passed over to another department; in much the same way teachers don't fail a student anymore, just make them someone else's problem. On my return to work after a 3.5 week stress leave, I handed a Respectful Workplace (RWP) complaint dated April 30, 2008 to my new Supervisor, Chief Operating Officer of OSD, Anna Schmidt Beauchamp.

Self-preservation 101 :

Never fire a manager  who knows where all the bodies are buried; it will likely lead to whistling about it.

The assigned investigator to the RWP complaint, was Ginette Grimard. Her notes accessed in 2011 supports my position that I expressed no malice in bringing forward a complaint but did so in good faith that it would lead to positive change. I expressed empathy for my Supervisor stating the harassment was likely due in part to the stress of the staff shortages and unrelenting and increasing workload. I had spent several unpaid hours at home compiling reports as a pro-active response, with the understanding that the decision was ultimately theirs. I had plans to move on and had a few good solid leads for new employment and it was clear that I was focused at the meeting on my needs, that included:

Self-preservation for Bipolar 301  

• ensure any future employment references would be fair and truthful;
• advise of an ongoing medical condition protected under the Human Rights Code;
• advise of accommodation required being a reasonable workload and a respectful workplace;
• ensure my 3.5 weeks stress leave would not adversely affect future employment opportunities;
• advise employer of medical history and of ongoing past hospitalizations for a full understanding that accommodation was essential to maintaining and sustaining recovery; and at serious risk of permanent institutionalization should 'it get really bad'. 

Feeling Grimard had a good grasp of the situation and feeling good about their meeting together, I sent off the following email (excerpt below) elated at having an impartial investigator to conduct the investigation. Unbeknownst to me, that would be the first and last meeting. Excerpt of email sent from home June 2, 2008 4:16 PM to Grimard:

Hi Ginette,

Thank you for the time you spent with Anna and myself today. I appreciated the fact that although we had only anticipated an hour. you did not rush through the information and showed a sincere interest in understanding the situation.

I am confident that this time will have been well spent and positive changes will result from it.

Mille fois rnerci, ("A thousand thanks")                   Marielle

• This email was forwarded to the Labour Board on December 6, 2008 in defence of the accusation made in the Reply by Beauchamp that I was screaming and yelling (at her and Grimard) throughout the duration of the June 2 meeting. I explained to the Board, the email is "indicative of how I conducted myself at the RWP meeting (June 2nd) and what I strive for daily."  The Labour Board did not accept the document and returned the correspondence to me. 

Grimard's handwritten notes accessed in 2011 ended with the last page in mid-sentence with no concluding notes, but nonetheless, even this is evidence that refutes what was stated in Flintoft's Assessment.  With all other interviews the testimony is typed up into a report, so it is then incredible that CSC did not provide a typed up report from Grimard as to my interview. According to Grimard's verbal testimony in 2010 (MHRC investigative meeting) the MHRC reports includes the statement that Grimard had instructed Beauchamp Schmidt to proceed to accommodation at the conclusion of our RWP meeting. Did CSC destroy Grimard's report? What happened here is anyone's guess but ultimately speaks of  'cover-up'.  How about perjury? At the very least --Bullish?  

The situation turned from someone who felt "kicked like a dog' by one supervisor, to being 'a deer caught in the headlights'  by those desperate to protect the government's status quo.  I had no clue of the real danger I was up against; having grown up in an era that you trust people in authority to do what's right.

Evidence of a smear campaign (by way of notes accessed in 2011) shows numerous meetings held after I had already left OSD. Outrageous accusations to support the 'screaming' and 'yelling' smears stating dates, times and meetings that this was occurring with OSD staff and management. And yet each accusation can be easily dismissed. Like one VISA statement would show that on a couple of those occasions describing me as 'out of my mind', I was actually out of the country cheering on the Celtics at an NBA game in Minneapolis.

Upon receipt of the RWP findings in September 2008, I left Grimard several messages by email and phone requesting an opportunity to meet.  I received no acknowledgement or response.  File accessed 2011 showed that Grimard did seek advice from Government as to how she should respond to me. 'No response' speaks volumes to a person who suffers from manic depression.

Manitoba Ombudsman Investigator Bob Baker responded he saw nothing wrong with Beauchamp Schmidt conducting the RWP investigation (an assessment made after being apprised of Beauchamp's FIPPA violations, HRC violations, perjury, criminal acts) on the basis that I had initially handed the complaint to Beauchamp.  Baker also stated that it is appropriate for CSC to investigate its own complaints which is in contradiction to CSC's earlier promise that an 'outside department' would be conducting an unbiased, off-site and impartial investigation. 

Cover letter to Manitoba Labour Board dated November 24, 2008 requesting to respectfully address the inconsistencies in the Government's Reply to LRA application went unacknowledged by both MLB and Government. The following email is once again indicative of my respectful and professional approach despite the mistreatment I was receiving:

The information is provided in good faith and with respect for the Government of Manitoba, as it is my genuine desire to resolve the conflict peacefully. Mediation cannot begin until a meaningful exchange of perceptions is conducted. I believe the Respondents are in agreement with me that there can only be a win/win resolution and that can only be done in a climate of mutual support and respect.

Crazy is as crazy does! Mama always says 'You can't outgrow crazy."

For Fear We May Forget...

Bad jobs -- bad supervisors happen every day to everyone. You pick up the pieces and move on. What is most frightening however, is when a situation arises like that described in A Bullish Government blog where the final decision on whether a situation is escalated or de-escalated;  whether a complainant is humanized or to be de-humanized is only, and can only be made at the highest level.  It is this abuse of authority of one (or select few) who then in turn instruct other potentially good people to do its bidding.

Highly respected and powerful people holding office of: CSC Commission, Manitoba Labour Board Chair, Manitoba Human Rights Commission Executive Director and Manitoba Ombudsman will (upon order) ignore policy, procedure, law and humanity for fear of falling into disfavour of its government leader. This is in total contradiction with Manitoba's new Canadian Museum of Human Rights, which is to stand proudly as a symbol of "Canada's unwavering commitment to recognizing, promoting and celebrating human rights" and “to stand as a reminder to take action against human rights violations." [Note: Mental illness and the strides in advancing civil rights in response to mental disability, are not recognized by the CMHR, primarily funded and sponsored by our Governments. ]


Government then undertakes to do whatever it takes to silence the complaint (away from public attention) to sweep a "person of inconvenience" under the rug.  One would hope to think that somewhere in this there would be one or two unwilling cohorts losing some sleep over it. But nonetheless, the fear of losing a paycheque, promotion or approval from any one of the Great Kahunas is much more compelling. 
 
Then, on the flip side, there's the really scary 'psycho'  leaders who really get off on being abusive. These are the ones that go way above and beyond the call of duty to inflict even greater pain and suffering.  Experiments conducted in the '60s and '70s  such as 'The Milgram and Stanford Prison' (one of many well documented cases) shows just how easy you can get people to do the unthinkable.
 
It has been said that it is better to protect your character than your reputation. Your reputation, after all, is only what other people think of you; but your character is who you really are.

This  Remembrance Day as we honour all those who gave their lives for others; and for those that came home to live out their lives to be strong leaders in our free world; free to marry their sweetheart, free to raise a family strong in principles, free to grow old and teach their  grandchildren the true meaning of honour, I leave you with my Remembrance Day bidding to you, "For Fear We May Forget ... 

We must never forget that we may also find meaning to life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed. For what matters then is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into triumph, to turn one’s predicament into human achievement. When we are no longer able to change a situation—we are challenged to change ourselves.

Man’s Search for Meaning
Viktor Frankl, survivor of Auschwitz

MHRC: You'll miss the donut if you keep looking through the hole.

Three years later, I still believe that I was unfairly terminated by the Government of Manitoba  once symptoms of  disability became exacerbated due to a stressful and toxic work environment. As stated in the MHRC Complaint dated October 20, 2008 para 9:

The workplace became very toxic in that the work expectations were unreasonable and I felt my supervisor was not providing me with the necessary tools to get all the work done. I felt hostility from (Supervisor) Ms Desrochers when asking for support or direction. I began physically feeling the strain of workplace stress in that I suffered daily migraines, hot flashes, muscle aches and difficulty in breathing with chest pains that resulted in medical attention.

The purpose of a doctor’s report is to corroborate and clarify information. An independent expert opinion from a psychiatrist or other trained professional in mental health issues would of, could of, should of, occurred but MHRC never asked for one. As stated in “A Bipolar Life” blog, MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft never revealed if her comments in the Assessment constitute that of ‘an expert’ or not. GABS

Multiple FIPPA requests eluded disclosure of Flintoft's letter to my doctor -- and for good reason. Information finally accessed revealed the letter was mailed for the doctor’s report on February 12, 2010 and stated that it was needed by March 1, 2010. No professional courtesy as to his limited time between office consults, hospital days, on call, delivering babies...) but Flintoft did offer, “... if you’re busy you can give it to me over the phone.” GABS

Flintoft knew for two years that a report was required. MHRC's failure to properly plan for a doctor's report that is supposed to be first and foremost --the most important thing--should not constitute an urgency on the doctor's part to do it on the fly. An unrealistic demand that required the doctor to do it on a Sunday. (Much like that of a parent doing their kid's science project in one night while the kid is in bed sleeping.) The unnecessary delay in requesting the report, and the sudden urgency to 'phone it in' is only overshadowed in absurdity by the context of Flintoft's questions and biased 'colour commentary': GABS

According to the Respondent, the department in which she worked was in the midst of a workplace re-organization which made the work of all its employees more challenging.

FALSE: CSC confirmed there was no "workplace re-organization.” Never happened. G

(Marielle) also advised that she saw you twice in six months [dates unknown] due to migraine headaches but that you did not change her medication at that time.

Lithium had been working for the past 20 years. Why change now? Is this to imply that the migraines were likely caused by the meds? X-rays were taken and tests were required regarding chest pains and difficulty in breathing as a result of stress as submitted in the complaint, but not questioned by Flintoft. 

Respondent’s evidence is that at the time it did not know she suffered from a mental disability and it had not been asked to make any accommodation for a mental disability. Raising her voice when meeting with management had also happened a few days before the meeting.  GABS

FALSE:

• Supervisor (Desrochers) admitted to Flintoft in 2010 that she had told OSD COO / CSC Director Anna Schmidt Beauchamp that she did know I suffered from a mental illness (knowledge going back 15 years) and she thought the changed behaviour was likely caused by it (said to have told Schmidt Beauchamp once, possibly twice);
• Accommodation had been requested June 2, 2008 at the Respectful Workplace investigation meeting, after which time the investigator advised Schmidt Beauchamp (who became my new supervisor once Desrochers was removed from OSD) to proceed to accommodation. The next work day, upon arriving to work, I was terminated. Told by Beauchamp Schmidt I was "paranoid" and "you think everyone is out to get you."
• Flintoft knew at the time of writing the letter to the doctor that Beauchamp Schmidt's sworn LRA statement that I was yelling and screaming at meetings was false, as confirmed by co-workers in attendance.  

Did the medication affect her ability to do her job? If so, please explain.

This is a performance based question regarding employment making an assumption that my ability was below par, which is in direct contradiction to the performance review letter that I was "an exemplary employee," and "asset to the organization," "showed initiative in taking on new projects" and "meeting the expectations of the job.” As a physician, all he could be asked to speak to, in his report, was the fact that he advised me to stay away from work due to the effects workplace stress was having on my health.


One statement in particular highlights Flintoft’s inexperience in the areas of bipolar, and likely mental illness (page 27) of the Investigative Assessment, when she wrote with placid impudence:

“...after their second child, the Complainant tried to get weaned off her medication but was unable to do so…”  GABS

The term used, to "wean oneself’ off generally means it is in one’s best interest to ‘stop using’ or ‘stop doing something’. To then state I “was not able to do so” (that is, wean myself off  meds) is a tactless comment considering I am to stay on my meds for the rest of my life. The presumption seems to be that I am 'weak' and 'not in control.' It is unclear if this is just in reference to me, or to any woman in general with an 'invisible disability' or "post partum?"

To the contrary,  problems occur when you stop taking your meds. Or, alternatively (which is often sadly the case) when someone ought to be on meds, and are too scared to go on it for fear that they will be ostracized by friends, family, society, government (or they can't get into a doctor). But is this an accepted mentality of a Human Rights investigator?!!

It is truly sad when a Government prescribed remedy is worst than the disease.

MHRC Rule: The Most Important Thing Must Remain the Most Important Thing

Although Manitoba Human Rights Commission Intake Officer, Pat Daniels, first supported the merits of my complaint, it was evident there was undeniable pressure in the ensuing months to ‘get rid of the complaint'. Daniels redrafted the submitted July 2008 complaint to remove key points of the complaint. I was then repeatedly contacted by phone and email pressuring me to sign the redraft "as is" -- told that this was under the direction of the MHRC Executive Director.

Quite astonishingly, I was old by Daniels that the Respectful Workplace complaint (RWP) had ”the same authority as the Human Rights Code" and should therefore just drop the HRC complaint, and let the RWP run its course. Not to be taken for a fool, I responded by email, “I do not agree with you that the parties commissioned to hear matters pertaining to policy would, or should, be dealing with matters of law pertaining to the HRC.

Government filed its Reply on December 8, 2008. Three months later, after repeated and numerous requests I was given a copy of the Reply, but without attachments. The Reply made repeated references to so-called documents submitted as evidence (handwritten notes and memos that I had no knowledge of, and believe that they were likely fabricated after I had been removed from my position and done unlawfully in support of government's defence). Failed promises over the next year to provide said documents were dangled. Often, I would be waiting at home on the dates MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft promised to have the documents delivered, but they never came.

There was no hearing to address any inconsistencies of the loose interpretation of emails and events. Email from me to my Supervisor, with copy to CSC Commissioner and COO at the start of my 3.5 weeks stress leave pleading for help; stated I was in 'crisis,' felt 'de-humanized and 'was being treated like a dog.' The evidence of record was then incredibly spun by legal defence, stating to investigative authorities, that I "didn't actually really mean that I was in crisis."

What is more incredible?

• That a COO, who claimed was "not a psychiatrist" was able to make the clinical assessment of my mental state: "Marielle's perception that she was in crisis was 'off'' or,

• That the Civil Service Commission did not bother to ask what I meant by the word 'crisis' upon my return from 3.5 weeks of stress leave because (as sworn to) they wanted to respect my privacy or,

• That MHRC actually bought that bullish malarkey?

If you guessed all of the above, you would then be in agreement with me. If you qualified (#3) further, adding Flintoft's statement in MHRC Assessment that "employers are not psychiatrists" and therefore the employer could not possibly have seen this coming, then give yourself an additional bonus point. But unfortunately, we all seem to have taken about a 100- year step back in the advancement of mental health rights.

The delay in not sending the MHRC Reply was first said to be due to the fact that an investigator had to be assigned to remove any confidential material, then, they didn't have anyone to make copies, ... then, half a year later when I was given the Reply the attachments were not given. Flintof told me it should in no way affect my ability to complete a Rebuttal to the Reply.

Under Duty to Accommodate, I asked to be allowed to see the Reply with attachments because the anxiety and stress of not knowing what was claimed (especially in light of the Government's past transgressions) was adversely affecting my health as I was experiencing escalated manic thoughts and it was affecting my ability to sleep - which then usually leads to psychosis.. HRC responded "It hasn’t even been determined that you have a disability.”

One can see how easy it is to get swallowed up in details, but for professionals experienced and entrusted to do a good job, the issue should be a simple one. The most important thing must remain the most important thing. MHRC procedure is to record every communication (emails, phone calls, meetings, etc.) in its database. Entry dated August 22, 2008 from MHRC Intake Officer, Pat Daniels (accessed 2011) refers to an initial conversation with me after termination meeting of June 4th while still employed at OSD as to what is relevant under the Code for MHRC to accept an investigation:

Reviewed with (Marielle) that during our first calls I had very clearly advised her that we don’t get involved in personality conflicts and that to have a basis for a human rights complaint – it has to be based…on her disability. She spoke about the conflict resulted in her having to go on leave and the ultimate result of the meeting where employment basically terminated. However, she still spoke about the conflict. Again reminded her – under our leg., has to be based on one of our g.f. … Advised C that the complaint would then be based on the (termination) meeting. She agreed.

February 9, 2009 – Letter from me to MHRC Investigator Paula Hamilton

“...in December you advised that a determination as to whether my health issue was protected under the Human Rights Code had yet to be made. My doctor recently advised (January 30th) that he had not yet been requested to provide a medical report. Should a medical report be required, it may be prudent to do so at this time to avoid any further delays in the processing of the October 20, 2008 complaint. (doctor) advised paperwork is abundant and his time is limited so it will likely take awhile before he can get to it.”

The pre-investigative process took three times longer than the median 8-10 months causing me undue hardship and distress; constantly preoccupied with the details, reliving her experiences both at OSD and afterward; constantly reviewing the documentation. Both stressful and at times incapacitating. Bringing Down the Barriers: The Labour Market and Women with Disabilities in Ontario notes:

...women with disabilities in general have higher overall stress levels than any of the other groups regardless of living arrangements.

The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems to take longer.

Edward R. Murrow