CITATION: Complainant v. British Columbia College of ... - [PDF Document] (2024)

Health Professions Review Board

Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9

CITATION: Complainant v. British Columbia College of Nursing Professionals

DECISION NO. 2018-HPA-091(a); 2018-HPA-092(a); 2018-HPA-093(a)

Grouped File: 2018-HPA-G13

February 13, 2019

In the matter of an application (the “Application”) under section 50.6 of the Health

Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183, (the “Act”) for review of a complaint disposition

made by, or considered to be a disposition by, an inquiry committee

BETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT

AND: The British Columbia College of Nursing

Professionals

COLLEGE

AND:

AND:

AND:

A Nurse

A Nurse

A Nurse

REGISTRANT 1

REGISTRANT 2

REGISTRANT 3

BEFORE: Brenda L. Edwards, Panel Chair REVIEW BOARD

HEARING DATE:

Conducted by way of written submissions closing on December 13, 2018

APPEARING: For the Complainant: Self-represented

For the College: Jessica Abells, Legal Counsel

For Registrant 1:

For Registrant 2:

For Registrant 3:

Unrepresented

Unrepresented

Unrepresented

DECISION

I INTRODUCTION

[1] The Complainant has asked the Review Board to review the decision of the Registrar to dismiss complaints against Registrants 1, 2 and 3 as provided for in s.32(3)(a) and (b) of the Act. The Registrar’s decision was reviewed and endorsed by the Inquiry Committee of the College and pursuant to s.32(5) is “considered to be a disposition of the Inquiry Committee.”

II PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] The Complainant filed a complaint with the College in April 2017 complaining of the conduct of the Registrants and others (the “Complaint”).

[3] While I am not privy to all of the steps that occurred in the College’s investigatory process, it is clear that the College appointed outside legal counsel as an inspector (the “Inspector”) to screen the Complaint and brief the Registrar regarding her legal authority to dispose of it. After receiving the inspector’s report, the Registrar signed a “Report on the Registrar’s Action” and provided it to the Inquiry Committee as required by s.32(4) of the Act,

[4] After considering the Report on the Registrar’s Action, the Inquiry Committee confirmed the Registrar’s proposed disposition under s.32(5) of the Act. The Inspector wrote to the Complainant on May 29, 2018. While the Inspector did not sign the letter on behalf of the Inquiry Committee, I assume this was intended to be a “summary of the disposition” as provided for in s.34 of the Act.

[5] On June 28, 2018, the Complainant filed three Applications for Review.

[6] On January 2, 2019, this matter was assigned to me by the Chair of the Review Board for a "Stage 1 hearing." At a Stage 1 hearing I may decide to:

(a) confirm the Inquiry Committee disposition under s.50.6(8)(a) of the Act if the application for review can be fairly, properly and finally adjudicated on the merits without the need for submissions from the College and Registrant; or

(b) determine that the application requires adjudication in a Stage 2 hearing, in which case no decision will be made until after requesting submissions from the College and Registrant, and further reply submissions from the Complainant.

[7] After reviewing the record of investigation provided by the College (the “Record”), the Complainant’s Applications for Review, correspondence from the Complainant and from the Ministry of Attorney General and the Complainant’s hearing submission, I am satisfied that this matter can be appropriately dealt with at Stage 1, i.e. without hearing from the College or the Registrants.

Materials Considered in this Review

[8] In reaching my decision, I considered:

the Applications for Review filed June 28, 2018;

the 179-page Record;

submissions from the Complainant regarding redactions to the Record,

dated October 26, 2018, and November 6, 2018;

submissions from the Complainant dated November 13, 2018, regarding

concerns that she has regarding communicating with her given her

concerns for the possibility of retaliation from one of the Registrants and

the, then, postal strike;

correspondence from the Ministry of Attorney General dated December 4,

2018, regarding the Constitutional Question; and

the Complainant’s December 13, 2018, Stage 1 submissions (122 pages)

appending a Form 11 “Additional Documents” referencing eight “bankers’

boxes” of documents that were couriered to the Review Board in

December 2018 (the “Bankers’ Boxes”) and naming witnesses that she

asks that the Review Board interview.

III BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

[9] The Complainant is a former registrant of the College. At the time of the Complaint, she was employed as a registered nurse at a rural hospital in the interior of British Columbia (the “Rural Hospital”). The Complaint involves allegations and comments involving several registrants of the College and others.

[10] Registrant 1 is a registrant of the College and in the Complaint, it is alleged that she engaged in activities on behalf of the British Columbia Nurses’ Union on a locked ward of a hospital in the interior of British Columbia other than the Rural Hospital. She was not employed at the Rural Hospital. The Complaint also alleges that Registrant 1, as a union representative, inadequately represented the Complainant in a workplace dispute involving Registrant 2.

[11] Registrant 2 is a registrant of the College and at the time of the Complaint was employed as a registered nurse at the Rural Hospital in a position subordinate to the Complainant.

[12] Registrant 3 is a registrant of the College and at the time of the Complaint was employed as a hospital administrator of the Rural Hospital.

[13] The Complainant complained about two other individuals. In the Disposition Letter, the Inspector asserts that neither individual was a registrant of the College. The Complaint asserts that one of the individuals, “TM” is a registrant of the College. TM is only tangentially referenced in the Complaint. I will have more to say about the College’s reference to this individual in the letter sent by the inspector later in this decision.

IV LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

[14] The Act governs the College’s oversight of applications for registration and its supervision of registrants. It provides authority for the College to investigate complaints regarding the conduct or competence of registrants. In addition, the Act provides the Review Board with authority to review Inquiry Committee dispositions of complaints.

Role of the Registrar and of the Inquiry Committee

[15] The Registrar’s role is provided for in s.32 of the Act:

32 (1) A person who wishes to make a complaint against a registrant must deliver

the complaint in writing to the registrar.

(2) As soon as practicable after receiving a complaint, the registrar must deliver

to the inquiry committee a copy of the complaint, an assessment of the complaint

and any recommendations of the registrar for the disposition of the complaint.

(3) Despite subsection (2), the registrar, if authorized by the board, may dismiss

a complaint, or request that the registrant act as described in section 36(1),

without reference to the inquiry committee if the registrar determines that the

complaint

(a) is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith,

(b) does not contain allegations that, if admitted or proven, would

constitute a matter subject to investigation by the inquiry committee under

section 33(4).

(c) contains allegations that, if admitted or proven, would constitute a

matter, other than a serious matter, subject to investigation by the inquiry

committee under section 33 (4).

(4) If a complaint is disposed of under subsection (3), the registrar must deliver a

written report to the inquiry committee about the circ*mstances of the disposition.

(5) A disposition under subsection (3) is considered to be a disposition by the

inquiry committee unless the inquiry committee gives the registrar written

direction to proceed under subsection (2).

[16] Section 34 of the Act then provides:

34 If the inquiry committee disposes of a matter under section 32 (5) or 33 (6) (a) or (b), the inquiry committee must, within 30 days of disposition, deliver to the complainant, if any, a written summary of the disposition advising the complainant of the right to apply for a review by the review board under section 50.6.

[17] In this instance, an inspector reviewed the complaint and prepared a summary and legal memorandum for the Registrar. The Registrar decided to dismiss the complaints under s.32 of the Act and signed a report that summarized the Complainant’s complaints against the Registrants and others, the College’s attempts to clarify the complaints, the “evidence” regarding the complaints, an analysis of the complaints and her disposition of the complaints under s.32(3)(a) and (b) of the Act.

[18] The Inquiry Committee met on May 10, 2018,1 reviewed the Report on the Registrar’s Action and resolved to adopt the Registrar’s proposed disposition of the Complaint.

[19] On May 29, 2018, the inspector wrote the Complainant advising her of the Inquiry Committee’s decision to uphold the Registrar’s disposition dismissing the complaints.

1 The Inquiry Committee Minutes are dated April 10, 2018, and bear a header of the same date (Record

at pp. 35-44). A further document entitled “IC Decision Record” is dated May 10, 2018 (Record at p. 45).

Role of the Review Board

[20] Under s.50.6(1) of the Act, a person may apply to the Review Board for a review of the disposition of the Inquiry Committee. The Complainant applied for such a review.

[21] Section 50.6(5) of the Act sets out the responsibility of the Review Board when conducting a review:

50.6 (5) On receipt of an application under subsection (1), the review board must

conduct a review of the disposition and must consider one or both of the

following:

(a) the adequacy of the investigation conducted respecting the

complaint;

(b) the reasonableness of the disposition.

[22] Section 50.6(8) of the Act sets out the powers of the Review Board after completing the review:

50.6 (8) On completion of its review under this section, the review board may make an

order

(a) confirming the disposition of the inquiry committee,

(b) directing the inquiry committee to make a disposition that could

have been made by the inquiry committee in the matter, or

(c) sending the matter back to the inquiry committee for

reconsideration with directions.

[23] Section 50.64 of the Act provides that certain sections of the Administrative Tribunals Act (the “ATA”), as identified in Column 1 of the Schedule, apply for the purposes of review under s.50.6 of the Act. Among the enumerated provisions are ss.44 and 46 of the ATA which provides as follows:

44 (1) The tribunal does not have jurisdiction over constitutional questions.2

(2) Subsection (1) applies to all applications made before, on or after the date that the

subsection applies to a tribunal.

46 If a constitutional question over which the tribunal has jurisdiction is raised in a

tribunal proceeding, the party who raises the question must give notice in compliance

with section 8 of the Constitutional Question Act.

[24] My task, on behalf of the Review Board, as described in s.50.6(5) of the Act, is to review the College's disposition of the complaint and to consider the adequacy of the investigation, the reasonableness of the disposition, or both. In this case, the Complainant asked that I review both.

2 Section 1 of the ATA defines "constitutional question" to mean “any question that requires notice to be

given under section 8 of the Constitutional Question Act”. The only exclusion from this definition is a Charter challenge whose object is to exclude evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter.

V PRELIMINARY MATTERS

[25] Before I review the merits of the Complainant’s applications for review and her submissions to the Review Board, I must address the following preliminary matters:

(a) Relief sought by the Complainant in her submissions to the Review Board (the “Remedies”);

(b) The Complainant’s request to add information to the Record for review. Specifically, 8 Bankers’ Boxes of documents and several witnesses that she suggested ought to be interviewed by the Review Board (the “Additional Documents and Witnesses”).

The Remedies

[26] In her submissions to the Review Board dated December 13, 2018, the Complainant identified sixteen “remedies” that she is seeking from the Review Board and which are in addition to the statutory remedies available to her under the Act as identified in her Applications for Review. I have paraphrased the December 13, 2018, remedies sought by the Complainant as follows:

(a) Rename the hospital where she was employed during the time complained of (“the Hospital”);

(b) Rename an environmental landmark (a waterfall);

(c) Repeal the legislation that established the Registered Nurses’ Association of British Columbia (the “Constitutional Challenge”);

(d) Give nurses a choice about whether to belong to a union;

(e) Investigate the British Columbia Labour Relations Board and its decisions where union members have been unsuccessful in complaints against their unions;

(f) Change the Workers Compensation Act to eliminate discrimination against primarily female-dominated professions;

(g) Investigate a certain lawyer for conflict of interest;

(h) Investigate other “Vander Zalm” initiatives for corruption;

(i) Confer Workers Compensation benefits on the Complainant;

(j) Award the Complainant damages for certain government-decisions involving her;

(k) Award the Complainant damages for bullying and harassing by regulated nurses;

(l) Award damages to any nurse-member of the RNABC for abolition of their support network;

(m)Conduct an external investigation into bullying and harassing at the Hospital leading to the dismissal of certain individuals;

(n) Award the Complainant costs as a “self-represented litigant”; and

(o) Any other remedies that make sense to a lawyer.

[27] As noted above, I have only the powers conferred on me under the Act. I have no authority to grant the Complainant any of the remedies identified in para. [26]. Rather, the Review Board may only make an order confirming a disposition, direct the Inquiry Committee to make an order that it could have made or send the matter back to the Inquiry Committee for reconsideration, with directions.

[28] To be clear, the Review Board has no jurisdiction to rename hospitals or environmental landmarks, repeal or amend legislation, investigate legal counsel or government-sponsored initiatives, confer benefits under legislation, award damages, conduct or order an external investigation in to alleged incidents of workplace bullying or harassment, award costs or provide any remedies apart from those set out in s.50.6(8) of the Act.

[29] For further clarity and more specifically, s.50.64 of the Act and s.44 of the ATA provide that the Review Board has no jurisdiction over constitutional questions. I note that the Complainant provided notice to the Attorney General that she has raised a constitutional question in her Applications for Review. As the Review Board has no jurisdiction over such matters, I have not sought submissions from legal counsel on behalf of the Attorney General, but a copy of this decision will be provided to legal counsel.

[30] For all of the above reasons, I am dismissing the Complainant’s request for the relief identified at pages 119-120 of her December 13, 2018, submissions as summarized in para. [26] above.

[31] The remedies which the Complainant seeks that are within my jurisdiction are those identified in her Applications for Review with respect to the Registrants and include one or more of the following with respect to each of the Registrants:

Direct the Inquiry Committee to direct the Registrar to issue a citation against

the Registrants;

Direct the Inquiry Committee to issue citations against the Registrants;

Direct the Inquiry Committee to request, in writing, that the Registrants

undertake not to repeat the conduct which is the subject of the Complaint;

Direct the Inquiry Committee to request, in writing, that the Registrants

undertake to take specified educational courses;

Direct the Inquiry Committee to request, in writing, that the Registrants consent

to a reprimand; and

Send the matter back to the Inquiry Committee for reconsideration, with

directions.

The Additional Documents and Witnesses

[32] The Complainant submits that the Bankers’ Boxes of documents and the testimony of five witnesses (including the Complainant) is reasonably required by the Review Board for a full and fair disclosure of all matters related to the issues under review.

[33] It is not clear to me whether the documents contained in the Bankers’ Boxes are the same as the “4000 pages” that the Complainant submitted to the College but were not considered by the Registrar or the Inquiry Committee. From my understanding of the Complaint and my review of the Bankers’ Boxes, it seems likely that many, if not most of the documents that the Complainant provided to the Review Board were also provided by her to the College.

[34] In order to determine whether it was necessary to fairly and properly adjudicate this review that I consider the Additional Documents, I spent several days reviewing the contents of the Bankers’ Boxes. I have attached to this decision, as Appendix “A” a summary of their content. The documents include policy papers, statutes and regulations, case law, news articles, results of “Google” searches, financial statements for organizations, self-generated tables and statements generated by the Complainant, Annual Reports of various health professions’ colleges, printouts from nursing-related websites, email correspondence between the Complainant and other health care professionals, lawyers, government officials and others and more. The documents span a wide range of topics and address issues occurring over more than a century. The only “order” to the documents that I could ascertain is alphabetical. That is to say that each box contains many file folders of documents that are organized by the title that the Complainant assigned, commencing with folders whose title begins with the letter “A” in Box #1 and ending with folders whose titles begin with the letter “W” in Box #8. For example, one of the first file folders contained in Box #1 is entitled “Autonomic Dysregulation” and contains various articles on the autonomic nervous system. Another folder, in Box #4 consists of folders whose titles begin with the letters “H” to “L” including a folder entitled “Learning from disaster – Crashing planes” which contains various articles about plane crashes and other disasters.

[35] Some of the documents in the Bankers’ Boxes contain personal health and employment information about some of the Registrants as well as patients and employees of a health authority who are not the subject of the Complaint or this review. The information in these documents appears to have come into the Complainant’s possession during her employment as a nurse. I am not aware whether these documents were included in the 4000 pages of documents that were provided to the College but not considered by the Registrar or the Inquiry Committee.

[36] The Complainant identified four individuals, by name only, whom she asserts could provide evidence to the Review Board regarding wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, bullying and harassment by an individual who is not the subject of this review as well as by Registrant 1. She asserts that the Review Board ought to hear from these witnesses “because it provides the context within which the decisions were made that led to my injury.”

[37] After a careful review of the Bankers’ Boxes and considering the list of witnesses and the reasons that the Complainant asserts they ought to be interviewed, I can say with confidence that neither the Additional Documents nor the witnesses’ testimony is “reasonably required for a full and fair disclosure of all matters related to the issues under review.” In other words, I am satisfied that I have all the information that I require in the Record and the Complainant’s submissions, to decide whether the Registrar and the Inquiry Committee adequately investigated the Complaint and reasonable disposed of it.

VI DISCUSSION The Complainant’s submissions

[38] In her 120-page submissions to the Review Board, the Complainant points to a number of concerns that she has with the adequacy of the investigation and the reasonableness of the disposition of her complaint. I have summarized the Complainant’s main concerns, as I understand them, as follows:

(1) The College did not investigate the complaint in a timely manner and as a result, the Complainant “los(t) the ability to discuss the contents of the complaint due to her mental health injury”; the College “stonewall(ed)” the Complainant with endless requests for clarification of the Complaint;

(2) The College erred in focusing on the Complainant’s 32-page submission letter rather than reviewing the evidence in support of the Complaint (the 4000 pages of documents); the Intake Investigator made no attempt to review the documents;

(3) The College wrongly concluded that the 4000 pages of documentary evidence was unorganized when it was not. The submission was a distillation of a 6000-page submission that the Complainant made to WorkSafeBC and was in “date order”;

(4) The College failed to accommodate the Complainant’s “mental health impairment” when it required evidence in the form of “incidents, dates, times, policies and procedures that were broken, and standards of practice breached”; had she been accommodated, she would have been able to “illuminate” the evidence;

(5) The College failed to “accurately portray the nature of the Complaint to the Registered Nurses on the Review Board” by:

(i) Characterizing the Complainant as unwilling to clarify the Complaint when she was willing to do so until her mental health deteriorated after September 2017;

(ii) Noting that TM was not a registrant of the College when it ought to have known that there was a Registered Nurse with a slightly different spelling of her last name;

(6) The Registrar had no authority to act without the supervision of a Registered Nurse on the “investigative panel”; the Registrar wrongly accepted the

Inspector’s version of the investigation without any oversight by a Registered Nurse;

(7) The language used in the Disposition Letter to dismiss the Complaint was “excessively vitriolic” and intended to be “humiliating and demeaning for a person with mental health issues”;

(8) The College engaged in victim-blaming;

(9) The College failed to consider that nursing standards prohibit bullying;

(10) The disposition is not “sufficiently justifiable, transparent and intelligent”, and

(11) The College’s actions were “cruel and unusual punishment” for the Complainant.

[39] I have considered all of the Complainant’s submissions, whether specifically referenced in this decision or not, in the context of the College’s duty to the public to investigate complaints about registrants and considering the steps taken by the Registrar and the Inquiry Committee in this particular case.

Decision-making under ss. 32(3)(a) and (b)

[40] When the Registrar receives a complaint about a registrant under s.32(1) of the Act, the Registrar’s role is to provide the Inquiry Committee with a copy of the complaint, her assessment of it and any recommendations she may have regarding disposing of the matter. Alternatively, the Registrar may dismiss the complaint without referring the matter on to the Inquiry Committee in certain circ*mstances. Those circ*mstances are set out in s.32(3) of the Act:

32(3) Despite subsection (2), the registrar, if authorized by the board, may dismiss a

complaint, or request that the registrant act as described in section 36 (1), without

reference to the inquiry committee if the registrar determines that the complaint

(a) is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith,

(b) does not contain allegations that, if admitted or proven, would constitute a

matter subject to investigation by the inquiry committee under section 33 (4), or

(c) contains allegations that, if admitted or proven, would constitute a matter,

other than a serious matter, subject to investigation by the inquiry committee

under section 33 (4).

[41] In Review Board Decision No. 2011-HPA-0018(a) (“Decision 0018(a)”) (2012 BCHPRB 2), a five person Review Board panel noted that even though the Act only uses the word “investigate” in relation to Inquiry Committee dispositions (s.33), the Registrar has the implicit power to investigate complaints when the Registrar disposes of them under s.32 of the Act:

[43] … under s.32(3), the Registrar has the independent power, despite s.32(2), to make a request under s.36(1), or to dismiss a complaint without reference to the Inquiry

Committee. As discussed further below, we have concluded … that the Registrar must have the power to investigate before he can make a request under s.36(1), and must have the power to investigate some classes of cases falling under s.32(3). The proper interpretation must recognize that in some of those instances, the Registrar’s investigation may well be over before he or she determines that the matter should be referred to the inquiry committee for further action in a report under s.32(2). [footnote omitted]

[42] With regard to s.32(3)(a) of the Act, Decision 0018(a) stated:

[54] Section 32(3)(a) – “the Registrar determines that the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. As pointed out in DecisionNo.2009-HPA-0045(a) at para. [41], a decision on these grounds can often be made on the face of the complaint (as courts do), or relatively quickly based on follow up inquiries. However, as this is an administrative and not a court process, we do not think it is right to restrict the Registrar from undertaking an investigation before reaching this conclusion. This power should be interpreted flexibly, especially since whoever makes this decision, it will be subject to review by the Review Board. The fact that the Inquiry Committee has the same power in s. 33(6)(a), to be exercised after an investigation, does not limit the Registrar’s process before dismissing a complaint on that basis.

[43] With regard to s. 32(3)(b) of the Act, Decision 0018(a) stated:

[55] Section 32(3)(b) –“the Registrar determines that the complaint does not contain allegations that, if admitted or proven, would constitute a matter subject to investigation under section 33(4)”: This dismissal power is unique. Its purpose is to allow the Registrar to dismiss complaints that are not within the mandate of the College because they do not fall within any of the grounds that could be investigated under s.33(4):

33(4)The inquiry committee may, on its own motion, investigate a registrant

regarding any of the following matters:

(a) a contravention of this Act, the regulations or the bylaws;

(a.1) a conviction for an indictable offence;

(b) a failure to comply with a standard, limit or condition imposed under

this Act;

(c) professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct;

(c.1) [Repealed 2008-29-34.]

(d) competence to practise the designated health profession;

(e) a physical or mental ailment, an emotional disturbance or an addiction

to alcohol or drugs that impairs his or her ability to practise the designated

health profession.

[56] Subject to any inquiries the Registrar needs to make to clarify allegations in a complaint for this purpose, we agree with Decision No. 2009-HPA-0045(a) that, based on the wording of s.32(3)(b),a dismissal under this subsection must be based solely on the complaint allegations. Its purpose is to allow the dismissal of complaints that would not be subject to investigation, because they are not within the jurisdiction of the Inquiry Committee to investigate. Section 33(4), in effect, sets forth the matters in respect of which a complaint has to be based in order to be successful. Even if admitted or proven the facts alleged in the complaint must constitute behaviour which comes within the

ambit of the matters set forth in the paragraphs of s.33(4). If not, s.32(3)(b) applies and the complaint could be dismissed by the Registrar subject to s.32(5) as mentioned above. An example of a s.32(3)(b) fact pattern is Review Board Decision No. 2010-HPA-0002(b).

[44] Decision 0018(a) went on to discuss in some detail decision-making by the Registrar under s.32(3)(c) of the Act which requires both a jurisdictional predicate (allegations that, if admitted or proven, would constitute a matter, other than a serious matter) and an assessment of the merits of a complaint: paras. [57-71].

[45] I will add, for completeness, that the panel in Decision 0018(a) discussed the legal effect of the Inquiry Committee’s role under s.32(5) of the Act:

[33] The statement in s. 32(5) that a registrar’s disposition is “considered to be a disposition by the inquiry committee” does not require the College to obscure who made the decision. Nor does it change the legal reality –made plain in the opening words of s. 32(5) -that the disposition was made under s.32(3). If the decision was made outside s. 32(3), section 32(5) cannot be read as retroactively validating unlawful decisions. Section 32(5) serves other purposes. One is to give the inquiry committee the opportunity to direct that it (and not the registrar) will make the decision following an investigation under s.32(2): “As soon as practicable after receiving a complaint, the registrar must deliver to the inquiry committee a copy of the complaint, an assessment of the complaint and any recommendations of the registrar for the disposition of the complaint.” The other purpose of s. 32(5) is to ensure that registrar’s decisions comply with the notification requirements in s.34 and 36(1.1) of the Act and are reviewable by the Review Board under s.50.6 of the Act.

[46] As can be seen, each subsection of s.32(3) of the Act has a different purpose, with different legal requirements. These differences must be taken into account when the Review Board assesses the “adequacy of the investigation” and the “reasonableness of the disposition.” For example, when a complaint is dismissed under s.32(3)(b), the requirement for “adequacy” may be minimal – the real issue will often be whether the disposition is reasonable based on the Registrar’s assessment of the allegations as admitted or proven (subject to any clarification that ought to have been sought). Where a complaint is dismissed as being “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith,” the assessment of adequacy or reasonableness may or may not be more involved depending on the nature of the complaint, any efforts by the College to clarify the complaint and its reasons for relying on s.32(3)(a).

[47] In this case, the Registrar assessed the Complaint against the Registrants and decided to dismiss it under ss.32(3)(a) and (b) of the Act. It is therefore a Registrar’s disposition even though, as required by the Act, it was subsequently provided to the Inquiry Committee in a report under s.32(4), was approved by the Committee under s.32(5), and a summary of that report was sent to the Complainant by the Inspector under s.34. It is the Registrar’s disposition that is under review.

[48] The steps the Registrar took in assessing the complaint are set out in the 23-page “Report on Registrar’s Action” that was prepared for the Registrar on April 19, 2018. Appended to the Registrar’s Report is an undated and unauthored legal document entitled “Brief on Registrar’s Power to Address Complaints.” The Inquiry

Committee considered the Registrar’s Report and resolved to adopt the Registrar’s proposed disposition of the Complaint at its May 10, 2018 meeting.3

[49] I pause to note that I have applied a presumption of regularity to the actions of both the inspector and the Registrar in assessing the complaint and communicating the disposition: Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Surrey (City), 2004 BCCA 499 at para. [24], where the Court endorsed the statement: “Where a person is shown to have acted in an official capacity it is supposed that the person would not intrude herself or himself into a public situation without authorization.” On this basis, I have presumed that the Registrar duly appointed the inspector to assist her in her preliminary assessment and investigation of the Complaint and that the inspector acted within the confines of his appointment in assessing the Complaint and notifying the Complainant of the Inquiry Committee’s disposition of the Complaint.

[50] That said, it would assist the Review Board in future reviews for the Record to have included the instrument appointing the inspector, and for the Inspector to have made it clear, in compliance with the statute, that his letter to the Complainant was not his own summary, but was rather being sent on behalf of the Inquiry Committee as required by s.34 of the Act.

Adequacy of the Investigation

[51] From my review of the Record, including the Registrar’s Report, I conclude that the following steps were taken by the College following receipt of the Complaint:

(a) The College received an April 18, 2017, letter of complaint from the Complainant together with “nearly 4000 pages of hard-copy documents” (the Complaint”);

(b) Legal counsel in the Registration, Inquiry and Discipline department of the College (the “Intake Investigator”) wrote the Complainant on October 6, 2017, summarizing her understanding of the Complaint and advising of the next steps in the complaint process, i.e. information gathering to “assess whether regulatory intervention is required to protect the public.”4 The Intake Investigator cautioned the Complainant that the College might not have jurisdiction “to investigate... all parts of your complaint” and posed questions to the Complainant seeking to clarify aspects of the Complaint. Further, she advised the Complainant that the Registrants had not been advised of the Complaint and would not be until the College better understood the Complaint and determined whether it had jurisdiction to investigate. Once the College had an answer to the questions, it would determine what steps needed to be taken to “fully investigate” the Complaint (Record at pages 112-117)

3 The Inquiry Committee Minutes as found at pages 35-44 reference a teleconference meeting of April 10,

2018. Page 45 of the Record references an Inquiry Committee Decision Record of May 10, 2018. The Index to the Record provided by legal counsel to the College references the Minutes at pages 35-44 as corresponding to a May 10, 2018, meeting. On January 22, 2019, legal counsel advised the Review Board that the Record at pages 35-44 ought to refer to a teleconference meeting of “May 10, 2018.” 4 The Intake Investigator identified herself only as legal counsel in the College’s Registration, Inquiry and

Discipline department until February 2018.

(c) The Intake Investigator spoke with the Complainant by telephone on October 10, 2017, advising her that the College “would not be reading through the 4000 pages of material she sent” and requiring that the Complainant provide more information regarding how Registrant 1’s practice was “incompetent/unsafe” with reference to specific events and how the Registrant’s actions impacted patient safety and pointing to any specific document in the 4000 pages of documents in support of her allegations (Record at page 149).

(d) On December 28, 2017, the Intake Investigator wrote in follow-up to her October 6, 2017, letter to the Complainant and in follow-up to the telephone conversation of October 10, 2017. The Intake Investigator noted that the College had not received the requested information from the Complainant and sought confirmation (by January 31, 2018) as to whether the Complainant wished to pursue the Complaint and reminded her of the need to provide answers to the questions posed by the Intake Investigator in her October 6, 2017, letter (Record at pages 119-120).

(e) The Intake Investigator received a letter from the Complainant dated January 16, 2018, stating that “(d)ue to my mental health disability I am unable to respond to your deadline of January 30, 2018, to fully respond to the materials you need.” The Complainant questioned why the College was “placing the workload” on her to investigate the Complaint when she “had submitted the documentation and evidence necessary to support (her) complaints” (Record at page 128).

(f) The Intake Investigator emailed the Complainant on February 20, 2018. In her email, the Intake Investigator further explained the College’s complaint process, identified herself for the first time as “an intake investigator” in that process and acknowledged that the Complainant had provided a 32-page letter of complaint and “a significant amount of documentary material.” She then reiterated her concern that some of the allegations may be outside the College’s jurisdiction and stated that she “had trouble understanding your fundamental complaint allegations against all the nurses referred to in your complaint.” The Intake Investigator then repeated her summary of the Complaint and added that it now appeared to her that the Complainant was also alleging that Registrant 1 “is incompetent and unsafe to practice nursing.” In order to move the Complaint ahead, the Intake Investigator required that the Complainant either 1) answer the questions posed to her in the October 6, 2017, letter or 2) confirm the summary of the Complaint as accurate in which case the Intake Investigator would “process your complaint” without any additional information from the Complainant (Record at pages 130-131).

(g) The Complainant emailed the Intake Investigator on February 26, 2018, requesting time to “process” the information (Record at page 134).

(h) The Complainant emailed the Intake Investigator, again, on February 28, 2018, asking her to “proceed with my complaint as it is” (Record at page 138).

(i) The Intake Investigator emailed the Complainant on March 8, 2018, advising her that she would process the Complaint but reminded the Complainant that,

without the additional information requested, there was a “high likelihood” that the Registrar would dismiss all or part of the Complaint. The Complainant emailed back the same date thanking the Intake Investigator and stating, “I accept that” (Record page 142).

(j) It is not clear to me what steps were taken after the Intake Investigator received the Complainant’s March 8, 2018, email and leading up to the Registrar’s Report.

(k) The Inspector wrote the Complainant on May 29, 2018, conveying the Inquiry Committee’s disposition (the Disposition Letter). In the eight Bankers’ Boxes of Additional Documents provided to the Review Board by the Complainant, there is an email of May 29, 2018, from the Inspector to the Complainant attaching the summary under s.34 of the Act. In his email, the author identifies himself as “outside legal counsel and an inspector with the College.” (See Appendix A).

[52] Having regard to the principles set out above, the question I have asked from an investigate perspective is whether, in the circ*mstances of this case, the Registrar took steps that were adequate to enable her to understand and evaluate the nature of the complaint for the purposes of exercising the powers under s.32(3)(a) and (b) of the Act. As noted, this issue is separate from whether the powers were exercised reasonably on the merits, which question I will address below.

[53] Based on the limited information that I have available to me about the College’s pre-disposition process, I am satisfied that the Registrar took reasonable steps to ensure that she had the information that she needed to understand and assess the Complaint. The Intake Investigator made repeated attempts to explain the complaint process to the Complainant and elicit information from her about the Complaint. The Intake Investigator told the Complainant that she would not review the 4000 pages of documents provided by the Complainant but would consider any specific documents that the Complainant could direct her to that were relevant. I find that the Intake Investigator afforded the Complainant several opportunities to provide more information about the Complaint, correct inaccuracies in the Intake Investigator’s summary of the Complaint or withdraw her complaint. The Record substantiates that the Complainant considered the Intake Investigator’s response and then endorsed the Intake Investigator’s summary of the Complaint and agreed to the Intake Investigator processing the complaint on the basis of that summary and on the understanding that the Registrar may summarily dismiss some or all of the Complaint as beyond the College’s jurisdiction.

[54] It would have been helpful had the Intake Investigator, the inspector or the Registrar in some way recorded the content of the 4000-page parcel of documents provided by the Complainant to the College in support of the Complaint. Absent such a record, I cannot say with certainty that the Additional Documents which I find to be irrelevant to this review are the same, or substantially the same as the documents provided to the College though I find it likely that the Complainant would have provided the same evidence to me as she did to the College. I find that the Additional Documents, while “organized” alphabetically and in a manner that may have appeared

logical to the Complainant, were not readily identifiable as relating to matters within the College’s jurisdiction, nor were they clearly relevant to the Complaint.

[55] I find that the Intake Investigator was aware of the Complainant’s mental health considerations and made reasonable efforts to accommodate the Complainant, within the context of the College’s regulatory process, by making queries regarding the Complaint, summarizing the Complaint and affording the Complainant the opportunity to dispute the accuracy of her summary, provide further information about the Complaint or endorse the summary and have the matter proceed on that basis.

[56] I also find that the College had no obligation to search for registrants whose names might be similar to that of named persons in the Complaint. Where, as here, the Complainant is a former registrant who purportedly worked with the subjects of her complaint, the College ought to be able to rely on the Complainant’s spelling of the person’s name. Had the Complainant alerted the College to the fact that she was unsure of the correct spelling of the alleged registrant’s last name, the College could reasonably have been expected to make efforts to determine whether there was a registrant whose name and employment location corresponded with the Complaint.

[57] I do not accept the Complainant’s submission that the Registrar required a Registered Nurse’s supervision of her pre-investigation or evaluation of the Complaint. There is no such requirement in the Act. Under s.32 of the Act, the Registrar is authorized to dismiss matters in certain circ*mstances. In these circ*mstances, the Registrar assessed the complaint and then reported the results of her pre-investigation and assessment to the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee, which is comprised of registrants and public representatives, endorsed the Registrar’s proposed disposition.

[58] In the circ*mstances, I am satisfied that the Registrar’s processes satisfied the requirements of the “adequacy of the investigation” in the particular circ*mstances of this complaint.

Reasonableness of the Disposition

Standard of Review

[59] In determining whether a decision is “reasonable,” the first consideration is the standard of review. On the surface, addressing this issue is simple. By statute, the standard of review is the “reasonableness of the disposition”: s.50.6(5)(b) of the Act.

[60] The more difficult question is how the reasonableness standard should be applied, particularly in this context, where the complaint has been disposed of under ss.32(3)(a) and (b) of the Act.

[61] I adopt the approach taken by the Review Board in Review Board Decision No. 2017-HPA-157(b) at paras. [106-108].

[106] Citing College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia v. Health Professions Review Board, 2014 BCSC 1841, the College submits that the Review Board must apply “the same common law reasonableness standard as that applied by the courts on judicial review, as articulated in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9.” It says that

the Review Board has no ability to determine the “degree of deference” that it considers appropriate to afford an Inquiry Committee disposition.

[107] I do not find it productive to engage in abstract discussions about “degrees of deference,” to approach reasonableness as if was some sort of self-applying formula, or to pretend that the Review Board is simply a mini-judicial review court. Talking about degrees of deference can be confusing. If reasonableness was self-applying, one would expect to see far less disagreement within our judiciary in describing and applying the test. If the legislature intended the reasonableness test to be applied by a court, one would think it would have conferred the function on a court, as it has done in other parts of the Act. The legislature, in creating the Review Board and giving it exclusive jurisdiction to apply the reasonableness test, must have expected the Review Board to apply the reasonableness test from its specialized perspective and expertise given our knowledge of how college complaint processes operate. As has been said, reasonableness takes its colour from the context. …

[108] As noted in Dental Surgeons, the Review Board cannot interpret reasonableness to mean “correctness,” except where there is only one reasonable answer. Reasonableness requires that the Review Board afford deference to the judgments of the Inquiry Committee and not to merely substitute its judgments for those of the College. But deference does not mean abject submission…

[62] In this case, the Registrar provided two independent grounds for summarily dismissing the Complaint. First, she dismissed the Complaint, in its entirety, under s.32(3)(a) of the Act as being “‘frivolous and vexatious’ in the legal sense.” Second, she dismissed the Complaint against the Registrants and two others as matters that were not subject to investigation by the College under s.32(3)(b) of the Act. I have reviewed the reasonableness of each ground for summary dismissal of the complaint.

The section 32(3)(a) dismissal

[63] The Registrar found the Complainant’s complaints against the Registrants to be “frivolous” and “vexatious” and cited in support of her decision Review Board Decision No. 2009-HPA-0052(a) (2010 BCHPRB 1) where the Board stated as follows with regard to the interpretation of those terms in s. 31 of the ATA:

[42] …court decisions and dictionary definitions should not be blindly applied without regard to their purpose, and without regard to the statutory context in which they are being used. Thus, where the exercise of a statutory right of review is involved, it would obviously be inappropriate to brand an application as being “vexatious” merely because it has the effect of being bothersome or vexing to the statutory decision-maker under review: ICBC, paras. 21-22.

[43] This qualification made, it is nonetheless apparent that the core purpose of using the terms “frivolous” and “vexatious” as they are used in other types of proceedings does resonate under the Act

[44] The term “frivolous” focuses on the substance of the claim. An application will be frivolous where it is, in all the circ*mstances, readily recognized as being groundless, fanciful, lacking in substance and seriousness, or as wasting of the Review Board’s time.

[45] The term “vexatious” focuses on the good faith of the claim. An application whose intent, as determined in all the circ*mstances, is to annoy, harass, embarrass, abuse another party or abuse the Review Board process, is vexatious.

[64] In the Disposition, the Registrar equated the 4000 pages of documents delivered by the Complainant to the College in support of the Complaint to a “document dump” as the term has been used in the context of civil litigation. The Registrar noted that courts have found that a litigant who bears the onus of proving her case must present her evidence to the court in an organized and intelligible fashion. Where a litigant fails to do so, the Court may strike the offending evidence from the record or the matter may not proceed or may be delayed.

[65] The Registrar found that the Complainant’s documents were not “organized” and that she fell short of her “obligation to edit and explain documents in a manner that renders the documents ‘intelligible.’” The Registrar found that “because (the Complainant) presented evidence which is voluminous, disorganized and unintelligible that the Registrar was not obligated to review it, the Registrar found that (the Complainant) had not met her initial onus of presenting evidence to take her complaint out of the realm of conjecture.” (Inspector’s Letter at page 5)

[66] Finally, the Inspector’s letter stated:

(A)s a matter of natural justice, it would be entirely unfair to turn over nearly 4000 pages of documents to the various registrants and respondents, then ask them to parse through the “document dump” to find the evidence which pertains to each individual. The complaint simply has no reasonable or likely prospect of success as a viable and legitimate complaint which conformed with the rules of procedural fairness. (Disposition Letter at page 6)

[67] On this basis, the Registrar “dismissed the entirety of the complaint” pursuant to s.32(3)(a) of the Act as frivolous and vexatious.

[68] I have serious reservations about the reasonableness of the College applying to the complaint assessment and disposition process under s.32 of the HPA, a set of legal principles developed for courts and civil litigation. Section 32 is not a litigation process. It is part of a statutory process designed to receive public complaints, and whose purpose and object is to operate in the public interest as required by s.16 of the Act.

[69] The power to dismiss a complaint as being “groundless, fanciful or lacking in substance and seriousness” is a significant power. It is significant precisely because it allows for the final disposition of a complaint with minimal investigation beyond an assessment of the complaint. It is not reasonably exercised unless the Registrar or Inquiry Committee has confidence that complaint is truly baseless on the merits and is thus not worthy of the allocation of investigative time and resources. Such a step must at least imply a reasonable good faith review of the complaint as presented. Such a review is not itself an investigation. Without a good faith review, the College is not reasonably exercising its duty to protect the public and the public interest.

[70] Most complainants are not lawyers. They are not skilled in drafting complaints, let alone pleadings, and they are not expected to be. Neither logic nor experience suggests

that a complaint can be called baseless simply because the documents provided in support are voluminous and not well organized. Such a complaint may well have merit and be worth investigating. While I fully appreciate that Colleges have limited resources, that reality is subject to their paramount duty to protect the public.

[71] How is all this reasonably operationalized within a complaint process where concern arises that there has been a “document dump?”

[72] One obvious answer would be to do precisely what was done here, which is to make good faith efforts to summarize the complaint and obtain the complainant’s approval or adjustment of that summary. That process is not the same as “originating” or “raising” allegations on behalf of a complainant, and it is not the same as manufacturing a new complaint, as happened in Katzman v Ontario College of Pharmacists, [2002] O.J. No. 4913 (C.A.) where the college pursued discipline against complaints that did not concern the original complaints “at all”: para. [38]. All that is entirely different from making a good faith reasonable attempt to understand, feedback and clarify a complaint. To do otherwise would be to take a highly technical and legalistic approach to the assessment of complaints.

[73] The “document dump” rationale is troubling also because complainants are under no obligation to provide evidence in support of their complaints unless the complaints, on their face, otherwise fall within ss.32(3)(a) or (b) of the Act. In many if not most complaints health colleges receive, complainants make allegations, those allegations are put to the respondents, the College obtains records, and only then can a reasonable decision be made disposing of the complaint. Dismissing a complaint solely on the basis of a “document dump” should not put a complainant in a worse position than if the supporting documents had never been provided.

[74] At most, the College should in a situation like that be telling a complainant that since the purpose of the supporting documents cannot be understood, then without further clarity and organization the College will assess the complaint without the documents, and will only put the complaint to the Registrant(s) for response. Assuming such a complaint does not also fall under s.32(3)(b) (as was the case here), such an approach more reasonably addresses the concerns related to the documents, as well as the concern about fairness to the Registrants who will be given an opportunity to respond.

[75] Had the Registrar’s decision to dispose of the Complaint been based solely on the above considerations regarding the application of s.32(3)(a) of the Act, I would likely not have upheld the decision.

The section 32(3)(b) dismissal

[76] After dismissing the Complaint, in its entirety, under s.32(3)(a) of the Act, the Registrar independently considered the application of s.32(3)(b) of the Act to the Complaint and, again, concluded that the Complaint against the Complaint ought to be dismissed. For ease of reference, I have summarized the Registrar’s disposition of the Complaints under s.32(3)(b) by Registrant rather than by complaint type.

[77] First, the Registrar considered the Complaint regarding two individuals who I will refer to as “LA” and “TM.” The Registrar found that neither was a “registrant” of the College. As such, the Registrar found that, to the extent the Complaint involved either individual (and it was not clear that the Complainant intended a “formal complaint” against TM), the complaints did not “constitute a matter subject to investigation” by the College and, therefore, the criteria for summary dismissal under s.32(3)(b) of the Act had been met.

[78] Second, the Registrar considered the Complaint regarding Registrant 3. The Registrar described her understanding of the Complaint as being an allegation that Registrant 3, in her capacity as a hospital administrator, “failed to intervene” in a dispute between the Complainant and a co-worker (Registrant 2) and was “derelict in her managerial or administrative duties.” The Registrar noted that the Complainant had not alleged any concerns regarding the clinical care provided by Registrant 3. The Registrar further noted that the Complaint “appear(ed) to relate to institutional policies or decisions, otherwise known as ‘operational issues,’” outside the scope of the College’s regulatory jurisdiction. The Registrar found that the Complaint against Registrant 3 “did not constitute a matter subject to investigation” by the College and dismissed it under s.32(3)(b) of the Act.

[79] Third, the Registrar considered the Complaint regarding Registrant 1. She noted that one of the allegations in the Complaint was that Registrant 1, as British Columbia Nurses’ Union representative, failed to properly represent the Complainant during her ongoing workplace dispute involving Registrant 2. The Registrar noted that the Complaint “strayed even farther afield from front-line health care delivery (and thus from CRNBC’s legislative mandate) than the complaint against (Registrant 3).” The Registrar also found that the Complainant had stated that she had filed a human rights complaint and a labour relations case against the union. The Registrar found that the BC Human Rights Tribunal and the BC Labour Relations Board were the “more appropriate venues” for the Complainant to pursue her complaint against a union representative. For these reasons, the Registrar dismissed the Complaint against Registrant 1 under s.32(3)(b) of the Act.

[80] The Registrar also considered a second allegation in the Complaint involving Registrant 1, i.e. that the registrant attended a locked ward in a hospital in the interior of British Columbia in an attempt to solicit new union members, causing unsafe work conditions on the unit. The Registrar noted that the Complainant did not work at the hospital where the activities were alleged to have occurred and had no first-hand knowledge of the events but, instead, relied on publicly-reported documents in support of her allegations. The Registrar found that the Complainant had no “standing” to bring the complaint.

[81] Finally, the Registrar considered the Complaint regarding Registrant 2. She noted that the Complainant alleged that Registrant 2 “bullied and harassed” her and committed various “unsafe acts” at the local hospital where they worked that resulted in safety concerns for patients. The Registrar noted that the Complainant failed to provide any particulars of adverse health outcomes for specific patients due to Registrant 2’s clinical incompetence or professional misconduct. Rather, in the Registrar’s view, the substance of the Complaint was that the Registrant’s action caused the Complainant’s

injury. The Registrar noted that the Complainant had raised her concerns regarding “bullying and harassing” with WorkSafeBC but was dissatisfied with their response. The Registrar found that the Complainant was “forum shopping” and that “having failed to persuade WorkSafeBC that she suffered a compensable workplace injury, it (was) not open to (the Complainant) to simply re-package her complaint as a regulatory one.” Finally, the Registrar found that the “dysfunctional workplace” described by the Complainant “appear(ed) that have arisen from operational decisions on multiple levels and was not within the scope of the College to review.” For those reasons, the Registrar summarily dismissed the Complaint with respect to Registrant 2 under s.32(3)(b) of the Act as it did not “constitute a matter subject to investigation” by the College.

[82] I find that there is ample evidence in the Record to support the Registrar’s finding that the Complaint against the Registrants contained allegations, if admitted or proven, that were outside of the College’s jurisdiction to investigate and related primarily to alleged workplace misconduct. There are other avenues to address allegations of the sort raised in the Complaint and the Complainant has afforded herself of many, if not all, of those avenues. It is an abuse of process, and therefore “frivolous” and “vexatious”, to seek to re-litigate those concerns in the College process in the absence of an alleged connection to clinical care or other conduct that would fall within s.33(4) of the Act if alleged or proven. I find the College’s assessment of those issues in this case to be reasonable for the reasons it has given.

[83] In reaching this conclusion, I do not wish to be taken as having addressed the reasonableness of the Registrar’s finding that the Complainant lacked “standing” to bring her complaint against Registrant 1. I leave to another day the issue of whether or how the concept of “standing” has reasonable application to complaints of this type in the regulatory context.

[84] In sum, I am satisfied based on my review of the Record and after carefully considering the Additional Documents provided to the Board by the Complainant (though not required for my review), that the Registrar reasonably concluded that the Complaint ought to be summarily dismissed under s.32(3)(b) as it did not contain allegations that, if admitted or proven, would constitute a matter subject to investigation by the Inquiry Committee under s.33(4) of the Act.

VII CONCLUSION

[85] For all of the above reasons, I confirm the disposition of the Inquiry Committee endorsing the Registrar’s decision to dispose of the Complaint under s.32(3)(b) of the Act.

“Brenda L. Edwards”

Brenda L. Edwards, Panel Chair

Health Professions Review Board

2018-HPA-G13

Appendix “A”

Contents of Eight Boxes of Documents Appended to Complainant’s Submissions as Reviewed by Brenda L. Edwards (HPRB Member)

*NB (I have reproduced the title of each folder exactly as it was handwritten; the

contents of each folder is a summary as best I could ascertain. Each folder contained hundreds of loose sheaves of paper with no demarcation between

articles, reports, etc. but for two or three folders which had some paper clips. In some instances, large sheaves of paper were loose in the boxes and

were not in any folder)

Box 1 26 File Folders entitled:

1. “Active Discrimination” - case law – Eaton v. Brant County Bd.

Of Education – [1997] 1 SCR 241

2. “Appealing the Decision”

a. Document entitled “By (Complainant)to

Ombudsperson” with a Footer entitled “Submission to

the Health Professions Review Board from

(Complainant) against nurses” – identifies Registrants,

other health care providers, Regulations, Policies and

Procedures of the Interior Health Authority

(incl. a narrative and Tables regarding conduct complained of

b. Case law – Information and Privacy Commissioner v.

Alberta Teachers Association [2011] 3 SCR 654; Rush

v. BCHRT 2012 BCSC 1661; Risdale v. Anderson 2016

BCSC 942

3. “Appeal Decision File #2”

a. Case law – Health Professions Review Board Decision No.

2015-HPA-056(a); Kamloops v. Nielsen [1984] 2 SCR 21

(duty of care); Just v. BC [1989] 2 SCR 1228; Mager v.

Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. 1998 BCHRT 34; Renaud v.

Okanagan School District [1992] 2 SCR 970

b. Article – “Inaccessible Inclusion: Privacy, Disclosure and

Accommodation of Mental Illness in the Workplace”, N.

Caivano, 2016 CanLII Docs 69

c. Case law – Law Society of Upper Canada v. Hartwick 2014

ONLSTH 170 (CanLII)

4. “Appealing the Decision #3”

a. Excerpts from various LinkedIn Profiles

b. Article from Nursing BC – “what is client abandonment?”

c. Interview of (HW) (Inspector for College)

d. Case Law - Health Professions Review Board Decision No.

2016-HPA-071 (circled portion re “limited resources” of

Colleges to investigate complaints; 2012-HPA-082; Trozzi

v. OHRC et al – 2010 HRTO 1892 (CanLII)

5. “Appeal the Decision #4”

a. HPRB Memo dated April 9, 2009 re timeliness of

investigations and dispositions

b. Emails to and from (HW) and (Complainant)

i. One email notes HW as “outside legal counsel and an

inspector of CRNBC”; one email notes (Complainant)

as having a Ph.D in Educational Leadership and

complaining that the College decision impugns her

character

c. Decision – May 29, 2018 – authored by HW

6. “ARNBC 2018 – Present (New) Association” – various articles

re: Association of Registered Nurses of BC and BC Nurses Union

7. “Autonomic Dysregulation” – various articles re autonomic

nervous system

8. “BCCNP”

a. printouts re Practice Support;

b. “Scope of Practice for Registered nurses”

c. “Nursing Standards for Licensed Practical Nurses”

“Nursing Standards for Registered Nurses”, Nursing

Standards for Nurse Practitioners”

d. RPN Code of Ethics

e. College of Nurses of Ontario – “Professional Misconduct”

9. “BCCNP – Nurses”

a. Registry excerpts for (Complainant) – not authorized to

practice, cancelled, Mar 1, 2015

b. Registry excerpt for various other nurses

c. BCNU Convention 2016 article

d. Case law – Duteil v. The Offley Slate et al., BC

(Complainant)B No. B 144/2018

e. BCNU article re “Mediated Settlement Reached by BCNU

and Gayle Duteil”

f. Article from Psychosomatic Medicine Journal

g. Registry excerpt for other nurses incl:

i. (Registrant 2) – Current – practising, Community

Health & Service Centre, RN until Feb 28/19

ii. (Registrant 3) -Current – practising – Dr. Helmcken

Memorial Hospital, RN until Feb 28/19

iii. (Registrant 1) – practising – RIH – RN until Feb

28/19

iv. (TM)– practising – RIH – RN until Feb 28/19

v. (LA) – former RPN

10. “BC(Complainant)B Favours”

a. Letter from legal counsel for BCNU to BC(Complainant)B

re: (Complainant)’s application for reconsideration, dated

June 14, 2017

b. Various BC(Complainant)B cases

11. “BC(Complainant)B Favours Unions JG”

a. Annotated list of cases from CanLII – handwritten notes

incl. – 32 of 72 for self represented litigants

12. “BC Government is not a Nurse”

a. Copy of Registered Nurses’ Association of British

Columbia – Annual Meeting, May 17-19, 1956” (83 pages)

b. Nursing BC, June 2002 edition

c. Article – The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in

the United States”, June 6, 2003, The New England

Journal of Medicine

d. Case law – Stanley v. Health Professions Appeal and

Review Board et al. 2003 CanLII 41663 (On. SCDC)

e. Article – “Achieving Excellence in Professional Practice”,

October 2004 (48 pages)

f. Article – Nursingbc Nurse Practitioners.

g. Case Law – College of Dental Surgeons of BC v. Health

Professions Review Board, 2014 BCSC 1841 (CanLII)

h. Report – “An Evaluation of the Integration of Nurse

Practitioners into the British Columbia Healthcare

System”, Report 2015

i. Article – “Public Opinion Polling in Canada”, January 1994

j. Article – National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to

2018

k. KPU 2019-19 – University Calendar – Nursing: Bachelor of

Sciences in Nursing (annotated in handwriting)

13. “BCNU Constitution”

a. Printout from a website – “On all Frontiers: Four

Centuries of Canadian Nursing”, Chapter 14, “Unionization

of Canadian Nursing”

b. BCNU Constitution and Bylaws Draft Revisions, Summary

of Changes, November to December 2018

c. Consolidated Financial Statements of British Columbia

Nurses’ Union, Year Ended December 31, 2017

d. BCNU “Nurses’ Bargaining Association Tentative

Agreement, Summary Report” – effective April 1, 2014 to

March 31, 2019 (with handwritten annotations)

e. Printout from website of BCNU – Latest News – Tentative

Agreement between NBA and HEABC

f. BCNU Constitution and Bylaws following May 1-3, 2018

Annual Convention

14. “BCNU Collective Agreement Private Facilities”

a. Collective Agreement between Chiron Health Services Inc.

and the BCNU, March 6, 2015 – April 1, 2017

15. “BCNU Collective Agreement 2010”

a. 2010-2012 Provincial Collective Agreement between

HEABC and Nurses’ Bargaining Association

16. “BCNU Collective Agreement 2012 Public”

a. 2012-2014 Provincial Collective Agreement between

HEABC and Nurses’ Bargaining Association

17. “BCNU Collective Agreement 2014-19 Public”

a. Nurses’ Bargaining Association 2014-2019 Proposed

Collective Agreement

18. “BCNU Grievances”

a. BCNU Member Care Plan (annotated) (36 pages)

b. (Complainant)’s Profile – lists 5 grievances - involving

Mental health, safe work place, suspension and written

warning at 2 different work places

c. Pay stub for (Complainant)

d. Various documents regarding grievances incl Terms of

Settlement Agreement between Interior Health Authority

(Dr. Helmcken Memorial Hospital and BCNU and

(Complainant)), 2016 and 2016 Arbitrator’s decision (TH)

19. “BCNU Magazine”

a. BCNU “Update” Special twenty-fifth anniversary issue

b. Article, “Changemaker – re BCNU President C. Sorensen

20. “BCNU Position Statements”

a. Article – “Deconstructing Contributing Factors to Bullying

and Lateral Violence in Nursing using a postcolonial

Feminist Lens”

b. Article – “the Worst Scars are in the Mind: Psychological

Torture”, September 2007

c. Posters for BCNU – Bully Free Zone

d. Petition – Fairness for Chiron

e. BCNU – History, Mission and Vision

f. BCNU – Human Rights and Equity Conference

g. BCNU Position Statement on Nurse Autonomy, December

2011 (various other position statements from BCNU

website)

21. “BCNU Role and Function”

a. Canadian Healthcare Association Policy Statement –

Psychological Health and Safety in Canadian Healthcare

Settings

b. Another copy of BCNU Constitution and Bylaws following

the BCNU Annual Convention May 2018

c. Another copy of BCNU History, Mission and Vision

d. Printout from BCNU re Licensing, Education, Advocacy and

Practice (LEAP) Program

22. “Benefits Plan Mandator Vaccinations”

a. Sanofi Canada Healthcare Survey, 2018

b. Article from Nurses.org – “50+ Hospital Workers Fired for

Refusing Flu-Vaccine”, November 25, 2017

23. “BC Regulators (the doctors’ dual role)”

a. BC Government News Release re: Legislative Reform –

Health Professions Act

b. CPSBC – Mission Statement

c. CPSBC – Disciplinary Outcomes, 2013-18

d. Printout from bchealthregulators.ca – “BC’s health

profession regulators join together to form a society for

enhanced patient safety”, February 3, 2014

e. “Working Together: Our Purpose, Your Safety” 2014 Year

in Review, Health Profession Regulators of BC

f. “Regulated Nurses, 2016 Report”, June 2017

g. Letter from Tom English, Chair, HPRB to BC Health

Regulators, June 22, 2017 re: Section 39.2 HPA – Past

Complaint History

24. “Bullying – Adult”

a. Website printout re Bullying Behaviours in the Workplace

and Workplace Stress

b. Article, “Bullying in the Workplace: Definition, Prevalence,

Antecedents and Consequences” S. Matthiesen and S.

Einarsen, 2010 (45 pages)

25. “Bullying – Adult Work”

a. Provincial Evaluation of the Releasing Time to Care and

Productive Operating Theatre Programs, BC 2012-2017,

BC Patient Safety & Quality Council

b. Article, “The Impact of Bullying in Health Care”, The

Quarterly, 2013

c. Article, “Bullying in Health Care: A Disruptive Force Link

to Compromised Patient Safety”, June 2017, Pennsylvania

Patient Safety Authority

d. Article, “Behaviors that Undermine a Culture of Safety”,

jointcommission.org

e. Article, “Patient Safety at the Frontlines: The Provincial

Context”, Healthcare Quarterly, 2014

f. Article, “Not just ‘eating our young’: Workplace Bullying

strikes experienced nurses, too” Feb 2016, American

Nurses Today

26. “Bullying – Child

a. Huffington Post article, “Brett Corbett Bullied...”

b. Behind the Scenes: Insights into the Human Dimension of

Covert Bullying, Short Report: December 2008, by Dr. B

Spears et al. (40 pages)

c. A Good Childhood Lasts a Lifetime, Action Plan to Combat

Violence and Sexual Abuse against Children and Youth,

Norwegian Ministry of Children Equality and Social

Inclusion (2014-2017) (43 pages)

d. Article from Psychology Today

e. The BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils

(BCCPAC), “Call It Safe” 2003 edition

f. A Parent Guide for Dealing with Harassment and

Intimidation in Secondary Schools”, BCCPAC, 2003 edition

BOX 2

32 folders 1. “Bullying – Nursing Schools”

a. Article “The Level of Depression and Assertiveness among

Nursing Students”, July 2014, IJCBNM

b. Lists of articles on bullying from internet – not all legible

2. “Bullying – Nursing – 2000-2020”

a. Articles on Violence in Nursing

b. Nurses’ Experience of Workplace Violence: Towards

Effective Intervention” April 2010, WorkSafeBC

3. “Bullying in Nursing – Nurses Leave”

a. Article – “Why Good Nurses Leave the Profession” from

minoritynurse.com

4. “Bullying in Nursing – PTSD”

a. Printout from Kamloops Canadian Mental Health

Association – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

b. Article – “Societal Abuse in the Lives of Individuals with

Mental Illness”

c. Printout – Causes of PTSD

d. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges –

Victim Series B – System Induced Trauma

e. Article – Autonomic Dysregulation in Burnout and

Depression

5. “Bullying Position Statements”

a. Association of Registered Nurses of BC statements

6. “Bullying in Nursing – Violence Management”

a. International Council of Nurses Position Statement

7. “Bullying Tools (Nursing)

a. Various Articles on Silent Treatment from The Province

Newspaper and Professional Case Management

8. “Burnout – Doctors”

a. Various articles on stress and burnout

9. “Burnout- Nursing”

a. Various articles printed from internet in response to a

search re burnout

10. “Canadian White Pines Div. – CWP MAC BOE”

a. Results of search of BC Archives about the IWA, Jack

Munro, Forest workers etc.

11. “CARE – Hospital #1”

a. More articles on interpersonal communication and

bullying

b. Articles on job satisfaction

c. Articles on medication errors

d. Articles on short term staffing

12. “CARE – Hospital #2”

a. Article on health care workers and labour shortage

b. Report on Eroding Public Medicare (169 pages)

13. “CARE – Hospital #3”

a. Power point re: “Disruptive Clinician Behavior”,

September 2008 by Healthcare Consulting LLC

b. Article on psychological health and safety in the

workplace (60 pages)

c. Another copy of article on Workplace Bullying

d. Article on “The Normalization of Deviance in Healthcare

Delivery”

e. Articles on “Brain Drain”

f. Thesis? – Evidence and Prospects of Shortage and Mobility

of Medical Doctors: a Literature Survey, by A. Driouchi,

Morocco

g. Article on “Violations and Migrations in Health Care”

14. “CARE – Residential Schools #1”

a. Thesis? “Hidden no longer: Genocide in Canada, Past and

Present” by K. Annett (179 pages)

15. “CARE – Residential Schools #2”

a. Continuation of above – pages 180-338)

16. “CARE – Residential Schools #3)

a. Continuation of above – pages 339-393

b. Printout from Harper Grey LLP website re “Professional

Regulation” (16 pages)

c. Article on Physician behavior and bedside manner

d. Numerous emails between (Complainant) and other

health care professionals in 2013 and 2014 (seem to

relate to patient transfers?)

e. Interior Health Authority record for an 84-year-old man –

awaiting placement (with note regarding confidentiality of

document) ***

f. Emails from Complainant to (Registrant 3) re another

named patient awaiting placement Nov 28/14 *

g. Email from (Registrant3) to SV (unknown?) re an

employee’s position

h. Resume for an individual (PPS) and applicant’s pre-

screening info for Interior Health Authority etc.

i. (hundreds of emails and personal information regarding

applicants to healthcare facility)

j. Numerous emails between Complainant or Registrant 3

regarding staff shortages at the hospital Nov 2013

k. Email Complainant to Registrant 3 re a nurse changing a

medical record – Nov 21, 2013

l. Email from Complainant to Registrant 3 and from

Complainant to (Registrant 2) – Complainant apologizing

to Registrant 2 – Nov 22/13

m. Emails to and from Complainant re “Team building”

17. “CARE – Residential”

a. Report on Residential Care Quality”- November 2006 by

JM Murphy, PhD

18. “CARE – Residential Bullying”

a. Manual – Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, “Act on

Adult Abuse and Neglect”

19. “CARE – Residential Schools Antecedents (Power)”

a. Partial copy of an 1895 Minute from the Lieutenant

Governor Re: Songhees’ Indian Reserve (annotated)

b. Excerpt from other documents (unknown) 1894 re

“Indians”

20. “CARE – Rural (Remote) #1”

a. Excerpts from a paper on Rural Nursing

b. Article on Hospital Nurse Staffing

c. Various articles on rural healthcare

d. Audit on Recruitment and Retention of Rural and Remote

Nurses in Northern BC. February 2018, Auditor General

(66 pages)

e. Assessment and Recommendations for Attracting and

Retaining Registered Nurses, July 2010, Nfld. & Labrador

(87 pages)

21. “CARE - Rural (And Remote) #2”

a. More articles, literature scans and studies on rural

nursing in various jurisdictions

22. “Chief Nursing Officer- CNO”

a. Articles on former CNO and new role of Chief Nursing

Advisor and Nursing Policy Secretariat 2014-2018

23. “CIMA – Vice Chair cannot override Dr.”

a. Case law – Cima v. WCAT et al. 2016 BCSC 931

24. “College of Physician and Surgeons Fees”

a. “National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2017”

annotated (44 pages)

b. Global News printout of article on Drs’ fees

25. “College of Physicians & Surgeons of BC Roles Identity

and Multiple Personalities”

a. Articles on ethical conflicts for healthcare providers, CMA

Code of Ethics etc.

26. “College of Physicians & Surgeons, 1990-2000”

a. Articles and papers on sexual misconduct by physicians

b. Excerpts Task Force Report on the Prevention of Sexual

abuse of patients

27. “College of Physicians & Surgeons Sexual Misconduct

2000-2020”

a. More articles on sexual misconduct

28. “College of Physicians & Surgeons of BC 1850-1900”

a. Article on history of physicians in BC

29. “College of Physicians & Surgeons 1900-1990”

a. Vancouver Sun Article on doctors sanctioned by College

30. “College of Physicians & Surgeons 1990-2000”

a. Standards and Bylaws

31. “College of Physicians & Surgeons 2000-2020”

a. Data on breakdown of physicians by age, specialty etc.

b. CPSBC Standard on Physical Examinations and

Procedures, Feb 2005

c. Health Professions Review Board Decision No. 2016-HPA-

005

d. Various documents on membership of executive of CPSBC

and Strategic Plan

32. “College of Physicians & Surgeons >2020”

a. Articles on cost to become a Dr and remuneration of

physician

BOX 3

44 folders

1. “Guide for Consideration”

a. A Guide for Consideration of a Process for Review of

Administrative Decision Making, Administrative Justice

Office

2. “Govt Fix – Resilience”

a. Printouts from Govt websites and Manuals on Health &

Wellness

3. “Govt Fix – PSLS”

a. Print out from BC Patient Safety & Learning System

4. “Govt Fix – Communication”

a. Printout from BC Patient Safety & Quality Council on

Teamwork and Communication

5. “Going Postal”

a. “Beyond Going Postal” S. Musacco, PhD (245 pages)

6. “Foulkes- Report”

a. Feb 1974 CMA Journal on Foulkes Report

7. “Ethics – Nurses”

a. Various articles on ethics in nursing

8. “Ethics – lawyers”

a. Article on the secret language of lawyers

b. LSBC c. 3 Rules of Professional Conduct- Relationship to

Clients

9. (Not in a folder but paper clipped loose in box)

a. Ethics – Interior Health – printout from IHA

10. “Ethics – Government”

a. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act

b. Ethics in the public service – printout from website

c. PowerPoint re Conflict of Interest Commissioner

11. “Ethics – Doctors”

a. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

article on Medical Ethics

12. “Epstein – qc”

a. Hansard – Nov 26, 1987

b. QC Nomination Process

c. Case law – BC Association of Optometrists v. BC 1998

CanLII 2823 (BCSC)

d. Articles on Patronage

e. OIC 2063/1990

f. Different copy of BC Assoc of Optometrists v. BC 1998

g. Article in Advocate by Epstein

13. “Epstein Law”

a. Printout from Corporate Registry re BC Names

14. “Epstein Cases”

a. Case law – Pressler V. Lethbridge (200) 144 BCAC 1

b. Case law – Pressler v. Lethbridge [1998] BCTC 663 (SC)

c. Article on the exodus of British Doctors from the National

Health Service of Canada – title only

d. Epstein Wood v. Ho 2001 BCSC 705

e. Another copy of Pressler v. Lethbridge (BCSC)

15. “Employer Requirements Under WCB”

a. Case law – West Fraser Mills Ltd – 2016 BCCA 473; BC

Hydro and Power Authority 2014 BCCA 35; WCAT Decision

Number WCAT-2005-00326

16. “Emergency Services underfunded”

a. Financial Statements for BCEHS

17. “Emails to Liza”

a. Emails from (Complainant) to Len Rose (Union) re

Grievances -2015

b. Emails (Complainant) (BCNU) to and from LG (Labour

Relations Officer) – 2015 re Registrants and workplace

investigation

18. “Emails with HW (Inspector)”

a. Emails discussing why Registrar dismissed complaint and

emails to HPRB

19. “Duty to Accommodate”

a. Printout from Canadian Human Rights Commission and

other govt websites re Duty to Accommodate

b. Another Copy of “Inaccessible Inclusion”

c. Ng Ariss Fong blog re HRT’s jurisdiction over regulator

decisions

20. “Doctor/ Nurse Hierarchy and Orders and Power Control”

a. BCMA Policy Statement on Nurse Practitioners

b. Google search re abusive Physicians and Surgeons to

Nurses and various articles on Dr/Nurse relationships

21. “Dr. Helmcken – History & Info The Man”

a. Articles on Dr. H and the hospital

22. “Dr. Doyle”

a. Printouts from Faculty of Medicine naming Graduated

Residents

b. RateMDs re Dr. D. Lynee Doyle

c. UBC Division of Vascular Surgery Fellowship Manual

d. Article on being a woman doctor in a man’s world from a

blog and various other online articles on female doctors

23. “Doctors Can Work till 97”

a. National Post article on “old doctors”

24. “CPP”

a. GWL letter to (Complainant) re Disability Benefits, Feb 26,

2018

25. “Costs – Self Represented Litigants”

a. Case law – Bishop v. Purdy 2015 NSSC 365

26. “Corruption – VanderZalm”

a. Articles on Epstein, Nemetz and Jewish Community

b. 1994 paper on “The 1986 Election of W.N. Vanderzalm as

leader of the BC Social Credit Party”, UBC 1994 by W.P.J.

McCarthy

c. Articles on Vanderzalm and Faye Leung

27. “Corruption – Mighty Hughes”

a. Articles on Ted Hughes

b. Case law – Hughes v. VanderZalm Vanc. Reg’y S107214,

February 28, 2012

28. “Corruption”

a. Miscellaneous articles on corruption around the world

29. “CRNBC – 2016 Review”

a. April 2016 Review for the CRNBC by Professional

Standards Authority

30. “CRNBC Annual Report – folders for each report from

2005 -2016” – Folders 30-41

31. See Folder 30 above

32. “ “

33. “ “

34. “ “

35. “ “

36. “ “

37. “ “

38. “ “

39. “ “

40. “ “

41. “ “

42. “Complaint Forms – Prejudicial”

a. Blank – BCHRT Form 1 – Individual Complaint

43. “Compare and Contrast Numbers”

a. 11-page table prepared by Complainant? “Compare and

Contrast Doctors/Physicians and Nurses Working

Conditions to Illustrate their inequities”

b. Printouts re nurses, firefighters, police, ambulance (EHS)

c. Article on physicians giving up hospital privileges

44. “Hansards”

a. Hansards for various dates

BOX 4 47 folders

1. “Health Professional Council -Members”

a. Background info on members

2. “Health Professional Council Report #1”

a. Report on Midwifery, 1993

3. “Health Professional Council Report #2”

a. Report on Optometrists, 1998

b. Report on RNs, March 2001

c. Report on RPNs, March 2000

d. Report on Pharmacists, April 2000

e. Update on Optometrists, March 2001

f. Update on Pharmacists, March 2001

4. “Health Professions Council Report #3”

a. Report – Physicians and Surgeons, Jan 16, 1998

b. Report – Physical Therapists, Jan 1998

c. Report – Podiatrists, Sept 1999

d. Report – Psychologists, August 1999

e. Update – Psychologists, March 2001

f. Update – Podiatrists – March 2001

g. Update – Physical Therapists – March 2001

h. Update – Physicians and Surgeons – March 2001

i. Report – Legislative Review (54 pages)

5. “Health Professionals Council Review Board”

a. Another copy of HPRB Memo of April 9, 2009 re timeliness

of investigations and dispositions

b. HPRB 2015 Annual Report

c. July 31, 2018 letter from D. Hobbs to AG encl HPRB 2017

Annual Report

6. “History Expunged”

a. Various articles and Annual Reports for RNABC

7. “Human Rights Tribunals Discriminate”

a. Case law – Sask. v. Saskatchewan Human Rights

Commission 2004 SKCA 134 (CanLII)

b. Article – “The Paradox of Exclusion within Equity…” 2009

(304 pages)

c. Case law – Turner v. AG Canada 2012 FCA 159 (CanLII)

8. “Impact of Government Regulations – Dr. Helmcken Memorial

in Clearwater”

a. Articles on physical restraints in nursing homes,

disruptive behaviour, various Ombudsperson articles

covering topics such as Fair pay, lost dentures, health

firings

b. Westech Systems Inc. Independent Housekeeping Audit

Report

9. “Impact of Government Regulations – Provincial”

a. Hansard Debates- June 23, 1987

b. Article – “The Role of Regional Health Authority Bylaws in

the Expanded Authority of Healthcare practitioners”

c. Royal College of Nursing article, “The Fragile Frontline –

RCN Employment Survey 2011 for Wales”

d. Article on Professional Self-Regulation in Canada, T. L.

Adams, 23 Jan 2016

e. Excerpt of Resolution of the Board of the BC College of

Nursing Professionals passed 24th August, 2018

f. Government news releases on Medicine and Legislative

Reform

10. “Impact of Government Regulations – Worldwide”

a. Articles from various jurisdictions on workplace stress

11. “Impact of Government Regulations – Worldwide” (same

name, different folder)

a. Two articles on The Complexities of Care: Nursing

Reconsidered chapters 5 and 10

12. “Interior Health Job Description” – care leader, revised

Mar 2003

13. “Interior Health Org Chart” – Hospitals and Communities

Integrated Services West

14. “Interior health Policies” – Ethics in Interior Health, April

2017

15. “Killer Nurses #1”

a. Online printout re Nurses who ki8ll

b. Thesis – “Caring to Death: A Discursive Analysis of Nurses

who Murder Patients”, J. Field, October 2007 (96 pages)

16. “Killer Nurses #3” (no #2 found) – pages 97-223 of Field

thesis

17. “Killer Nurses #3 (second folder same name)- Pages 224 -

353 of Field thesis

18. “Killer Nurse in Ontario – Wettlaufer” – news articles on

Wettlaufer

19. “Law – Administrative Tribunals Act” – statute

20. “The Law Constitutional Question” – statute

21. “Emergency Health Services Act” – statute

22. “Law Employment Standards Act” – statute

23. “Law – Emergency Health Service Regulations” - - Heath

Authorities Act (not a reg.)

24. “Law – Health Professions Act” – statute

25. “Law – Health Professions” – Bill 25

– Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act,

2008 26. “The law – HPA (Nurse & Nurse Practitioners 2008-2016)

– BC Reg. 284/2008

27. “The Law – HPA (Nurses & NP) 2010” – different copy of

same regulation

28. “Law – Bill 29 Health & Social Services Delivery “ – Bill

29, 2002

29. “Law – Human Rights Code”- statute 1996

30. “Law – Interpretation Act” – statute 1996

31. “Law – Medical Practitioners Act”- statute

32. “Law – Medical Practitioner Regulation” – same

33. “The Law – Medical Practitioners – Point in time” – Reg.

416/2008

34. “Law – Nurses (Registered)

a. Reg. 93/2018,

b. Nurses (Registered) Act, 1996,

c. Nurses (Registered) and Nurse Practitioners Regulation,

d. Nurses (Licensed Practical) Regulation,

e. “Point in Time” Act

35. “Law Offences” – statute

36. “Law – PCTIA” – “Private Career Training Institutions

Act” table

37. “Law – Point in Time, Regulations Content” – same

38. “Law – Private Training Act” – statute

39. “Law – Public Inquiry Act” – statute

40. “Law – Professional Services Safety Relations Content” –

statute – Public Service Labour Relations Act

41. “Law Psychiatric Nurses Regulation” – Point in Time

Regulation Content, again

42. “Law- Regulations Act” – statute

43. “Law – Societies Act” – statute

44. “Law – Universities Act” – statute

45. “Laws can change, but not without a fight”

a. Case Comment – Canada v. Craig

b. News article – BC Legislation to repeal historical wrongs

against Chinese Canadians

46. “Law – Whistleblowers Protection Act 2015” – Bill M

2017-2015

47. “Learning from disaster – Crashing planes”

a. Various articles on plane crashes/disasters

BOX 5

28 folders 1. “Misfire – 2012 Ministry of Health” – chapter from

Ombudsperson report on health firings

2. “Millenials”

a. News article on Drs protesting they make too much

b. Excerpt from an article “Millenials Will Work Hard, Just

Not for Your Crappy Job”

c. Article, “We ask for the cancellation of increases”

3. “Member Funded Societies” – table “New Societies Act: Impact

on Pre-existing societies” author unknown

4. “Marli Rusen” – biography and article by Marli Rusen

5. “Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct” – practice

Manual of same name, May 2012

6. “LPN Upskilling”

a. LPNABC website info re education

b. LPNABC 2012 Report

7. “(Complainant)– WCAT”

a. WCAT Decision No. A1602207

b. WorkSafeBC printout on Mental Health Disorders

c. (Complainant)Rogers v. WCAT, Kamloops Reg’y 054896,

BCSC – Response to Petition

8. “(Complainant) Victim Impact #2”

a. Email Complainant to LG of Dec 15, 2015 appending

“(Complainant) Defense Statement December 1, 2015 (49

pages)

b. 8-page Memo To WorkSafeBC dated August 12, 2016 from

(Complainant)

c. Emails from (Complainant) to JE, dated October 14, 2008

and earlier, Re: We Should start a club

d. Email from (Complainant) to GD, Jan 14, 2009 re: Respect

in the Workplace with Northern Health

9. “(Complainant)– Victim Impact Statements”

a. June 17, 2016 letter from (Complainant) to Registrar,

Labour Relations Board Re: (Complainant), the Worker,

and Section 12 Complaint (72 pages)

b. December 9, 2007 letter from (Complainant) “To Whom it

May Concern” (13 pages)

c. July 10, 2016, Victim Impact Statement of (Complainant)

EdD AHN-BC to the Labour Relations Board (6 pages)

d. Email from DC to (Complainant) re Respect in the

Workplace – Update, Feb 14, 2008

e. STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL Report to the

Parties, March 4, 2008 – no author (4 pages)

f. (Complainant): How I have supported Sonya since her

hire in March, 2013” (5 pages)

10. “(Complainant) Surrender Nursing License”

a. Documents re surrender of license and refund of fees

11. “(Complainant) Self Regulating” ? (difficult to read)

a. Educational Leadership and Change, Doctoral Level

Competencies for (Complainant) RN MA

12. “(Complainant) Portfolio – work- Endako”

a. Various reports authored by (Complainant) for Endako

13. “(Complainant)Portfolio – Work- abuse”

a. Various emails to or from (Complainant) and Registrants

and others

b. Job Posting at Dr. Helmcken Memorial Hospital effective

April 1, 2018

c. (Complainant)Rogers: How I have supported Sonya since

her hire in March, 2013 (again)

14. “(Complainant) Portfolio -Thanks”

a. Two thank you notes to (Complainant)

15. “(Complainant)Portfolio – Volunteerism”

a. Various volunteer documents re (Complainant)

16. “(Complainant)Portfolio – Nominations”

a. Documents regarding (Complainant) nominating

individuals for awards

17. “(Complainant)Portfolio – Master Project RR”

a. June 24, 1999 letter from CG returning (Complainant)’s

thesis for changes (thesis attached)

18. “(Complainant)Portfolio – Interior Health payroll”

a. Payroll documents for (Complainant)

19. “(Complainant)– Portfolio Earnings Endako”

a. Payroll documents for (Complainant)

“A Dissertation Presentation by (Complainant), December 19, 2012 – not in folder – elastic bound papers (213 pages) – A Study in the

Effectiveness of Online CPR Recertification Training for Rural and Remote Nurses

20. “(Complainant)Portfolio – Daycare Proposal Dr. H”

a. WorkSafe BC Innovation at Work Guide to the 2013

Innovation at Work Grant Application Form

b. Guide -Creating Caring Communities – annotated by

(Complainant)

c. WorkSafe BC 2013 Innovation Grant Application Form

completed by (Complainant) (38 pages)

21. “(Complainant)Rogers – Relationship CRNBC #2”

a. Letter from CRNBC to (Complainant) re “Train247.ca”

submission asking (Complainant) to resubmit

b. Email from (Complainant) to RM Aug 29, 2011 re

submission

c. Train247.ca Self Evaluation for Program Approval (136

pages)

d. Case law – Health Professions Review Board Decision No.

2015-HPA-056

22. “(Complainant)Portfolio – CRNBC #1 Relationship”

a. July 19, 2007 letter from CRNBC re eligibility for

reinstatement

b. Various Emails to and from (Complainant) - CRNBC re

reinstatement and Colorado license

c. Emails to and from (Complainant) re train247 self-

evaluation

d. October 28, 2011 draft of Train247.ca self-evaluation

report

23. “(Complainant) – Holistic Nurse Certification”

a. Application Portfolio for Equivalency Certification as a

Holistic Nurse, (Complainant), May 20, 1998 (Arizona)

24. “(Complainant)– CRNBC file”

a. Dec 4, 2018 letter from MS, legal counsel, BCCNP

(College) to (Complainant), dated Dec 4, 2018 re

(Complainant)’s FOIPPA request ***appears to be re

(Complainant)’s complaint to College

b. 261 pages of redacted disclosure from BCCNP (*IC

Minutes are withheld, HW’s documents and materials

presented to Registrar and IC are withheld

25. “(Complainant)– Credentials”

a. Educational background, letters, certificates etc. re

(Complainant)’s credentials

26. “(Complainant)– BC(Complainant)B”

a. (Complainant) v. BCNU et al. – BC(Complainant)B No.

B6/2017

b. (Complainant) v. BCNU et al. – BC(Complainant)B No. B

131/2017

c. Carmack v. BC Gov’t and Service Employees’ Union, 2004

CanLII 43436 (BC(Complainant)B)

27. “Look at Ontario to See Where We are Going”

a. “Transforming Nursing Practices in Canada: A Case Study

of the Ottawa Hospital Model”, July 2011, by H. Winsor et

al.

b. The Guardian news article “Meet the Nurse who will soon

Perform Surgery on Patients Alone”

c. College of Ontario Registered Practical Nurses, Entry to

Practice Competencies

d. College of Nurses of Ontario, Nursing Act, 1991

e. BC Nurses’ Union Member’s fees from CRNBC to ARNBC

f. College of Nurses of Ontario Objectives, Self-reporting

form, Fact Sheet re Fitness to Practise, Practice Guideline

Conflict Prevention and Management, various Forms,

Letter from Ontario Minister to President, College of

Nurses of Ontario, June 28, 2017; RNAO Submission on

Bill 87

28. “Lemaitre was a Scapegoat”

a. News articles re Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre, RCMP

Box 6 29 folders

1. “Misogyny & Still Exists Today”

a. Online articles re Misogyny

2. “Multi Generation Care Providers”

a. Articles and excerpts of articles re intergenerational

nursing and physician teams

3. “No Redeeming Factors for Govt abuse of Power”

a. Case law – Obonsawin v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 3 (CanLII)

4. “Notice Given to Attorneys General”

a. Emails to AG Can and RF (Deputy AGBC) re appeal to

HPRB

5. “Nurse Autonomy” – various news articles re Nurses’ rally re

strike, work culture and conflict in nursing

6. “Nurse Educators”

a. Article on Florence Nightingale

b. Kwantlen College, “Employability Skills Framework”,

December 1996

c. Kwantlen College, Degree Proposal Assessment

Committee Minutes, October 8, 1997 and appendices

d. Kwantlen College, Degree Proposal Assessment

Committee Minutes, January 5, 1998

e. Degree Proposal for Bachelor of Science in Nursing

f. Nursing Education Council of BC, Minutes, March 23, 2012

g. Registered Nurses Education in Canada Statistics, 2014-

15, CASN (63 pages)

h. Collective Agreement, Kwantlen Polytechnic University

and Kwantlen Faculty Assoc. April 1, 2014 – March 31,

2019 (excerpt)

7. “Nurses – CAN Position Statements”

a. “Ethics in Practice for Registered Nurses”, January 2010

8. “Nurse – ICN Position Statements”

a. Position Statement – Nursing Regulation

b. Position Statement – Prevention and Management of

Workplace Violence

c. Position Statement – Protection of the title “Nurse”

9. “Nurses – Sexual Misconduct”

a. Article “Suspended Nurse went back to work after Sexual

Assault Charges”

b. Various Notices of the Inquiry Committee or Discipline

Committee re registrants being disciplined or entering

into Consent Agreements

c. Notice re Professional Liability Protection

d. Article, “Sexual Abuse by Health Care Professionals: The

Failed Promise of Reform”, S. Rodgers, Univ of Ottawa (73

pages – includes blank but sequentially numbered pages

on HPRB letterhead)

10. “Nurses – Slaves”

a. Various news articles re 12 hour shifts from the UK and

Ireland

b. Another copy of The Fragile Frontline, RCN Employment

Survey 2011, Wales (63 pages + Appendices)

11. “Nurses – Practice Reform 1850-1900”

a. Articles on the evolution of education in nursing

12. “Nurses – Practice Reform 1900-1950”

a. Further articles on the evolution of education in nursing

13. “Nurses – Practice Reform 1950-1990”

a. Articles about Epstein Law

b. FAQs about the Joint Commission

c. Articles, “Adaptation Model of Nursing”

14. “Nurses – Practice Reform 1990-2000”

a. Govt website info sheets re “Health Professions Council”

and various Recommendations of the Council regarding

individual health professions and public safety

b. Bio for A. Kazanjian and article co-authored by her

involving depression care

15. “Nurses – Practice Reform 2000-2020”

a. More info from BC Govt websites re health care

b. CCRNR “NCLEX-RN 2016: Canadian Results”, May 11,

2017 (26 pages) and College (Ont.) announcement re

exam

c. CAN, article “Nurses and Patient Safety”, Jan 2004 (25

pages)

d. Inspection Reports – Dr. Helmcken Memorial Hospital

e. PSERC, Service Plan 2002-2005

16. “Nursing – Reform Today”

a. BCCNP Bylaws, August 30, 2018

b. Notice re Colleges amalgamating into BCCNP

c. CRNBC Quality Assurance Program

d. An Approach to Assuring Continuing Fitness to Practice”,

Nov 2012

e. Various PSA for Health and Social Care papers

17. “Nurses Practice Reform Today”

a. BC Govt website sheet re Nursing Professions

b. Canadian Nurses Protective Society Annual Reports

c. Article “Miscommunication the Leading Cause of

Malpractice Lawsuits against Nurses”, C. Rokosh

d. Article, “legal issues in Nursing”, C. Rokosh

e. Excerpt from CNF Review 2017

f. Various articles on Millenials and famous people

g. Entry to Practice Competencies for Registered Nurse

Profession, May 2013 (Alta. And Man.)

h. Article (cut off printing) Regulating Mental Healthcare

Practitioners”, B. McSherry, University of Melbourne

18. “Nursing – A Recognized Autonomous Profession”

a. Google search results “Define autonomy at work”

(cannot make sense of contents – single page from article

on the British Honours System, picture of Medal, article on

Hospital-Acquired Infection, Hansard (British) re Nursing,

Report re Global Employment Trends for Women, etc.

19. “Nursing Reform Today #2”

a. Govt website info sheet re Patient Quality Review Board,

b. Info sheets re Annual Personal Practice Review

Requirement for RPNs, RNs, and NPs, BCCNP Board

c. How BCCNP resolves complaints

d. CRNBC Practice Standard re Duty to Report

e. IPSOS study “Perceptions of Risk in Health and Care

Settings”, April 2012 (48 pages)

f. College Discipline and Inquiry Committee Notices from

website of BCCNP

20. “Nursing – Knowledge”

a. Article on the Nursing Process

b. Articles in response to Google Search re defining

specialized knowledge

c. An Exemplar of the Use of NNN Language in Developing

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines, 2008 D. Kautz et al.

d. More articles on language, diagnosis, various articles on

caffeine and smoking cessation

e. Hansard, 1908 “Nursing Bill”

f. Various articles on complexities of nursing

21. “Nurses – Secrets”

a. “75 Secrets Nurses Wish They Could Tell You”, M. Crouch

22. “Nursing _ NP Cost of Education”

a. Articles on NP salary and cost of education

23. “Nursing Shortage”

a. News articles and Google search result re nursing

shortage

24. “Nursing Standards RNABC & HNC

a. Standards of Holistic Nursing Practice (11 pages)

b. Code of Ethics for Registered Nurses, Canadian Nurses

Assoc., 2017 edition (49 pages)

c. CRNBC, Competencies in the Context of Entry-Level

Registered Nurse Practice in British Columbia (40 pages)

25. “Nursing Standards – CRNBC”

a. Another copy of 2017 Code of Ethics

b. CRNBC, Professional Standards for RNs and NPs (20

pages)

26. “Nursing Standards BCCNP”

a. BCCNP, Professional Standards for Registered Nurses and

Nurse Practitioners (24 pages)

b. Another copy of Competencies for Entry level RN Practice

in BC

c. CRNBC, “Legislation Relevant to Nurses’ Practice (57

pages)

d. Canadian Nurses Assoc. Code of Ethics for Registered

Nurse and Licensed Practical Nurses (42 pages)

27. “OH & S – Dr. Helmcken Memorial Hospital”

a. Minutes and forms

28. “Ombudsperson – Complaint – (Complainant)”

a. Correspondence to and from Office of the Ombudsperson

re (Complainant) complaint re Interior Health

b. Complaint to Ombudsperson by (Complainant)

29. “Orders of Lieutenant Governor of BC”

a. Articles re Governor General (Canada)

b. 1892 OIC by LG re Health (annotated draft), 1892 Report

re Smallpox

c. Miscellaneous OICS 1895, 1972 , 1998 etc. – all in some

way health related

Box 7

30 Folders 1. “Oppression of Women – 2000-2020

a. Globe and Mail articles – March 4, 2016 and July 5, 2017

on gender inequality

b. “The Systemic and Institutional Oppression of Woman by

the Catholic Church”, T. Mulally

c. Online article – “Gender Ideology & Separate Spheres in

the 19th Century

2. “Parliament & the Magna Carta” – articles on each

3. “Patient Complaint Process – Physicians & Surgeons”

a. Diagram of Complaint process at CPSBC

b. OIPC Order F07-22 re BC College of Chiropractors

4. “Pay Equity”

a. Case law – Turner v. AG Canada 2012 FCA 159 (CanLII) –

cover page only

b. Case Law – PSAC v. CHRC et al. 1998 CanLII 3995 (CHRT)

(unnumbered – several hundred pages)

5. “Pay Equity for Women 2000-2020

a. Statista graph re Nursing Pay Gap

b. “Salary Differences between Male and Female Registered

Nurses in the United States”, JAMA, March 24, 2015

c. “Pay Equity and Women’s Wage Increases” H. Hartmann,

S. Aaronson

d. CP news release, Oct 29, 2018, “Government ushers in

pay equity legislation for federally regulated workers”

e. “Pay Equity and American Nurses”, S. Moskowitz

f. “Destroying Pay Equity” M.G. Cohen, March 2003 for the

HEU

g. Executive Summary of an article in the Economic Policy

Institute re public sector bargaining

h. “Explaining Nursing Turnover Intent” L. Lum et al. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, (1998)

i. “Even in Nursing, No Equal Pay for Women”, L. Rapaport,

excerpt

j. “Pay Equity: A Fundamental Human Right”, M. Young,

Peter A. Allard School of Law (38 pages)

k. “Where to go for Pay Equity” M. Cornish and J. Quito,

Cavalluzzo law firm (29 pages)

6. “PE”

a. Emails between (Complainant) and PE

b. Paper authored by PE on Mental Disorder Claims and the

Workers Compensation Act

c. Letter from PE to WorkSafeBC on behalf of

(Complainant)Rogers, December 12, 2018 (annotated)

d. April 10, 2017 complaint to LSBC re PE with attachments

7. “Poaching – BCNU”

a. News article “Watchdog orders nurses’ union to stop

recruiting in B.C.

b. New release, “BCGEU fights back hard against BCNU raid

of LPNs”

c. Case law – BCNU v. HSABC 2017 BCSC 1758

8. “Pay Equity Federal Court”

a. Case law – Turner v. AG Canada 2012 FCA 159 (CanLII) –

entire case

9. “Poaching – Brain Drain”

a. Excerpts from various articles on Exodus of Doctors and

Nurses from USA, South Africa, Britain etc.

10. “Polize Report”

a. Correspondence from RCMP and occurrence report re

(Complainant) alleging an obscene phone call

11. “Political Atmosphere WorkSafe BC History”

a. Case law – Denton V. BC (WCAT) [2017] BCJ No. 2348

b. Canadian encyclopedia printout re John Sebastian

Helmcken

c. Excerpt from British Columbia and the Terms of Union

d. Vol. I Chapter 1 Royal Commission on Workers

Compensation of BC (excerpt)

12. “Political Atmosphere 1800s”

a. Online article on Tuberculosis in Native Communities

b. Biograph David Alexander Stewart

c. Excerpt from “The Early Days of Representative

Government in British Columbia, June 1922

d. Title page of documents re smallpox

e. Various other excerpts from historical documents re TB

etc.

13. “Political Atmosphere 1900-1950”

a. Miscellaneous documents re Physician Behaviour and the

Influence of William Osler, Nurses Registration Bill, July

1908, OICs, 1950s to 1970s re doctors and nurses and

health organizations

b. Royal BC Museum, Education History Research Guide

14. “Political Atmosphere 1950-1990”

a. “Bibliography of British Columbia” – listing publications

from Nov 1990 to April 1991

b. BC Royal Commission on Education, May 1988, 50 pages

c. Article, “What Happened in British Columbia”, Canadian

Dimension, august 2004

d. “Making Bargaining Work in British Columbia’s Public

Service, Commission of Inquiry into Employer- Employee

Relations in the Public Service of British Columbia,

December 1972 (128 pages)

15. “Political Atmosphere 1950-1990 Strike”

a. Health Professions Council website page

b. Interview with Sharon Yandle, SFU digital library

c. The Ubyssey Special Collections Edition, Oct 3, 1986

d. SFU, AQ Magazine May 2002 (Excerpt)

e. The Tyee, 1983, excerpt

f. Wikipedia – Bill VanderZalm

g. Wikipedia – BC General Election, 1986

h. Various other Wikipedia search results re politics in BC in

1980s

16. “Political Atmosphere – Nurses Strike #1

a. Thesis by C.G. Dingwell, August 1991 “An Analysis of

Conflicts Experienced by Nurses during the 1989 Nurses’

Strike” pp. 1-182

17. “Political Atmosphere – Nurses Strike part #2”

a. Thesis pp. 183-385

18. “Political – Nurses Strike 3 of 3”

a. Thesis pp. 386-547

19. “Political Atmosphere – 1990-2000”

a. Article, “Celebrating Prosecutorial Independence”, G.

Comer, the Advocate March 2012

b. “Bulletin – Government Betrayal an Unprecedented Abuse

of Power”, Jan 25, 2002

c. News Release – Ministry of AG, VanderZalm Charged with

Breach of Trust, September 12, 1991

d. “The Decline and the Fall”, P. Kopvillem April 8, 1991

e. Thesis – “William VanderZalm to Rita Johnston: the 1991

Leadership Choice of the Social Credit Party of British

Columbia”, K. J. Schmidt, UBC, August 1993 (98 pages)

f. Articles online re Water Wars and Free trade

g. Letter from McCarthy Tetrault to JC, Dec 3, 1997 re Sun

Belt Water Inc.

h. Statute – Water Protection Act

20. “Political Atmosphere – 2000-2020”

a. Statute – Skills Development and Labour Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003

b. Times Colonist and other article re BC as capital of labour

activism, strikes etc.

c. BCNU Strategic Plan 2006-2008 (excerpt)

d. BCNU Update Vol 25 No 2, March 2006

e. Article 7 – Strikes Lockouts and Pickets (excerpt)

f. Article on Medication Errors

g. Case law – CUPE v. AGNS, 2014 CanLII 83843 (NSLB)

h. Articles on Bill 37

i. Article “A Hot Mess at The Legislature”, G. Mason re Clerk

of the House and Sgt at Arms removed from Legislature

21. “Population Health – Who are the Health Care

Professionals?”

a. Email from R. Bowman to Rural Med May 4, 2014 Re:

Administration and Dismissal

b. Statistics Canada: Health Care Professionals, December

2003

22. “Population Health – Statistics”

a. “Statistical report on the Health of Canadians” for the

Meeting of Health Ministers, Sept. 1999,

b. Another copy of article on Comorbid Chronic General

Health Conditions and Depression care” Psychiatry Online

23. “Pressure to Deliver Health Care – Federal”

a. Canadian Federal and Provincial Fiscal Tables, February

28, 2018, RBC

b. Dept of Finance, Federal Support to Provinces and

Territories in 2018-19

24. “Preventing Burnout in Rural & Remote Nurses #1”

a. Thesis – “Action Research in Preventing Workplace

Burnout in Rural Remote Community Mental Health

Nursing”, E. M. Petrie, University of Adelaide, July 2008

(pp 1 – 153)

25. “Preventing Burnout in Rural & Remote Nurses #2”

a. Thesis pp. 154-303

26. “Queens counsel”

a. The Attorney General’s Page by S. Anton, QC re “Origins

of our Crown Counsel Act”

b. Wikipedia re Queen’s Counsel

27. “Reasonable Man”

a. Case law – WCAT Ont. – Dec. No. 847/96

b. Case law – Jomphe v. Dennis, 1998 ABQB 498 (CanLII)

c. Case law – Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon 2003

BCSC 1936 (CanLII)

28. “Reasonableness Dunsmuir & HRT

a. Case law – Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick 2008 SCC 9

(CanLII)

b. Case Law – Tran v. Minister of Public Safety, SCC 36874

Factum of the Intervener, AGBC

c. Case law – CHRC v. AG Canada 2018 SCC 31

29. “Regulatory Negligence”

a. Application for Registration (Initial) (Nursing?)

b. Regulatory Negligence and Administrative Law, CIAJ

Roundtable on Administrative Law 2011, F. Kristjanson

and S. Moreau

c. Subsequent version of same paper in Cdn. Journal of

Admin Law & Practice, Vol 25

30. “Rule of Law Interpretation”

a. “You Don’t Know What You’ve Got ‘til It’s Gone – The Rule

of Law in Canada – Part I” 2015 CanLII Docs 56 (41

pages)

b. Article, “How can the Rule of Law Advance Sustainable

Development in a Troubled and Turbulent World?” 2017

CanLII Docs 80

c. Case law – Christie v. British Columbia 2005 BCCA 631

d. Canadian Administrative Law article – photocopy cut off

e. Excerpt from Interpretation Act

f. Case law – Bacon et al. v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance

Corp et al. 1999 CanLII 12234 (SK CA)

g. Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin P.C.

Chief Justice of Canada, May 27, 2013

Box 8

29 folders

1. “Safety Pyramid – Nonexistent in Health Care”

a. “Danger Zone: Men, Masculinity and Occupational Health

and Safety in High Risk Occupations” CIHR

b. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, “Gender

Issues in Safety and Health at Work” (222 pages)

c. Unknown article (Module)on Hazard Identification and

Risk Assessment – annotated

2. Seaton – Royal Commission on Health Care Costs”

a. OIC 370/1990 appointing members of Commission and

Terms of Reference

b. News Releases re Royal Commission

c. Ministry of Health presentation to the Royal Commission,

June 20-22, 1990

d. “A Great System, But… What You Told the British

Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs”

e. “Closer to Home” Sources for the Report

3. “Sharp Lawyers”

a. Case law – R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 SCR 771

b. Sharp Practice Definition – Duhaime’s Law Dictionary

c. Article, “Legal Ethics from the Lawyer’s Point of View”, D.

Markovits, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities

4. “Stigma & Discrimination”

a. CMHA Ontario website info page re Stigma and

Discrimination

b. Article, “How Stigma Interferes with Mental Health care”,

P. Corrigan, American Psychologist, Oct 2004

5. “Suicide”

a. Statute – An Act Respecting A Federal Framework for

Suicide Prevention

6. “Surrey Memorial”

a. Wikipedia – Surrey Memorial Hospital

b. Article on Auxiliary Volunteers – Nanaimo, May 9, 2011

7. “Trades – Government Controlled”

a. BC Federation of Labour, “BC’s (Not so) Great

Apprenticeship Training Experiment”

b. Statute – Industry Training Authority Act

8. “There Were Warnings”

a. Printout of Works by M. E. Purkis

b. Article, “The Regulation of Health Professionals: An

Overview of the British Columbia Experience”, S. Aldridge

c. Emails between M.E. Purkis and (Complainant), November

2018

d. Article, “Mandatory Reflection: the Canadian

reconstitution of the competent Nurse”, S. Nelson and M.

E. Purkis, July 2004

e. “Americanizing Canadian Nursing”, Health Reform

Observer, Vol 5, Issue 3

f. “Acting in the Public Interest? Self Governance in the

Health Professions: The Ombudsman’s Perspective”, May

2003

9. “Toxic – Word of the Year”

a. Oxford dictionary – word of the year

10. “Wait Lists”

a. “Wait times for Priority Procedures in Canada, 2017” CIHI

11. “WCAT – Attestation on Appeal”

a. Email from (Complainant) to AR, May 12, 2017 attaching

Appeal Submission to WCAT (47 pages), Attestation (5

pages), and (Complainant) Updated Statement of Events,

May 15, 2017

12. “WCB – Fraser Health”

a. Fraser Health Authority v. WCAT decision summary

b. BC (WCAT) v. Fraser Health Authority 2016 SCC 25

13. “WCB & Fraud”

a. Two online articles re workplace fraud and WCB

14. “WCB – Plesner”

a. Case law – Plesner v. BC Hydro 2009 BCCA 188 (CanLII)

15. “WorkSafeBC Position Statement”

a. Various documents re Harassment, Bullying and Mental

Disorders incl: “A Handbook on preventing and addressing

workplace bullying and harassment” and related

appendices e.g. WorkSafeBC Resolution (2013) re

harassment and Practice Directives re Mental Disorder

Claims

16. “WCB – PTSD Claims”

a. AWBC.org print out re principles of that organization

b. Statistics Canada table re Police Resources in BC, 2012

c. Work Safe BC policy re Mental Disorder and PTSD claims

2016 and 2017 and related regulation

17. “WCB – Statistics”

a. WorkSafeBC Financial statements – ten-year

consolidation

b. Nov 23, 2017 letter from (Complainant) to WorkSafeBC

seeking statistics re mental health injury

c. Online “anonymous” data re WorkSafeBC

d. March 6, 2018 letter from WorkSafeBC to (Complainant)

re FOI request and attachments and her response of April

25, 2018 (5 pages)

e. January 29, 2018 letter from (Complainant) to FOIPP

Office (6 pages) re WorkSafeBC

f. July 22, 2018 letter from (Complainant) to FOIPP Office –

2nd amended request (8 pages)

g. Nov 2, 2018 response from WorkSafeBC to (Complainant)

re FOI request and attachments

h. News article we WCB denying chronic mental stress

claims (Toronto)

18. “WCB – Submissions”

a. Presentation from ((Complainant)?) of resources taken

from “World Wide Web” as “authorities in the field of

workplace bullying and harassment” (102 pages)

19. “WCB – Workers Health #1”

a. Times Colonist article of July 2, 2016, “WorkSafeBC isn’t

getting any better”

b. Report to the HSE, “Worker Involvement in Health and

Safety: what works?”, H. Fidderman and K. McDonnell

(Scotland) (133 pages)

c. “WCB – Workers Health #2)

i. Report, “Gender Issues in Safety and Health at

Work”, European Agency for Safety and Health at

work (duplicate?) (222 pages)

ii. Table “Bill 9 – Mental Disorder Presumption” –

author unknown - on WorkSafeBC letterhead

(written as a submission but in table format) (63

pages)

20. “WCB – WCAT – (Complainant)”

a. Correspondence from legal counsel at WCAT to

(Complainant), Sept 12, 2017 re her appeal (2 copies)

attaching Response to Petition (2 copies) and Judicial

Review Guide

b. Correspondence from Workers’ Advisers to (Complainant)

dated July 7, 2017 advising that WCAT denied her appeal

as work related stressors were not “significant” and not

caused by (Registrant 2)

c. August 21, 2017 Affidavit of DS in Judicial Review brought

by (Complainant)

d. Letter from PE to WorkSafeBC on behalf of (Complainant),

September 2, 2015 (date crossed out and annotated by

(Complainant) (14 pages)

e. (Complainant)’s Petition to the Court on Judicial Review,

Kamloops Reg’s 054896, Aug 21,2017 (14 pages) and

supporting affidavit

f. Statute – Workers Compensation Act – excerpt

g. Partial Decision – WCAT – A 1602207 and original WCB

claim and letter denying claim

21. “Where’s the money?”

a. Various maps and photographs of properties in Vancouver

b. BC Investment Management Corp. (BCi) Annual Report

2017-2018 (77 pages)

c. Online printout re BCi

22. “Where’s the money? MLA Pensions”

a. Michael Smyth online article re MLA’s pensions

b. Online printout of various govt positions salaries and

pension plan

23. “Where’s the mony?(sic) (Complainant) pension”

a. Annual Member’s Benefit Statement (Complainant) for

2015

24. “Whistle Blowing”

a. Department for Business Innovation & Skills,

“Whistleblowing”, March 2015

25. “Whistleblowers - Australia #1”

a. “Safety in Numbers: Nurse to Patient Rations and the

Future of Healthcare”, S. Gordon et al, (Cornell

University) (Australia) (200 pages plus summary)

26. “Whistblowers (sic) – Australia #2”

a. Report – pages 200-434

27. “Who are the Frontline Caregivers?”

a. Assorted printouts from Statistics Canada e.g. Employees

in mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction,

Employment by industry, Employment rates of mothers,

by age of youngest child, etc.

28. “Why you cant (sic) trust Researchers”

a. Various articles on errors in research, retractions,

scholarship vs. popular sources etc

29. “Wrongfully convicted”

a. Various online articles about wrongful convictions and

miscarriages of justice

b. Article, “Wrongful Convictions: Is it Proper for the Crown

to Root Around, Looking for Miscarriages of Justice”, B.A.

MacFarlane, QC, 2012 CanLII Docs 261 (36 pages)

c. Article, “Wrongful Convictions and the Avenues of

Redress” A. A. Anderson, 2015 CanLII Docs 47 (26 pages)

d. Performance evaluation and numerous personnel records

for “CJ” by (Registrant 3)

e. Interior Health Job Description and review related to

other employees, annotated by (Complainant)

f. Letter from DS (employee to College of LPNs of BC)

regarding (Registrant 2), other nurses, (Registrant 3),

dated November 23, 2018

CITATION: Complainant v. British Columbia College of ... - [PDF Document] (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Reed Wilderman

Last Updated:

Views: 6082

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (52 voted)

Reviews: 83% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Reed Wilderman

Birthday: 1992-06-14

Address: 998 Estell Village, Lake Oscarberg, SD 48713-6877

Phone: +21813267449721

Job: Technology Engineer

Hobby: Swimming, Do it yourself, Beekeeping, Lapidary, Cosplaying, Hiking, Graffiti

Introduction: My name is Reed Wilderman, I am a faithful, bright, lucky, adventurous, lively, rich, vast person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.