Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Paul]

Sorry for the typos, I was multi tasking.

It's not a typo, it's an inability to understand basic information.

Whether they followed the rules is ONLY your opinion and nothing more,

My opinion doesn't come into it, if you think they abused their authority make a formal complaint.

and his beliefs bear a passing semblance to my philosophy.

It's a little more than that.

Apparently according to you, no one should share any beliefs on the internet, for fear that someone with a previous mental condition may misinterpret and act upon them.

We're not talking about beliefs, shared as such, we're talking about demonstrably false information offered as truth to vulnerable people.

They did not establish that the requirements were met.

It appears that they did precisely that:
"For the reasons set out above, the Board confirmed the finding of incapacity for NM with respect to antipsychotic medications – both oral and injectable and mood stabilizers.

For the reasons set out above, the Board confirmed the involuntary status of NM."

I had dinner today with a couple of lawyers and showed it to them.

This is not a personal attack, but every time you mention lawyers it turns out to be an unprovable anecdote or bluster.

Also, for someone with a demonstrable animosity to the legal profession, you do seem to find them a useful screen to attack the integrity of others.

Can you help me and show me where in the bolded parts, the question concerning his likelyhood to be a threat to himself or others, or was likely to suffer serious physical impairment was raised?

Certainly.

At the Time of the Hearing did NM have the Ability to Understand the Information Relevant to a Decision about Treatment?

"The Panel was of the unanimous opinion that NM failed the first part of the test for capacity. The Panel specifically noted the behaviours displayed by NM during the proceedings inclusive of an inability to listen to the directions provided and to receive and process information."

At the Time of the Hearing did NM have the Ability to Appreciate the Information Relevant to a Decision about Treatment?

"The Panel was of the opinion that the evidence supported a finding that NM’s condition resulted in him being unable to recognize that he was affected by its manifestations. Accordingly, the Panel confirmed the finding that NM was incapable with respect to the treatment proposed as NM was unable to apply the relevant information to him circumstances, and unable to appreciate the consequences of a treatment decision."

At the time of the Hearing was NM suffering from Mental Disorder?

"The Panel found as a fact that, as of the date of the Hearing, NM was suffering mental disorder."

At the time of the Hearing has NM previously received treatment for mental disorder of an ongoing or recurring nature that, when not treated, is of a nature or quality that likely will result in substantial mental or physical deterioration of the person ?

"NM did not lead any evidence that contradicted the evidence of Dr. Chaya.

The Panel held that this criterion had been met at the time of the Hearing."

(here they ask about the physical deterioration at least, but they also mention mental, which is not part of the requirements to be met, but which they later use to justify. It is called the bait and switch)

Mental deterioration is in the question, what kind of silly game are you playing?

At the time of the Hearing has NM shown clinical improvement as a result of the treatment?

"The Panel held that this criterion had been met at the time of the Hearing."

At the time of the Hearing is NM suffering from the same mental disorder as the one for which he previously received treatment or from a mental disorder that is similar to the previous one?

"The Panel held that this criterion had been met at the time of the Hearing."

At the time of the Hearing, given NM’s history of mental disorder and current mental or physical condition, is likely to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration?

"The Panel held that this criterion had been met at the time of the Hearing."

Mental deterioration is NOT one of the requirements justifying continued incarceration.

Yes it is:
"The physician may certify a patient as involuntary either under subsection 20(5) or under subsection 20(1.1), or both. In this case, Dr. Chaya chose to rely upon subsection 20(1.1) Box B criteria substantial mental or physical deterioration of the patient."
" (d) given the person’s history of mental disorder and current mental or physical condition, is likely to cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or is likely to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment;"

At the time of the Hearing has NM been found incapable, within the meaning of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, of consenting to her treatment in a psychiatric facility and the consent of his or her substitute decision-maker has been obtained?

"The Panel deliberated on the issue of capacity. The Panel upheld the finding of incapacity based upon the reasons cited above.

Based upon all of the above, the Panel held that the Box B criteria were met at the time of the Hearing."

Hey look they made a typo too! Gonna dismiss all they had to say for that reason?

Nope , because they're using criteria that apply to any person, hence "his or her".

Now just for clarity, here are the requirements:

Unfortunately I've already explained thoese, and as already mentioned "Dr. Chaya chose to rely upon subsection 20(1.1)".

Please show me 'serious mental impairment' in the above, as that is what they used to justify keeping him/her in there.

"testimony of NM himself all which confirmed that NM did not believe that anything was wrong with him relative to the signs and symptoms or manifestations of schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia."

Can you do that please? I can't seem to find it.... But I am sure you can show me. Thanks in advance.

You do not appear to be looking very hard, or are reading selectively because you have an agenda.

 

[slowsmile]

Now just for clarity, here are the requirements:
20(5) The attending physician shall complete a certificate of involuntary admission or a certificate or renewal if, after examining the patient, he or she is of the opinion both,

(a) that the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,
(i) serious bodily harm to the patient,
(ii) serious bodily harm to another person, or
(iii) serious physical impairment of the patient,
unless the patient remains in the custody of a psychiatric facility; and
(b) that the patient is not suitable for admission or continuation as an informal or voluntary patient.

Please show me 'serious mental impairment' in the above, as that is what they used to justify keeping him/her in there.

Can you do that please? I can't seem to find it.... But I am sure you can show me. Thanks in advance.

You didn't read very far as you would have noticed he'd been detained under section 20(1.1), not 20(5) as you've now quoted twice.

 

[FreemanMenard]

You didn't read very far as you would have noticed he'd been detained under section 20(1.1), not 20(5) as you've now quoted twice.

You are right. (wipes egg off face)
I read it yesterday while trying to finish up some other stuff and talking with family and friends with kids demanding my attention. I should make sure I focus better when reading such judgments. Thank you for the correction. Will show it to my lawyer friends and see if they agree with it, though one is a constitutional expert and thought that the Act itself had some constitutional issues. For instance, even being a patient, does that require consent or not? Can a Doctor provide medical treatment or diagnosis without consent, when the party is not a danger to others?

Again thank you for the correction.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Rob wrote:

I had dinner today with a couple of lawyers and showed it to them.

And those two lawyers made exactly the same mistake that you did?

 

[DGM]

I don't see why she would not be able to. As for the BC thing, all she has to do is ask the folks in her office to look at theirs. Or even her own.... sorry did not mean to ignore your post.

Would the statement "Prove me wrong, I do not think I need to prove I'm right", be an accurate assessment of your philosophy? This is the feeling I get from your limited post to me.

 

[LashL]

Will show it to my lawyer friends and see if they agree with it, though one is a constitutional expert and thought that the Act itself had some constitutional issues.

Really? Which 'constitutional issues' are those? There have been several decisions by the Ontario Court of Appeal, other provincial Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada in this regard. Presumably your constitutional expert friend is aware of those decisions. Does he or she disagree with them? If so, which ones and on what basis?

For instance, even being a patient, does that require consent or not?

Not if the person lacks capacity to consent.

Can a Doctor provide medical treatment or diagnosis without consent, when the party is not a danger to others?

Yes, if the patient lacks capacity to consent and meets certain other criteria (see, as three examples, section 15(1.1), section 16(1.1) and section 20(1.1) of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, which operate in conjunction with the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.2, Sched. A.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Quesion for LashL or anyone else who knows:

RE the "Revenue Receipt . . . Treasury Use Only" issue. Doesn't that just mean that the birth certificate acts as a receipt for the fee (presumably) required to obtain a copy of a birth certificate?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Would the statement "Prove me wrong, I do not think I need to prove I'm right", be an accurate assessment of your philosophy? This is the feeling I get from your limited post to me.

No. Not even close.
And before you ask me to clarify, share in full your philosophy.

I look forward to you sharing it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Quesion for LashL or anyone else who knows:

RE the "Revenue Receipt . . . Treasury Use Only" issue. Doesn't that just mean that the birth certificate acts as a receipt for the fee (presumably) required to obtain a copy of a birth certificate?

That is a fair question. I do not think it does.
When you get one they give you a different piece of paper to fulfill that function. They actually give you a proper receipt. Why would you need a BC to fulfill that function when they give you a receipt which does already?
If you needed to prove you you bought one, and they wanted you to send them the receipt, would you give them the BC, and lose that which it identifies?
Does any item fulfill the function of a receipt for that item?
You can test it. Go to a store, grab something they are selling, walk out without paying for it, and without a receipt, and when security stops you and asks for the receipt, just point to the object and tell them IT (all by itself) fulfills the function of a receipt. See how that goes for you.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Really? Which 'constitutional issues' are those? There have been several decisions by the Ontario Court of Appeal, other provincial Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada in this regard. Presumably your constitutional expert friend is aware of those decisions. Does he or she disagree with them? If so, which ones and on what basis?




Not if the person lacks capacity to consent.




Yes, if the patient lacks capacity to consent and meets certain other criteria (see, as three examples, section 15(1.1), section 16(1.1) and section 20(1.1) of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, which operate in conjunction with the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.2, Sched. A.

The question that was raised was if anyone could be described as 'the patient' without their consent.

Tell me this. can I open a clinic, drag you into it, and consider you patient of my clinic without your consent?

Does the status of 'patient' require consent or not? If you say not, you can be a patient of mine without your consent, and if otherwise, you decide if you are my patient.

So in a situation where YOU are the patient, and I am operating a clinic, would I need YOUR consent to call you patient, or can I keep you in my clinic without your consent because I label you my patient?

That was one facet of issue we discussed. (Over dinner and wine without professional liability. It was all merely for discussion purposes, not for the purpose of arguing and generating conflict. Something I wish we could do here, but apparently can't.)

What say you?

 

[LashL]

Quesion for LashL or anyone else who knows:

RE the "Revenue Receipt . . . Treasury Use Only" issue. Doesn't that just mean that the birth certificate acts as a receipt for the fee (presumably) required to obtain a copy of a birth certificate?

As I understand it, revenue receipts are additions to assets that do not incur an obligation that must be met in the future, and they do not represent exchanges of property for money. They include things like fees and other receipts for services rendered by government agencies, and must be available to pay for expenditures (thus, revenue receipts cannot, by definition, include things that incur an obligation that has to be met in the future, contrary to the entire ridiculous "birth bond" nonsense of the FOTL folks).

I don't know how old the document purporting to be a B.C. birth certificate in that image is, or if they are still printing them like that, but I'd be surprised if they still are.

I have in front of me at the moment three Ontario birth certificates: my own, issued in the late 1970s (I lost the original), my daughter's, issued in the late 1980s, and one of my parent's, issued in the early 1950s (also a replacement for a lost original). The words "Revenue Receipt" do not appear anywhere on any of them. The birth certificate issued to my parent in the early 1950s is in English only, came laminated and has the letter D followed by a five digit number in red ink on the back. My own, issued in the late 70s is in both English and French, came laminated and has nothing at all printed on the back. My daughter's, issued in the late 1980s is paper and has a map of Ontario on the back, along with the letter A followed by a seven digit number in red ink, and a specific admonition that the document is invalid if laminated.

Nary a birth bond among them.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Will it be a random Birth Certificate or just one issued in BC before 1982 I wonder...

As I said, so far as I am aware, the words only appear on Certificates issued in BC before 1982.

 

[LashL]

The question that was raised was if anyone could be described as 'the patient' without their consent.

Surely, no "constitutional expert" raised that question, as it's been answered by the courts many times as any "constitutional expert" would know.

You've reworded your question from your previous wording, which was, "For instance, even being a patient, does that require consent or not?" and the answer to that question is as I said above: Not if the person lacks capacity to consent.

The answer doesn't change just because you've reworded your question; it only means the answer has to be reworded to respond directly to the new question. The answer is: If you lack the capacity to consent, yes, you can be made a patient without your consent. See, for two examples, section 16(1) and section 17 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7. Various courts also have the jurisdiction and authority to order people to undergo pyschiatric assessments in various circumstances, without their consent, as another example.

Secondly, you bolded a small portion of my post and then said, "The question that was raised was if anyone could be described as 'the patient' without their consent" as though that was a legitimate reply to my post, but it really wasn't. The part of my post that you bolded was part of my response to an entirely different question that you had also asked in your previous post. Your question to which that portion of my post was responding, was: "Can a Doctor provide medical treatment or diagnosis without consent, when the party is not a danger to others?" and my answer is exactly as I stated in my response to your post. You really shouldn't try to muddy the water by pretending to reply to serious responses with 'replies' that do not address the responses at all, but only try to obfuscate, conflate, and misdirect.

Now, what were those "constitutional issues" that your constitutional expert friend raised? And which of the relevant decisions by the Ontario Court of Appeal, other provincial Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada does your friend disagree with, and on what basis?

 

[LashL]

As I said, so far as I am aware, the words only appear on Certificates issued in BC before 1982.

Ah, thanks for that. I didn't see your earlier post but it fits with my own note above that I'd be surprised if they were still printing them like that and my note above that Ontario birth certificates certainly do not have any such notation on them, at least as far back as the early 1950s based on the three I have in front of me at the moment.

 

[grmcdorman]

I have my original Ontario Birth Certificate from late 1950. The alleged phraseology does not appear anywhere on it.

Oh dear, I've just dated myself...

 

[Robrob]

I have my original Ontario Birth Certificate from late 1950. The alleged phraseology does not appear anywhere on it.

There you go, dragging facts into it.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I have my original Ontario Birth Certificate from late 1950. The alleged phraseology does not appear anywhere on it.

Oh dear, I've just dated myself...

Yeah the sneaky "powers that be" used lemon juice on their quills with those ones.
Try heating it over a lit candle

 

[Hektor]

So in a situation where YOU are the patient, and I am operating a clinic, would I need YOUR consent to call you patient, or can I keep you in my clinic without your consent because I label you my patient?

That was one facet of issue we discussed. (Over dinner and wine without professional liability. It was all merely for discussion purposes, not for the purpose of arguing and generating conflict. Something I wish we could do here, but apparently can't.)

So you supposedly went to dinner with these two lawyers who have vague constitutional reservations about this (although strangely without referencing the specific cases that actually deal with the subject) and discussed all of that. Colour me surprised that neither one pointed out two obvious facts: One Rob, you lack a medical degree and a license and thus cannot legally open a clinic yourself. If you did, you would be rather quickly governed by without your consent. Two, a licensed physician cannot just walk up to any person, declare him or her to be a patient and then forcibly detain them. Doing so would be grounds for losing their medical license and jail time. There's a legal process that is involved as demonstrated by the very case cited and indeed a patient can challenge the doctor's diagnosis. I would humbly suggest that fake "legal" advice that supposedly "empowers" and individual by encouraging them to believe that they are not bound by said hearing actually hurts them. After all, one of schizophrenia's many symptoms is the inability to understand and process reality.

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you supposedly went to dinner with these two lawyers who have vague constitutional reservations about this (although strangely without referencing the specific cases that actually deal with the subject) and discussed all of that. Colour me surprised that neither one pointed out two obvious facts: One Rob, you lack a medical degree and a license and thus cannot legally open a clinic yourself. If you did, you would be rather quickly governed by without your consent. Two, a licensed physician cannot just walk up to any person, declare him or her to be a patient and then forcibly detain them. Doing so would be grounds for losing their medical license and jail time. There's a legal process that is involved as demonstrated by the very case cited and indeed a patient can challenge the doctor's diagnosis. I would humbly suggest that fake "legal" advice that supposedly "empowers" and individual by encouraging them to believe that they are not bound by said hearing actually hurts them. After all, one of schizophrenia's many symptoms is the inability to understand and process reality.

No quite. Went no where, they came here. Had dinner with a whole bunch of people, amongst them were two lawyers. There was also some public health nurses, and some retied folks.

Do you agree that a physician needs your consent before providing their services to you personally? Or not?

 

[FreemanMenard]

There you go, dragging facts into it.

Here's a fact we can drag into it. The resources of Canada are owned by the people of Canada, and if there is no mechanism to monitor and disperse the value extracted fairly, then those who do so are committing theft from the owners.

Do you like that fact?

here is another: The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representational one, and representation requires mutual consent.

I love how you all are pathologically inclined to ignore THAT fact.