Laws in Canada Part 2: Lawyers? Law Firms?
Just one example.
My article today is going to be a special one. I am inviting each and every one of you to participate in writing my response to a letter from a law firm representing Alberta Health Services. (Please leave your suggestions in the comments!)
Two days ago, a lawyer from a firm representing Alberta Health Services (AHS) had one of their lawyers send me the letter linked above.
Before we delve into the details, let us look at the overall context.
It has been less than 1 month since the election of the United Conservative Party (UCP) in Alberta. This party promised to reform AHS, and was seen to be the only choice people had against the New Democratic Party (NDP), whose leader threatened door to door vaccination teams.
One previously healthy 47 year old father died after being put on a mechanical ventilator for oxygen saturations objectively documented at 93-95%.
A 69 year old mother recovered from COVID enough to breathe without a ventilator, and then was given an experimental injection. A doctor tried to remove evidence of the injection and the patient died a couple days later.
Here is the first article that a law firm for AHS complained about.
This is their complaint:
My response to each of the points made by the lawyer:
The patient died.
The patient was in hospital when he died.
The doctors involved took medically unexplainable actions upon the patient before he died.
My 3 patients who received ivermectin all lived. I was subsequently removed from work.
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to suspect AHS does not seek the health and wellbeing of patients if the patient died?
Negligence would be doing nothing and the patient died. Malpractice would be doing something medically reasonable but doing it badly and the patient died. Homicide would be doing something unreasonable and the patient died.
In fact #6 was the whole point of the article “The difference between negligence and homicide” linked below. This was the second article that was the subject of AHS complaint.
Continuing with the AHS lawyer’s letter:
Point 7 from the AHS lawyer brings up the case of an Interior Health Authority patient in British Columbia. She died after the doctor tried to remove the medical record documenting administration of the COVID “vaccine”. A doctor signing an order to remove medical evidence seems like a reasonable basis to question the “quality of care”, does it not?
“Both Posts includes images of excerpts of the Patient’s confidential health records…”, the lawyer writes.
Is there a problem with disclosing evidence of wrongful death? A wrongful death that may amount to a homicide?
I received permission from family in both cases to publish the medical records with removal of the deceased’s name and id.
Given that the patient in both cases died, and their names removed from the medical record pictures, just who’s “confidentiality” are we protecting here?
The “confidentiality” of Alberta Health Services? A corporation?
To who’s benefit does protecting the “confidentiality” of a corporation go?
“AHS does not, however, agree with the statements contained in the Posts…and considers the statements made in this regard to be reckless, vexatious and defamatory.”
“Extremely careless behavior that rises above negligence, actions which are significantly beyond that standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.”
A deadly day in the ER
First off I would like to apologize to my subscribers for my 6 week hiatus. On March the 26th, I found out from my children aged 8 and 11 that my ex wife had injected them with the Covid mRNA experiment. Despite being a a registered nurse, and herself suffering side effects from the shot, she forced our kids, who knew that their father was against the…
Does this detailed review of a medical record look careless or negligent?
“A proceeding is said to be vexatious when the party bringing it is not acting bona fide, and merely wishes to annoy or embarrass his opponent, or when it is not calculated to lead to any practical result Such a proceeding is often described as “frivolous and vexatious,” and the court may stay it on that ground. Sweet.”
My proceeding in the writing of every article on danielnagase.substack.com is directed towards the practical result of maintaining the integrity of medicine, law and justice. Are my posts "not calculated to lead to any practical result”?
“A false statement that is made by one person about another person and shared with a third party or persons.”
I really wish this lawyer Patrick Heinsen K.C. (King’s Counsel) would specify what statement(s) he thinks is false. I take great care to speak to medical facts in my posts and delineate what are my opinions. Notifying me of exact claims as to what others consider to be “false statement” offers me opportunity in good faith to explain and correct if necessary.
Would this lawyer’s letter itself meet the standards of Defamation for the fact that it was shared with Sarah Louw, AHS legal counsel, with accusations of me of being reckless, vexatious, and defamatory, when in fact I have been careful in analyzing medical records, purposeful in the advancement of medical accountability, and truthful with my medical opinions in good faith?
“Moreover, the publication of private health records of the Patient (and the resident of B.C.) is a significant abuse of your position as a provider of health care services.”
I am no longer a provider of health care services due to the actions of Alberta Health Services.
Is speaking truth about a patient’s wrongful death “significant abuse”?
Let’s review:
We have a corporation (AHS) using the lawyer PATRICK HEINSEN K.C. (King’s Counsel) claiming confidentiality for Patient Identifier REDACTED medical records of a deceased patient.
We have accusations of reckless, vexatious and defamatory conduct.
The claimed “victim” appears to be Alberta Health Services. Drs. Brittany Kula (for ordering a deadly medication), Craig Domke (for putting a patient on a ventilator) and John Peachell (for ordering the Pfizer injection and then trying to remove it from the medical record) are not named.
First on the issue of confidentiality, let us consider the reasonable wishes of a patient, or anyone for that matter who is the victim of a WRONGFUL death.
In murder cases, medical records documenting causes of death as well as other evidence are viewed by police, political appointees (e.g. prosecutors and attorney generals), lawyers, judges and jury members of the public.
If a murder case were to involve a hospital, then in addition to the people mentioned above, hospital administrators, additional doctors, and other political appointees such as health ministers would also view “confidential” medical records and evidence.
In society these exceptions to confidentiality on behalf of the deceased are for the purposes of accountability and justice under the assumption that the deceased who is no longer able to speak would seek justice in their wrongful death.
Second, on the issue of recklessness, vexatiousness and defamation, I have the entirety of https://danielnagase.substack.com to speak to the carefulness, purposefulness and honesty towards which I write for the public.
Third, can the corporation of Alberta Health Services, with a budget of untold millions, really be considered a “victim”?
The problem I see in Alberta, the rest of Canada, and perhaps the whole Commonwealth (Britain, Australia, New Zealand), is that police, prosecutors and medical colleges have yet to investigate these wrongful deaths.
What makes this matter URGENT is that the perpetrator(s) are still at large. Whether it be for negligence causing death (a lack of action), malpractice causing death (well intention-ed but wrongly performed), or homicide (intentional action), the duty of the public is to take the justice into our own hands when institutions fail.
Should we fail to take the law back into our own hands, it would be consent to unlawfulness through inaction. Turning a blind eye to crime is itself an injustice. (As an ER doctor familiar with life and death matters, the situation we have today is a very serious life or death matter.)
In Alberta, the United Conservative Party is over 8 months into new leadership that campaigned on AHS accountability. Just over 2 weeks after a UCP election win and a renewed mandate, Alberta Health Services is still spending untold sums of money on lawyers obstructing accountability. Meanwhile, emergency departments closed.
Yes, as an ER doctor, I was free to work that weekend, but unable to do so because of AHS and the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons. I don’t know how many other ER’s went understaffed or closed, but I suspect the mainstream media report from last summer is only the tip of the iceberg.
So, what should my response be?
What should I do about the defamatory letter from Patrick Hensen K.C. (King’s Counsel)? Does “K.C.” mean that Patrick Hensen is defaming me on behalf of the King of England?
Should I send the AHS lawyer a link to this article with all your comments as a reply?
Thank you in advance for all your thoughts!
As a former RN with some ER and ICU experience, I found the reading of that chart to be shocking and grievous.🫣 And I’m not surprised. Thank you Daniel for your courageous stand against the criminality that has spread like a cancer through all our medical systems and regulatory bodies as well as the legal systems that should be jailing them all. God help us all, and I pray that he continues to guide and protect you. 💖
Whether or not you send a link, Clearly they are monitoring your Substack :-)
I make the following comments as a concerned citizen of this planet.
- My understanding is technically you're no longer a health care provider, not practicing. Who struck you off? Did they all of a sudden put you bk on the register just for this occasion? Is that legal?
What difference would it make if you were a journalist or just a member of the public, using your medical knowledge and raising the same questions?
- You obtained consent from the families. (I assume it was recorded) and provided evidence to address your concerns. Obviously the families are concerned too.
- in the letter AHS demand you remove your two posts dated above, and yet they have not provided their own evidence to support their claim and that these practioners could not have performed any other ways when treating the patients, or in fact, they just followed the order or protocol and it wasnt their intention or fault.
- it would appear to me that they do not wish to investigate / review their own practice if they have any areas that might need to be modified to improve and meet the parents' need. The tone of the letter does not give me the impression they are adequately equipped and willing to safeguard their patients health and that their patients lives matter. In other words, if there was an error, not to repeat the same mistake(s).
Hence, from a service user's point of view, it does not give me the confidence to access their health care in the future.