I recently posted a webinar by the OIPCBC to illustrate that they are hypocrites, seeking to minimize the liability exposure of Vancouver Island Health Authority to any hypothetic future legal action. As you know from reading our posts, Patient H is in frail health, and is being denied proper healthcare services as a result of the patient's records being distorted, intentionally or recklessly, by the deceptive submissions by VIHA, its employees, contractors, and sub-contractors.
These are a clear and present THREAT to our most vulnerable and treasured senior citizens, Dr Maskey is a and Gale Prokopiw... also LIABILITY to the Government because they (particularly Dr Maskey) keep being total dip-shits and regurgitating information that is distortion or pure and unadulterated deception, in the hopes that they can keep dosing Patient H, and others like her, up with a substance likely to cause her death or grievous bodily harm.
I am writing in response to the various inappropriate emails you have sent to this office... I find that creating an email address.. threatening communications.
I consider this type of behaviour to be inappropriate and it must stop.
I will not be proceeding your file review further until you confirm to me in writing that you will stop communicating inappropriately with me or any other person in this office who processes your files.
..we will no longer respond to any of your communications going forward.
Since I never communicated inappropriately, it is clear that she is attempting to force her interpretation of facts on myself. However, I acknowledge that she is a figure of significant public authority, and as such may at a whim, refuse to complete the duties she has the delegated authority and responsibility to complete. I pointedly state that her interpretation is incorrect...
These four state actors are documented as having malingered or otherwise distorted patient records, falsified reports and provided fraudulent conveyances or false imprisonment. Needless to say, this squad of four is going to receive our fullest attention in the coming months.
As a general rule, it would be contrary to the goals of pretrial documentary discovery if parties were permitted to completely redact the documents they disclosed. This issue was recently addressed in Dominion Nickel Investments Ltd. v. R. ("Dominion") where Justice Jorré confirmed that information could only be redacted where it was "clearly irrelevant" to the issues under dispute.1