(i stripped the formatting)
attached is
- the form 3 response
- the attachment referenced in the form 3 response
- form 23
- form 20
- attachment referenced in the form 20
- initial fippa dated to nov 10
- "documentary evidence" previously cited
- form 23
the package has not yet arrived, and i'm being told it might be until monday, now. so, i will need to wait until next week to react to the documents when they arrive.
========================
this is the attachment, which is also attached in pdf:
forgive me for the format, but i'm on a chromebook, and it's easiest to type up a response in a gmail message and print it to pdf.
my general perception is that the respondent does not appear to understand the accusations made against it, so i will attempt to clarify where new or misleading information is presented. i will respond specifically to the numbered points that i have some response to make regarding.
as of the morning of feb 5, 2021, i do not currently have access to the security guard's report, nor do i have access to the police report. i was intending to base my response on the objective video footage rather than these two subjective reports, which i would have preferred to ignore altogether to be honest, but the existence of video footage has been denied by the respondent; i find that somewhat dubious and will seek the opinion of the privacy commissioner as to whether that is believable and/or acceptable or not, and will ultimately leave it to the court to interpret the ramifications of that fiasco. and, this is a fiasco - it suggests the hospital is trying to hide the truth of what happened, given that it was made aware of legal action on sept 1, 2020 (see request for reconsideration for evidence). further, i do not have access to my own medical records, yet. i hope they appear this afternoon, along with the guard's report.
i do, however, have access to a video log of my own perception of the situation, as it was occurring and have uploaded it to youtube:
(deleted)
the language in these vlogs is colourful and real, as they are intended as entertainment rather than legal evidence. they nonetheless must stand as the latter.
2-4.
while the application includes references to a number of outside actors, these are provided so that the court can understand the situation holistically. the court could not make an informed ruling, otherwise. so, while the windsor hospital would obviously not be liable for the behaviour of outside actors, and there is no suggestion that they ought to be, i thoroughly reject the idea that these references and explanations are not important in understanding the situation in full, including the accusations made against the respondent, and would urge the respondent to attempt to understand the situation in full, rather than narrowly focus on what it considers to be important only to it, in it's defense. the application, after all, belongs to the applicant, and not to the respondent. as i intend for the court to understand the situation in as much detail as is possible in order to produce as informed a ruling as is possible, i will continue to attempt to describe the situation in as full and holistic a manner as is possible, over the objections of the respondent to focus solely on modular details. if necessary, the court will need to moderate this discourse as there appears to be a fundamental disconnect in perceptions of the scope of the application. suggestions that these details are unimportant merely serve to demonstrate that the respondent does not fully understand the scope and breadth of the accusations against it.
10-13.
my initial application described the situation in greater detail, and i would ask the court to defer to that narrative, rather than the truncated narrative presented by the respondent, which is misleading in it's lack of detail. narratives can be manipulated to be misleading by deleting information, and that appears to be what was done here. as i have yet to see the security guard's report, i do not know at this time if the lawyers representing the hospital cherry-picked information from the security guard's report and discarded large amounts of substantive details or if the security guard's report is lacking in detail, itself. regardless, i am going to expand upon the situation even further in order to undo the misleading description. my opposition, here, then, is to the lack of detail presented in the response, and the misleading picture it draws, perhaps intentionally, in it's deficit of information. the holistic projection presented here is new, then, even if the specifics are not.
i need to reiterate that i was not merely uncomfortable but physically shivering while waiting inside of the waiting room - i was having an intense, visceral, physical reaction to the air conditioning in the hospital. and, i have a history of that; it may even be genetic, as my father had the same reaction to air conditioning, when he was alive. my initial reaction to the cold was not to sway back and forth on the chair as indicated in the response but actually to walk around and run back and forth through the waiting room; while this behaviour of running to stay warm in an isolated part of the waiting room was of no harm or substantive irritant to anybody, i was asked to stop doing that and agreed to go outside if i was cold. as indicated in the youtube upload (img077), i actually went outside several times to warm up; in the end, i found the second-hand smoke in the parking lot from all of the smokers outside (including the guard) to be impossible to deal with and retreated inside, instead. it was only after i was blocked from going outside by the smokers, and told i could not engage in other forms of physical activity to stay warm, that i entered into a degraded mental state (i was "triggered", so to say) and began to rock back and forth in the "fetal position", which is a well known sign of traumatic behaviour. i was not, however, sitting in a chair, but on a bench, so i would not have created the kind of sounds claimed in the response - this is a minor detail in context, but it's simply false. the feet stomping as an attempt to create body heat is correct. so, this is what is described in paragraphs 10-11, in a proper amount of detail - i was rocking back and forth in the fetal position on a bench in the waiting room, while in a state of anxiety and shock, after being told to stop trying to warm myself up, and unable to deal with the pollution outside, while experiencing a visceral, physical reaction to the air conditioning in the er.
this then constructs the proper context for what is described in paragraphs 12-13. i did refuse to stop swaying back and forth and stomping my feet, in a motion that was sort of like running or bicycling in place, because i was told i could not run back and forth and could not run in spot. this behaviour was consequently out of desperation, after i was told to stop doing a series of other actions to prevent myself from having a physical reaction to the temperature in the building, which i was simply not able to handle. so, my eventual agitated reaction was the cause of not just the stress i was experiencing and my inability to deal with the cold but repeated attempts by security to prevent me from doing harmless and only mildly irritating things - like running on the spot - to stay warm. i would consequently not assign fault to myself for what happened, but rather to an aggressive security guard that acted in a very strange and controlling manner. stated bluntly: a transperson knows from body language when somebody does not accept them and wants to get rid of them. the existence of footage here would be exceedingly useful in determining whether the guard was being reasonable or discriminatory in his behaviour, but i have claimed and will again claim the latter - i was neither harming nor substantively bothering anybody, i was merely trying to stop myself from shivering, and became episodic and non-respondent when i was aggressively prevented from doing so by an officer that seemed to be using it as an excuse to throw me out of there for being openly queer.
14-22
as i was now in an agitated state due not just to the situation that brought me into the hospital in a suicidal frame of mind but also to the security guard's aggressive attempts to remove me for no good reason, i actually dared him to try to drag me out with force. i egged him on. i mean, it was clear to me that he was throwing me out due to my gender expression, and not my behaviour, so i decided to engage in an act of protest and force him to actually do it, if he insisted on it - which he did, which would be comical if not for the dire reality of the situation, or perhaps because of it depending on your sense of humour. i was not about to leave the er for the reasons being cited, which were not good reasons at all! i mean, this is a public service, and i have a legislatively enacted right to care - security had better have a very good reason if they're going to throw a patient out of the waiting room, and annoying the other people in the room (none of whom complained, to my knowledge) is certainly nothing close to it. it is very difficult for me to understand how anybody could justify throwing a suicidal person out of a hospital because their fetal position swaying, that is their episodic behaviour, is somehow perceived as so disruptive as to deny them of their legislatively ensured right to access care - such logic could only be an excuse to hide a true motive of discrimination and bias, or it is rooted in no logic at all. the argument presented by the respondent simply doesn't add up.
and, it's simply not up to the security guard to make this choice at all.
indeed, the security guard deferred to the nurse to make the choice, but the nurse did not make the choice - the nurse did as directed by the guard. this is a backwards chain of command, but it was what occurred in front of me - the nurse did not provide direction as to whether i should be discharged, but was rather ordered to discharge me by the security guard. and, again - that is not a chain of command that i have any obligation to respect, as a patient, and one i saw no choice but to actively resist, as i saw it unfold in front of me. security doesn't make medical decisions, and any security officer that takes it upon itself to do so - by asking the nurse to discharge me, as is admitted in the response - should be fired. that fact alone - that security asked triage to discharge me - is cause for an investigation, as that is not the role of a security guard.
when the guards attempted to remove be my force for swaying back and forth to stay warm - which is an egregious affront on my right to be there - i did indeed drop to the floor. i fell into what left-wing activists refer to as 'nonviolent resistance', as i have been trained to by activist groups; this tactic is used by activists to prevent officers from removing them from spaces they are occupying, and involves lying on the floor and utilizing the effects of gravity to push all of one's weight towards the ground to make it difficult to move them. i had no intention of utilizing this tactic when i entered the er to get an emergency prescription in a suicidal state, but that was the situation i found myself in due to the actions of the guard.
further, i did indeed yell mean things at the guards and then the police in an attempt to have them recognize the absurdity and tyranny of their aggressive and discriminatory behaviour - another activist tactic called agitprop that i found myself unexpectedly forced to utilize. the intent of agitprop is to have the listener see themselves in the mirror (in this case, figuratively), via the utilization of challenging images and language. as i had no intent to physically resist, and could have hardly succeeded in doing so had i tried, that was the only tool i had available to me in order to stand my ground and assert my right to be there with. and, it actually worked - the officers realized that removing me from the er in such a scenario was obviously a ridiculous thing to do, and i was instead moved up the list to get quicker access to the doctor. the police realized that the guard was clearly in the wrong to attempt to remove me from the hospital given the state i was in and agreed with my argument that i belonged in a hospital at that time, not in a jail cell.
that said, i stated in my initial application that this part of the encounter is blurry due to me being episodic, and this is also true. i cannot reproduce exactly what i said, and don't think i should be expected to do so, given the metal state of shock and anxiety - multiple things layered on top of each other - that i was in. i mean, i was in the process of being thrown out of a hospital for no discernible reason, after bringing myself there because i was suicidal. you can only guess the stress and shock attached to showing up somewhere out of desperation, seeking help to avoid suicide, and being thrown out for no discernible reason before i could even see a doctor, my suspicions notwithstanding, as though my life was completely worthless and void. however, i would like to offer some resistance to the language cited in the response. "goon squad" is not something i would say - i probably called them thugs with guns, which is a term i frequently use to refer to officers that are behaving authoritatively (and is popular amongst left-anarchists). nor is it likely that i would have called myself "well trained in the law", as that it is somewhat bourgeois, although i do recall explaining to the officer that i didn't believe a word she said and would not sit up until she had left the premises. further, i would stand by those comments as reasonable - it is true that the police break the law all of the time, it's a part of their job description, in their legislated task of protecting the rich from the poor. they're almost as untrustworthy as lawyers. it is also true that i have completed the requirements of a three year sociology of law program, although my formal degree is a four year b. mathematics (honours), and that does give me some expertise in the topic of the trustworthiness and lawlessness of the police, due to many years spent reading through case law. it is routine for officers to be accused of breaking the law, even if the system rarely upholds those accusations due to the systemic power imbalances within it.
the reason i was able to stop trying to warm myself up was that the confrontation accomplished the task - whatever combination of physical conflict and increase in blood pressure that followed from the encounter warmed me up enough that i was able to briefly calm down, at least temporarily; i required roughly a dozen blankets when i got into the actual hospital, and i kept asking for more as their effects sequentially wore off. so, to suggest i was reasoned into stopping, as is done in paragraph 22, is incorrect; i just warmed up due to physical activity and stress, as i was attempting to do in the fist place.
23-26
please refer to the initial application for a detailed description of these events. i will need to wait for the medical records to appear to learn just how vicious the psychiatrist was in his accusations that i was lying and trying to manipulate the system, rather than suffering from a legitimate mental health episode.
it is stated in paragraph 25 that i "began fighting with others". this is a false statement, and i was not charged with resisting arrest. as before, i fell to the ground and resisted,, non-violently. i am a trained activist that has participated in multiple actions in multiple cities, i know how to react in these scenarios and i would never be so stupid as to fight with the police.
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).
there is a further narrative in the youtube video, and it is exceedingly relevant to get the full context to understand the full resolution.
27-28
i cannot fathom how anybody would uphold the premise that trying to stay warm in a hospital by swaying back and forth is grounds to be violently ejected by multiple security guards and can only deduce malice of the truly highest level in the behaviour of the guards. it simply does not make any sense to conclude that i was thrown out for the reasons they claim i was; this is not a fascist state. even the police rejected the guard's logic as backwards. that i was rejected for my appearance is really ockham's razor, in context. further, the psychiatrist told me point blank that he did not accept anything i was saying, and accused me of lying to him instead, and it is difficult to understand how a trained professional could come to such an absurd deduction, via anything except prejudice and bias.
the following grounds were consequently breached by both the security guard and the psychiatrist:
Services
1 Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1.
...the security guard regarding gender identity & expression, and the psychiatrist regarding gender identity & expression, as well as disability and, specifically, the receipt of public funds for living on disability. i was essentially called a drug addict, welfare queen and thrown out for being a bum - unworthy and unwanted.
29
as stated previously, it is necessary for the court to absorb the full context of the situation to rule correctly, and i reject (and resent, frankly) the respondent's attempt to narrow the scope of the application.
30
i think it is up to the court to make these decisions once it has weighed all of the evidence, after that evidence has been presented to it, and not for the legal defense team to suggest it to the court, before the evidence has been observed or evaluated. paragraph 30 is quite an inappropriate statement to make, at this time, and should be rejected by the court.
31
while my request for surgery may be a novel ruling, if granted, it does not fall outside of the tribunal's jurisdiction to "make things whole" in a situation where discrimination is experienced. this is essentially a restorative or tort process. so, for example, landlords have been ordered to provide for rental spaces in cases where discrimination is suffered, in order to make things whole for the victim. if my damages lie in experiencing the effects of defeminization, undoing that through surgery is the best way to make things whole, for me, and undo the discrimination i suffered. while novel, it is the correct remedy.
32
i would repeat my request that the identified parties undergo sensitivity training, as my experiences belie the claim that they have undergone it - or succeeded in learning anything from it.
