A birthday party, a car in the wrong space, and Mr "L”

This tells of the unresolved incident whereby a tenant parked her car in the parking space allocated to another in an apartment building parking lot in London, Ontario, and the resulting fabrications, false memories, and further offensive behaviour of Mr “L”.

The reason I am telling about this incident that took place 3 years ago is because I need to tell my side of the story, due to boss Mr “L” still saying, three years on, that I parked in the other tenant’s parking space, and that she, apparently, only then parked in mine.

The incident was never investigated, even though I reported it to Management as he had come quite nasty, blaming me and threatening to call a tow-truck if I parked in someone else’s parking space again (I had told him that day, when I went to ask him to ask the owner of the blue car to move, that when I saw someone in my spot, I parked in the next space to it).

I had arrived home at 2:30 in the afternoon, of Tuesday, July 4, 201 (a regular workday for Canadians as far as I know) after being out running errands with the car for a couple of hours or so.  When I realized someone else had parked in my parking space, I just pulled into the next space to that, which happened to be empty.  I was tired and did not realize it would cause such a problem to Mr “L” sense of logic, or to the dismay of some friendly residents in the building who were helping him celebrate his birthday, they said. 

I left my car in the next space while I went in to see if Mr “L” was around or someone who knew who had parked in my space.  As I walked by the lounge I saw Mr “L” sitting there with other residents as they commonly did, and went in, although this time they were eating cake and ice cream. Immediately, I was treated as though I was trespassing on a private party, although this was a working day and the middle of the afternoon. I was scorned for appearing thus, to ask him if he could call the owner of the blue car (the one usually parked beside mine) before I went up to my apartment.  

Mr “L” was more interested in where I had parked my car (because, well, wherever I parked it now it would not be in the space allocated to me.)  He turned against me, ,just as his group of old girls had, and threatened to have my car towed if I parked in someone  else’s space again, because I should have parked in the Visitor’s parking area.  He had the authority to have cars towed, he suggested, although the fact that this other woman had parked her car in my space while I was away didn’t seem to bother him. It was MY car that he threatened to have towed. He did finally go to call the owner of the blue car, after finishing his cake and ice cream.   Within a few minutes she came down, and we walked out together, for her to move hers into her own space, and me to move mine into my space.  She seemed a bit confused, as one would be if they had parked in the wrong space and not realized it.

The situation, however, was left with me being blamed, as Mr “L” decided to spin it, distorting what happened into it being me who parked in the blue car lady’s space so she had no choice but to park in mine, apparently.  However, Mr “L” wasn’t interested in calling the tow truck on her parking  mistake, only on me, for parking in the next empty space.  And blaming me was what he continued to do, it appears, during all the time I attempted to get the situation sorted out with Property Management.  I had been unable to pursue the matter farther due to other commitments.  2017 was a busy time, dealing with health issues and a doctor behaving about as nonsensically as Mr “L”.  I just didn’t have time to do it all.  

Having that erratic situation never being resolved, as Management was unable to deal with it effectively, was another burden I was forced to carry, through being blamed for yet another incident that was not my fault.  There is no Tenants’ Association for residents to go to, when such things happen. It is only people like Mr “L” and his inner circle, presumably, who get to say what’s what.

I just happened to mention the parking space incident one day, on my way through the parking lot, to Mr “L” as it happens, who is still the one in charge, although since Management had never conducted an investigation, apparently not even asking the errant lady herself how it came about, no guilt or innocence was ever decided upon. It was only stated by the higher-ups that the situation had been “addressed” thoroughly and it was time to drop it. It looked like the situation hadn’t been addressed at all – especially about the approach to the situation by Mr “L”.  

So imagine my surprise when I discovered, three years later and straight from the horse’s mouth himself, that I had parked in the blue-car-lady’s space first, whereupon she had parked her car in mine. He didn’t say whether she had mentioned that “fact” to him on July 4, 2017, before going up to her apartment after parking in my space, or whether she had simply decided that nature would take it’s own course.  He just said I had been the one at fault, parking first in her space, then she in mine. Nobody has mentioned that incident to me, in fact, other incidents have not been mentioned either, as though the girls in the know had learned what they should take as the truth.  Nothing seems to arrive at a resolution here. They are just left up in the air, and the girls in the inner circle would know what had been decided as the truth.

I still don’t know how that situation as described by Mr “L” could have come about – how did the blue car lady come to arrive home – and when – only to find I had apparently parked in her space.  I would like Mr “L” to be more specific, because of course the superintendent would know. But if I had already been in her parking space, (parking there earlier in the day, or the day before), at some point the evening before or on July 4, she had to have come home with her car, and parked it in my space because hers was taken.  If she had gone to Mr “L”, I’m sure he would have asked the lady J what time she arrived home and found her space taken.  After all, he would want the truth of the matter, wouldn’t he?   

I’d like to hear his story of how this incident happened, from notes he took about it.  I’d like to know what time she says she arrived home and, parking in my space instead (which Mr “L” and Management insists is a no-no), did she then attempt to contact Mr “L”? Did she leave a note for him, or a phone message, to get me to move my car?  How about some details on exactly how this situation came about, since they are claiming I was at fault for parking in the wrong space first.  I spoke to the lady once or twice after that, asking her to call Management and tell them what happened, but she said only that she thought the situation had been resolved. No, lady with the blue car. It hasn’t been resolved!

What was odd about this was that he seemed ready to place blame on me as soon as I walked in – his women, too - and was most certainly ready with the story that I had parked in the wrong space the day before. But if that were the case, that I had in the wrong space first, wouldn’t the other lady had gone to him about it on July 3; so why didn’t he telephone me that day and ask me to move my car. Or why didn’t he check during the day of July 4th, and realizing I had gone out in my car, which I had at about 12:30 pm, why didn’t he contact the lady who apparently had been obliged to put her car in my space, to ask her to move her car, now that I had gone? 

I was blamed, unjustly, for causing this incident. Now, three years later the lady in the blue car is still in her parking space, and I am in mine, beside hers.  I have explained here how this incident came about, and the result for me of trying to get it resolved. I have spoken my truth, and others have spoken their lies.  But I would still like them to speak up and admit they were wrong, and wrong to blame me.  If anyone can explain how this happened, in a different way than what I am stating, then explain, giving times of day, and who parked where, and to whom did they report it.

As well as getting the story straight, about the parking space, what’s been ignored altogether by Mr “L” and other staff, is his behaviour and that of his female companions.

 Part 2

 So what was it, you may be wondering, that started this up again, this situation that had been in limbo for 3 years?

On Tues Sept 15, 2020, I had gone out to the car, and stopped for a moment to ask a question of Mr “L”, about something for the apartments.  I happened to say something about living with the old parking space incident from 3 years ago, having to live with it not being settled and he responded in a manner I wasn’t expecting, saying that I was the one who parked in the other person’s parking space first, and so she parked in mine when she came home.  Well he caught me off guard, and I responded, telling him what I thought of him.  He wasn’t taking an approach that suggested it was a no-fault matter. He placed the blame squarely on me!  I told him off, indicating I did not accept his version of what happened and then left! Nothing had changed. He’s still the same old person.  (And as I have stated, I would like him to explain exactly how that incident happened the way he said it did, and why on earth the lady didn’t try to fix the problem instead of parking in my parking space and simply going home).

On Friday Oct 9, 2020, when I came back from getting groceries, a red pickup truck with a hook on a chain on it was parked in my parking space, no doubt from the site next door, although most park their vehicles away from the residents’ parking areas. 

Without entering the driveway into our lot, I stopped just as two guys in red vests went by, on their way to the construction site. I explained that there was a pickup truck in my parking space, and would they mind trying to locate him and have him move his vehicle (assuming he was from the site).  They did that, and a few minutes later the man came and got into his truck - without speaking to me - and moved it.  I didn’t get out of my car. I parked it and went home.

The next day, Saturday, October 10, the London Free Press had a special piece about Thanksgiving, so I wrote a comment about this incident for it, thanking the two workers who had been passing by just when I needed them – too tired to get out of the car to have to go looking for the owner of the red pickup myself, at the construction site!

The comments made by myself and one other following the article were later removed, but that doesn’t lessen the appreciation I have towards some people of this city who were so helpful to me at that time. In fact, it makes me appreciate the kindness I received even more.  I still have what I wrote in the comment I submitted:

Regarding a recent incident, I am grateful two workers in red vests who happened to be on the spot went to find the man who parked his red truck in my parking spot while he went to the construction site next door. I appreciated not having to try to find someone who could help in this matter without having it end up the same as it did 3 or 4 years ago when I was the one who got blamed for being the person who initially parked in the space next to mine. I am grateful for the opportunity to tell about that incident and the disregard, rudeness, and lies of the people involved. The London Free Press has provided readers with this opportunity to discuss local issues and happenings until recently (soon after the rope incident in the nature area, which offended some people), when commenting on articles was severely restricted. I don't like to see people with power using it to silence others! (WE ASKED LONDONERS: What are you most grateful for this year? https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/we-asked-londoners-what-are-you-most-grateful-for-this-year   Oct 10, 2020).  

Parking in another person’s parking space isn’t such a big deal. But it was, when Mr “L” and his buddies were in charge of such situations. 

The Women’s March, social injustice, and personal experience

About a week ago a piece was written for the Washington Post that I found to be out of place in the Opinions section. I hesitate to provide the title of it, as it might automatically turn readers against me, for not viewing it with the sensitivity it requires, at least on one level. But here it is - the title 'My wife died just after Election Day. I'm attending the Women's March for her'. 

Death so often does necessitate the offering of condolences, ignoring errors in judgement or in practice, and just generally thinking of uplifting things to say. But then why would anyone choose to publish an obituary in the Opinions section of a newspaper?  Perhaps the reason was that it wasn’t an obituary in the usual sense. It was as much about the husband of the person who had died as about the deceased. And yet, scores of comments in the Comments section following the article were written in a manner that resembled condolences more than comments.

One might ask, was the article telling us the opinion of the writer on some social or political  - or economic  - issue? Not exactly, no, the writer appeared to be questioning his own sense of masculinity, in preparing to march in place of his deceased wife in the Saturday’s Women’s March, held in Washington and in places around the world, on Jan 21, 2017. Those who marched did so for a variety of reasons, many of the marchers no doubt being personally motivated, others marching for the rights of women who are marginalized in society, some having specific interests, such as abortion rights for women, violence against women, etc.

Mr Ikins’s wife suffered a tragic death, a fall down stairs, a coma, and finally, release through death. I can relate to that experience of having a fall. A year ago today I suffered a slip and fall, through which I broke my femur. Luckily  - I think – I survived, not having severed an artery and having a fast-acting, thoughtful neighbour, paramedics ready to do their bit, and an expert surgeon to care for my injury. Since then I have had to walk using a walker, but in a few days I will have the nails removed from the knee – nails that held the rod in place while the leg healed. So I am hoping for the best outcome. But by chance, my equilibrium – my sense of balance, experienced as a kind of giddiness, has affected my ability to walk normally too. Mr Ikins says that Nov 8 was the worst day of his life.  It was not a great day for me, either.

On November 8, 2016, I attended an appointment with an ENT (ear, nose and throat) specialist, to tell him about the symptoms I had been having, but found my concerns being dismissed by a specialist who was overbooked, overworked that day, no doubt, and who was not expecting this new set of symptoms. For some reason, he was also defensive, and spent far too much time explaining to me why he sent the last report to my old family doctor, the one I had laid a complaint against with the CPSO, and filed an application against with the Human Rights Tribunal.  I had realized the report went to that doctor, despite my requesting from his appointment taker/secretary that it not be, but it was anyway, in order to abide by the regulations. 

On my way in, I had asked the girl at his clinic front desk if the report could be sent to a different doctor this time, and she said she thought so, but to ask the doctor when I saw him, which I did. All this took precious time away from my concerns – of the balance issue – disequilibrium.  Finally, he offered me a partial VNG test (look it up). I agreed, and later, at home, looked up the test on google. I saw that I had been offered only a piece of the set of 4 tests, and so decided to try to get the tests I needed. To skip to the end of this story, the appointment-taker/secretary and the staff at the ENT clinic lied about me, and the ENT specialist cancelled the appointment I had with him. I am now left with no suitable options for a proper diagnosis nor for treatment options, nor to repair the damage to my reputation.  The only possible option I have, which won’t help my vestibular/vertigo problems, is to lay a complaint against this doctor too.

Returning to the article written by Charles Ikins, I have to say I question whether Charles Ikins’s perception of the reasons for the march were rather limited. He saw it as being for women who experience indignities of the kind Trump had presumably committed, the very reason his wife was protesting.  And he decided that it would not be unmasculine for him to march in place of his wife, to honour her beliefs and commitment.

For the most part, I believe the women’s march was about fighting for the rights of women, and especially marginalized women, women who do not get the same kinds of opportunities and treatment that other women do – some of them single women, poor women, women without husbands, black women, old women, and so on. The maintaining of rights of women – abortion, sexual rights, and so on, were also reasons women marched.

I thought that the Washington Post had used a grieving husband’s thoughts and piece honouring his wife as a political manoeuvering – publishing it on Trump’s Inauguration Day, the day before the women’s march. Taken on its own, as a piece intended for friends and family, the article could be seen as having merit. But published in the Washington Post, for the public to read, it came across as something very different.

Part way through the article, Mr Ikins mentions the admonition for participants to “check your privilege.” He says he thinks he knows the meaning of the phrase, and yet the article itself is an example of what the privileged should try not to do. Instead of seeing things through their own eyes only, and taking for granted the things they have, the material advantages in life, and seeing their own cause as the one most worthy, they might try to see what others experience in life.

It is part of the human condition for tragedy to strike families – all of us - tragedies that are not anyone's fault. That's not going to help the writer of the article talked about here, but it needs to be said. Furthermore, some people in life – women among them – struggle in ways the privileged might not even be able to imagine – and it is not always men who are responsible for the injustices.  Finally, I have reservations about the value of a Women’s March if President Trump is chosen to be the most recent scapegoat for feminists seeking to unite women over a cause - any cause – to enhance interest in the feminist movement.

Men are slow to show support for the Women's March. Is it considered unmasculine?

By Michael Alison Chandler

Washington Post - Opinions

Jan 12, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/men-slow-to-show-support-for-the-womens-march/2017/01/09/17877ba4-d35d-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.55a6b6b5902f

My wife died just after Election Day. I’m attendingthe Women’s March for her

By Charles Ikins

Washington Post – Opinions

Jan 20, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-wife-died-on-election-day-im-attending-the-womens-march-for-her/2017/01/20/e83c8092-df2d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.52db5f512fff&wpisrc=nl_opinionsA&wpmm

CPSO: transparency in the complaint process

Update, Sept 22, 2015   

As of Sept 22, 2015, still no response from the CPSO.  For further details see end of this entry for Sept 13, 2015.



In June, 2014, I submitted a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) against my family doctor, who had acted unprofessionally, disrespectfully, and administratively insensitively towards me. At this point, September, 2015, I am waiting for the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to determine whether they think I have a case worth taking any further. Their decision will be based, in part, on what they receive from the Investigator assigned to my case. In the following look at correspondence and methods of seeking the truth of the matter, I will use the situation of the ENT specialist and my ongoing ear problems as an example of the lack of transparency in the process of the CPSO complaints system, and their inadequate methods of seeking answers. The ear/ENT problem is only one of many behaviours and decisions I was concerned about, but here I will focus only on this one.

Letters, Reports, etc

Two weeks ago, on August 31, 2015, I wrote the following brief letter to the CPSO Investigator assigned to deal with matters to do with the complaint I had brought against my family doctor over a year earlier, in June, 2014. There was nothing left to say, I assumed, and this would be going to a committee who would determine whether my complaint was worth looking into further. My concern now is whether the Investigator herself was biased in her approach to the summary, documents and other evidence she was preparing for the Inquiry Committee for the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Dear [CPSO Investigator],

Thank you for your letter of Aug 21, 2015 informing me that the committee has met and that I can expect to receive their decision in approximately 4 months. 

I am wondering if I could have a copy of the statement they received about the case from you, and a list of any documents they took into account, also sent to them by you. There is very little transparency in this process, and I need to have more information about what the committee gets to see as I read their decision. 

Sincerely,

Sue McPherson (Aug 31, 2015)

I regret now that I did not ask her specifically, had she received my July 14 response to her previous letter of June 26, 2015. That was my last chance to tell my side of the story and to respond to claims made by my family doctor. She neglected to acknowledge receiving that letter. I will reproduce part of that letter here, just the part that applies to this matter of the ENT specialist and my family doctor/gp’s handling of that situation of my ear problems.

I have not yet received a response to my letter of August 31, 2015.

Backing up in time, to February, 2015, I noted that I had asked the same question, about what the committee got to see and base their decision on. I wrote,

“How much information am I able to have on this procedure, for instance, the report you provide for the Committee or just their final report?” (McPherson, Feb 9, 2015).

The Investigator had responded, less than two weeks later,

“As the investigator in this case, it is not my role to accept, deny, or "uphold" a physician's response, or take one person's word over another. It is my role to gather relevant information, but not to provide my opinion on the information gathered. Nor is it my role to elaborate on, or explain [the doctor's ] response. Consideration of the physician's response rests with the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC), and I do not participate in their discussion or decision-making. Please note that the ICRC is a screening committee; not an adjudicative body that assesses credibility or makes findings of fact” (Investigator, CPSO, Feb 18, 2015).

Skipping a couple of months of letters back and forth, the Investigator wrote on April 13, 2015, documenting in a list the reports, letters and responses she felt were important for the committee to see, saying,

“I am now in the process of preparing the information received for review by the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC); it will be a review of the documentation gathered and audiotapes, and neither the physician nor the complainant attend” (Investigator, CPSO, Apr 13, 2015).

Despite having claimed earlier that she was objective in her role as Investigator, she wrote, regarding the particular report from the ENT specialist,

“For your interest,  I have learned during the course of this investigation that although you saw [the ENT specialist] in August, 2013; it appears that his report was not sent to [your family doctor] until Mar 5, 2013 (Investigator, CPSO, Apr 15, 2015).

I was dismayed at this. She wasn’t saying that the ENT specialist “claimed” or “explained” that the report did not go out in good time, but says instead in her letter that “it appears that” it was not sent until 7 months after the appointment, implying that was what the situation was.  One of the issues I had, that I referred to before, was that I was never permitted to see the report sent by that specialist, when I asked my gp what the report had said, though he did say he had it there, just not for my eyes to view.

I wrote a response on April 26, 2105 (see excerpt here) to the investigator, but have no idea if that letter got included in the documents sent to the Committee (ICRC), as the list of documents she sent to me was in the letter dated April 13.

Over time, I have expressed many thoughts on the bad treatment I received at the hands of my family doctor, and in this letter, I tried to make clearer what happened in that entire incident of the “ear” problem with the ENT specialist. While the investigator relies on documents and so-called facts, my approach, however, is to look at the circumstances of the incident itself - circumstantial evidence, I believe would bewhat it is called.

The Investigator wrote again on April 30, 2015,

“[The ENT specialist’s] report documented the date Aug 20, 2013, as the date of the appointment. [His] report does not document the date that he wrote the report, however there was only one report written which was faxed to [the family Dr] on March 5, 2014. There is no evidence that [the family Dr] had a report prior to that date” (Investigator, CPSO, April 30, 2015).

This sounds very much as though the investigator is taking the ENT specialist’s word for it - he said he only wrote one report (7 months after the appointment) so that must be way it happened.  What chance do I have at receiving justice if physicians’ words are taken as truth and mine are not?  My family doctor said to me that he had received the report, early on in September or August of 2013, but wouldn’t let hear what was in it. I attempted to find out what the report said on more than one occasion, from my gp, but eventually gave it up as a lost cause.  Now, however, the entire incident has become one more example of the ill-treatment I received at the hands of my gp.

One question I have now is, was my letter of April 26, 2015 (see excerpt) added to the list of documents that I first saw in the letter of April 13, 2015, or was it ignored because it wasn’t an official document or report?  The letter would explain some of the problems over the ENT specialist’s appointment and report - the misunderstandings, the thoughtless choice of ENT specialist in a particular setting which did not apply to me, the two ultrasound reports even though one was redundant, and my family doctor/gp not wanting to allow me to read the report, leading to further confusion in the doctor’s office as I requested another appointment with an ENT specialist, which happened to be for 18 months in the future. Experiencing much pain at the time, I requested that I see an ENT specialist sooner than that, which resulted in another appointment being set up, and confusion overall.

Another question I have is whether the response I wrote on July 14, 2015 (see Ear/ENT excerpt), was added to the list of documents intended for the ICRC, since I received no acknowledgment of it in the Investigator’s letter of August 21, 2015. As I stated in that letter,

“The main problem with the appointment on March 4, 2014 that [my gp] refers to in his letter, in “Audiotape of March 4 Meeting” is not that he raised his voice but that I made it [the appointment] for the purpose of discussing the administration of my ear problem; in fact, I made a point of telling the receptionist that when I made the appointment.  However, at the appointment, as the tape recording indicates, [my gp] immediately moved away from discussing the problems of the 3 ENT referrals to asking once more about my ear and examining it. Strangely, he never once mentioned the non-existent report from [the ENT specialist], even though that ENT appointment had been more than 6 months earlier. At the beginning of that appointment on March 4 I did not mention the report from [the ENT specialist] as on other occasions he had told me it was for his eyes only, saying it was private, not for the patient to read. I had hoped we could move past that” (McPherson, July 14, 2015).

At the end of that office visit about Ear/ENT matters I handed him a letter requesting a copy of the report (see transcript of excerpt of Mar 4, 2014 appointment). And now, there is complete denial on his part, and of the ENT specialist, and of the Investigator, that I asked for the report soon after the original ENT appointment, but did not receive it from my family Dr until very recently, via the Investigator, who seemed to be claiming it was the original – the first and only – report.

Furthermore, my letter expands again on the issues to do with the referral to the ENT specialist and that appointment – see 2nd paragraph from Ear/ENT excerpt from my unacknowledged letter to the CPSO Investigator,  July 14, 2015.

Language - wording of CPSO Complaint Form and in the Investigator’s letters

It’s also regrettable that there was confusion about the wording of the terms on the original CPSO complaint form  - mentioning “other physicians who provided medical care” interpreted by the Investigator to mean “physician witnesses” (not involved in medical care but who had something to add)  whereas I would have been more interested in having “health care witnesses,” such as receptionists and nursing assistants who witnessed or played a part in the incidents themselves.  Left to the CPSO, however, the aim would appear to be (there’s that word again, demonstrating bias) to have only physicians being granted the right to speak, and only physicians the right to be believed, from all appearances.

I have given examples from letters written by the Investigator of how she views the words of a physician more truthful than the words of the patient. I can only hope she didn’t display this attitude in her submission to the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee. Lack of transparency isn’t the only problem with the CPSO and the health care system’s ways of dealing with problems, but without transparency -  at the very least sharing with the complainant what the Committee is seeing, what we have is a complaints system in which the Investigator holds the power to influence the Committee if s/he chooses to do so, or even if due to unrecognized biases.

Transparency

Last year, the subject of transparency within the CPSO was introduced by MPP Steven Clark in a private member’s bill – Bill 29 – in Parliament. His concerns were focused on transparency in notifying the public of complaints, and of the investigation results, rather than about the process itself. And his concern was mainly for the families of people who had lost loved ones unecessarily, through carelessness or negligence.  But those aren’t the only kinds of situations that are harmful to patients and their families. And while I would not agree that a physician’s future has always to be dampened or lost completely by being publicly disgraced, through making errors of administration or judgement, there surely are times when the public should have the right to know more details than they are currently allowed to know. My concern, however, is the lack of transparency in the process of making a complaint and having it addressed.

Having to rely on one person – an Investigator – assigned to a deal with a complaint, is less than ideal. If the CPSO Investigator chooses to withold information from letters written, that are not in the format of a ‘report’ made by a physician, she can do so, leaving the complainant virtually helpless to have their voice heard.

Update, Sept 22, 2015. 

I have not yet received a response from the Investigator of my complaint to my letter of August 31, 2015. Today I wrote to Ms Sandy McCulloch, CPSO Director of Investigations and Resolutions (copy to Ms Katja Lutte, Manager of Investigations and Resolutions), explaining the situation and my concern that my complaint may not have been dealt with fairly. Specifically, I mentioned my last two letters (August 31 and July 14, 2015) to the Investigator assigned to my case, to which I have received no response.

List of resources

Bill 29, Medicine Amendment Act, 2014
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=3055&detailPage=bills_detail_status

Bill would require doctor cautions, complaints to be public
By Marco Chown
The Star
Oct 20 2014
http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2014/10/20/bill_would_require_doctor_cautions_complaints_to_be_public.html

Doctors’ Blame and Shame – Ontario Bill 29
By Shawn Whatley
Oct 25, 2014
http://shawnwhatley.com/doctors-blame-shame-ontario-bill-29/

See also, list of topics on the right of blog screen, for more on this subject.

The Bonita Purtill impaired driving case: unanswered questions and other matters

Updated Nov 8, 2012    See additional information at end of article about the case of Brian Crockett, recently resolved in court, and how that relates to the Bonita Purtill case.

I recall being told, years ago, “Don’t think!”  I was not supposed to question what was said or done, or to have opinions of my own, or try to search out the truth. But, eventually, I did anyway. And now I think that it couldn’t be good if the bond that is formed with another person, or employer or community is on the basis of only one person’s point of view. Besides not being a solid foundation for a relationship, it isn’t beneficial for the community either, to achieve social harmony at the expense of fairness or compassion where it is needed. Not feeling free to express one’s views on a subject, but simply agreeing with the status quo and taking one’s frustrations out on the most vulnerable people out there isn’t the answer.

I grew up in Woodstock. I was married and raised my children here. My parents are buried here. This news item, the Bonita Purtill impaired driving case, struck a chord with me, and not because I have ever been charged with impaired driving.

As I read the articles and watched the videos about the car accident of October, 2008, in Woodstock, Ontario, and the impaired driving trial of Bonita Purtill, I saw mainly one viewpoint being expressed, and it appears to be largely Mary Rodrigues’s which has been picked up by the media and the police department, not to mention MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). As far as I can see, it is the only viewpoint that is granted legitimacy. My aim here is to delve into articles and other sources to try to better understand the situation of the woman, Bonita Purtill, who has been cast in such an unfavourable light by the ‘friendly city.’

The accident – and a comparable case 

I discovered that earlier articles about the Purtill impaired driving case aren’t readily available on the internet, so I am relying mainly on later news pieces, and on videos of Mary Rodrigues, one of the parents of the infant Alex Fleming who died in the accident. The other parent was Michael Fleming, who was also in the car driven by his wife Mary Rodrigues, along with her two other children, when it was struck by the pickup truck driven by Bonita Purtill on October 14, 2008.

The accident was described as a t-bone, but I did not manage to find an image of the event to see how much damage appeared to the human eye, or where the truck impacted the car – was it directly on both doors, or mainly on the front (driver’s side) door?  Most photos are of the infant that died, before the event, with a few of the driver of the pickup, and more, including videos, of the infant’s mother and family spokesperson Mary Rodrigues. But I haven’t seen any photos of the Ford Fusion.

Other details are included in witness testimony, for instance, that Mary Rodrigues had to be extricated from her car using the ‘jaws of life,’ though Michael Fleming was able to get his infant son out of his car seat, from the back seat behind the driver’s  (Witness testifies smelling alcohol, June 21, 2012).  Alex’s fragility, being less than 5 months old, was also a factor, contributing to his vulnerability in the case of an accident. Car accidents are the leading cause of death due to injury in children and infants. (Child passenger safety, Jan 10, 2012).  The need for proper placing of car seats is essential for any responsible parent (Bonita Purtill and MADD: random breath tests and other approaches to impaired driving, Sept 27, 2012).

Questioning why Purtill would have wanted to get out of the truck following the accident seemed to me to be irrelevant. Wouldn’t most people want to get out of the vehicle under such circumstances? What was meant by this line of questioning?

I am left with questions that remain unanswered. Particularly, as I watch the videos and other interview material with Mary Rodrigues, and the comments by others, I question the impartiality of the trial. I see not just a coldness towards the driver Bonita Purtill, but something that goes beyond that, a strength of feeling usually reserved towards those who have committed cold-blooded murder. Why citizens of Woodstock would feel “thrilled” at the verdict and sentencing I don’t know (article - Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges, June 29, 2012). This kind of emotion surely isn’t appropriate in this type of case. Is it right, or good, to feel joy or excitement at seeing another’s life end up in ruins? Or is it considered fair – an eye for an eye?  To me, this kind of community reaction, and comments by Mary Rodrigues, seem to reflect an attitude of revenge more than justice.

Another case of impaired driving that shares points of comparison with the Purtill case is that of Rob Ramage, former NHL hockey player and driver of the car that killed Keith Magnuson, another defenceman, on Dec 15, 2003. Photos of the cars involved are online, as part of news stories. The visual is often more effective at drilling home truths than any amount of words can be, if the aim is to shock readers who are at risk of drinking and driving (Don't send Ramage to jail,' victim's family pleads, Dec 18, 2007; Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Sept 17, 2007).

Dazed Drivers

Both Purtill and Ramage were described as being dazed following their respective accidents. Noted at the time (Rob Ramage barely reacted to deadly crash: paramedic, Sept 18, 2007), and later on at the trial (Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Sept 17, 2007) as being a normal response to the situation, according to Ramage’s lawyer: “Defence attorney Brian Greenspan has suggested Ramage’s confusion about his passenger was consistent with a person briefly losing consciousness in a crash” (Rob Ramage sorry for tragedy: police, Sept 20, 2007).

In the case of Bonnie Purtill, the cross-examination of Dr Ronald Robins, an emergency room Dr, revealed that “disorientation and a lack of focus could be caused by ‘medical shock’ caused by the collision” (Ex denies domestic violence, June 26, 2012). However, in the closing arguments, Assistant Crown attorney Steve Guiler argued that “no evidence was presented that Purtill's lack of coherence on the night of the crash was caused by medical issues” (Final arguments, different stories, June 28, 2012).  The Assistant Crown attorney seemed to be arguing that only medical evidence counts, and not that social factors, such as being in a bad accident, seeing the Jaws of Life at work, and generally feeling stressed about the whole event, including presumably having just been involved in a family argument, could influence quality of speech and comprehension, and steadiness (see defence attorney Peter Kratzmann, in ‘Final arguments, different stories,’ June 28, 2012).

The speed of the car may have contributed to shock caused by a crash in Ramage‘s case as he had been travelling fast, according to Dean Sequeiro and his father, Walter “when it crossed the centre line and clipped their vehicle before smashing into the Pathfinder” (Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Sept 17, 2007).

While Ramage’s car was said to be travelling at a high speed, says one witness to the 2003 accident, the car crossing the median “like a rocket” and smashing into oncoming vehicles (Ramage heads back to court, Feb 28, 2010). The pickup truck Bonita Purtill was driving was travelling at a speed of 52 kilometres per hour, according to Constable David Weber (Purtill napped in cruiser, arresting officer says June 24, 2012).  Furthermore, mechanic Jeff Masters, on inspection of both the Purtill pickup and Rodrigues’s Fusion, testified that both were “in good working condition, including brakes and tires. Both vehicles would have easily passed a safety inspection.”

The survivors 

I have seen next to nothing about Purtill that is unrelated to the claims she made or the trial itself. Any family, except for her daughter, is scarcely mentioned, and the daughter only referred to in passing, to note that she sat behind her mother throughout the trial (Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges, June 29, 2012).

Woodstock Police Chief Rod Freeman and Sgt. Marvin Massacar, the officer in charge of the case, acknowledged the emotional cost of the accident for all involved, Freeman saying “there are no winners in this at all,” and that “many people suffered, including the families of the victim and the family of the accused” (Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges, June 29, 2012).  I’m not so sure, however, that I agree with Freeman’s comment that “Certainly Alexander was the core victim” and “What I found is it just ripples out.”

Alex was the main accident victim, but placing him at the centre of the entire event may not be accurate. Trying to explain others’ emotional turmoil and life change as rippling out from Alex doesn’t even begin to capture the magnitude of the event and the different life changes each survivor will experience in years to come.

I don’t imagine Rob Ramage sees the experience he has been through as a mere ripple. Rather, he is usually placed at the centre, while the victim of his accident – Keith Magnusson - has ended up in the margins. It’s only because Alex was a baby, and our society adores babies, traditionally seeing their lives as most important of all, that he has been raised to this status in Woodstock, everything else being seen as secondary.

The impaired driving case of NHL hockey player Rob Ramage, originating in the 2003 accident, has focused mainly on Ramage and his future, at least in the media. Justice David Doherty remarked about Ramage, “ . . .this is a person who – it's not just that he's been a law-abiding citizen. He's been a remarkable citizen in many ways. And, if you look at sentencing in a human way ... why doesn't that (history) drive it to the low end?” (Judges question Rob Ramage's sentence, Mar 2, 2010).  In response, I would suggest that this kind of logic leads to a two-tiered legal or punitive system based on status in society. It’s unfair if some people can have their sentences minimized, while those lacking family and community support, or career status, have to serve the full sentence. If the laws seem too harsh for some individuals, then they are too harsh for a good many others too. It may be more noticeable when someone who plays hockey for a living is expected to serve time, but the ordinary person who loses his job, and perhaps his home, is also hard done by under similar circumstances.

The effect of Rob Ramage’s conviction for impaired driving on his life and his family as well as on the accident victim’s family has been mentioned time and time again. Ramage was placed at the centre of the unfortunate event, due to his fame as a Canadian hockey player. Not only did his passenger, Keith Magnuson, die in the accident but Michelle Pacheco, the driver of another vehicle, also received serious injuries in the crash. Despite this, Ramage received much support and empathy, his lawyer, Brian Greenspan, adding that Magnuson's widow had called Ramage to give him her support” (Ramage found guilty in Magnuson's death, Oct 10, 2007). The family of the victim who died has forgiven Ramage, the fact he was a friend travelling in the same car making a difference, and not a complete stranger, as Bonita Purtill was to Mary Rodrigues and family (Rob Ramage appeals conviction, sentence in crash that killed Keith Magnuson, Feb 28, 2010). And as Morris Dalla Costa writes, “When he got behind the wheel, he changed the lives of many people forever” (Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, Aug 30, 2011).

Purtill, and the effect of the accident on her life, have been pushed to the sidelines, while Baby Alex takes centre stage in the aftermath of the tragedy. In a video filmed by reporters following the sentencing of Bonita Purtill, in Woodstock, Mary Rodrigues is interviewed about her thoughts on her family and Purtill’s apology (Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Sept 19, 2012). While Rodigues continues to interpret Purtill’s thoughts and intentions (on apologising and apparent lack of remorse), and focuses on her own family, Purtill and her family are left seeing their own life tragedies as somehow hardly meaningful at all, except to be used as an example to others by MADD (MADD stood by Baby Alex’s family, July 5, 2012), and by the police (CTV News London Tonight at 6, Sentencing of Bonita Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).

Trial delays 

Four years may seem like a long time from the time of the accident to the end of the trial, but it was that long with the Rob Ramage case too (2003-3007) and not just the Bonita Purtill case (2008-2012). According to Steve Simmons, writing on the Ramage case (Justice system stalled in Ramage case, Sept 12, 2006), Ramage’s lawyer Brian Greenspan may have been working on another case during this time, but other than that, there seemed to be no explanation. The reason given for the delays in the Purtill case were that she changed lawyers – more than once – and thus was unprepared (Woodstock Family must wait for justice, Dec 6, 2010; Woodstock trial delayed again, Oct 18, 2011).

The judge, Superior Court Justice Thomas Heeney, questioned Purtill, saying, “Why is it you waited until the 11th hour to fire your lawyer?”, to which Purtill responded, “It took this long for it to become clear to me; I needed other representation for the trial” (Another delay dismays victims, Sept 9, 2011). Whether this was seen as a legitimate response or not – or even a proper line of questioning – is hard to judge, and it would be impossible for readers to know the circumstances surrounding the firing of the lawyers. Rob Ramage, whose case also took four years to come to a verdict stage, had two high profile lawyers - Brian Greenspan and Seth Weinstein - looking after his concerns.

Later, the reason for further delay of the Purtill trial was a pressing murder trial that was being held – the Robinson murder of Clifford Fair (Trial set for woman charged in death of Baby Alex, Nov 7, 2011). Tara Bowie elaborated on problems that year, saying, “Although many cases came to an end, it was year of appearances, delays and legal wrangling for three of the highest profile cases in Oxford County history (The verdict on 2011, Dec 29, 2011). Circumstances – and chance – led to Bonita Purtill and the family of the baby, Alex, being caught up in the middle of all this.

Meanwhile, the mother of Alex, the baby who died, expressed her frustration: “It’s been three years . . . I can’t imagine why it’s taking so long, Everything is based on her. Where is Alex in all of this?” (Another delay dismays victims, Sept 9, 2011).

Separating the legal from the emotional

Having to rely on news reports of what happened doesn’t provide a thorough account of events, and the Purtill case, as reported to the public, is lacking in details necessary for understanding. What’s more, from appearances, there may have been a lack in the information provided to the judge.  See as follows:

“In sentencing Purtill to six years and eight months in prison, Justice Kelly Gorman noted the author of a pre-sentence report wrote Purtill insisted on minimizing and justifying her actions and failed to take full responsibility for the offence, which she found very troubling”  (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012; Purtill sentenced to six years, eight months, Sept 19, 2012).

Since Justice Kelly used the pre-sentence report in determining the sentence, I believe it would be useful and fairer to know who wrote it, and what exactly was meant by these statements.  Are the authors of pre-sentence reports required to sign their names to their work? Is it their job to interpret the intentions of the defendant? Purtill isn’t the first person to plead not guilty and offer an explanation, while still feeling remorseful for harm caused.

Rob Ramage also fought his conviction, and the means by which he was found to be impaired (Rob Ramage appeals conviction, sentence in crash that killed Keith Magnuson, Feb 28, 2010), while also declaring much remorse for his actions, and yes, even taking full responsibility for what happened (Killer drunk driver Rob Ramage granted parole from prison, May 8, 2011).  The behaviours – or claims –  were not seen by all as being contradictory in his case; instead, they were seen as normal under the circumstances, or perhaps attributed to him at different points in the complicated process. It is possible for a person to be sorry for having caused another’s death, and offer to take responsibility for it, yet still want to spend as little time in prison as necessary for having done so (Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, Aug 30, 2011).

Not everyone agrees with this way of looking at it, however. Brian Thiel examines this in more detail, asking “Why does the “forgiveness factor” weigh so heavily in these proceedings? It's astounding that the families found the strength to forgive those who broke the law  . . .  But the point remains: These people broke the law. Why shouldn't they have to serve some kind of sentence?” (Rummaging Through Rob Ramage's Suit, Jan 18, 2008).

It’s mainly in the Bonita Purtill case that the complexities raised due to the demands of the law and one’s personal feelings become problematic, as signs that she was not truly remorseful. The victim’s mother, Mary Rodrigues, said she tried to help Purtill understand “all the pain, anger and grief we have been going through . . . then maybe she would get a better understanding of what life has been like since. But I feel like it wouldn’t matter one bit to her at all.” If it seems that way it may be because Purtill‘s own life is in such turmoil that she is unable to give Rodrigues the attention she seeks (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).  Moreover, due to legal aspects of the case, apparently Purtill was not permitted to make contact with the Rodrigues-Fleming family (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).

Police Chief Rod Freeman, viewing Purtill’s sentence as being at “the high end of the spectrum” is reported as saying, “I think it’s very appropriate due to the depth of the tragedy. I do believe it’s a significant sentence,” adding, “How do you achieve satisfaction for the loss of a four-month-old? The deepest part of the tragedy is that a baby’s life was lost” (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).  It was tragic that a baby’s life was lost, but does this mean that if it had been an adult that had been killed in the accident that it wouldn’t have mattered quite as much?

Labelling

In Sept, 2012, the trial behind him, Woodstock Police Chief Rod Freeman, co-chair of Safe Communities Woodstock, talked about the previous four years for Woodstock, saying how challenging they had been, and mentioning the three major crimes – “the drunk driving death of Baby Alex Fleming, the murder and dismemberment of Clifford Fair, and the abduction and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford” (Putting tragedy behind Woodstock, and safety in front, Sept 24, 2012). I’m sure, from previous comments, that nothing was meant by this except that they were all serious crimes, but from the perspective of Bonita Purtill, it might seem that she is being placed in the same category as murderers.

Perpetuating the analogy are the remarks of Mary Rodrigues, who has a new friend in the mother of Tori Stafford. “Tara and I have found great support with each other,” she says, adding, “You don't ever want to meet someone whose child was killed because it is not something you would even want to wish upon your worst enemy. But that is what happened to both of us and it's nice to have that extra support” (Woodstock Family must wait for justice, Dec 6, 2010). But rather than identify completely with someone whose child was murdered, it would also be more accurate to acknowledge that it was an accident that killed the infant Alex, not that he was intentionally killed as Tori Stafford was.

Purtill has been labelled a “convicted killer” by the press (see CTV News London Tonight at 6 - video, Sept 19, 2012), and “impaired killer” (Impaired Killer Sentenced – video, Sept 19, 2012).  The only mention I saw of Rob Ramage that was overtly negative in this manner was on the website Cancrime, where Ramage is referred to in the title as “killer drunk driver,” though not in the article itself (Killer drunk driver Rob Ramage granted parole from prison, May 8, 2011).

While using the term ‘killer’ might be proper according to the dictionary definition, the word does imply intent as well as continuity, in other words, the expectation that the person will kill again. Purtill, or Ramage, could even be serial impaired drivers, but that doesn’t make them murderers.

After the trial of Bonita Purtill ended, Rodrigues spoke of her other children, saying, “As far as they know, a woman killed baby Alex, and now we get to go home and tell them that she’s never going to hurt us anymore” (Baby Alex's Family, Police Relieved at Guilty Verdict, June 29, 2012). For them to hear Bonita Purtill being spoken of as being in the same category as the murderer Michael Rafferty would make them fearful, no doubt, if the same language were used in front of them. It implies that Purtill was lying in wait for the baby Alex. It implies intent, and it implies Purtill might try it again, if she were to be released from prison.  This distorted use of language, if it had an effect on the Rodrigues-Fleming children as well as on the community, could only lead to increased anxiety and fear for those who take it to heart, rather than see Purtill was what she is, a woman who drove drunk, and by accident killed someone – a baby.

Verdict – guilty as charged

Both Bonita Purtill and Rob Ramage were found guilty as charged, Purtill of 6 charges, “impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, and refusing to provide a breath sample” (Baby Alex's Family, Police Relieved at Guilty Verdict, June 29, 2012). Ramage was found guilty of  5 charges, “impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, two counts of dangerous driving causing death and having a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit” (Hockey captain found guilty – video, Oct 11, 2007).

In another piece published the same day as the Purtill verdict, Adam J. Nyp reports what was said about the difference between criminal negligence and dangerous driving:

“In dealing with the counts relating to impaired driving causing the death of 4-month-old Alex Fleming and bodily harm suffered by Mary Rodrigues, the jury’s main question is: Was Ms. Purtill’s ability to operate a motor vehicle impaired?
 . . .On the Criminal Negligence counts, it is defined as the reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others. It's more than just carelessness, it’s a “substantial departure from what a reasonable person would do.” And it can be that she was either aware of this recklessness, or, she simply gave no thought of what risk existed.
 . . .Justice Gorman told the jury [it] can find Purtill not guilty of Criminal Negligence, but guilty of a lesser charge of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm. Or, they could find her not guilty of both.
 . . .The final two counts that deal with refusing to provide a breath sample, one of them deals with the fact that a death or serious injury was caused by the crash. The question here is whether Purtill was aware the crash she caused had harmed or killed someone” (Deliberations Underway in Purtill Trial, June 29, 2012).

I question why Purtill was led away in leg shackles as well as handcuffs when she was found to be guilty of the charges, and then when she was sentenced (see Impaired Killer Sentenced - video, Sept 19, 2012). Was it feared that she might abscond and leave the area or the country – do a ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ to support herself, but without the Clyde? I haven’t read about her background, or her current situation, or where she might have other friends or family besides her daughter. Really, was that the reason she was shackled, because she might have run away?

In another case of impaired driving, in Toronto, Jose Lugo-Alonso, a Cuban cigar executive, was sentenced to two years in prison, after which time he will be deported back to Cuba. He wasn’t wearing handcuffs or leg shackles (and presumably he didn’t disappear on route to prison), but I wonder how a judge determines who needs to be shackled and who can exit the court house at least appearing respectable and dignified (Impaired driver gets 2 years for injuring cyclist, Jan 06, 2012). Lugo-Alonso expressed “genuine remorse for the accident,” and offered a written apology which was accepted by the injured cyclist, who said in the video, “I don't doubt that he feels remorse. He’s a human being. The problem is when we get to the point when people are apologizing and there’s a criminal charge it’s too late in the game”  (Cyclist speaks out following drunk driving crash, Jan 9, 2012).

Apology and forgiveness

Bonita Purtill apologised to the family of the infant, Alex, just before being sentenced by the judge (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012). She is reported to have said, “As a mother I cannot fathom the pain you feel, that I’m responsible for. . . I humbly pray that someday I can earn your forgiveness for the selfish choices I made.” Purtill probably says “someday” with the realization that earning Rodrigues’s forgiveness isn’t going to happen all at once, if it is a possibility at all, and probably can’t happen while she is in prison.

Purtill claims she had been unable to state her feelings in public before this, saying she was banned from contacting the family as a condition of her bail. Now, at this time, she tells them, “I desperately wanted to tell you how deeply sorry I am from the depth of my tortured soul” (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).

Despite this attempt to show her remorse, her apology wasn’t accepted by Rodrigues, the mother of the infant who died (see Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Sept 19, 2012). The reasons seem to have to do with an apparent lack of sincerity as perceived by Rodrigues, probably combined with the fact that Purtill pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Rob Ramage also pleaded not guilty to the charges facing him, while at the same time expressing remorse, but that didn’t make a difference to those who saw it as an accident, and unintentional. Those who supported him – his family, Magnuson’s family, friends, community, and other hockey players –  let it be known that they were sympathetic (Don't send Ramage to jail,' victim's family pleads, Dec 18, 2007; Ramage verdict shocks former teammates, Oct 10, 2007).

On the day he was found guilty of the charges of “impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, two counts of dangerous driving causing death and having a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit” Ramage said, “It is a tragedy for all involved, including my family” (Rob Ramage found guilty of 5 charges, Oct 11, 2007).  As far as I know, Purtill didn’t get to tell how the tragedy has affected her life and her family’s. For the most part, for the community of Woodstock it was a one-sided tragedy only.

A piece by Ian Gillespie delves into the tragedy from the point of view of Mary Rodrigues (Infant's death hurts a year later, Oct 9, 2009), in the same kind of way that writers might examine the life of Rob Ramage from a sympathetic perspective (Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, Aug 30, 2011).  In another piece, Randy Richmond almost achieves a sensitive approach to Bonita Purtill’s situation, but not quite  (Surviving in a dark hole at EMDC, Sept 21, 2012). Too many articles have already influenced the lens through which Purtill is viewed. Richmond writes, “The remorse she finally showed Wednesday did not impress reporters who followed her case from the beginning.” Neither, apparently, did her story of having been in a ‘domestic violence incident’ that day. But it wasn’t the case that reporters were following; they appeared to be following Mary Rodrigues, whose confidence, determination, and charisma have attracted followers from all walks of life.

Conclusion

Mary Rodrigues talks about her feelings after seeing Purtill brought into court, saying, “It's kind of sad to say, but a little bit of satisfaction. You know, that she’s not out there hurting anybody else. I guess that’s the price you pay for what she did” (Purtill Sentencing Pushed Back 10 Days), Sept 7, 2012.

While the Rob Ramage trial was still in progress, Ramage’s lawyers, Greenspan and Weinstein, said that nothing would be accomplished by imprisoning him and suggested that he get to travel around North America, talking to students about the dangers of drinking and driving. The judge, however, felt that jailing him would be a more effective way of bringing home that message to the public. (Ramage heads back to court, Feb 28, 2010).

In May, 2012, Rob Ramage passed a marker in his return to a normal life, being granted full parole (Former Leaf captain granted full parole, May 18, 2012). Meanwhile, MADD has been intent on making changes to laws on parole, after Ramage’s early parole privileges resulted in him serving only 10 months of a four-year sentence (Review sentences: MADD, May 06, 2011).  And more news: Patrick Callahan reports that Ramage will not be returning to his job as assistant coach for the London Knights (Bench boogie, July 3, 2012).  More recently, Ramage spoke at a Mission Services recovery breakfast about the effect on his life (NHL's Rob Ramage gives moving speech at recovery breakfast, Sept 27, 2012).

MADD now has a new poster child for impaired drivers, the infant Alexander who died in the impaired driving accident which involved Bonita Purtill. Alex, referred to as ‘Baby Alex’ can be seen posing with his spokesperson mother in Scene magazine (MADD stood by Baby Alex’s family, July 5, 2012).

After being convicted, Bonita Purtill was led off, handcuffed and shackled, to await sentencing, a reminder to others of what could happen to them. Rodrigues continues to interpret Purtill’s feelings, or more precisely, to claim she has none, saying “The way she’s been acting in court this week, and last week in court - she has no emotion whatsoever. No emotion. It’s like she has no regrets for what she’s done” (‘Alex was killed by an impaired driver,’ QMI Video, July 2, 2012).

On the final day in court, September 19, 2012, Purtill was sentenced, to 7 years in prison minus 4 months served time. As she is led away, again with handcuffs and legs shackled, we can hear a voice calling out to her, I love you mom (Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Sept 19, 2012).

Additional information: added Nov 8, 2012

Another case of impaired driving from the same community - Woodstock, Ontario - that of Brian Crockett, Crown attorney, has raised interest in the local newspapers after Crockett was fined for (convicted of?) impaired driving in August, 2012. Sun News published the same article in two different communities, drawing comments from readers about the two Woodstock cases – Brian Crockett’s and Bonita Purtill’s, and the treatment each one received (See Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving, London Free Press, Nov 7, 2012; Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Nov 7, 2012).


Note: Comments are welcomed!
If any links are incorrect or not working  - or missing, I would appreciate hearing about it.

Sue McPherson
s.a.mcpherson @ sympatico.ca

List of References

‘Alex was killed by an impaired driver,’ QMI Video, Article By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, July 2, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/06/29/alex-was-killed-by-an-impaired-driver

Another delay dismays victims, By Heather Rivers, QMI Agency, London Free Press, Sept 9, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/09/09/18662406.html

Baby Alex's Family, Police Relieved at Guilty Verdict, 1047 Heart FM News, June 29, 2012
http://1047.ca/local-news/36610

Bench boogie, By Patrick Callan, The London Free Press, July 3, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/sports/knights/2012/07/03/19947536.html

Bonita Purtill and MADD: random breath tests and other approaches to impaired driving, By Sue McPherson, Sue’s Views on the News, Sept 27, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/09/bonita-purtill-and-madd-random-breath.html

Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges - article, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel Review, June 29, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/06/29/bonita-purtill-guilty-on-all-charges

Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Heart FM News, Sept 19, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPmvigkQz6Y

Child passenger safety, Safe Kids Canada, Jan 10, 2012
http://www.safekidscanada.ca/Professionals/Safety-Information/Child-Passenger-Safety/Index.aspx

CTV News London Tonight at 6 – video, Sentencing of Bonita Purtill, You Tube, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tuhDU-aqTY&feature=related . Retrieved  Oct 3, 2012

Cyclist speaks out following drunk driving crash, By Ashleigh Smollet, CityNews.ca, Jan 9, 2012
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/179569
Video - http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/video/179572

Deliberations Underway in Purtill Trial, By Adam J. Nyp, 1047 Heart FM News, June 29, 2012
http://1047.ca/local-news/36608

  Don't send Ramage to jail,' victim's family pleads, Bob Mitchell, Staff Reporter, Toronto Star, Dec 18, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/286639---don-t-send-ramage-to-jail-victim-s-family-pleads

Ex denies domestic violence, QMI Agency, London Free Press, Tuesday, June 26, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/06/26/19920261.html

Final arguments, different stories, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Brantford Expositor, June 28, 2012. http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/06/28/final-arguments-different-stories

Former Leaf captain granted full parole, By Joe Fantauzzi, Yorkregion.com, May 18, 2012
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1358670--former-leaf-captain-granted-full-parole

Hockey captain found guilty, By Michael Dick, CBC News, You tube video, Oct 11, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRR-BFLbKkI

Impaired driver gets 2 years for injuring cyclist, By Peter Small. The Star, Jan 06, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1111631--impaired-driver-gets-2-years-for-injuring-cyclist

Impaired Killer Sentenced – video, Cristina Howorun, CTV London, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.ctvlondon.ca/tag/bonita-putrill/. Retrieved Oct 12, 2012

Infant's death hurts a year later, By Ian Gillespie, London Free Press, Oct 9, 2009
http://www.lfpress.com/news/columnists/ian_gillespie/2009/10/09/11353546-sun.html

Judges question Rob Ramage's sentence, By Tracey Tyler, Legal Affairs Reporter, The Star, Mar 2, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/773616--judges-question-rob-ramage-s-sentence

Justice system stalled in Ramage case, By Steve Simmons, Toronto Sun, Sept 12, 2006
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Simmons/2006/09/12/pf-1829637.html

Killer drunk driver Rob Ramage granted parole from prison, By Rob, CanCrime.com, May 8, 2011
http://www.cancrime.com/2011/05/08/killer-drunk-driver-rob-ramage-granted-parole-from-prison/

MADD stood by Baby Alex’s family, Scene Magazine p 6, July 5, 2012
http://scenemagazine.com/portals/0/pdf/web670.pdf

NHL's Rob Ramage gives moving speech at recovery breakfast, Mission Services of London, Sept 27, 2012. http://missionservices.ca/news/nhls-rob-ramage-gives-moving-speech-at-recovery-breakfast/

Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving

Woodstock Sentinel-Review Staff
London Free Press
Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/11/06/oxford-crown-attorney-brian-crockett-leads-guilty-to-impaired-driving
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Nov_LFP_OxfordCrown_AttorneyBrianCrockett.doc includes the 46 comments made to the article in the LFP

Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving
Woodstock Sentinel-Review Staff
Woodstock S-R
Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/11/06/oxford-crown-attorney-brian-crockett-pleads-guilty-to-impaired-driving
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Nov_SR_OxfordCrownAttorneyBrianCrockett.doc includes the 31 comments made to the article in the SR

Purtill napped in cruiser, arresting officer says, By Tara Bowie, Wooodstock Sentinel Review. June 24, 2012. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/06/22/purtill-napped-in-cruiser

Purtill sentenced to six years, eight months, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock SR, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/19/update-purtill-sentenced-to-six-years-eight-months

Purtill Sentencing Pushed Back 10 Days, By Adam J Nyp, 1047 Heart FM, Sept 7, 2012
http://1047.ca/local-news/38023

Putting tragedy behind Woodstock, and safety in front, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Sept 24, 2012. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/24/putting-tragedy-behind-woodstock-and-safety-in-front

Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, By Morris Dalla Costa, QMI Agency, Toronto Sun, Aug 30, 2011. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/30/ramage-cant-escape-agony-of-his-actions

Ramage found guilty in Magnuson's death, By Bob Mitchell, The Star, Oct 10, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/265490--ramage-found-guilty-in-magnuson-s-death

Ramage heads back to court, By Tracey Tyler, The Star, Feb 28, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/773041--ramage-heads-back-to-court

Ramage verdict shocks former teammates, By Allan Maki, Globe and Mail, Oct 10, 2007, updated Apr 03, 2009. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/ramage-verdict-shocks-former-teammates/article1084350/


Review sentences: MADD, By Joe Fantauzzi, Yorkregion.com, May 06, 2011
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1004401--review-sentences-madd


Rob Ramage appeals conviction, sentence in crash that killed Keith Magnuson, By Frank Gunn, Canadian Press, The Hockey News, Feb 28, 2010. http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/31805-Rob-Ramage-appeals-conviction-sentence-in-crash-that-killed-Keith-Magnuson.html

Rob Ramage barely reacted to deadly crash: paramedic, The Canadian Press, CBC Sports, Sept 18, 2007
 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/09/18/nhl-hockey-ramage.html

Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Canadian Press, CBC Sports, Sept 17, 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/09/17/nhl-ramage-trial.html

Rob Ramage found guilty of 5 charges, CBC Sports, Oct 11, 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/10/10/ramage-trial-verdict.html

Rob Ramage sorry for tragedy: police, The Canadian Press, CBC Sports, Sept 20, 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/09/20/ramage-tradegy.html

Rummaging Through Rob Ramage's Suit, By Bryan Thiel (Senior Writer), Bleacher Report, Jan 18, 2008
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6942-rummaging-through-rob-ramages-suit

Six years, eight months for Purtill, London Free Press, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/19/six-years-eight-months-for-purtill

Surviving in a dark hole at EMDC, By Randy Richmond, London Free Press, Woodstock Sentinel Review, Sept 21, 2012. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/21/surviving-in-a-dark-hole-at-emdc

Trial set for woman charged in death of Baby Alex, By Tara Bowie, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Nov 7, 2011. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2011/11/07/trial-set-for-woman-charged-in-death-of-baby-alex

The verdict on 2011, By Tara Bowie, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Dec 29, 2011
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2011/12/29/the-verdict-on-2011

Witness testifies smelling alcohol, Brantford Expositor, June 21, 2012
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/06/21/witnesses-testify-smelling-alcohol

Woodstock family must wait for justice, By Carla Garrett, Brantford Expositor, Dec 6, 2010
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2010/12/06/woodstock-family-must-wait-for-justice

Woodstock trial delayed again, QMI Agency, Oct 18, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/10/18/18840781.html