Kristin and Carol Anne email October 2016

I was reviewing the materials sent to me by the lawyers for VCHA before me applying for a visitation order to visit Carol Anne so we could visit each other.

What has us wanting to visit each other got to do with my husband who died April 13 2014 and the upset VCHA caused to us then.  VCHA believe their snowflake staff was more important than Randy. They 100% banned me so that I could not see Randy for the months prior to his death.

After it became clear to me that the hospital decided that Carol Ann would not be allowed to see me unless I applied for a court order, so I went out and got a court order on February 24, 2017.  As soon as management found out about it, they coerced Carol Anne to say she does not want to see me. What a brilliant move by VCHA. Now any further litigation would be neutralised.

These are words written by Risk Management VCH in an email October 20 2016 when I asked to visit Carol Anne.: 

I'm sorry I can't do that; I'm aware of the history of your restriction.  The restriction will remain in place as long as you continue to harass those on VCH sites about the death of Randy Walker.  VCH has responded to your allegations and will not engage in that discussion.

This is terrible using a few emails (which emails were not attached, so I do know what harassing she was talking about) to prevent Carol Anne and me from visiting each other.  VCHA is constructively imprisoning Carol Anne for something she had no part of.  I have heard that the medical system is broken, but what is happening is beyond broken.  It is contempt of our Constitution.  Carol Anne has the right to visit who she wants if she is in a hospital or not.  At the very least, it is elder abuse.  What VCHA is doing is unlaw and spiteful. VCHA cannot coerce Carol Anne to say that she did not want to see me.

Court Order in hand on February 26th and 28th, I visited Carol Anne both times she welcomed me and my witness.  So why is it as soon as staff showed up on the 28th, she frantically indicated that she did not want to see me.  Coercion. Duress.

Carol Anne is a full quad.  She cannot communicate, and she is not mobile.  On February 26, 2017, when I saw her, she indicated that her family did not visit her.   Her before boy friend would see her and would tell me how she was doing. We would meet at the mall.  Vince died of a heart attack over a year ago.  She now has no one except the good and carrying staff of George Pearson Centre.  Staff who are imprisoning her.

Setting Aside Oder to See Carol Anne

I cannot believe what is happening.  I made a simple application to the court to see Carol Anne who is a resident in George Pearson Centre.  She is a quad and for three years and I have been trying to get VCHA to allow us to visit.  Vancouver refuses as I was violent which is not true and I was being disrespectful/disruptive to staff and management of George Pearson Centre.

There was an incident in 2013 wherein I in self-defence had to push back staff who were unlawfully preventing us from living George Pearson Centre.  Because of the toxicity of George Pearson Centre, I attempted to remove my husband from the premises.  GPC had the mistaken belief that they could detain him unlawfully.  I thought the incident was forgotten until January 29 2014 wherein I was told that I was banned 100% from visiting my husband and that the banning would be for 90 days.  Verbally, I was told that the banning was going to last forever.

My husband was dying and they did this to us.  I protested but I could do nothing.  On March 2014 I filed a Petition to Visit my husband.  The next thing I knew the  Public Guardian and Trustee was involved and I did not understand why and she became Randy's committee. VCHA wanted this.  VCHA had him assessed by a doctor, the same doctor, I accused of attempted culpable homicide by him putting an unauthorized DNR on my husband and then refusing to take it off.  The PGT was designated to protect Randy from me.  The decided that my enduring Power of Attorney should be taken away from me and they were going for Committee of Person as well.  In other words they were making Randy a non-person wherein it was the PGT who would decide everything in his life including putting DNRs on Randy.  VCHA, Dr. Dunne and the PGT conspired to do this.

The physician lorded over me saying on November 18 2017 that he would consider taking off the DNR/DNT when I asked him to do on his return from Prince George.  I took the incident to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and they decided that Randy was incapable due to a high fever caused by an infection.  He was not capable of giving informed consent. In the non-medical world, the physician would have been criminally charged with criminal intent.  But nothing happened to him except he was told that he should have been more careful in deciding if Randy was not well enough to agree to a DNR and his handwriting was illegible

It was after January 29 2014 when I was then accused of being bad for Randy.

On January 29 2014 I was banned citing the November 18 2013 incident.   It is so obvious but at that time it was not obvious to me that the real reason was so that I would not be in a position to question whatever was happening to Randy.  I believed prior to that that GPC were bullies and they were acting as such.  GPC was saying that my behavior caused the staff to be afraid of me and interferred with its ability to do their work. VCHA had to create reasons beyond the truth.  They even got the Workers Compensation Board involved because they said I was bullying staff.   VCHA over the years bullied me making me a basket case and then they turned it around and accused  me of  bullying the snowflakes. Can you imagine wasting manpower of the WCB.   I wonder what the report said.

Anyways that goes too far back in history to be part of what was happening now, so I thought.  It has been over three years. However, VCHA is wanting to continue the ridiculous banning for the rest of my life. This banning has discredited me, demoralised me.  My reputation has been damaged.    And they are intent on continuing to do so.  But now they have gone too far.

They have imprisoned Carol Anne and they need to continue to discredit me.  Carol Anne is severely disabled.  Her family abandoned her decades ago.  She is bedridden and cannot talk except with her eyes and nodding her head. She is on a ventilator and trach.  She is in a private room with only a television to distract her. She is totally isolated.  She can't even watch people activity on her ward as she is in a private isolated room. Isolated from others who could ring for assistance in case Carol Anne was in distress.

They might not want me to talk to Carol Anne if there is a remote possibility that I want to become her advocate.  GPC does not want any patients to have advocates unless they are mute.  With Carol Anne she is a non-functioning quad and her quality of life is that she has none

It is beyond me what they are trying to do to me. I only want to visit Carol Anne.  It is so obvious to me those that the decision makers employed by VCHA are idiots.

The question still outstanding is what did I do.  I asked this of David Bell, lawyer for VCHA, and he said I knew what I did.  Well, tell me again. 

Proposed Injunction dated April 2014.

I was reading from the pleadings in 2014 when VCHA wanted an Order FOR LIFE that I by herself and or by her agents be barred from visiting any VCHA properties. How stupid.

However, I could see Randy on the sidewalk as that would not upset the staff.  That did not last long, I was able to see him two times on the sidewalk and then Ro said that it was too much work for her and she refused to allow me to see Randy ever again. Think about this, I could see Randy under security on the sidewalk but I could not see him on his death bed inside GPC. I wonder what law firm gave VCHA that piece of legal advice. 

Although I asked VCHA to do an investigation it refused to do so.  They controlled the complaint process Star Chamber Court with no due process just one-sided gossipy evidence.  There was no provision for an independent investigation.

Randy was dying in 2014 and I was banned.  I asked friends to check on him and GPC decided that they could not do this any more. In an email from Risk Management (VGH) I was told to stop such COVERT activities that I organized.

 Even though I was banned, GPC would tell me that Randy was fine those that went to visit him (three of which were retired health professionals) would say differently.

 And most hurtful was when I was told he was crying.

The proposed Order also said that if Randy was terminal I would be able to access him at George Pearson Centre.  The reality would be that GPC had no intention of transferring him to Vancouver General Hospital in the event he needed acute care.  They planned on letting him die at George Pearson Centre and I would only be allowed to visit his dead body.

I remember Tanu telling me in 2010 that I was not allowed to talk to anyone unless they talked to me first.  The "majesty" requirement of George Pearson Centre.

I wish I was not having these flashbacks but I must so I can fight for Carolanne so I can visit her.  It would be so easy just to walk away.

A snowflake defence.

I had a mistaken belief that I had a fiduciary duty to Randy.  I had history, I had a marriage certificate, I had a power of attorney, I had a representation agreement, I had love but the health authority saw it differently. I was accused of being disrespectful/disruptive to management.  It was a snowflake defence.

Physicians v. Administration at VGH

I have been reflecting back to the morning of 13 April 2014, Randy was dying in the ICU, and I was forced to stand outside in the hallway.

I had a Supreme Court Order in hand to allow me to see Randy but no one would let me inside the ICU until the Order was verified again.  I stood there for two hours.  Security was watching.

Thinking back, I do not know why the doctor at the ICU just did not let me in the ICU.  He was in charge. He did not need permission from administration.

I remember Dr. James Dunne saying that if it was up to him, he would not allow anyone to be banned.  Dr. Dunne's belief was wrong, it was up to him. His duty was to his patients, not to a bureaucracy run by social workers. Social workers are behind every bad decision in a hospital as physicians rely on them to make their decisions rather than personally witnessing the truth.

Risk Managements used the snowflake defence in that I was disrespectful/disruptive to management.  My presence distracted staff so that they could not do their jobs. The snowflakes had contacted PTSD and it necessitated that VCHA call in the WCB to certify that the workplace was unsafe.  I had to be removed.

Richard Singleton, director of VCHA Risk Management, is a social worker with three degrees.  He decided that I should be banned on 30 January 2014 from all VCHA properties for life.

Prior to 30 January 2014 no one suggested that I was bad for Randy and that Randy needed protection from me.

Richard never spoke or met with Randy.  He set restrictions on me as to visitation without explanation.  He said I knew what I did wrong.  No,  I replied in an email, tell me.


Years later I asked the lawyers for VCHA for good reasons for my banning. Nothing.

Hospitals are for patients, not for ultra-delicate snowflakes. 

----------


I asked the Public Guardian and Trustee for the reasons why she revoked Randy's power of attorney on April 4 2014.  VCHA approved of it by signing a Certificate of Incapability. The PGT said the reasons were sent to me.. I asked them to send them to me again. The PGT refused saying that it was under no obligation to repeat its lawful obligation as to do so would distract from doing its other work. The PGT administers $900,000,000 worth of assets and they cannot afford to resend me at the most, I estimate, to be an email of five pages. And to think the PGT is there to protect the public and yet she does not tell the public or a targetted member of the public why her decisions were made.

Was I banned for life from all VCHA properties because of media? I really do not know.

I can relate to this on a personal level.  In BC a few years ago a nurse also complained of the care of her mother after the mother died to the Sun newspaper in Vancouver. I tried to contact her to offer support. By then she was under a ban order (I suspect).  Later I read that she had PTSD over her mother's death and took early retirement. Really.  Maybe she was also sanctioned by the BC Registered Nurses Association as what is happening to Nurse Strom.

As for Strom (read below) in Regina the punishment reeks of interference that the Hospital Authority would lobby for.  I wonder if the six nurses that complained to the nursing association were ever named. I speculate if they even existed that they were directed to do so. No group of nurses would ever do this.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/02/18/complaining-about-granddads-care-on-facebook-could-cost-nurse-30gs

"In finding her guilty, the SRNA wrote its intent was not to “muzzle”
Strom. …also suggested a $5,000 fine — “to drive home” that SHE SHOULD
NOT PUBLICLY CRITICIZE HER PROFESSION [emphasis mine]— plus $25,000 to
help cover costs of the investigation and hearing..."      Oh, of
course not - how could huge fines and publicly disgracing Nurse Strom
possibly be construed as muzzling her? Saskatchewan Registered Nurses'Association might as well have announced a free pass for any of its members inclined to neglect seniors in health facilities.   - Kate

COMPLAINING ABOUT GRANDDAD'S CARE ON FACEBOOK COULD COST NURSE $30Gs
Ashley Martin, Regina Leader-Post
Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:56:45 EST PM


REGINA, Sask. - Registered nurse Carolyn Strom said if she had known
the outcome two years ago, she would not have taken to social media to
criticize her grandfather’s long-term care.

As her drawn-out disciplinary hearing continued Friday in Regina,
Strom’s lawyer Marcus Davies and the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’
Association (SRNA) counsel Roger Lepage put forth their submissions on
penalty — Lepage suggesting $30,000 total.

Strom took to Facebook on Feb. 25, 2015, to comment on the care of her
recently deceased grandfather at a long-term care facility in Macklin.
She suggested a lack of compassion and education among staff.

Her disciplinary hearing began Feb. 10, 2016. In October, the SRNA
discipline committee found Strom guilty of professional misconduct, as
her Facebook post was found to “harm the standing of the profession of
nursing,” under the Registered Nurses Act.

As proceedings wrapped up Friday afternoon, discipline committee
chairman Chris Etcheverry gave Strom an opportunity to speak.

“Thanks for asking me to talk,” Strom said. “It’s been a very
stressful couple of years, and it’s just very surreal … having to sit
and listen to your life and yourself being discussed.”

It has been a “very taxing” time, both financially and health-wise.

“Had I known that this would be the outcome, I wouldn’t have said what
I said, and I’ve definitely learned from what’s gone on,” said Strom.

In finding her guilty, the SRNA wrote its intent was not to “muzzle” Strom.

The discipline committee will render its written decision as soon as possible.

Lepage argued Strom’s penalty should include a formal reprimand placed
on the public register, course work, and a review of professional
standards and the Canadian Nurses’ Association code of ethics.

He also suggested a $5,000 fine — “to drive home” that she should not
publicly criticize her profession — plus $25,000 to help cover costs
of the investigation and hearing, which so far tallies almost
$143,000.

Davies disputed this, arguing the SRNA should pay all expenses as it
failed to negotiate an agreement in good faith.

As both parties attempted to resolve the case through a consensual
resolution agreement (CRA) between March 25 and Aug. 20, 2015, Lepage
said Davies and Strom would not co-operate within the required four
months, resulting in the hearing.

Davies said the issue was the SRNA’s “accusatory language” and
“inflammatory” claims, including accusing Strom of “professional
incompetence.” The wording didn’t improve after amendments.

Strom had agreed to the investigation committee’s conditions —
education, and reviewing standards and ethics. She had made “every
effort to try to resolve this without coming here,” said Davies.

“She was being punished for actually trying to reach an agreement by consent.”

Any fine should be “nominal in nature,” $1,000 or less, Davies said,
as “she’s already paid an awful lot” in this process: The
investigation has cost her tens of thousands of dollars in travel
expenses and missed work.

This is the SRNA’s first disciplinary hearing related to social media.

Lepage referenced five cases that could inform the penalty — including
one in which a nursing home employee published derogatory posts and
personal information about residents of the home, and one in which a
teacher blasted his employer for alleged homophobia.

Davies said, aside from the use of Facebook, Strom’s case does not
compare, and a $30,000 penalty would be “way out of line.”

Strom’s Facebook post alleged some staff were not “up to speed” on
end-of-life care and could use a refresher.

Strom, a registered nurse in the Prince Albert Parkland Health Region,
often uses social media as a health advocate, but this post was
written as a grieving granddaughter. The Macklin facility is part of
the Heartland Health Region.

As the hearing began a year ago, six registered nurses who cared for
Strom’s grandfather said they felt her Facebook post had tarnished
their reputations.

Strom generally referenced “staff” and did not criticize nurses in her post.

In its verdict, the discipline committee ruled Strom had breached the
CNA code of ethics, which promotes respect, meaningful communication
and collaboration with other health-care workers.

PGTism in BC

After researching BC Public Guardian and Trustee, I  created a new word to describe it and it is "PGTism."

Later I received a phone call from the BCCLA thanking me for my donation.  I asked how much did I donate.  He said $20.00.  I said I made a mistake as I was only going to give it $10.00.  The BCCLA is frustrating as it seldom answers its phone or replies to emails. 

He also wanted some feedback, and so I said, what is the BCCLA going to do about PGTism?

Of course, the young man, who sounded very well education, did not know what PGTism was, neither did he know what a Public Guardian and Trustee was; however, I did leave him to ponder: how could a regulation, not a law, make an adult a "non-person."  Being named a non-person should be under the purview of the Supreme Court.


Making an adult a non-person is not the same thing as regulating how the Liquor Control Board should do its job.  How insulting of British Columbia to subject any one of us to being regulated. Stripping us of our autonomy by use of a regulation.

Statutory Guardianship Act Regulation (2014).