Presumed Innocence in politics and health care

The last revision of ‘Presumed Innocence’ was on August 1, 2018, to include sections demonstrating the concepts of presumed innocence and credibility through the scandal involving Canadian politician Patrick Brown; through a look at the HRTO case of a patient (myself) versus hospital staff and doctors; through news stories on Prime Minister Trudeau’s 20-year-old scandal; and through news stories on Stormy Daniels’s encounter with Donald Trump. The common theme focused on throughout each of these is the concept of credibility. The legal term ‘presumed innocence’ and the lay person’s use of the phrase are also examined and meant to be a theme by which readers may consider the various scenarios. The List of References has been re-organized into 4 sections according to subject. Minor edits made (2) on August 2. 

Patrick Brown, Canadian politician

Lately, the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty” or “presumed innocent” have been a subject of discussion following accusations of sexual assault against actors, directors, and politicians, among others.  It’s the side of the argument which in layman’s terms probably means “to have compassion for” or “wait for him to be judged in a court of law, first.”

Michael Spratt’s recent article (see The Presumption of Innocence, 2018) explains what the term ‘presumption of innocence’ means, in terms of the legal definition, and the way it is being used inappropriately about one of the most well-known subjects of attention from the public – Patrick Brown, recently resigned leader of the opposition in Ontario.  Michael Spratt is a lawyer, so he knows the law. But I don’t think he knows much about common sense, which is, as I see it, an uninformed opinion in many cases. What I thought I knew 20 years ago, or a year ago, about something that I understood as common sense, is no longer. Many of my views are not the same as other people’s. And theirs are not the same as mine. It could have something to do with diversity – of experience, country of origin, culture, education, interests, family, or career. Or it could have something to do with growing older – a kind of wisdom developing, one would hope. 

I wrote a paper about wisdom once (Narratives and Wisdom, 2004), including interviews with women, in an attempt to find out what it was and if I stood a chance of achieving that state, with no luck. I might just as well have watched ‘Lucy’ (2014) with Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman.

Michael Spratt writes, “Certain columnists wrote that what happened to Brown was wrong and that ‘every man in the world is now vulnerable’." He takes a different point of view, that it makes sense to stop and realize that these men are doing something terribly wrong. He describes the allegations as “shockingly serious: Brown is alleged to have taken advantage of his position of power over very young women, plied them with alcohol and then made inappropriate sexual advances” (The Presumption.)

“The presumption of innocence,” he says, “should not be used as an excuse to disregard common sense.” But sometimes, using common sense can be as bad as relying on the common understanding of the presumption of innocence to guide one’s thoughts on a matter. One of the girls reported feeling intimidated because Patrick Brown had not been drinking but she had been. When I was growing up, it was men who had been drinking whose behaviour we needed to feel intimidated by. Now men have to be afraid of women.

Spratt continues, “The complaints were made on a confidential — not anonymous — basis to reputable journalists,” attempting to convince himself of their truthfulness, and of the ability of the journalists to understand. But there cannot only be common sense used where sex is concerned. There has to be some understanding of what the differences are between the sexes. Sexual freedoms, as they are called, are more widespread in society today both here and abroad, from what we hear in the news.  I wonder if men like Patrick Brown recognized the power they held over women, or did they see it as part of the sexual culture in our society today - the supposed freedom of young women to behave as though they were free to make those kinds of choices.  On the other hand, men are no longer permitted to treat women the way they have done in the past, when women’s voices were not being heard and acted upon.

In The Star, another story on Patrick Brown has one of the girls’ explanation:

 “Despite the fact that this happened, I didn’t want to let this impede on what I saw then as a career opportunity,” she said, adding that she’s choosing to speak out now to support women in similar situations.

“I don’t think that any woman young or old should be subjected to that and put in a situation where they have to decide between the career opportunity that’s in front of them and . . . taking themselves out of a situation that’s at best uncomfortable and at worst unsafe” (Two women accuse Patrick Brown, 2018).

Is she saying that she drank to feel good, or to be able to be flirty unflinchingly, or to not feel the pain of what she was having to do in order to have Patrick Brown advance her career? I cannot see how that provides support to any other young women growing up, except to inform them this is what the world is like.

If she knows that what she is doing is so that it will help her get the career she wants, at what point did she decide to stop what she was doing, ie drinking, flirting, letting Mr Brown get close to her, telling him to stop, getting driven home by him and then later claiming it was sexual assault.  Surely, the problem was that she didn’t want sex as much as he did, that she didn’t even like him. It was all about the career.  And she seemed to know that if she didn’t allow him some gratification, he wouldn’t further her career. Don’t the young women of today even like or admire the men who they do this with?  She called Brown an “old, single politician preying on young girls” (Two women accuse).

That sounds remarkably similar to what Jessica Leeds, the woman on the airplane with Donald Trump, was doing. She left her first class seat beside him to return to her own in tourist class when he went below the waist. That was her cut off point. But was it sexual misconduct, or was it a mutually beneficial interaction that simply ended?

A doctor, his staff, the HRTO, ageism and me

A year ago, I was in a situation where I was accused of being rude, in effect, (or “upset with”) to the staff of a specialist at a local hospital. It would appear that the idea of “presumption of innocence” didn’t need to be applied in that situation. I was deemed guilty by anyone who heard about it. A hastily written very negative black mark against me was put onto the report he wrote of that appointment, which was available to any doctor I wished to have as my family doctor, as well as to other doctors in the community I had appointments with.

I usually describe that part of the situation-in-its-entirety first, because it was so emotionally distressing, and it is the part that comes to mind. And besides, when I filled out the application for a Human Rights Tribunal it said to write the incidents down chronologically, as they happened. So I tried to do that.  It has been a fiasco, with backlogs, being put in a queue, clerical errors, and not having a caseworker, and being sent a ‘Notice of Intention to Dismiss’ (NOID) my application, by some unnamed person, because it might fall outside their jurisdiction.

I realized the other day how my application appears to whoever reads it, as chaotic, done in a chronological order, not even taking the most important incident first, to the extent that, the adjudicator who sent me a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) stated in the heading, McPherson v LHSC instead of McPherson v ‘The Dr et al’.  It seemed as though my case were getting pulled apart, with first one, then another administrative staff member of the HRTO looking at it, and making decisions that were not always the best ones or not explained in a way I could understand. See (Why and How I was discriminated against, 2017).

As chance would have it, in my response to the CAD/NOID, I started writing about it again, but starting with the main incident, which was not about me being accused of being rude. It was about me being shortchanged on a diagnostic test the specialist offered me, and then presumably ordered for me, one that was unlikely to be sufficient to make a firm diagnosis. I made out an application with the HRTO that I was discriminated against, by him, on the grounds of age and gender, and marital and family status.

I don’t think I was able to get the adjudicator see that in the previous response I wrote. I didn’t know what was expected of me, and I was given only clues, no direction that made sense. No wonder it appears to him that I have taken on the entire hospital, seeing my allegations that I was discriminated against by being treated differently than other patients - because they accused me of being rude to the Dr‘s staff – and “upset with.” So the adjudicator worded it McPherson v  LHSC. So who is presumed to be innocent in this case? Well, it’s certainly not me.

I don’t know if starting my latest response with the main incident, instead of the accusations by the girls, is enough to have the next adjudicator or admin staff member realize the situation I am in, that I have been ganged up on, because the Dr knows I know I was getting lesser treatment, as many older people probably are in our medical system. See (Ageism in Ontario's health care, 2017).

What is important, whether the Drs and their secretaries protecting him, or the girls like the ones who accused Patrick Brown, is getting their stories in, and the more of them the better, which makes them more powerful against him, and having the credibility that comes with who they are, now that they have careers, as well as getting their stories in first. If they can accuse him first, and be believed, or if the Dr at the local hospital can accuse me of something so chaotic that it can’t be taken in easily, and if they do it first, then they have the upper hand. They have the credibility, although it sickens me to know that they do, despite all they have done to me.

Those girls accusing Patrick Brown didn’t have to do that. They could have tried to find another way, instead of accusing him of that and destroying his career (Would-be Ontario PC leader, 2015). The girls at the hospital who colluded amongst themselves and with others including the Dr, to accuse me of something I did not do, didn’t have to do that.  Doctors don’t lose their licence to practice that easily. But the answer does not lie with Patient Experience, or Patient Relations, or with the media taking on people who pass their credibility test.  What is needed are people with the knowledge to sort out the problems, not to try to fit my experience into their framework and then dismiss it if it seems to them it doesn’t fit right, and not journalists doing a job they may not be capable of doing.

I find it appalling that the Dr and his staff have been granted credibility, in making accusations against me, that have affected my health and sense of well-being, and that my allegation against him, in regards to this specific incident in particular, has been diminished by having it included as just one of a number of allegations I made against the hospital.  The way the Application form was laid out, the name of the organization comes first in the list of respondents, followed by the list of individual respondents. But not all doctors are employees of the hospital. The specialist I saw was an independent surgeon/specialist, not just another employee who I was alleging had harassed me and discriminated against me.

There have been several mistakes made in the HRTO’s treatment of my application.  I hope that it won’t get dismissed because someone hasn’t been able to take in everything that I wrote about, or expects me to prove my allegations before I get to the hearing. As the closing sentence of Michael Spratt states, “At the end of the day, insisting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt outside the courtroom can lead to, and certainly does not protect from, injustice.”

Several weeks ago I wrote a letter to Dr Paul Woods, President of LHSC in London, sending the letter to him specifically, by Express Post, explaining the situation and attempting to get someone to resolve this without the HRTO deciding on it based on misinterpretations of my application by administration staff at the very beginning, sending me a NOID (Notice of Intent to Dismiss) based on their faulty reasoning and neglecting to sign the document, which I am assuming means it wasn’t an authorized decision. I never received acknowledgment of my letter.

I look back now, and see that the Dr’s decision to send me for a diagnostic VNG test was a good decision. The problem was that I was being offered only a fraction of the complete test, an aspect of discrimination, based on age and gender, that is probably quite common. The fact that the girls on staff turned against me when I asked questions about it, accusing of me of being rude when I hadn’t been, and the fact that the Dr put this into his report on the appointment, affected future attempts to have a family doctor, leaving me feeling disenchanted with the medical profession and the integrity of the practice of health care. Now I am waiting to see how the HRTO will deal with this matter, having told me that the HRTO does not deal with cases involving “medical decisions.”    

See additional article below in List of references.

  

July 9, 2018  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Another dilemma has occurred, not so easily resolvable because this time, PM Justin Trudeau is the one caught in the middle. See ‘Hypocrisy is at the crux of theTrudeau groping allegation,’ July 8, 2018. On the one hand, Trudeau allegedly behaved inappropriately toward a young woman 18 years ago, at a music festival. As a result, her colleagues came to her rescue and an editorial was written in the newspaper she worked for as a reporter. Her name remained anonymous, as did the precise behaviour attributed to Trudeau, then a teacher. He was named. She wasn’t. He apologized and that was the end of that. Until now.

The dilemma has occurred because Trudeau has endorsed a policy of zero tolerance towards men who commit sexualized occurrences against women. True to his feminist beliefs, Trudeau insists that women ought to be believed when they speak out against such incidents. He has managed to get himself in hot water over his quick responses to some politicians failures in their interactions with women. Now this.

Strangely, his credibility appears to be declining over this mess, while the unnamed woman still has credibility, largely, I believe due to the support of her colleagues who likely were the same people who interviewed her and passed the message along that she wanted nothing more to do with this. So having raised it, very publically 18 years ago, in a national newspaper, and offering nothing – no name, no details of the incident, nothing except that she felt disrespected – she now wants to let it go.

This seems very one-sided. Trudeau has been left holding the bag. It appears that both of them may have made mistakes. His was presumably an overzealous flirtation. Hers was to react strongly to what used to be normal behaviour between men and women (which often left one or the other uncomfortable emotionally).  And she told her colleagues who may have thought this made good news – a story about the son of former PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Some may see the woman as the innocent party, while others  - perhaps not as many – side with Trudeau. But is he a hypocrite? I don’t think so. He is a well-meaning man who is the Prime Minister, seeking a new way of forming a working government. Is he sincere? Mostly, he is, as well as practicing tolerance and acceptance with a sense of social justice.  He is not perfect, though for a while he thought he was, endorsing zero tolerance for men’s mistakes, until he was caught in the same web other men have been.

I cannot see at this time how justice (at least social justice) can be applied to this situation if the woman does not come forward and tell her side of the story. I understand she has given her name now, but that still leaves the original editorial in place, that was written about her (or by her, about how she saw it).  Without that, in this new world of the Me Too movement, Justin Trudeau is left with his loyal supporters going about their business hoping he can keep his position and regain the trust of the people so he can continue to do his good work – and do it better while he continues to learn.

What she – the woman who was a reporter – gained from all this she got 18 years ago – the story for her newspaper, an apology, and apparently her self-respect back. She may think there is nothing more to gain, but by telling her story, other women can learn from it and can gain confidence. Did she do this for herself, or for herself and other women?   Which one is the hypocrite – Trudeau or her?

To consider who has the power and which one is using it above an acceptable level is what needs to be determined. Who stands to gain – and what – and who stands to lose. Was what the woman experienced an emotional ordeal, and what did she lose besides a momentary feeling of lack of respect from someone who ought not to have mattered to her, except he was the son of a Prime Minister?

Calling Trudeau a hypocrite even though many must have recognized the errors he was making as he learned to do his job is hardly fair to him or the rest of Canada.  The main thing, now, is what he does – what he is able to do – to make this situation right.  He is on a steep learning curve.  See additional articles below in List of References, eg. What we’ve missed in the conversation about Justin, 2018. 

July 30, 2018 Stormy Daniels

Another account of what is meant by credibility comes from an article in Macleans by Laurin Liu, a millennial author, who attributes the characteristic of credibility to Stormy Daniels, paid sex worker to Donald Trump, to her narration of the sexual encounter she had with him shortly before he became President. See ‘How Stormy Daniels is closing the credibility gap’, 2018. The author refers to Miss Daniels, aka Stephanie Clifford, as having credibility in her manner, coming across as trustworthy, while ignoring any reference to women having credibility due to their careers, personal wealth, marital status, community status, and so on – not inherent but marital, social, financial, and employment attributes.  Liu states at one point, “For many men, Daniels is believable; for many women, she is not just believable, but relatable.”

Laurin Liu explains the idea of the gender “credibility gap” which suggests that “women are less likely to be believed when they make certain claims (against men), because they are believed to be inherently less competent or trustworthy. In other words, in an exchange of he-said-she-said, the former is likelier to win” (‘Cassandra among the creeps,’ 2014 in ‘How Stormy Daniels’, 2018) . The “certain claims” being made, however, in this situation, are specific ones whereby Stormy Daniels had, she says, unwanted sex. Thus there would be men who would see Daniels as agreeable, and probably credible. A lot of women may well have had the same kind of experience, not being coerced, exactly, but agreeing to sex for the sake of their job, or getting a leg up on their career. So both men and women could be seeing Stormy Daniels as credible, for this reason. But was this a matter of credibility or was it a change in power relations between men and women, giving women a voice, but not the complaining voice of Me, Too.

There’s a difference between credibility and a person (female, in this case) siding with another (Stormy Daniels) because she’s had a similar experience. Then it becomes a matter of sexual politics, and not that Stormy Daniels demonstrated inherent credibility, or credibility through the jobs she has done in her life.

This question has to be asked wherever women side with someone or men, but the subject here is women siding with Stormy Daniels).  Are they doing so because the woman sounds as though she is telling the truth through her demeanor, or because she has been known to be truthful all her life (inherent credibility), or because she holds a responsible position at work, or because she is married to a man with high status in the community?  And what about the women taking Ms Daniels’s side. Do they have credibility, based on their status in the community, or inherent worth, or do they do so because the person they are holding up as a credible person (male or female) is the one who enables her to receive a fat paycheck?

The ‘credibility gender gap,’ says Rebecca Solnit, used to be about men having credibility while women often had none, especially when sex was the subject of discussion (see Cassandra, 2014). It wasn’t all that long ago that men controlled women’s sexuality. With the coming of ‘the pill,’ the oral contraceptive, and feminism, women are able to take more control over their lives. Stormy Daniels apparently feels empowered by her choice of career, and by the words used to describe her, says Laurin Liu. Ms Daniels is right that prostitutes should also be treated with dignity and respect, but that doesn’t require identifying with her cause or idealizing her situation.

The issue appears to be that Ms Daniels believes she should have been paid by Trump as well as allowed to speak about the sexual encounter.  But is this story really about sexual liberation, or is it about women finally being in a position to tell men what they really thought of them, and what they really think of sex when presented to them in the coercive manner that it sometimes is?  Is it about the worthiness of women as credible narrators, or about how women in greater numbers will now choose to side publically with women who they see as having had a similar sexual experience of life as their own?

This story of the credibility of Stormy Daniels, together with the other sections on the themes of credibility and the presumption of innocence, bring the subject into focus in a way that enables them to be understood, by lay persons and others. The topic of credibility, and presumed innocence, taken as one, is not fixed but fluid in the face of changes in the power structure of society and as new knowledge comes to light about individuals themselves and topics of concern in society. Race, gender, sexuality, and increasingly aging and sexual misconduct are in the public eye more than ever. This blog piece “Presumed Innocence” has moved from one subject to another, with each area contributing to a greater understanding of the others, and of how credibility and the presumption of innocence can be understood.

List of References  - organized according to each of 4 sections

References - Patrick Brown

The presumption of innocence is for courtrooms, not politics

by Michael Spratt

CBC Opinions

Jan 30, 2018

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/presumption-of-innocence-1.4509334

retrieved Jan 30, 2018

Two women accuse Patrick Brown of sexual misconduct

Jan 24, 2018

By Victoria Gibson

The Star

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/01/24/pc-leader-patrick-brown-holds-late-night-press-conference-to-deny-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct.html

retrieved Feb 2, 2018

Would-be Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown driven to win

Torstar News staff

Metro News

May 3, 2015

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2015/05/03/would-be-ontario-pc-leader-patrick-brown-driven-to-win.html

retrieved Feb 5, 2018

Added Feb 21 2018

Patrick Brown cleared to run for Ontario PC leadership

By Amara McLaughlin

CBC News

Feb 21, 2018

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pc-leadership-committee-approves-patrick-brown-candidacy-1.4544843

Added Feb 21 2018

Ontario PCs overturn nominations, bar former leader Patrick Brown from running as candidate

by Karen Howlett

Globe and Mail

March 15, 2018

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-pcs-overturn-nominations-bar-former-leader-patrick-brown-from/ 

added July 9, 2018

Patrick Brown to run for Brampton mayor

By Noor Javed, Staff Reporter

Robert Benzie, Queen's Park Bureau Chief

The Star

July 27, 2018

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/07/27/patrick-brown-to-run-for-brampton-mayor.html

References - A doctor, his staff, the HRTO, ageism and me

Ageism in Ontario's health care and human rights (HRTO)

by Susan McPherson

Sue’s Views on the News

Dec 21, 2017

http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2017/12/ageism-in-ontarios-health-care-and.html

Why and how I was discriminated against – explaining to HRTO’s Dr Fthenos

by Sue McPherson

Sue’s Views on the News

Dec 29, 2017

http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2017/12/why-and-how-i-was-discriminated-against.html

Narratives and Wisdom: the lives of women growing older

by Sue McPherson

S A McPherson web site

2004

http://samcpherson.homestead.com/Narratives-Wisdom--.html

http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/NrrtvesWsdomWmnOldrSMcPherson.doc

Letter to Dr Paul Woods, President, LHSC
by Susan McPherson
2018 April 9

References - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

After 'reflecting very carefully' on groping allegation, Trudeau says he doesn't feel he acted inappropriately

by Marie-Danielle Smith and Adrian Humphreys

National Post
July 5, 2018 10:51 PM EDT. Last Updated July 6, 2018 10:49 AM EDT

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-responds-to-groping-allegation

‘Hypocrisy is at the crux of the Trudeau groping allegation’

by Robin Urback

CBC News

July 8, 2018, 2:41 PM ET

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-groping-allegation-1.4738492 

‘People experience things differently,' Trudeau says of groping allegations

By Kayla Goodfield and Chris Herhalt

CTV News Toronto
July 6, 2018 7:00PM EDT Last Updated July 6, 2018 8:01PM EDT

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/people-experience-things-differently-trudeau-says-of-groping-allegations-1.4003576

What we’ve missed in the conversation about Justin Trudeau’s alleged grope

By Alheli Picazo

Macleans

Jul 23, 2018

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/what-weve-missed-in-the-conversation-about-justin-trudeaus-alleged-grope/

References – Stormy Daniels

How Stormy Daniels is closing the credibility gap for women

By Laurin Liu

Macleans

Apr 6, 2018

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/how-stormy-daniels-is-closing-the-credibility-gap-for-women/

Cassandra Among the Creeps

By Rebecca Solnit

Harper’s  ‘Easy Chair’

October 2014 issue

https://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/cassandra-among-the-creeps/

Prostitutes take their desires to the Supreme Court

By Sue McPherson

Sue’s Views on the News

23 January 2012 (revised Jan 25, 2012)

http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2012/01/prostitutes-take-their-desires-to.html

A couple of the links are no longer working in this article so I have added the link to another piece on prostitution written the same year, as follows:

The decriminalization of prostitution: two women talking

By Sue McPherson

Sue’s Views on the News

March 6, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2012/03/decriminalization-of-prostitution-two.html

Ageism in Ontario's health care and human rights (HRTO)

In November, 2016, I was subjected to false accusations and lies (which amounts not only to harassment/verbal abuse but also to discrimination under the Human Rights Code) in reports written by a specialist/consultant at LHSC (London Health Sciences Centre), and other employees.  I identified that incident, among others, as discrimination on the grounds of sex and age, and marital and family status, separating it into nine distinct incidents, and submitted an Application form on those grounds to the HRTO (Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario).  I named eight Respondents, one of them being the organization LHSC, the rest being individual Respondents.

Writing up this Application was complex enough. It was impossible to make all the connections that would enable a caseworker to understand at one reading what it was all about. But this was only the Application, not the hearing. And nothing stands still. Even since submitting my Application, on November 6, 2017, there have been other interactions, not in person but by mail, or email, or telephone.  The distortions of truth coming from those interactions have been more than simply frustrating. They’re enough to make a person lose faith completely not just in the human race but in the  safety or value of speaking in person to someone who might then tell lies and manipulate one. There was also the doctor who wrote to me, copying his letter, sent by standard mail, to several of his colleagues. I don’t have that option, to start sending so many letters off to people, and so am limited to using mainly email, a means of making contact that is not reliable or proof of anything except that one may be a nuisance, probably, something that may not apply so easily to a letter writer.  Then it came to be that emails themselves – not mine but other individuals - were likely being manipulated, but I had no power to stop that from happening.

It is difficult to be an older person in Ontario and not have the resources or support to fight the battle, not just against the original source of discrimination and ageism as a patient, but then with the HRTO. I don’t qualify for Legal Aid and don’t have the funds to get a lawyer or even a paralegal otherwise, as far as I know. Despite seeking the more reasonable alternative in the London area I didn’t find a paralegal who appeared to have knowledge of the complex system of human rights in Ontario. That’s different from human rights abuses that happen abroad. Here, it’s about discrimination on grounds that are listed in the Human Rights Code, such as age, sex, race, marital status, etc, that occur in education, or employment, or in areas such as goods and services.  

The woman at the HRTO Legal Centre will only say to me now, after hearing the first part of my Application (about this being about a doctor) that they don’t deal with cases about doctors’ medical decisions. That is how this situation started – regarding a medical decision made by the doctor, but it has gone way beyond that. In fact, looking back at it more objectively, I believe the main incident for the HRTO (since he has been absolved of responsibility of  treating me inadequately and carelessly) must then at least be about the damning reports the doctor wrote about me, no doubt egged on by his loyal staff.  This will get sorted out, as time goes on. It is just difficult to pull it all together when others say that’s not allowed, or that’s not the problem.

I wonder if the participants in this in entire situation were knowledgeable enough to realize that the larger they make it – the more complex and involving more people than just the doctor – the less likely it becomes that the HRTO or any other complaints system I went to would see as an issue they can resolve – or was it simply that they figured if they ganged up on me, I would give up and go away. According to the doctor’s reports, not just one or two, but all his admin staff accused me of being rude. I only recall seeing two of them – the front desk clerk and the person who showed me to my appointment, but then there was the audio clerk too. And the appointment-taker, so named because she was only the voice on the other end of the telephone, there to make – and break – appointments.

I tried to explain that at one point, probably in the Application, that part of that problem, the one with the front desk clerk, could have been a matter of perception (with discrimination as its basis).  If she, as secretary of the doctor, saw herself as above the patients – or above some patients – they may consider it rude even if the patient speaks to attempt to understand something. Treating patients as children is one form of ageism – as people not competent, or on the other hand as not worthy, being only patients in the hierarchy. Besides that, the front-desk clerk may also have had poor self-esteem, and thought I was being critical of her, which I wasn’t. I just thought that, 2 years down the road, I could try to make sure that my reports didn’t keep going to the original referring doctor. On the other hand, her behaviour (which wasn’t immediate, only coming to light weeks later) may have been done to me to turn the tables, as it were, knowing that I realized I was being shortchanged on the diagnostic test that had been offered me. Thus, accusing me of being rude, in effect, treating me like a child, was to do the opposite of what I was about to bring into the open, the fact that the doctor saw it okay to treat me, an older female, having no family close by and no husband, the way he did. Thus, by the doctor accusing me of being rude, the real reason behind my attempts to get answers about the test I was being offered, when I had already been dismissed so quickly by the doctor at the appointment, was at risk of being ignored completely.

I have been put in a situation of trying to understand why this or that happened to me, and whether it was legitimately a case of discrimination on the grounds of one or more of sex and age, and marital and family status.  And I have had to do it for every incident, of which there were nine in the Application I made – 9 incidents, 7 individuals. If the HRO believes in social justice, I hope they would make it as bearable as possible for me to engage with them in achieving a just solution.  

At this time, there is a delay in processing new Applications, I have been informed, which are taken in the order they are received.  So, meanwhile, no caseworker has been assigned to my Application, made on November 6, 2017.

The Human Rights Tribunal process is a farce

Having been involved in Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal process since the summer of 2015, I can now say for certain the Human Rights process  - at least the way it was conducted in my case - is a farce. It may work for some people, of course, but I hasn’t worked for me.

One of the reasons I say this is that, while attempting to get one of the main issues of contention between the Respondent and myself, the Applicant, resolved, I can see how the process has worked in his favour. And if the process itself hasn’t, while running its natural course, then the people working in it have enabled it to benefit him.

One

The Application I made to the HRT was to declare that the Respondent – my family doctor at the time – had discriminated against me on the grounds of sex, marital and family status, and age. I followed the rules and submitted 5 ‘important documents’ and one audio recording that I would be using at the hearing, as well as providing a list of them, stating the importance of each, as required in that section of the form. As the Applicant, I also had to provide a thorough description of the two incidents of discrimination and how they affected me, and what remedies I was seeking, which did not include a monetary remedy only ones directed to the Respondent himself and recommendations within society. See Remedies sought from the HRT.

Then it was up to the Respondent to write an official Response, using an HRT form for that, which he did in July, 2015. On it he wrote the name of only one document – The Medical Chart of McMcPherson – giving the reason it was important as “describes the care provided to Ms McPherson.”  It was at about this time that I inquired from the Legal Support Centre what was menat by the term ‘Document.’ I got no answer on that.

This was the first of the three times in all that the Respondent and the Applicant (myself) were required to declare what documents we were bringing to the hearing – or relying on, or might be using.

I did respond the Respondent’s official response, but the Form 3 I used said only respond to new issues, so that matter of the one bundle of documents – being my Medical Chart – remained unaddressed.

Two

The second time we were required to declare the documents  - in a formal Disclosure of “Arguably relevant Documents” - was by September 1, 2015, which I did, submitting my by then 7 documents plus 2 audio recordings by the deadline, but receiving nothing in return from the Respondent.

I contacted the Respondent and the HRT via an official form and was hastily sent the bundle of items previously mentioned by the Respondent – the Medical Chart. There were no dates on them, not in chronological order, no description of each page or their importance, nor their relevance, as was stated to be the new requirement – that they be arguably relevant.

I was concerned about the bundle being passed off as a single ‘Document’ but was advised by HRT to wait as a third deadline would soon be approaching, and perhaps all would be resolved by then.

Three

The third and last deadline was Dec 29, 2015, by which time the Applicant and Respondent were to have submitted all the documents they were going to “rely on” at the hearing in February.  By this time the Respondent had put numbers and titles on each of the items in the 103-page Medical Chart. But nowhere was the importance of the ‘Document’ or it relevance included, except meant to be as a “description of the care provided to Ms McPherson.”

I objected strenuously. And the Respondent’s lawyer objected in return, and in two Interim Decisions and one Case Direction, decisionmakers at the HRT sided with the doctor – the Respondent.  I get to use my 7 pages, and he gets to use 103 – if he needs to.

If I need to defend myself against anything that is raised by the documents he produces in self-defence, I don’t have anything. We both submitted documents starting in April, his in July, 2015, me providing insight as to why mine were important, the doctor providing nothing, except to say they described the care provided to me.

Negotiations and arguments

Forms 10 and 11 abounded then, between the Respondent’s lawyer and myself and the HRT, as we attempted to persuade the Interim Decisionmakers, Laurie Letheren and Dawn Kershaw, of the merits of our requests – me for adjournment to allow the Respondent time to provide the relevance of each of the 103 pages, his lawyer to plead that he had the right to a speedy hearing.

As time went on, his lawyer made the argument once again that I had placed the care provided to me at the centre of this matter, while I argued that no, like Evan Solomon, Mike Duffy, Jian Ghomeshi and Joe Fontana, when accusations are made against them it isn’t the good they have done that is at the heart of the matter. It is when mistakes are made, or discrimination carried out, that it ends up at a Tribunal and these are the matters to be looked at, not the good these people did. The lawyer’s Form 11 saying what she did, there, was ignored by the Interim Decisionmaker, Dawn Kershaw, in her Jan 15, 2016 Interim Decision, as were my remarks about what this case should be about.

Each time, the Interim Decisionmakers argued that this matter of the adjournment and the relevance of the items in the Medical Chart should be left to be decided at the hearing.  And then I realized that this was not going to happen. It couldn’t happen. It was an illogical decision the Interim Decisionmakers had been making every time they said it.

It would take time, if the Respondent were ordered to write down the relevance or importance of each of the items in the 103-page Medical Chart. There’s not a hope that could happen at the hearing, while we are all sitting there. It would seem that they  - the HRT Registrar, Richard Hennessy, or the adjudicator, Dawn Kershaw - had no intention of deciding in my favour, that the doctor would have to provide the relevance of each of the documents.

What that means, in terms of the hearing, is that if I produce a document or an example of ill-treatment or disrespect he wishes to dispute, he can produce a document from the 103 pages to prove his argument. However, having only 7 documents and 2 audio recordings, I am limited in how I can make a point or defend myself against his accusations. I can speak, but I have not been granted credibility. So it is the harsh words and distortions in documents written by the Doctor and his receptionist that will be believed.

What’s worse is that, during this whole process, I was led to believe that the process would be fair, yet I was not given the option of seeking documents to contradict the 103 pages he decided to rely on.  In fact, how could I? How could I begin to guess what he was going to produce, at the hearing, from his array of documents that he first mentioned back in July?

Three times the doctor produced that Medical Chart as his Document of importance, relevance, to rely on. And each time he not obliged to prove that the items in it were.

Discontinuity between the lead-up and the hearing

Late in the process it also sinks in that everything that happens during the initial process has nothing to do with the hearing. All that happens during these months of preparation, the HRT sending directions as to what should be submitted and when, and how they should be described, is forgotten once the hearing starts. What that means is that all the talk, all the arguments, all the lack of description regarding importance, relevance of the pages, etc. in the Medical Chart mean nothing once the hearing starts. It means that I can request that the doctor provide the relevance, right there, at the hearing, but that the adjudicator, Dawn Kershaw, can simply say No. Or, she can say, This should have been dealt with before the hearing started. There is no time now.

All those submissions I made, beforehand, about my position, mean nothing, unless they are included in the documents I submitted to the HRT to be used at the hearing. That means that the medical research I provided links to on why older women who have had given birth and have had hysterectomies ought not and do not need to be sent off for an ultrasound on their bladders will not be there as evidence. Only my word will count, though the colleague witness of the doctor has said in writing that the treatment I received – including the pelvic ultrasound on my bladder, was within the standard of care limits. What that means to me is that I would not want him as my doctor. And secondly, that giving the patient the chance to ask questions beforehand and to find out what would be expected from her doesn’t matter to either of them. As for the request by the doctor for a urine sample from me to test for “street drugs,” it is still my view that he needs to take a course or two on how to communicate in respectful ways. See details of the incidents of discrimination:
Statement on Pelvic Renal ultrasound incident 
Statement on drugs, urine termination incident 

Just as importantly, the doctor needs to consider the differences between  women who are young and those who are growing older, and how that may affect their diagnosis and treatment in matters such as kidney disease.

What is the purpose of such a lengthy process of requests for documents from the Applicant and the Respondent?  Is it to wear out the Applicant through repeated failed attempts to achieve fairness at the hearing?  See SJTO and HRT Rules of Procedure p 2

p 2 of the Rules

A3 INTERPRETATION

A3.1 The rules and procedures of the tribunal shall be liberally and purposively interpreted and applied to:
(a) promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of disputes,

(b) allow parties to participate effectively in the process, whether or not they have a representative,

(c) ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

Proving discrimination at a Human Rights Tribunal

Added Monday, January 25, 2016    The aim of this HRT Application
Added Sunday, January 17, 2016 - Further Response to Anonymous commenter
Short edit made Jan 3, 2016
Added June 25, 2016  - improved 20 min excerpt of "street drug" incident.

What counts more – credibility of witnesses or factual evidence? Stated another way, should interpretations and viewpoints of witnesses close to the event or to participants in it be granted the same evidentiary legitimacy as substantive proof in the form of reliable, objective, detailed research or tape recordings of the incidents in question?

When I made out an Application to the Human Rights Tribunal in 2015 claiming discrimination by my family doctor on the grounds of sex (gender), marital and family status, and age, I did so in the belief that my complaint would be taken seriously. I have come to see now that, rather than my evidence and knowledge forming the basis of my claim, the lies and distortions of truth told by the Respondent, his secretary, and a colleague not long departed from the Port Elgin/ Southampton area are being held up as truth (by them and decision-makers at the HRTO), despite my having provided evidence in the form of tape recordings and factual research that indicates otherwise.

I know that my words mean little or nothing to most people. And that is the underlying factor in this case. I have no husband to provide me with credibility. I have no property  to enable me to be seen as a worthy person. I have no family nearby. I live alone, in a city that I once thought was a great city to live in – London, Ontario – but now having returned after years away – including a decade abroad – after 5 years here it no longer seems that great to me.

Interim Decision

Of significance here is the Interim Decision of October 8, 2015, which relieves the Respondent of the responsibility of having to provide the relevance/importance of each document within the Medical Chart, even though in their initial Response, it was a requirement that they do so, “they” being the Respondent and his lawyer. Their claim at the time (in their Response to my Application) was that my entire Medical Chart were documents intended to show the care provided to me, never mind that it is full of omissions, pages put together haphazardly, indecipherable scribblings by the doctor,  not in chronological order, nor with dates on the pages – and no explanations of the relevance of each individual document. According to the Interim Decision, my requesting more detail was “premature”.  And so now, according to the Notice of Hearing, Aug 11, 2015, when from that bundle the ones to be relied upon at the hearing were to be listed, by the end of December, 2015, the Respondent went directly to the new instruction, listing them, giving them titles, and numbers, but still neglecting to explain their relevance.

View the HRT Interim decision, October 8, 2015

The pages of the Medical Chart (my medical chart) now have titles, but are out of order and not dated. More importantly, no mention of the relevance of these so-called documents that I received from the Respondent at the end of December, 2015 is included. It would appear that, through the manipulation of language, and the lack of familiarity of the Interim decision maker with my Application, the Respondent has managed to avoid having to provide the information originally required in his Response to my Application. Submitted as a whole, the chart may give the overall impression that the doctor was a caring doctor, but delve more deeply, and it would show he was not. But who has time to delve more deeply. The Human Right hearing lasts 2 days. Am I to spend that time defend myself by pointing out all the mistakes and lack of attention to detail in the Chart, including all that is irrelevant, nothing to do with this Application, but which may make me look bad in the eyes of the Human Rights adjudicator. Without an explanation as to their relevance, the documents are left to the adjudicator’s imagination to comprehend.

In my Application I focused on two matters only, ones I had proof for. Now, that has been turned around by the latest submission to me and the HRT by the Respondent, on Dec 29, 2015, which is the now titled and numbered Medical Chart, plus a statement by his secretary upholding his opinion, a secretary whose name I didn’t even know until I received the statement, as she never referred to herself by her name when she called, and the doctor did not either. The other witness statement is a so-called expert statement by a new colleague of the doctor’s, who did not reside or practice in London at the time but who seemingly is providing his objective views on the treatment provided to me, stating that it was appropriate.

In particular, I should think that sending a patient for renal ultrasound test, to rule out causes of kidney disease, and including an ultrasound on the bladder, was simply not well thought out – typical of this doctor’s attitude towards me – thoughtless, uncaring, and disrespectful. The witness colleague, a family physician also, directs readers to ‘Mosby's Family Practice Sourcebook - An Evidence-Based Approach to Care,’ for evidence (which they must seek out on their own, apparently, from within the book’s pages) that sending me for a bladder ultrasound - a 69-year women who has given birth 2 times, had a hysterectomy and is somewhat overweight - is within practice guidelines for a patient whose lab report shows “an initial abnormal creatinine clearance (eGFR)”.  The witness colleague writes:

“While an ultrasound limited to just the kidneys would have been appropriate, it was stili within the standard of care to include the bladder to rule out other possible causes of chronic kidney disease” (Dec 27, 2015 physician witness statement).

The Two Incidents of Discrimination

See here for a more complete and coherent description and analysis of the ‘pelvic/renal ultrasound incident,’ taken from my original Application but rearranged in a more comprehensible format. I would simply state here that for a woman my age, with my reproductive history, and weight, sending me for an ultrasound test on my bladder was not only unnecessary, it was risky, and uncomfortable, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge of older women’s chronic health issues. His colleague also seems not to want to go into detail on the matter at hand in any serious way.

The witness secretary decided to interpret my manner during the second incident – see the ‘urine sample and “street drugs” incident and analysis’ - as rude, although I did submit to the HRT a while back a longer audio recording of the incident after the doctor himself accused me of shouting at his staff, for the benefit of the staff’s perhaps short memories. Originally, I submitted only the recording of what took place in the treatment room, during my appointment, but I decided to send in the rest of it, which included my taking the container for a urine sample to the washroom (after obtaining a key from the pharmacy), then changing my mind, returning the unlabeled jar to the secretary, leaving, then returning to ask for a form that I could take to the lab to have the urine test done there. By that time I had lost all faith in my doctor. The staff ignored my request, and so I left, going to a walk-in clinic and requesting that I be allowed to provide a sample of urine to test. I did so, but on inquiring time after time I was eventually told that the sample I gave to them had been lost.

Read 8-page transcript of the 21-23 minute recording. The section related to the Tylenol 2 and “street drugs” urine sample request begins on page 5.

Click to hear longer 21-23 minute audio recording of ‘urine sample and “street drugs” incident’.

[Another try has produced a 20 minute excerpt of the April 28, 2014 incident, with higher volume and greater clarity. It starts with changes being made to the Rx renewals, at approximately the half-way point going into the incident where the doctor demanded that I submit a urine sample for "street drugs" if I wanted a renewal on my prescription for two Tylenol 2 tablets daily, for pain due to 2009 broken ankle] (added June 25, 2016).

   I have been unable to make a better quality mp3 from the original tape recording due to not having the proper equipment. Instead, I used technology available at a small cost online, but with limited capability. I have not asked for any damages from the HRT, thus would not receive any financial advantage even if my Application were successful. That’s not the reason I am doing this, although I  must say I did not realize at the start the financial costs of engaging in this endeavour. I do believe, however, that the recording, lengthy though it is, heard in conjunction with the transcript, provides a better understanding of the emotional content of the incident, and situates it in real time, taking approximately 23 minutes.

Diffusion of Responsibility

This is the phenomenon whereby people are less likely to take responsibility when there are several other people involved. Thus, the in this situation, just to focus on the actual process of the HRTO, the caseworker may make a mistake, or the Legal Support team might, or the Interim decision-maker, or even the translation between the official HRT Rules of Procedure and items of correspondence sent to explain the process to Applicants and Respondents may use words differently, but in effect, open up the process up to misinterpretations and, significantly, to diffusion of responsibility.  When so many people become involved, no one is obliged to take responsibility.  No one will. And so, in the end, who is there on whom to place responsibility?

The diffusion of responsibility within the actual HRT  process is one part of it. Another part is the diffusion of responsibility among the various doctors, secretaries, witnesses, lab workers, fax machines, photocopiers, and other forms of technology through which errors can be made, or Medical Rules and Regulations that state what is permitted and what not, that often leave no one person, such as the physician himself, obliged to take responsibility for errors, lack of knowledge, or lack of awareness of social influences on their own psyches in their interactions with patients.

A third part of the diffusion of responsibility is the fact that the Respondent has four first names, tending to confuse the issue of this doctor’s real identity. The name he uses in his local medical practice is the last name on the list, according to his profile with the CPSO (College of Physicians and Surgeons). Thus, the name he uses usually hasn’t appeared on official notices and documents sent by those involved in this Application, including myself. Instead, it is usually the first or second of the four names that get used. So who is this man, exactly?  Is he the person listed as a CPSO member, who is named on the application, and the same person as the local London doctor, or by using this technique is he able to avoid taking responsibility, not really a part of these proceedings due to the name he is known not appearing in the documents?

Conclusion

I find myself in this dilemma of being up against “credible witnesses” due to the very reason I am making this Application to the HRTO, and that is that, largely due to being female, and older, and not having a  husband, nor being a property-owner, and being alone here without family, I am in a vulnerable position of not having credibility.  I also spent a few years abroad, before returning several years ago to the city where I came to do my undergrad degree after my marriage ended. My name then was Fulham, and I was a student of Sociology in the late 80s and early 90s.  Thus, I am now in this situation of being up against people in the health care professions who are granted credibility to speak and be heard and believed while I am not. I have evidence of a factual nature, objectively-conducted research, and audio tape recordings. But that isn’t really good enough, is it. One needs family, association with a profession or academic institution, or a spouse, or property, or a career present or past, to provide one with the credibility and power to be heard and believed.

I was treated very badly by that doctor who made rude remarks about me to my face, mistreated illnesses, sent me for unnecessary tests, changed my medications for no good reason, would effectively end discussion by informing me that “the report’s back. You’re fine,” or telling me I am smiling thus must be feeling okay, and more. It seems to me that a doctor should be able to treat patients regardless of his personal feelings towards them.  I realize I am one of those who don’t qualify for first-rate treatment, in this country of ours. But to see doctors openly abusing their position as knowledgeable and respected individuals part of a larger group of time-honoured professionals in Canada is regrettable.

Added Sunday, January 17, 2016

Further Response to Anonymous commenter

Yesterday, in a comment on this matter, Anonymous suggested I drop this action. I responded, and now have something else to add to what I said there, see below, in comments.  On occasion we hear of accusations made against someone, and even of charges laid, followed by the retraction of the charges, or the accuser walking away from it, for whatever reason.  When this happens, as does sometimes in cases involving sexual assault or sexual harassment, comments made by some readers in the comments section of the online newspaper then claim that the accuser realized she was mistaken, or had gotten over being upset over nothing at all, and was actually just another false accuser – another good reason why I should not quit this situation, even though it is getting even worse, as mistakes are made (mistakes?) in the process itself, which go unacknowledged and are not corrected, and the Respondent’s witnesses themselves are telling outlandish lies or giving questionable support to the treatment decisions made by the doctor. The two women who have made Interim Decisions, the latest just on Friday, the 16th of January, are taking shortcuts in their examination of the Forms of the Applicant and Respondent, and even of the Rules of Procedure for the HRTO. Hence, they come up with the Decision they probably want to make, not the one the evidence says they should. The latest decision-maker, Dawn J. Kershaw, is from London, I see after googling her name, so I would suspect that this is an issue of conflict of interests, since me and the doctor in question are also located in London. She made a number of decisions, none of them in my favour, and I had been the one bringing them to her. But the lawyer for the Respondent replied, and perhaps in error but I don’t think so, made me look like a nit-picker, simply for requesting a numbered copy of the 103-page Medical Chart containing my medical records.

She - the Respondent’s lawyer – had missed the deadline for Disclosure of Documents, so ended up mailing me a copy of the 103-page Medical Chart in haste – by regular mail -  in no apparent order, not numbered, no explanation of the importance of each item, or its relevance to the acts of discrimination I had brought. The importance of the documents are required, but by presenting the bundle of documents as a single  ‘document’,  they got away with claiming that it showed the care provided to me, the Applicant.

Even at the time I asked the Legal Support Centre what was meant by the term document, and got only a vague answer. I suspect now it is one of those things that enable trickery to be played out, and by putting off dealing with the matter, as I described in an email earlier on Friday to the HRT, after receiving the Respondent’s From 11, but before the Interim Decision had been made,  the Lawyer, or the HRT itself, can influence the outcome in the direction they prefer, and that is, that the doctor get off and I get blamed for being picky over requesting a numbered copy when according to the Respondent’s lawyer, she had already sent one to me, a claim that the Interim Decision-maker, Londoner Dawn Kershaw, took as truth because, well, she’s a lawyer and doesn’t lie.

If that Medical Chart is allowed to be used in its entirety at the hearing, I needed to know that the copy the HRT received at the end of December was numbered, and was numbered the same as my copy, on which I wrote the numbers myself, from 1 to 103.

The other requests I made were all denied. So my 8 pages and 2 audio recordings are up against his 103 pages, and according to this decisionmaker, as well as the previous one, it’s okay that the doctor doesn’t give the relevance of each of the items. So he can make claims on the pages which will be taken as truth simply because he is a doctor.

I was denied more time to prepare for the hearing. And my request to have the hearing taped was denied, though I am permitted to tape it myself as along as I transcribe it afterwards and provide copies to the Respondent and the HRT. But even if I do that, the audio tapes of the hearing are not to be made public, Kershaw says.

This is not a good situation. No wonder some women who try to get justice give up and walk away. And it’s not only men who give them a hard time during such proceedings. It’s women, too.

Added Monday, January 25, 2016     

The aim of this HRT Application

Within the last few days something has become clear to me. My efforts over the last months had been focused on having the doctor take responsibility for explaining why he thought each of the items (most consisting of one or two pages) of the 103 page ‘Medical Chart of Ms McPherson’ were important or relevant to the hearing, and to have the hearing delayed until that matter could be resolved. Only recently have I realized that the refusal of the Interim Decision makers, Laurie Letheren and Dawn J Kershaw from the Human Rights Tribunal, to deal with the matter effectively and fairly, instead, informing me each time that I have to raise these matters at the hearing, was not only avoiding the issue and another example of ‘diffusion of responsibility,’ but a senseless decision – not even making sense.

These are the options the adjudicator will have, if these Interim Decisions and Case Direction are raised at the hearing. She can say, No, there is no good reason why the doctor should have to defend his view that the entire Medical Chart should be allowed, since he has already given his reason, that it describes the care provided to the Applicant.  And then it will be up to me to prove otherwise, I suppose – if I get the chance - although by now I have only 8 pages of documents and my word is worth nothing in the eyes of the HRT. And by having to do that, it takes time away from the reason for having the hearing in the first place – the Doctor’s discriminatory practices and attitudes towards me.

On the other hand, the adjudicator might agree that the doctor should explain the relevance or importance of the documents he is relying on – in the 103-page Medical Chart. But how? Would he be required to do so right then, in the Chamber of Commerce room where the hearing is to be held, while the rest of us wait? Or would the adjudicator simply announce that this Decision should have been made beforehand and refuse to deal with it. The Medical Chart would stay, and it would have been seen by the adjudicator, and he could pull any pages from it he wanted to – words written by him, or his receptionist, making negative comments about me that I would then feel obliged to refute, making the hearing more about me than him. Those are three possibilities, but in truth we have no idea what the adjudicator will say or do.

In her Case Direction of January 22, 2016, Ms Kershaw wrote that she thought I was “unhappy” with her “failure to address” another Interim Decisionmaker’s decision (Letheren), but it was not her role to do so, she said.  In fact - and I did express this thought - it is her ability not to look beyond the earlier Decision, instead, making the same decision, reinforcing the earlier error not to adjourn the hearing to deal with the relevance issue that was the problem, as well as not examining the relevance of the Medical Chart nor have the doctor do so well before the hearing.  

I had put it this way, in an email on January 21 to the HR caseworker and the Respondent’s lawyer, about Kershaw’s Interim Decision of January 15, saying, in part, 

“I asked that the decision-maker re-evaluate the material, but Ms Kershaw seems to have left out an inportant docuemtn - a Form 11 by (the lawyer), dated Jan 11. It's hard to know for certain because Ms Kershaw did not give dates to the Forms she was talking about, But it sounds like it. It is that Form 11 that stood between the first Form 10 of mine and what she refers to as my "amended version." Actually, it was not amended, It was a new Form 10 (Jan 12, 2016) made building on what (the lawyer) had written. 

If she doesn't come to understand this now, she certainly won't at the hearing, where there is little time to think. It sounds to me like she already has her mind made up and that this process and hearing is a farce.” (S McPherson, email Jan 21, 2016).

This is an excerpt from Form 10 (Jan 12, 2016) submitted by me in response to the Respondent’s Form 11 (Jan 11, 2016) that Kershaw ignored and that formed the basis of my later email comments about this process and the HRT being a farce.

In response, in her Case Direction of Jan 22, Kershaw referred to the email, saying,   

“With respect to the applicant’s comments about my making decisions and her characterization of the hearing and the process as a farce, I would caution the applicant that Rule A7.1 of the tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

All persons participating in  proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceedings.” (HRT Rules of Procedure, Kershaw, January 22, 2016, Case Direction, 2015-20652-I).

I have laid a complaint against Dawn Kershaw with the SJTO (Social Justice Tribunal of Ontario), which means, I understand, that my concerns will go right back to the Human Rights Tribunal for them to deal with as they please. As I said most recently, the Human Rights Tribunal is a farce. Perhaps it works for some people, but not for this particular case of discrimination. See details of the incidents of discrimination:
Statement on "street drugs", urine sample and termination
Statement on pelvic renal ultrasound incident

One thing they  - the lawyer for the Respondent and the HRT caseworkers and Interim decisionmakers -  have been successful at is keeping me tied up with fighting this injustice of the Medical Chart and keeping the focus on it instead of the incidents of discrimination I am saying were perpetrated by the doctor. And now, it is Dawn Kershaw who is the problem – the person who will be the adjudicator at the hearing.