---------- Original message ----------
From: "Jordan, Bernadette - M.P." <Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:41:28 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Hon. Bernadette Jordan should
review all my old emails before she leaves public office N'esy Pas
Toby Mendel and Lee Cohen?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting the Constituency Office of Hon. Bernadette
Jordan, Member of Parliament for South Shore - St. Margaret's.
This is an automatic confirmation of receipt of your message.
The constituency office deals exclusively with matters pertaining to
the riding of South Shore - St. Margaret's and its constituents. If
you have not done so already, please include your full name, address,
and postal code in your message.
If you are writing to Minister Jordan in her capacity as Minister of
Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, please note we will
forward your email to the Ministry's correspondence office. For any
follow-up or future correspondence, please contact them directly at:
Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca<mailto:min@
Please note that we receive a high volume of messages and responses
can be delayed. If you are a constituent of South Shore - St.
Margaret's and require urgent assistance, please call our office at
902-527-5655.
Thank you for your note and patience as we respond to a large number
of messages.
Best,
MP Staff to Hon. Bernadette Jordan
---------- Original message ----------
From: Information Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia <oipcns@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:41:30 +0000
Subject: OIPC Auto-Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for emailing the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner for Nova Scotia (OIPC). We will strive to respond to
inquiries as soon as possible and usually respond within four business
days.
Please note that our office does not respond to or take any action on
emails that we are copied on.
If you have submitted a new request for review or other file-related
correspondence, please note that this email is the OIPC’s confirmation
of receipt. If you have submitted a request for review, your request
for review file with the OIPC has entered the intake stage. Files at
the intake stage are addressed in the chronological order they are
received. You will receive a separate notice regarding your request
for review, usually within one to two months.
The OIPC does not process access to information requests. If you are
making an access to information request, please send it to the public
body, municipality or health custodian that has the records you are
seeking: Public Body Contact
Information<https://oipc.
Regards,
[Logo no text]
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia
Telephone: 902.424.4684; Toll free within NS: 1.866.243.1564
TDD: 1.800.855.0511; Fax: 1.902.424.8303
https://oipc.novascotia.ca
Follow us on Twitter @NSInfoPrivacy
Notice: This email may contain confidential information and is
intended only for the individual named. If you have received this
email by mistake, please notify me by email or by calling
1-902-424-4684 immediately and delete it from your system. Do not copy
or distribute it.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Jordan, Bernadette - M.P." <Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:43:30 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called the office of Tricia Ralph,
the new freedom of information officer of Nova Scotia again
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting the Constituency Office of Hon. Bernadette
Jordan, Member of Parliament for South Shore - St. Margaret's.
This is an automatic confirmation of receipt of your message.
The constituency office deals exclusively with matters pertaining to
the riding of South Shore - St. Margaret's and its constituents. If
you have not done so already, please include your full name, address,
and postal code in your message.
If you are writing to Minister Jordan in her capacity as Minister of
Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, please note we will
forward your email to the Ministry's correspondence office. For any
follow-up or future correspondence, please contact them directly at:
Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca<mailto:min@
Please note that we receive a high volume of messages and responses
can be delayed. If you are a constituent of South Shore - St.
Margaret's and require urgent assistance, please call our office at
902-527-5655.
Thank you for your note and patience as we respond to a large number
of messages.
Best,
MP Staff to Hon. Bernadette Jordan
Nova Scotia names lawyer as privacy and freedom of information watchdog
Nova Scotia has appointed a lawyer from northern Canada as the province’s new freedom of information and protection of privacy watchdog.
Tricia Ralph’s appointment as the review officer for access to information takes effect on March 1.
READ MORE: Nova Scotia ministers, officials still using personal email accounts despite warning
She is currently legal counsel for the information and privacy commissioner of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
The review officer has an independent oversight role and is appointed by cabinet for a term of five to seven years.
In his announcement, Justice Minister Mark Furey says Ralph’s role is key to ensuring a balance between the protection of information and the public right to access government information.
READ MORE: After more than 650 days, province says Nova Scotians will be able to file FOI requests online again
Ralph’s predecessor, Catherine Tully, criticized the province for often refusing to follow her findings to release information, and called on the Liberal government to bring the province’s access laws “into the 21st Century.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 5, 2020.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7179719/n-s-information-commissioner-report/
N.S. information commissioner says office legally hamstrung, short on resources
Nova Scotia’s privacy and information commissioner is facing a “critical” backlog of cases as a result of limited resources and the office remains hamstrung by outdated legislation, according to the organization’s annual report published on Wednesday.
It’s the first annual report issued since Tricia Ralph took over the role in March and it echoes many of the themes voiced by her predecessor Catherine Tully.
During her tenure, Tully and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) criticized the government’s decision to not follow her office’s recommendations and called for the province to bring its privacy and information access laws “into the 21st Century.”
‘Improvements…will take leadership’
In Ralph’s report issued on Wednesday, she says there remains “room for improvement” in the province’s access and privacy laws — a framework that protects residents’ private information and allows journalists, academics, businesses and activists to obtain government information that is normally withheld from the public.
“Living in a digital age has markedly changed the way we live from over 25 years ago when Nova Scotia created the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,” wrote Ralph.
The new commissioner also called on the province to modernize the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act.
Ralph admitted that it would be a “significant undertaking and will take time and consideration.”
“It will take leadership from politicians to update our access and privacy laws,” she wrote. “As citizens, we also have a role to play.
“It is up to us to become overseers of our own data and promoters for access to information and privacy reform.”
At least five pages in the 30-page report are dedicated to reviews or inquiries “that may not have been necessary or would have had different outcomes” had the office’s previous recommendations on changing the legislation been followed by the province.
Order-making power still needed
One of those changes is giving the OIPC order-making power.
Since the OIPC functions as an independent ombudsman for the legislation, it is able to recommend possible resolutions to disputes under the legislation.
Read more: Privacy ombudsman offers rebuke of N.S. premier’s claim to most transparent province in Canada
However, since it doesn’t have order-making power, government bodies are not obliged to follow the recommendations and can ignore them if they wish.
The only solution for those who still disagree with the government’s decision is to go to court in an attempt to force the government to comply, a process which Ralph says is “expensive and more intimidating for applicants.”
Ralph notes that of those who appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, the court has sided with the OIPC’s decision 100 per cent of the time.
It’s notable that Stephen McNeil said in 2013 that he would expand the powers of the OIPC and grant the office order-making power if he became premier.
He has since called the pledge a mistake.
The Department of Justice did not provide comment responding to the report by publication deadline.
Multiple issues persist
Other issues that Ralph highlights include the increase in times the government has asked for a time extension when responding to FOIPOP requests and the province’s failure to have a mandated duty to document its actions.
That means that if the government chooses not to document a decision or deliberation then there will simply be no documents to turn over even if they are requested.
Ralph also highlights that public bodies are not required to report privacy breaches to anyone, despite a previous recommendation that this be changed by the OIPC.
“The lack of mandatory privacy breach reporting makes the full extent of privacy breaches that occur at Nova Scotia public bodies unknown,” Ralph notes.
This is compounded, she continues, with a failure in the Personal Health Information Act.
Under that piece of legislation, health organizations are mandated to tell an individual if there is a privacy breach that creates a potential for harm or embarrassment to the affected individual.
However, they are not required to inform the OIPC. That means when a woman called the information commissioner seeking assistance about a health-care breach it was the first time they heard about it, making its ability to offer advice limited.
According to the annual report, only three serious breaches were reported to the OIPC in the past year. However, there were 855 minor breaches for things such as lost records and faxing personal information to the wrong doctor.
Read more: Nova Scotians have been unable to file freedom of information requests online for 800 days
She says that the number of cases waiting to be reviewed by the office has gotten to a “critical point”
“We have cases waiting to be assigned that were received as far back as 2016,” Ralph notes and the office has already tried “every known technique to achieve greater efficiency.”
Some applicants are waiting three years to have their review completed.
“Waiting that long to have ones review heard by this office raises serious access to justice concerns,” Ralph writes.
She says they’ll ask the government for more investigators next year.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 13:57:01 -0300
Subject: I just called here is the proof of what I said was true
To: oipcns@novascotia.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, PREMIER
<PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "blaine.higgs"
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, Office of the
Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier
<premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>
https://davidraymondamos3.
Monday, 4 October 2021
Time for (real) full disclosure on how many public dollars are really
paid to private lawyers
---------- Original message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 09:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
** Message blocked **
Your message to jean.laroche@cbc.ca has been blocked. See technical
details below for more information.
Learn more here: https://community.mimecast.
(Warning: This link will take you to a third-party site)
The response from the remote server was:
554 Email rejected due to security policies -
https://community.mimecast.
[JhcRGSVlM3y35IlFxLqKxg.uk189]
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 13:18:38 -0300
Subject: Fwd: Time for (real) full disclosure on how many public
dollars are really paid to private lawyers
To: oipcns@novascotia.ca, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, toby
<toby@law-democracy.org>, Chris.dEntremont@parl.gc.ca,
"Bernadette.Jordan" <Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca>,
lenametlege.diab@parl.gc.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, jean.laroche@cbc.ca,
"steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, sheilagunnreid
<sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>, andrew <andrew@frankmagazine.ca>
http://www.gabriellehorne.com/
A medical scandal and landmark legal victory over workplace bullying.
Dr. Gabrielle Horne fell in love with the mechanics of the heart as a
student. She trained both as a cardiologist and researcher to help
people living with heart muscle problems. She quickly build an
innovative heart research program, attracting plenty of grant funding.
So how did she end up at the centre of a medical scandal?
An older male colleague wanted his name on her cardiology research.
When she declined, he wrote secret letters of complaint about her, and
enlisted powerful allies in his campaign. The hospital took emergency
action, branding her a dangerous doctor. Her research program shut
down. She had to sue the hospital to clear her name. It took her 14
years to get to court. All that time the hospital kept her accusers in
charge of her working life.
At trial the hospital ran a misogynistic character assassination as a
defence, but the jury found the hospital had acted in bad faith or
malice. She won the largest damages award in Canadian history for loss
of reputation. Her book explores the complex characters that animate
this story, and what it took to win.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:32:07 -0300
Subject: Time for (real) full disclosure on how many public dollars
are really paid to private lawyers
To: gabrielle.horne@dal.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
nrubin@stewartmckelvey.com, stephen.kimber@ukings.ca
https://www.halifaxexaminer.
Time for (real) full disclosure on how many public dollars we really
paid private lawyers to defend healthcare bullies
Tim Houston's new government deserves credit for releasing a
blacked-out 13-year-old document showing how much a previous
government claimed to have spent on private lawyers in the Dr.
Gabrielle Horne case. Trouble is that number isn't new — or anywhere
near complete. It's time for actual full disclosure.
October 3, 2021 By Stephen Kimber
Jean Laroche, the CBC’s veteran legislature reporter, emailed me
recently with a “head’s-up” that he would be posting his latest
“Gabrielle Horne story” the next day. “It’s by no means the whole
story,” he acknowledged, “but it does lift the veil on the [legal]
costs a tiny bit more.” It does. But it turns out…
This content is for subscribers only.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier <PREMIER@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:57:14 +0000
Subject: Thank you for your email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email to Premier Houston. This is an automatic
confirmation your message has been received.
We recognize that many Nova Scotians have concerns about COVID-19. If
you are looking for the most up-to-date information, we encourage you
to visit: novascotia.ca/coronavirus<http
or canada.ca/coronavirus<https://
You can also call the toll-free information line at 1-833-784-4397.
If you are experiencing symptoms, please visit
https://811.novascotia.ca<http
and use the COVID-19 online self-assessment tool, which will help you
determine if you need to get tested. If you don’t have internet
access, call 811.
Thank you,
Premier’s Correspondence Team
---------- Original message ----------
From: Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:57:04 +0000
Subject: Thank you for your email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
This is to acknowledge that your email has been received by the Office
of the Premier.
We appreciate the time you have taken to write.
NOTICE: This e-mail was intended for a specific person. If it has
reached you by mistake, please delete it and advise me by return
e-mail. Any privilege associated with this information is not waived.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Avis: Ce message est confidentiel, peut être protégé par le secret
professionnel et est à l'usage exclusif de son destinataire. Il est
strictement interdit à toute autre personne de le diffuser, le
distribuer ou le reproduire. Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
vous est inconnu, veuillez informer l'expéditeur par courrier
électronique immédiatement et effacer ce message et en détruire toute
copie. Merci de votre cooperation.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:57:05 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called here is the proof of what I
said was true
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)" <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:57:04 +0000
Subject: RE: I just called here is the proof of what I said was true
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry more appropriately falls within the mandate of a
Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for
review and consideration.
Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
En raison du volume des messages reçus, cette réponse automatique vous
informe que votre courriel a été reçu et sera examiné dans les
meilleurs délais.
Si votre demande relève plutôt du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre
secteur du gouvernement, le personnel vous renverra votre courriel
pour examen et considération.
If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at
(506) 453-2144 or by email
media-medias@gnb.ca<mailto:med
S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le
Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144.
Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada
Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
Email/Courriel:
premier@gnb.ca/premier.
Why doctors face an uphill battle when fighting against workplace harassment and bullying
Losing a harassment case in court could saddle physicians with costs north of $1M, says Valerie Wise
Originally published on May 4, 2019
While bullying and harassment in medicine — often motivated by "ego or jealousy or pride" — typically go to colleges or HR departments first, taking one's peers to court is a rare last resort, according to a Toronto health lawyer.
But physicians or residents in junior positions, who are often the target, are rarely able to see a lengthy court battle with their peers or institutions to the end, Valerie Wise says.
Part of why, she says, is because it could limit their career options. But losing the battle could also saddle them with part of the other side's legal expenses, on top of their own.
"It's definitely north of a million dollars," Wise told White Coat, Black Art's Dr. Brian Goldman. "So most people are looking at losing their homes."
In recent years, numerous journals and health authorities have sounded the alarm over harassment and bullying that can erupt when the power imbalance between medical students, junior physicians and their superiors turns ugly.
"Sometimes, when you have a new program starting, or a young doctor coming in with new ideas, it can be perceived as threatening by some of the other doctors who have been there doing things the way they want them done for a long period of time," Wise said.
Valerie
Wise is a Toronto-based health lawyer who has worked on both sides of
disputes involving allegations of doctor bullying. (Sujata Berry/CBC)
According to an April 2018 survey by Resident Doctors of Canada (pdf link), 77 per cent — of the 833 residents who responded — experienced some form of "harassment or intimidation" in the preceding 12 months.
Seventy-seven per cent of residents cited patients as the most common source of harassment. Other sources included a staff physician or program director (60 per cent), an allied health professional (55 per cent) and fellow residents (55 per cent).
Harassment took the form of verbal abuse, "work as punishment" and loss of working privileges, among others.
Landmark workplace harassment suit
Most harassed doctors choose not to take any action because those who do risk paying a heavy price.
In a rare move, Halifax cardiologist Dr. Gabrielle Horne fought back — and won.
Horne's decade-long legal battle with Nova Scotia's Capital District Health Authority began in 2002 with a workplace dispute when she claimed that she was pressured to add the head of her cardiology clinic to her research team.
She refused. Soon afterward, the doctors who she said pressured her then alleged her "of having done things that harmed patients" — allegations she describes as "ridiculous."
Her privileges at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre were then changed, limiting her ability to continue her research.
What it felt like was that basically there was a massive corporation, which was the hospital, that was prepared to use millions and millions of dollars to crush me.
- Dr. Gabrielle Horne
Horne filed a complaint against the physician who she alleged had bullied her with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, but she said it was dismissed after the college found his actions "did not constitute conduct unbecoming a doctor."
She felt she had no choice but to take legal action, in order to save her reputation.
When Horne's privileges were restored in 2006, she sued the health authority for loss of reputation and career.
"What it felt like was that basically there was a massive corporation, which was the hospital, that was prepared to use millions and millions of dollars to crush me," she said.
Gabrielle
Horne lost 4 years of research while waiting for her clinical
privileges to be restored. 'They just destroyed my reputation in the
most public way, and I had to file a lawsuit to try and clear my name,'
she said. (Anjuli Patil/CBC)
Regardless of the outcome, the public nature of litigation alone could scuttle a physician's reputation, Wise noted.
As the lawsuit dragged on, Horne contemplated giving up the legal battle — and her career.
"I called up my lawyer and said I was through. I was leaving the practice of medicine because nothing was worth this."
Her lawyer, Michael Wright, talked her out of it, saying he'd let her know when the case was hopeless.
In 2016, she won the lawsuit and was awarded $1.4 million in damages against Capital Health for administrative bad faith.
A doctor who testified on Horne's behalf at the proceedings said that the situation boiled down to "a classic case of workplace bullying."
An appeal decision in 2018 reduced the amount to $800,000, but Horne's lawyer said it's still the highest award in the country for loss of reputation.
The reduction meant it wouldn't cover Horne's total expenses incurred over the years-long legal battle, which she told Dr. Goldman amounted to $1.3 million.
"The amount of money that they were made to pay is not enough to make a large health authority feel pain," she said.
'Nobody's been held accountable'
Horne said that while she was satisfied with the verdict that concluded Capital Health acted in bad faith, she's less optimistic that the decision sent any strong messages about workplace harassment in the medical profession.
"The Health Authority has yet to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever, even after the Court of Appeal decision. Nobody's been held accountable," she said.
In a statement to White Coat, Black Art, the Nova Scotia Health Authority's VP of research and innovation Dr. Gail Tomblin Murphy said the department is "committed to a safe and harassment-free work environment."
Its respectful workplace policy, which began in the fall of 2017, "provides teams with direction on how to proceed if they feel they have been a target of bullying behaviour or harassment."
Dr.
Horne's lawsuit victory was said to be the highest award in the country
in a case that found a health authority acted in bad faith leading to a
loss of reputation.
Wise calls Horne's case a significant one in her line of work.
"Personally, I think the lesson is that if you can be brave, sometimes, at the end of it, you will be vindicated — but it's a long haul," she said.
She stressed the need for physician leaders and administrators to develop their interpersonal skills to better detect and manage potential conflicts between team members early on.
In December 2017, the Canadian Medical Association released a new Charter of Shared Values, intended to be a guide "to promote trust and respect within the profession and for each other."
One of the charter's pillars, named for Reciprocity, declares: "As a physician ... I will be kind with my physician colleagues, and expect them to respond similarly; I will share and exchange my knowledge and experience with them; and I will be generous with them in spirit and in time."
Written by Jonathan Ore. Produced by Sujata Berry.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/gabrielle-horne-lawsuit-foipop-legal-bill-1.6146085
N.S. privacy commissioner recommends release of legal bills footed by taxpayers
Department of Health has been withholding Gabrielle Horne case records for years
Nova Scotia's information and privacy commissioner is recommending the province's Health Department release — in full — documents it has withheld from CBC News for almost five years in a landmark lawsuit launched by a Halifax cardiologist.
On Sept. 16, 2016, CBC News submitted an access to information request for "all records, including but not limited to letters or emails, briefing notes, held by the Department of Health related to the cost of the court case involving Gabrielle Horne".
The CBC requested the information just months after the Halifax cardiologist and researcher won a $1.4 million lawsuit against the former Capital District Health Authority for loss of reputation and career.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal later reduced that jury award to $800,000.
The dispute centred on Horne's hospital privileges being reduced following a dispute with colleagues over research papers.
Horne claimed they wanted to have their names added to her research papers and when she refused, the QEII Health Sciences Centre modified what she could and couldn't do at the hospital. She said that effectively ended her ability to conduct her research.
Parts of disclosure 'non-responsive'
The Health Department provided CBC News with two pages in December 2016, both almost entirely redacted. The first page was an email chain and page two was an attachment.
At the time, the department justified withholding the information based on two exemptions to the law that governs access requests, including that the disclosure could "harm the financial or economic interests" of the provincial government or its ability to "manage the economy and result in undue financial loss or gain to a third party."
It also argued parts of the disclosure were "non-responsive" to the request, meaning the information did not concern the topic of the request.
In September 2020, following mediation by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Department of Health appeared to agree to releasing the information, but requested two months more to do it. CBC News reluctantly agreed.
The department was notified by the office that it should release the two pages on or before Nov. 1, 2020. The department never complied and CBC News appealed to the commissioner for a formal review.
Tricia Ralph is Nova Scotia's information and privacy commissioner. (Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner)
In her Aug. 18 review report, Information and Privacy Commissioner Tricia Ralph found that the Department of Health "did not meet it's burden to prove the information was exempt from disclosure."
"The commissioner also finds the other information was removed without authority," Ralph wrote.
She recommended the department disclose the record in full.
The provincial government has 30 days to comply but, unlike other provinces, the law in Nova Scotia does not give Ralph order-making powers, and so the department could simply refuse to comply.
The CBC would then have to go to court to try to convince a Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice to order the documents released.
During this provincial election, Premier-designate Tim Houston promised to change the law to give the commissioner the power to order departments to comply with her decisions.
Commissioner rejects 'non-responsive' claim
Ralph's decision dismissed both of the province's arguments for withholding the court costs from the public. When it comes to the suggestion those amounts could cost the province in future settlements, the commissioner said there was no evidence to support that claim.
"The public body provided no explanation of how figures that were 8.5 years old at the time the access to information request was made could be relevant to other ongoing settlement negotiations," said Ralph's report.
The commissioner also found that the department was not authorized to withhold information on the basis that it was "non-responsive."
Ralph suggested this is an often used excuse for keeping information secret and that her office and others across Canada have rejected this blanket attempt to use the non-responsive exemption.
"I suggest that this practice end once and for all," she wrote.
In a statement to CBC, the Health Department said it is reviewing the report.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
N.S. spent $1M on lawyers in disciplinary case involving Halifax cardiologist
Gabrielle Horne subsequently won $1.4M lawsuit against former Capital District Health Authority
The dispute centred on Horne's attempts to have her hospital privileges reinstated. They had been reduced following a disagreement with colleagues on who should get part of the credit for her work, a situation that was called "a classic case of workplace bullying."
The figures only include the legal fees from before the time Horne successfully launched a lawsuit against the former Capital District Health Authority, which a jury concluded in 2016 had acted in bad faith.
Although the CBC requested the legal fees information in September 2016, the provincial government refused to release the figures until Nova Scotia's information commissioner issued a report critical of the decision to continue to keep the amounts secret. The decision to release the records came after the PCs took power from the Liberals in August's general election.
On Monday, Horne called the figure "extremely upsetting."
"I think that was probably a small fraction of what was actually spent," she told CBC.
Four law firms
The figures are included in an email attachment sent to PC Health Minister Chris d'Entremont in 2008. The attachment breaks down the costs over five years, starting in 2002. That's the year Horne's heart research was effectively shut down as a result of having her hospital privileges suspended.
Horne, shown in 2020, is writing a book about her experience. (Bernadine Umlah)
The $1,024,649.67 was shared among four Halifax law firms: Boyne Clarke, Patterson Palmer, Stewart McKelvey and Wickwire Holm. Lawyers for those firms provided legal advice to the board at the former health authority, as well as two internal professional committees. That $1 million is in addition to the time put in by lawyers in-house.
The amount paid to defend the authority against Horne's lawsuit for loss of reputation and career, and the appeal it filed after a jury awarded her $1.4 million, remains secret. Nova Scotia hospitals are insured by Nova Scotia Health Organizations Protective Association, which handles property damage claims as well as lawsuits against hospitals and their staff.
CBC asked the association how much it spent on defending the former health authority during the 33-day jury trial that ended with a landmark judgment in Horne's favour, but the CEO refused to share that information.
"HOPA, like other insurers, does not disclose commercially sensitive information," said Deborah Rozee. "Accordingly, HOPA does not disclose the insurance premiums paid by its insureds or legal expenses incurred by HOPA."
Although both the association and the province said the defence of the suit didn't come at the expense of the health-care budget, Horne remains sceptical.
"I'm not a financial expert, but my understanding is that N.S. HOPA is paid for by health-care bodies within Nova Scotia, so doesn't that mean health-care dollars," she said. "Surely that's resulted in a significant increase in their premiums."
"That money, again, would be paid for by Nova Scotia taxpayers."
Refused to release information
The health authority was successful in its appeal to have the $1.4-million award reduced to $800,000. The $167,000 Horne was awarded by the jury for legal fees she incurred to regain her hospital privileges between 2002 and 2006 remained the same.
The Health Department initially justified withholding information on legal expenses based on two exemptions under freedom-of-information legislation: the disclosure could "harm the financial or economic interests" of the provincial government or its ability to "manage the economy and result in undue financial loss or gain to a third party."
In her Aug. 18 review report, Information Commissioner Tricia Ralph found that the Department of Health "did not meet its burden to prove the information was exempt from disclosure." She recommended the department disclose the record in full.
The provincial government had 30 days to comply but, unlike other provinces, the law in Nova Scotia does not give Ralph order-making powers, and so the department could simply refuse.
Premier Tim Houston has promised to give the information commissioner order-making powers.
'Working hard to rebuild my life'
Horne said the almost $1 million she received in the suit went to pay lawyers who handled her case. She has started new research and has written a book detailing her legal battle to try to restore her reputation and continue her research.
"I have been working hard to put this experience behind me and rebuild my life," said Horne.
She hopes to find a publisher for her book so that the public would hear her story in an effort to "give people a window into this kind of behaviour."
"It used to be that people of privilege could get away with doing extraordinarily wrong things if they have power or were well-connected," she said. "I think our society has changed and I think that we are now living in an age where the public does not tolerate that behaviour.
"I hope that there's a good discussion and we all learn from this, and I just don't want to see something like this ever happen again."
No comments:
Post a Comment