Brenda Feehan, Lawyer, Office the Public GuardianHome > Blog > Brenda Feehan, Lawyer, Office the Public Guardian
January 31, 2014
Mr.XXXXXXX Manager Complaints
ALBERTA LAW SOCIETY
Suite 800 ?Bell Tower, 10104 103 Avenue?
Edmonton, AB. T5J 0H8
Ms. Brenda Feehan, Solicitor,
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN
City Centre place 13th Floor,
10025 102A Ave, Edmonton, AB. T5J 2Z2
COMPLAINT: against Brenda Feehan, Solicitor
Office of the Public Guardian
REFERENCE – Court Hearing – May 21, 2013 – Court of Queen’s Bench
XXXXXXXXXX – DAO3 XXXXXX detained since December 2009, presently
Covenant Health Villa Caritas Geriatric Facility
The Honourable Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke presiding
We allege that ALBERTA JUSTICE COUNSEL Brenda Feehan attempted to
MISLEAD THE HONOURABLE COURT as follows:
1) referred to the Dr. Arlin Pachet Report as
a) response to Dr. Breggin’s report
b) “detailed report”
2) alleged that the client
“continues to improve under the medication regime”
“reason improved” – “Injection”
3) alleged that the Doctors have acted in “BEST INTERESTS” of the client.
3) upheld a sworn document at the court, that CONTAINED UNTRUTHS AND FABRICATIONS,
which would MISLEAD THE HONOURABLE COURT.
The court was adjourned sine die.
HISTORY- Supporting evidence
1 (A) In fact the Arlin Pachet capacity assessment dated May 30, 2012, was
part of a supporting affidavit for a Guardianship Application by the Office of the
Public Guardian – sworn June 28, 2012. (Attached).
The Pachet Capacity Assessment was not a response to the Dr. Peter Breggin report,
it had no relation to the Breggin Report.
In his Report, Dr. Pachet states, Page 1, Paragraph 1:
“Thank you for referring Ms.XXXXXXXX for an assessment of her decision
making capacity specifically related to her personal and financial matters”
(B) Ms. Feehan stated to the court that it was a “detailed report”.
The Capacity Assessment Report disregarded the matter of informed consent.
The Capacity Assessment Report was rendered by Dr. Pachet although he had had no
direct and substantial professional contact or conducted a formal assessment –
(never interviewed or even spoke to the client)
Rendered a capacity report that was based on factual inaccuracies and fabrication
(which is an offence under the criminal code). As a professional, Dr. Pachet would
know that the report
a) would be used as sworn evidence in a judicial proceeding.
b) would determine the client’s freedom or denial of her freedom /
legal or civil rights.
Dr. Pachet placed his professional signature on a capacity report that is untruthful,
unscientific, biased and would in its present form mislead the court.
It is apparent that other professionals at the Covenant Health Villa Caritas viewed
Dr. Pachet’s assessment as seriously flawed, containing half truths, untruths and fabrication.
a) two psychiatrists PREPARED ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS of the client, dated May 8th and !6th, 2013.
Ms. Feehan asked the court to order PAYMENT OF CLOSE TO $4,000. for the Pachet capacity report.
Ms. Feehan disregarded the fact that the DECEPTIVE CAPACITY REPORT was part of a
sworn supplementary affidavit, FILED IN THE COURT by the OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN.
We allege that with full knowledge, the filed affidavit was INTENDED TO MISLEAD THE COURT.
4) Ms. Feehan alleges that the client is improving under medication regime.
We strongly beg to differ.
The client suffered:
Severe tardive dyskinesia – irreversible, disfiguring, involuntary mouth movements
Weight gain – close to 30 lbs. since November, 2012
Legs and arms often bright pink
Right eye virtually swollen – could hardly see out – now she is receiving
medication for same.
Drowsiness and malaise
Prior to this drug protocol, the client was always active doing
– (difficult) SUDUKO puzzles. She loved the challenge. She
is a very bright lady, has an incredible memory.
– handicrafts (making colorful table mats).
Now she no longer does either, she vegetates, drowsing on a chair,
sleeping on the bed in her room between meals.
During her incarceration, between the period of September 2010 to November 2012,
the client refused all medications, saying they made her feel high and this resulted
in her being subjected to ‘takedowns’.
She had a right to refuse being medicated, she has never been declared incompetent.
MEDICATION ADMINSTERED BY VIOLENCE
1) The client had been refusing psychotropic medication since September 2010 because she
said it made her “dizzy”, “confused, foggy” and “high”. She informed us that when she was
in this “drugged” state and then in some way reacted to staff, numbers of male staff
would subject her to a “takedown”. In the process, seize her, RIP OFF HER JEANS, inject
her with needles and STRONGLY SEDATE HER; a frightening, brutal dehumanizing protocol to
which she, a senior and female, was totally helpless and defenseless to protect herself against.
2) She has informed us that this barbaric protocol would leave her physically and mentally
harmed, injured, her arms blackened, blue and painful and generally feeling bruised.
3) November 6, 2012 @ 2:30 PM, WITHOUT WAARNING, Dr. Kevin Lawless, Psychiatrist and Pat
Hartnett RN, abruptly appeared at the client’s door.
The client told us later that she had been quietly working on Suduko. Dr. Lawless announced
to her that she was about to be subjected to an injection.
4) Totally shocked by this announcement, she left her room and went out towards the dining room.
There, she told us, that she noted numbers of security officers and other male staff, who were
assembled, wearing gloves, who had come from other wards in preparedness to subject her to a “takedown”.
5) She also saw that the “QUIET ROOM” door was unlocked and open. The quiet room is a
DETENTION ROOM furnished only with a MATTRESS.
6) She noted one male staff wearing a mask, who had come from another ward that was known to be
7) She later reported to us, that at that point, she experienced ABSOLUTE TERROR and felt totally
trapped and cornered.
8) Then because she, a senior, saw no alternative and was aware of the male security officers
and other male staff who were prepared to seize her and “TAKE HER DOWN”, she quietly and with
dignity submitted to the intramuscular injection.
9) She was denied to know until a week later that the drug that she had been injected with was
Resperdal Consta.12.5 mgms. She was denied to know the name of the person (nurse?) who had come
from another ward to administer the injection.
10) No prior effort had been made to determine if she could tolerate Resperdal Consta. This
indicates an unethical disregard for her well being and safety.
Staff is aware that she does not always tolerate medications well and has sometimes suffered
adverse, allergic reactions to medications.
11) Resperdal Consta is INDICATED for schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. The client has
NEVER BEEN DIAGNOSED as SCHIZOPHRENIC OR BIPOLAR. Resperdal Consta is not known to reduce
12) The injection protocol was repeated on November 20, 2012.
She was informed some days after the fact that she had been injected
with 25 mgms. of Resperdal Contra.
13) She has told us that she feels generally ill, is suffering frequent headaches, diarrhea.
She has strongly expressed to us the HELPLESSNESS that she feels and the inability to defend herself.
14) She has told us that she has greatly feared injections for the reason that the drugging
will make her brains “MUSH”. She has told us that In her over four years of detention she has
witnessed first hand, the devastating, destructive effect of such needles on fellow detainees.
15) The client has informed us that she phoned the Public Guardian’s Office following the first
injection of November 6, 2012 seeking to receive an answer for the alleged assault She told us
that the guardian’s response was abrupt, rude, provided no answers, YELLED AT HER and strongly
informed her that she was a “very sick woman”.
16) The client has alleged to us that on the morning of November 6, 2012, Dr. Kevin Lawless met
with Michelle Jasonson (who has no medical education) at the Office of the Public Guardian who
granted the Order for the administration of the injection of the CONTRAINDICATED MEDICATION.
We ask the Office of the Law Society to investigate this matter.