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.