i am not satisfied with the scope and totality of my form 3 response - i want it to be better. but, it cannot be better until i either get the video, or i get some kind of analysis as to the situation surrounding the destruction of the video, which i intend to show here would be egregious, if it did indeed happen. further, one of the concerns that the court will need to rule upon is the request for dismissal, and the question of the physical evidence - or lack thereof - should be fundamental to any such decision. if my claim has the merit i believe it does, one glance at the video should verify my concerns, immediately. as such, i am requesting a reconsideration on the previous ruling.

if this reconsideration is rejected because these concerns are better interpreted as dealt with further on in the process, please accept the associated form 3 response as it is - and we will indeed deal with this later. but, if the reconsideration is rejected and dismissal follows, i cannot accept the outcome, as the dismissal will be rooted in a decision to reject an extension that is intended to clarify what happened to the fundamental piece of evidence in the case. my request for reconsideration is consequently cautionary - it has it's highest point of relevance in the case that the court is leaning towards dismissal, as was requested by the respondent. if dismissal is not being considered, as i hope it is not, then we can deal with it later, as suggested.

i am simply going to tell the story as it happened, as i can piece it together.

so, this is the fax that i sent david musyj on sept 1, 2020 at 10:55 am:

============

i am the person that was arrested twice last night for the crime of having suicidal thoughts and going to the hospital to have it addressed. the crisis i was in is not over, and this is likely not the last you've seen of me.

i have been off of the drugs now for almost 36 hours and am already experiencing severe side effects, including unwanted random erections and extreme outbursts of violent thoughts and aggresive behaviour, leading me to wonder how much more of this i can take before i pull the plug. this is only going to get worse until the issue is addressed. it is beyond baffling that my very serious concerns were brushed aside by a doctor that clearly had distinctly anti-queer biases.

as i was not allowed to get the facts straight before i was dragged out of the hospital like an animal, i feel the need to get a fax to the hospital to set things straight. after reviewing these facts, if the hospital would like to reconsider the situation and the uniqueness of the emergency room in having the ability to prescribe what i need at this time, i would appreciate a call (you can leave a message) or email to correct the situation.

as it is, dr. ======= should expect a human rights case to be filed against him at the ohrc for discrimination, in short order, and i will be prosecuting the case as aggressively as is possible, as what happened is unconscionable. there will likewise be civil action taken against the police for clearly disproportionately violent behaviour. and, i intend to make a serious complaint against the guard 'ryan', as well, with the intent of him losing his job.

i will easily defeat the specious tickets in court.

this can never happen to anybody else ever again.

what are the facts?

1) the transitional stability centre does not have physicians on hand and cannot prescribe medications. it is of absolutely no use to me at all, as i said. dr. --------'s insistence that i go there to refill an rx was deeply ignorant and severely misinformed.

2) while i have an rx for cyproterone, it is at a dosage that is too small to be useful, as a result of an unusual level of tolerance built up from high dosages over many, many years. i need a dosage that is usually reserved for prostate cancer patients.

3) my doctor is on holidays and cannot be reached until mid september.

4) regardless, doctors & nurses are required to follow certain guidelines in filling a rx such as this. my required dosage exceeds the maximumn allotment. as such, only an emergency room doctor can identify the situation as an emergency and prescribe the required dosage.

5) every clinic in town is closed.

so, i have now followed the suggestions set out by the doctors and have merely arrived at the same point: i need an er doctor to prescribe this rx. a clinic cannot do so, nor can my family doctor.

i will need to try the met campus this afternoon, and hope i get a second opinion, from there.

the bizarrity of the scenario is that i was right about everything, and the doctors and nurses were wrong about everything. there is still time to correct this, even if the situation is too far gone to avoid the intervention of the ohrc. no amount of reconciliation on your behalf will avoid a human rights battle that i intend to win, and that i intend to reverberate in pushing through institutional changes as to how mental health emergencies are dealt with by the windsor hospital.

what happened to me cannot happen to anybody else, and everybody involved should be deeply ashamed of what they did. you will be held accountable in time.

========

i made it very clear that a lawsuit would be imminent.

shortly after i sent that fax, i called the shopper's drug mart and they decided to waive the fee, resolving the crisis for the short run. while the situation has been far from ideal since, it has been manageable under the hope that an orchidectomy is within reach in short order. that hope is what is keeping me going.

i know that the hospital received this fax because two members of windsor coast showed up at my house a few hours later, which is discussed here:

(deleted)

i should be able to locate a report of that call by windsor coast, which proves receipt of the fax.

as the ceo himself was served in a very timely manner, the windsor hospital had a clear legal responsibility to ensure that evidence - not just the video, but any subsequent documents - was not destroyed until the process carried itself out. i decided that was sufficient. i mean, that's what i am supposed to do, right?

i was contacted by the oiprd in regards to the case and indicated that they would need to locate the video, as the hospital would never provide it to me on a basic fippa request, given the nature of the suit filed against them.

this is the response i received from the oiprd:

Mon, Nov 2, 2020, 2:46 PM

Thank you for your reply, Jessica.

I have spoken with the manager of security at Windsor Regional Hospital – Ouellette Campus. The retention for their video surveillance is only 2 weeks. You had filed your complaint with OIPRD on-line on September 4, 2020. This complaint was not received by our Service until October 6, 2020. As the incident in which you filed your complaint about occurred on August 31, 2020, there is no video surveillance capturing your arrest.

=============

but, that was why i served the ceo when i did - to ensure that something like this would not happen.

the oiprd also informed me that a security guard report existed, indicating that the hospital was taking the situation quite seriously. well, where's the video, then?

it is for that reason that i made the request i made on nov 10 rather than nov 17th, although it seems to have taken a few days for the hospital to process it. 

please see the respondent's "documentary evidence", as attached, for the reply by the hospital on dec 10th and the follow up on jan 19th.

as of feb 5th, i have yet to receive any files from the hospital, although they may be here by tuesday. apparently. as such, i have yet to file with the privacy commissioner; i will file when the issue resolves itself.

but, something is not adding up here regarding this video; the ceo saw fit to send coast officers to my house, and a report was written by the officer, but no video exists? is this negligence on behalf of the hospital? is it malice?j and does it imply anything about how the hospital viewed the footage?

so, i propose that the privacy commissioner be contacted to analyze the situation, and that the case be stalled until that day happens - and i propose the court reconsider it's previous ruling, to allow this scandal the ability to develop.

this is my response to the first ruling:

the basis for the request for an extension lies in finding this security footage, as the respondent included a large amount of inaccurate information in their response, which appears to be based on the security guard's report. until i'm able to read the security guard's report, my response will merely consist of me accusing the respondents of lying, and the court process will essentially reduce to a shouting match over who is lying and who isn't. this is frustrating, as the central problem at hand is the doctor accusing me of lying, in the first place. i want to file a response that is productive and pushes the case forward, not be forced to merely accuse the respondents of being dishonest.

the production of footage would make it clear very quickly who is lying and who isn't.

if the security guard felt that the situation was serious enough to write a report, it seems very strange to me that no footage exists. i simply do not believe that this is actually true - i am convinced that the footage either exists, or, if it was destroyed, was destroyed out of malice. if the video was indeed destroyed out of malice, that is suggestive as to who is lying, here. as such, the findings of the privacy commissioner are fundamental to moving forwards, and continuing the case without these findings is of questionable use or value.

i decided to wait until a resolution with the health records presented itself, so i only needed to file with the commissioner once. attached is a screenshot indicating that the records are on their way to me, although i have not been informed yet of when. once these records are in my possession, i will file with the privacy commissioner.

so, i can and will file a response by the deadline, but it won't be very useful for anybody without the video for reference. i am consequently requesting a reconsideration on the extension until the privacy commissioner can provide some direction as to why this video is not being made available to me.

j

=============

this is the email i sent the other day:

i suppose that the date of feb 22 was chosen because it is one week past feb 15th, and that makes some sense, but my request was really for an extension until the privacy commissioner reports on the fact that this video is not being made available, and the conditions under which it was deleted, if it was in fact deleted. presuming i get the records this week, i do not need an extension until the 22nd, if the court would rather wait to deal with the concerns around the missing video at a later date. i am not trying to delay this process and do not want to slow it down, i legitimately feel that this reply cannot go forward correctly until the video is available or the conditions around it's destruction are properly understood, so i should be able to file either on friday or on monday morning, depending on when i get the records. i'm a quick study, and i am a self-represented litigant with an academic legal background, so i should be able to get through this fairly quickly.

so, the way i'm going to do this is to file the form 3 along with a formal request for reconsideration, with the following logic attached to it:

if the court does not want to extend the deadline for the reply until after the privacy commissioner reviews the situation because it wishes to deal with the issue at a later date, then my reply will be as presented; otherwise, please discard the reply, until the privacy commissioner reviews the situation, when i will refile a more detailed response. 

expect a formal reply some time between thursday night and monday morning.

===============