so, i did get a response from the hospital about the discrimination lawsuit i filed against it, within the proper time frames. they essentially upheld my take on events, but spun it slightly differently. my take on it is that the lawyer basically doesn't seem to understand the accusations, which led her to essentially admit them, under the perception that smearing me, instead, is some kind of response.

so, i put in the application that i have a stress disorder and was arrested for demonstrating the effects of that disorder. rather than attempt to dispute that fact, she just ignored the underlying causes of the situation and doubled down on the need to remove me for being "disruptive", like that means anything, legally. obviously, the ramifications of having a mental health episode don't justify a denial of treatment regarding it. and, that should work in my favour if i get a reasonable judge. i mean, it amounts to a rejection of the premise that i have a mental health issue in the first place - which is why i'm suing them for discriminating against me. those are prohibited grounds in this country.

the result is that this isn't gong to be a case that's about facts, but rather a case that's about legal interpretations. i'm a classical liberal, on rights issues....and so is most of the judiciary in canada. the lawyer seems to be approaching it from some kind of fake left foucauldian perspective, where authority gets to make arbitrary decisions based on concerns surrounding political correctness. that's what this argument is going to be about - whether the hospital and police had the legal authority to do what it did based on it's arguments, and whether it was driven by prejudice in doing so or not. and, i've been in debates with people like this before - she's not going to "get it", and i'm going to have to argue around her over and over, but if the judge follows the discourse then it will just make her look stupid, to my benefit. otherwise, i'll have to appeal and hope i get a better judge the next level up...

so, my initial concern is filing a response, and it's supposed to be about whether i agree with the facts or not. i don't think we're disagreeing with each other over what happened, but i'll have to file a response to double down on the fact that discrimination did happen and the issue does actually fall under the code.

but, what i'm actually concerned about is finding the rules of procedure to ensure i get my timelines worked out. i did this research with the first case some time ago, but it's on the other machine.

so, that's what i'm doing over the next day or two - tracing out the relevant timelines, and filing a response. i have until early february; it won't take nearly that long, but i might stretch it out somewhat to make sure i don't have to file an extension regarding the introduction of relevant material that i'm getting from the foia.

based on the response, i expect this case to go to trial.