FINANCIAL AID FOR POOR POLITICIANS?

In Winnipeg Free Press December 29, 2012 article "Selinger's got game" Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger thinks it is appropriate to prioritize taxpayers' money  (despite the province facing the largest deficit in recorded provincial history) to support the financial hardship incurred by--egad,  politicians during elections. This epiphany came at the heels of the new Leader of the Opposition Party--Brian Pallister's purchase of a $2 million mansion in Winnipeg.

In the United States, democracy "has really become a club for millionaires and, in some cases, billionaires," ... Selinger went on to say, "I think that democracy needs to function in a way that average people have a chance to participate in it...and if that requires modest amounts of public investment to do that, I don't think that's inappropriate." 

POLITICS WITHOUT PRINCIPLES
Even dead fish can go with the flow.

Dear Reader,

Please do your part to remind Mr. Selinger that there are others, certainly more vulnerable (who cannot access the democratic process) than leaders of political parties whose own personal wealth could likely support a small country. Also, are the majority of politicians not in fact lawyers? What's next on your game plan--send a poor NHL player to camp? 

When you consider that the average income for an individual in Manitoba is $29,250 according to 2010 Stats Canada, and the average hourly rate for a lawyer is $250 to $600 an hour, it is safe to say, the average person is not being represented. It is well reported in my blog, and would appear to be the consensus of expert opinion that those that do try to represent themselves generally end up getting badly beaten and bruised as the court system does not encourage or support self-represented litigants.

Self-represented litigants ‘treated with contempt’ by many judges, study finds  as seen in FAIR article.

Jamie Ryan has been fighting for equal access to his young daughter since the day she was born nearly three years ago. When his ex-girlfriend announced she was moving to Toronto and taking their daughter with her, Ryan hired a lawyer and spent $30,000 trying to stop her. The judge ruled against him. “So that was a waste of money, really,” he says.

Since then, Ryan — who owns an Ottawa company called Executive Golf — has been representing himself in court. So far, he’s appeared before seven different judges. Despite some limited success, the experience has been deeply disillusioning. The judges, he says, treated him like a criminal...

Julie Macfarlane is a law professor at the University of Windsor and has interviewed about 280 self-represented litigants in Ontario, Alberta and BC as seen in FAIR article:

What has surprised me is how traumatized people are by the experiences they're having, how many lives are getting wrecked, how much anger and frustration is out there," says Macfarlane who plans to publish her findings this spring. "It makes you wonder, given that self-reps are now a majority in the legal system, how much longer the system can hang on.

FAIR Newsletter - posted January 1, 2013 

Those that are self-represented generally find themselves fighting a David and Goliath battle where justice is not weighed on evidence, but on the fact those with deep pockets (like government, big business, and members of The Law Society) have unlimited resources and nothing but time on its side.  
See related posting: Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman

Being self-represented is disadvantage enough, but if you also happen to be a person with a mental disability, you will likely find NO advocacy or accommodation, particularly if the complaint is against the Province or its government services.  

We need to be mindful as to why legislation came up with the concept of tribunals, such as the Human Rights Commission and Labour Board in the first place. These were established (and hoards of tax dollars spent) and rationalized as follows:

• as an alternative to the court system for those most vulnerable;
• for those that could not access the court system
• due to disability or
• because they did not have the financial means to hire a lawyer.

And yet, when I tried to access these government services, I was verbally assaulted, reproached by a board member/lawyer for crossing the line --"delving into a lawyers' world!"  

See related posting:

A Bullish Government: Electronic signatures, rubber stamping ...

Oct 26, 2011

And it seemed to really anger him that Marielle was way over her 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 ...

http://rowan4u.blogspot.com/

Not until we have a government that actually does fight for the average person, and one that actually encourages and yes--demands civil behaviour of politicians and provincial gatekeepers; will we be able to ensure civil rights for everyone and ensure that we can access our rights to justice as equals in a democratic society.

Age of Information...Yet Wisdom in Short Supply

 

In protest to Manitoba Government's lack of support for persons with mental illness, I have decided to stop taking my medication for bipolar disorder which to date has enabled me to maintain and sustain recovery (give or take a few slips) for the past 21 years.

 

Imagine if government blamed you for having cancer?

Growing up on a farm outside of Winnipeg, life was simple: If you wanted cookies – you baked them--you planted grain and had a garden for vegetables. On Sundays everyone went to church and prayed. When there was a threat of tornado or flood–we prayed. When we were grateful for what we had... we prayed. Even when things happened that couldn't be fixed, prayers helped because those things were just part of God's plan--as much comfort as that can bring when you see your dad take the rifle behind the barn with your sick pet--but for the most part, there were civilized codes of conduct--rules.


I used to believe that bullies and thugs were not of my world. However, the sad reality is--it is the bullies and thugs that rule the world. Through no fault of my own, I feel I am trapped in some biblical crisis of God vs. the devil. Power is distributed according to wealth, not wisdom or compassion. Manitoba Justice has weaponized language and its bullet is its slanted "decisions", aimed to objectify, de-personalize and de-humanize those who can't fight back.


It is no accident that Justice did not factor mental illness in its call for action from the beginning going back all the way to 2008. It obviously did not want the rules for civilized and decent behaviour to get in the way. Although disability was always known and confirmed, there is only a nuance as to a 'claim' of mental illness as mentioned in Master Berthaudin's decision.

 

The moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. - Hubert H. Humphrey

 

As indicated in the Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association "Safe and Effective Practice" (aka "How to Screw the Public out of their Rights: Law 101) the following excerpt is quite telling:

 

"The lawyer who has been negligent (emphasis added) should not try to be the one who repairs the situation....But it is important to realize that if the Law Society makes use of able and imaginative lawyers from the earliest possible moment ... the number of ways in which this may be done are infinite... It is very instructive to see what can sometimes be done in what is usually assumed to be the most hopeless of cases..."

 

To that end The Law Society hired Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson's, Ted E. Bock and Thomas K. Reimer. And then there are the defendants themselves, the law firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman who as recently as September 5, 2012 continued to play hard ball... having no interest to discuss, or inquire as to what a 'mutually satisfactory / reasonable resolution' was in my mind.

 



 

 

You will find no mention in the Master's decision, Rowan v. Thompson Dorfman Sweatman that on March 15, 2012 paramedics were called and hospital attention was required. That it was stated in the Claim that I found 'dealing with the defendants "too much" and wanted to die.

 

Common sense would tell you that a pendulum swings just as far to the left, as it does to the right. And what goes down must come UP. Considering all the odds were against me, a person of sober judgment would have concluded that going up against the likes of the powers that be, would be insane but instead, much like Daniel in the Lion's Den I threw all caution to the wind and put my faith in God.

Too bad one has to die before someone cares.

 

 

How low can lawyers get? Along with a sympathy card from a senior lawyer at Aikins Law on the occasion of my father's death from cancer, on that same day I received from Aikins Law, a Bill of Costs claiming I owed them $3500. It is hard to tell whether the cost of the sympathy card and postage was included in the Bill of Costs but I would certainly not put that past them. In any event $3500 to not be allowed a trial is ludicrous!!

 

 

Costs are not meant to be punitive, nor should it be used as a deterrent from keeping people like me, with a valid complaint from coming forward. And then, for whatever trumped up reason, particularly in my case where I am unrepresented and vulnerable due to a mental disability, gets 'out-played' by having a provincial civil servant strike out a claim that could and would make the Province come across as looking bullish.

 

 

Justice was not done --- nor was it seen to be done.

 

 

Distance negates responsibility.

MANITOBA INJUSTICE:  Democracy is eroding before our eyes as government authorities forego wisdom and compassion.

When government uses tactics that are threatening and frightening we refer to this as a totalitarian government. When our Province carries out these tactics behind closed doors, and honest public discussion and awareness is suppressed, we are only kidding ourselves that we live in a democracy -- a free world.

 In the past four years while trying to maintain and sustain recovery of a lifelong mental illness, I witnessed unfairness, hypocrisy, ignorance and a lack of humanity at the hands of government and its lawyers. Surprisingly, even after all I have been through, I am not angry or cynical.  As a person with bipolar I constantly search out meaning in all of life's experiences. Like the story of the optimistic child in a room full of manure, despite all odds I too can't help but believe that under all that shit there’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere.  I came to blogging as a form of therapy. I believe in the power of word. Writing has given me back my sense of identity, dignity, pride, humanity and even humour.

It is said distance negates responsibility. It would appear that the Court of Queen’s Bench has successfully completed more passes of my (April 17, 2012) action than our own Winnipeg Blue Bombers, ending my play with a dishonourable sack by the Province.

One would have to take a look at the Province's playbook to fully appreciate how both federally appointed judges and the province carried out such a masterfully-executed play. The hearing at the Law Courts on August 20, 2012 was attended by Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson (the firm claims to be) counsel for defendants Thompson Dorfman Sweatman but the reality is that Aikins Law is retained by the Law Society of Manitoba. It is understandable the Law Society doesn't want that on record given its position as insurer defending against insurance claims and then on its other face claims to act on behalf of the public's interest. I give you "Oxymoron" the Trojan horse placed to win.

Two lawyers attended from Aikins, Ted E. Bock and Thomas K. Reimer. (See explanation on billing at posting Law at Lunch - More Cowbell). The hearing was presided over by newly- appointed master formerly of Filmore and Riley (which together with TDS and Aikins completes the trilogy of the largest and most powerful firms in Winnipeg).

Master Berthaudin (as would be the case with any provincially paid civil servant) should have recused himself given it was the Province that hired the defendants in the first instance that led to this action. A successful civil suit would most certainly reflect badly on the Province - his employer. A motion was raised to address the conflict but not acknowledged or addressed.

How does the courts distance itself from conflict?

At the first hearing on May 25, 2012 Justice Greenberg was asked to hear the motion regarding said conflict and for an injunction for the defence to 'play by the rules'.


QB Rules require only that notice of a hearing be given. The defendants had indeed been duly served and there were given the required time to file any argument to oppose the motion, but did not do so. Neither defendants, or counsel attended. But then attendance is not mandatory if you are not contesting the motion.


Despite evidence of foul play (abuse of power and influence over an unrepresented and vulnerable litigant), her Ladyship refused to hear the matter without first checking with the defendants and adjourned the motion.

On June 1, 2012 Justice Perlmutter presided at the adjournment but did not carry out his sworn duties. On the basis that years prior he had worked at TDS and 'knew the guys', and made the (unprecedented) decision to not hear the matter. His Lordship's actions were in conflict with the purpose of the Order requested and his actions had severe impact--to me.

Justice McKelvey presided on June 11, 2012 at the third adjournment, or more accurately advised she would not be hearing any issues that day. She adjourned the motion out of QB Court to a Master, a provincially paid civil servant--which takes the court procedures full circle: I did not believe a master should be deciding on such issues and Her Ladyship should have (would have) known an injunction can only be granted by a Judge. (See related posting Upscale Violence King of the Castle)




*****************************************

It is only on rare and extreme cases that a claim gets struck out and only then, is done if it passes the stringent test of 'plain and obvious' that there is no lawful cause. The master took an unprecedented 25 days to apply the 'test'. Even then his decision contained only bland statements that failed to recognize anything relevant I presented in support of the action. Causes that had been accepted in previous decisions.

MasterB's decision states he relied only on 'oral' testimony. A little hard to swallow, as he told me at the hearing I would not have to go over the issues. He claimed he had read all the documents including my Re-Amended Claim.



With the exception of my 18 year-old son, I stood alone on principle at this hearing. Advocacy groups advised me throughout that they were unwilling to chance a reduction in funding from the Province should they come forward and advocate on my behalf.

Upon entering the court room my son removed his cap, a polite gesture generally reserved for his grandmother. When I introduced him to both Aikins’ lawyers he stood up to shake their hands and exchanged social niceties, as is his nature. I believe my son exhibited instinctively the most effective way to promote social and economic justice. It starts with respect -- despite differences and despite conflict of the situation.

How is it possible for lawyers to smile, shake hands, connect, inquire about plans for summer and college etc., and then erase from all consciousness, any awareness that their inhumane acts would have hurtful consequences to actual people and their families? The problem is growing to epidemic proportions.

 

Diagnosing the Failure of Professionalism among Lawyers and Finding a Cure. It is an imperfect justice system that allows, and perhaps even encourages lawyers to manipulate the system. Yet, because prosecutors, judges and many politicians are also lawyers, they say that lawyers benefit from the very system they create..."

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/tenth_colloquium_furlong.pdf

 

 

Support is needed for those who can't stand up for their rights. There is NO advocacy for people with mental illness, particularly if their complaint is against the Province or its government services. Not until we allow and encourage civil behaviour of politicians and provincial gatekeepers, will we be able to ensure civil rights for everyone.

More than ever Manitobans are in need of a new perspective. Time for action.

 

• Time to rethink mental illness and connect in a more humane way.
• Time to break through a new path. If not you, than who?

More than at any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness and the other to total extinction. Let us pray we will have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Woody Allen

 

Sources:

Community Living - Manitoba: When Bad Things Happen. Manitoba Women with Intellectual Disabilities... a study

 

REASON II: Why Smart People Lie

Why would someone so prominent and respected in the community lie and chance a character assassination? 

See no evil. Hear no evil.
But then there's ... EVIL.

The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing article published September 30, 2010 (Andrew Jameton (1984) defined moral distress as “a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it.” Moral distress can occur in any situation or workplace environment. It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their own better judgment.


A certain amount of submission is expected when you work in a hierarchy (government, or otherwise), but there are times when what you are expected to do for the privilege of keeping your job: prostration, literal groveling, sucking up to and kissing body parts crosses over to a "hazing" mentality which is totally unacceptable. We often think of hazing in terms of fraternities and with team sports but I witnessed it first-hand at the Civil Service Commission and in my department, Organization Staff Development (OSD). Hazing was allowed to go on, albeit in somewhat secrecy, despite being totally contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy. No doubt, it was able to do so, due to the fact it made sure it had no union interference.


Although my clerk position was open to be filled on a permanent basis, I was offered 'terms' at OSD. Three terms in fact, despite the fact that my work was said to be exemplary, and it was stated that I excelled in taking initiative of taking on projects: described as an "asset to the organization."


I made several requests under the Access of Information Act for copies of Staffing Requests and CSC postings for various 'term' and suspiciously filled positions. CSC ignored, refused and even pleaded ignorance: what I don't recall. Eventually, CSC just "denied" access to the majority of the requests, alleging that the document requested either "does not exist or cannot be located."

 

It is in the lack of documentation that supports my case that claims were being made to the tribunals without any documents in evidence to corroborate said testimony. The lack of documentation is also in violation of 'abuse of term positions' as regulated by Government's own Principles and Policies for Human Resource Management Staffing 2.1.5.

See other related postings:

Reason I: Why Smart People Lie - Smart people follow their anger into some pretty stupid places.

Mean Girls vs Civil Subservient - termination meeting held on June 4th following the RWP Investigation meeting. Beauchamp Schmidt was told to proceed to accommodation but instead carried out an attack in violation of HRC. 

RWP(2) - Beauchamp Schmidt provided an unfair uncorroborated employment reference to employment agency.

In the same (behind-closed-door) fashion, Anna Beauchamp Schmidt was given a one-year term position in an Acting Status as Chief Operating Officer of OSD even though there was no reason not to fill the position as a permanent position. There was no incumbent holding that position, as the former COO had left government altogether to work in the private sector.

 

It should be evident that the Civil Service Commission filled its positions by hand-picking the woman they wanted: rather than posting it in accordance with policy, and in compliance with employment equity. CSC would place the chosen woman, first, in a temporary position then later, after the woman had proved her solidarity, would then unceremoniously transition the 'Acting'  into a permanent status, without competition, and without any questions asked. The end result was then a perfectly homogeneous group of scary think-like mid-life white women.

 

Anna Beauchamp Schmidt’s one-year initiation came to a successful conclusion after only four months coinciding with the successful execution of the dirty deed in terminating my employment as ordered by the Commissioner.

 

This then leads us to Reason II: Why Smart People Lie. Smart people will stupidly follow leaders to gain a position, promotion or for continued employment.

 

Remember The Patriot (the movie)? 

"I'm a parent I haven't got the luxury of principles."

 

It is easy to understand how a vulnerable person (like newly divorced Beauchamp Schmidt) can become morally upended when she finds herself in a most precarious situation: paying maintenance to an ex husband, as well as primary caregiver to two teenaged daughters--one of which was going through more than just the usual teen angst.

 

Unlike the former COO, "Anna" (as referred to in this section only) brown-bagged it for lunch. The small dinette table provided an opportunity get close to Anna. I found Anna to be "real," kind and approachable. There were many discussions regarding the difficulties she faced, and given I also had teens and had experienced a year-long separation in my marriage, a friendship developed. 

 

When Anna invited me for a meeting to discuss ways to improve processes at OSD, I was hopeful of positive change for the future. [Anna's notes, later accessed through FIPPA, stated she found something ‘off’ with me at this point and that I had “approached the meeting different that anyone else." The following day Anna sent me an email and asked for medical emergency phone numbers. I accepted that she was likely concerned because, no doubt, I must have seemed a little accelerated. I also gathered that my supervisor had likely informed her about my mental illness history: I responded to the email request by providing four emergency numbers.

 

I viewed the request for medical information as a positive sign of Anna's caring. There were a number of other telltale signs of care and concern from Anna. Most compelling was when Anna responded to my lengthy manic email that I had sent from home at the start of her 3.5 weeks stress leave. It was indicated in the email that the harassment I endured at the hands of my supervisor had grown to a crisis level. Accordingly, I advised that I would be filing a formal RWP complaint. Anna had immediately responded with what seemed to be genuine concern by email, in addition to emailing me a  personal Get Well card and then sent a follow up email giving her assurance that the “matter outlined in this email will be appropriately addressed... your return to health is of primary importance.”

 

Upon returning to work, the Anna I knew was transformed into a cold and distant COO. There were no meetings. No girl chit chat about family and life. No casual inquiries about my health or whether any accommodation was needed. There was no re-entry to work process: I felt 'frozen out'.

 

In addition to gaining a permanent status as Chief Operating Officer, Beauchamp Schmidt was also made a Director at CSC. No doubt she had favourably ingratiated herself within the cluster of the CSC Executive Society and the full physical transformation into a 'mean girl' occurred.

 

Although it is not likely that it was Beauchamp Schmidt's intent from the onset to cause me harm--that had collaterally occurred. The change in Anna's attitude and the actions taken against me could only have occurred on order by her supervisor, Civil Service Commissioner Debra Woodgate: alternatively, if the Commissioner had no clue what was going on--she should have. There is no other plausible explanation as to why someone with Beauchamp Schmidt's solid background in education: Director of Manitoba Adult Learning & Literacy, (Supporting Lifelong Learning program), transitioning into a completely new position as COO at OSD in an "Acting Status" would, on her own, launch an attack on a person known to have a mood disorder: disability was known, procedures and policy were not followed, and conflicting testimony supports the claim of perjury.

 

Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony in the MHRC investigation as to why support was not given, "I am not a psychiatrist." And that was good enough for MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft. Her assessment report stated: "employers are not psychiatrists" which defies all sane and reasonable logic of what accommodation is all about.

 

When you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle 'em with bullshit.

What is even more incredible is that someone would commit an illegal act seemingly without conscience by lying under oath in violation of the Manitoba Evidence Act to tribunals: Labour Board, Human Rights Commission and their oversight body--Provincial Ombudsman. No one would dare do that unless that person had some assurances (friends in high places) that would guarantee to them that there would be no retaliation.

 

Heck, Government will likely even create a new job for you. Right Irene? (see Ombudsman moves to Government Job Winnipeg Free Press January 5, 2012)

 

Sources:

 

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/

Hazing is the US English term used to describe various ritual and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing

 

 

Epstein, E.G., Delgado, S., (Sept 30, 2010) "Understanding and Addressing Moral Distress" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No. 3, Manuscript 1.

 

The Movie Mean Girls (2004) Synopsis (self-explanatory)

The Patriot - a widowed father of seven children, does what he can to avoid fighting in the Revolutionary War knowing the implications surrounding it.

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.