so, i got my request for review in and decided not to waste my time with writing a lengthy essay, as nobody is going to read it, anyways. i'll save the issue for divisional court.

---

i made two complaints. the first was for an unjustified use of force, and while i do not retract the claim, i do recognize that i cannot prosecute it without video evidence, which is apparently missing. i have no recourse but to complain to the privacy commissioner that the hospital deleted the footage, but this is better dealt with through other channels.

the second complaint was regarding the unauthorized use of force, and the report simply doesn't explore the case law around the issue. i do not believe that i can be removed from a hospital for trespassing under the orders of a doctor unless i am posing some threat to others, which nobody at any point suggested; i rather seem to have been removed because my gender identity was seen as an annoyance to various types of social conservatives in my presence, including the psychiatrist.  while i expect to appeal, and will save my arguments for divisional court, the report should have cited cases like Bracken v. Niagara Parks Police [2018] for guidance on the question of trespassing on public property and does not even contemplate the point. this is an error in analysis by the officer, who is no doubt not remotely qualified to consider the question in any legal sense - but i know this review body is not qualified to consider the questions, either. 

this process is absurd. but, this is the required next step to get to an actual legal body with actual qualified people in it to analyze the scenario.

so, i'm requesting a review of the authority of the officer to make an arrest of a non-violent protester in a hospital, and requesting some attempt be made to analyze the relevant case law, such as bracken, in doing so. but, i know better...

as an aside, i am misquoted in section l. the full quote, which was from a reply sent to the lawyers in a related human rights case, is as follows:

"it is stated in paragraph 26 that i was seen by the doctor and assessed by the psychiatric nurse when i arrived a second time. this is also false. it is true that a doctor came out to yell at me and call me names and accuse me of wasting his time, but this happened in the waiting room; we engaged in a short debate about whether he was upholding his hippocratic oath or not, but i was not let back into the hospital and i did not see a doctor in any meaningful sense - i was instead escorted outside and arrested, after a lengthy debate with one of the officers about what my rights are in context, and lengthy pleading with me to give up and go home (which i refused)."

the officer who wrote this report cut that full quote off as follows:

"i was seen by the doctor and assessed by the psychiatric nurse when i arrived a second time."

this demonstrates that the officer was not acting in good faith, and i would request a review for that reason, as well. but, i understand at this point that this body is intended to act in poor faith and just want to get the case to a real court...