Any behavior that produces fear, mental anguish, debilitating emotional stress, thus diminishing the vulnerable persons sense of dignity and self worth including but not limited to, intimidation, harassment,threats, coercion, humiliation, social isolation, infantilization, insults.

Failure to provide social and emotional support necessary to maintain reasonable mental health.

Denying access to visitors such as family, friends or advocates.

Financial or Material Abuse

Failure to use the elder’s monies and assets to ameliorate his/her needs or for welfare, care and comfort.

Theft, unlawful taking of the belongings of the person in care. Fraudulent activity involving money or assets, including OAS cheques, “conning”, extortion, forced changes of wills, titles, misuse of Power of Attorney.

Physical Abuse

An act of physical mistreatment or injury which harms or threatens a person through the action or inaction by another individual which may cause physical pain,discomfort or injury. Includes but not limited to chemical restraints, physical restraints, rough handling, and/or sexual assault.

Neglect (passive and active)

A pattern of conduct resulting in deprivation of care necessary to maintain minimum physical health. Failure or refusal to fulfill a caregiver’s responsibility to provide ethical nursing care, physiotherapy, necessities of life, a clean living environment, adequate heat, clothing, appropriate, adequate food, exercise and medications.

Violation of Personal Rights

Deprivation of a person’s right to choose, to privacy, to make decisions. Lack of freedom to safely keep personal items, the absence of a lockable closet or drawer.

Understaffing

“Many nursing homes have become dangerous places largely because they are understaffed and underregulated.”
-Time Magazine, “Fatal Neglect” October 27, 1997 Vol.150 No. 17

Abuse or Neglect Is

Understaffing which results in warehousing elders rather than ethical care. Bedsores, weight loss, malnutrition. In the U.S., fines of over $1,000.00 a day may be imposed for such abuse and neglect. Failure to feed or hydrate elder when elder unable to feed his/her self; resulting in starvation, dehydration and death.

Failure to give fluids to reduce trips to bathroom resulting in bladder infections, dehydration, confusion & even death. Chemical restraint by administering medication to keep elder quiet, compliant, manageable, cheaper to house which may result in confusion or even falls and injuries.

Diapering though not incontinent. Refusal to assist elder to bathroom, scolding when elder soils him/herself. Elder diapered, then administered laxatives & instructed to soil him/her self resulting in mental destabilization.

Restraints, failure to get elder up out of bed Gerry chair used as restraint or to discipline elder. Assault such as hitting, pinching, kicking, slapping shoving. Verbal abuse such as scolding, cursing and shouting.

Theft of elder’s belongings, frequently referred to as missing or lost items. Elderly at risk of injury by placing in same room or close proximity to physically aggressive or demented persons.

Safety Issues; not following fire regulations.
Discipline; isolating elder, denying food, medication.
Eviction because of elder’s or family’s expressed concerns about facility or food or quality of care.
Threats such as, “We will send you to Alberta Hospital” or “Maybe you should find somewhere else for momma/papa”.
Failure to provide privacy, silence (overcrowding).
Failure to provide mental/social stimulation.
Failure to provide safe ethical nursing care; harmful care by untrained persons; causing pain when transferring elder.
Failure to provide palliative care.
Failure to spend elder’s monies/assets for his/her care, comfort.
Inedible or inadequate food, inappropriate diet.

Competent seniors declared incompetent, detained in institution, family, trustee take control of money, estate.

Why the Silence?

The victim guards the silence out of fear of retaliation in the form of further abuse or even eviction. A 92 year old pioneeer in NE Alberta, who was in a community elder care facility, was told by the caregiver who had slapped her: “If you complain, we’ll make it worse for you.”

Family and friends may guard the silence because they too have been intimidated.

To keep the silence is to cling to the hope…the hope that it can all change.

To break the silence increases the fear…to face the eyes of incredulity of the one you have told and those of the abuser.

The conscientious care giver guards the silence for fear of loss of his/her job. Caregivers have been dismissed for exposing abuse. Some have been unjustly sued for defamation or silenced by threatened court actions. Some have suffered professional ostracism.

The abuser needs the silence to provide feelings of power which compensate for low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy.

Society too, has kept silent. Too often professionals, family members and friends have been blind to the signs of abuse because they refused to look or refused to recognize what they saw and heard.

Society has kept silent when legislators have failed to provide appropriate, enforceable, protective legislation. There has been deafening silence in the face of a system which allows the neglect and mistreatment of its’ vulnerable charges.

The Issue

A publication of the National Advisory Council on Aging, titled:“Elder Abuse: Major issues From a National Perspective”, states:

“Nationally, about 10% of seniors reside in institutional settings. Because there is as yet no well-controlled research on abuse in these settings, most of the available evidence is anecdotal. There are nevertheless enough complaints and investigations of death and injuries in nursing homes, homes for the aged and even in acute care hospitals to know that the problem is real”.

There is also in our own province, a massive problem in the care of our frail, dependent elderly. We are aware that elder abuse and neglect is rampant, for which there is very little accountability, seldom is anyone disciplined, and where indicated criminal charges are seldom laid.

In Alberta, we now have the Protection For Persons in Care Act. Nevertheless, serious complaints of gross injustices and neglect continue to be disregarded.

Despite the mandatory reporting requirement of this legislation, professional doctors, psychologists, nurses, social workers, denturists, physiotherapists and others fail to report neglect and abuse. Others, such as funeral home personnel or Officers of the Public Examiner’s Office do not report obvious elder abuse such as bedsores and neglect.

We believe that the elderly have made an invaluable contribution to our country, we owe them a debt which can never be repaid. The aged are the ones who endured hardships, the great depression, fought two world wars, faithfully paid their taxes and never asked for handouts. They worked from dawn to sunset, theirs was a difficult and arduous life.

What Are the Signs?

• Understaffing
• Call bells not answered
• Call bells removed or placed out of reach of elder
• Bedsores
• Unexplained dressings which may conceal bedsores
• Complaints by elder citing rudeness and disrespect
• Elder is diapered though not incontinent, instructed to soil his/her self. Staff does not assist to bathroom
• Malnourished, emaciated, mouth sores
• Poor skin hygiene, soiled linen, urine burns, unkempt appearance
• Poor dental hygiene
• Disoriented, drooling, confusion, unable to speak clearly, reduced physical/mental activity, inability to swallow or eat, unexplained falls, injuries due to medication or over medication.
• Unexplained bruises, bumps, burns, falls, unexplained hair loss, abrasions, contusions, fractures, grip marks, hematomas, infections, internal injuries, lacerations, pain, restricted movement, swelling, tenderness, ulcers, scald marks, welts. Broken ribs caused by improper lifting, pulling on arms.
• Pain, bruising, bleeding in genital area
• Shivering, cyanosis, lowered body temperature
• No dentures, glasses, hearing aid
• Elder placed in close proximity or in same room with aggressive or demented persons
• No fire safety
• Tied to bed/chair/toilet
• Medical underdiagnosis/undertreatment. Doctor not notified, when ill or injured
• Muscle contractures, positional deformities, immobility, bowel problems, weakness
• Never taken out of bed
• Custodialism, paternalism, rudeness, poor caregiver attitudes
• Missing clothing/personal items
• Threats, intimidations, discipline
• Feelings of despair, hopelessness or resignation, passiveness, fearfulness

One should not jump to conclusion but all indicators should be taken seriously and monitored closely.

Presented to the Government Standing Committee on Community Services
by the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society

October 1, 2007

Bill 31 (Proposed amendment to the Alberta Mental Health Act)

“Physicians have a powerful quasi-judicial position in society in that they can detain lawful citizens behind locked doors and remove all property and human rights”.

Let me tell you about Anne.

Anne became part of our extended family through marriage. After some years it became obvious that Anne suffered from serious mental illness. She often told me how difficult it was for her to take the pills prescribed for her. Through Anne, I came to understand how difficult the life of a person who suffers from mental illness is.

Ruth I can’t take those pills, they hurt my stomach, they make my head ache, they make me dizzy, constipate me, make my bones ache, give me a rash, make my ears ring, make my mouth so dry I have no saliva and on and on. Depending on the medication, the adverse reactions differed. Sometims she took the medications, oftentimes not.

The police arrested her a number of times perhaps for being unruly or noisy on the street. I visited her at the Remand center, she was humiliated. It was awful. She didn’t belong there. She was a good person.

Many times she was committed to Alberta Hospital and detained behind heavy, locked doors. The hospital Social Worker withheld her comfort money which meant she could not buy ’smokes’ which was torture for her. But she knew her rights and always managed to get herself released.

She told me of “intimidation by injection”, which translated means that if you are not cooperative or refuse to take your medication, staff, perhaps 6 or more staff on the instructions of the psychiatrist, will hold you down and “put a needle in your a__” . As a result you may suffer a terrible headache for some days, or if the drug is zuclopenthixol acetate, you may spend three days in a drugged state in a room with nothing but a canvas sheet.*

Her husband divorced her, family abandoned her, I continued to visit. She had an apartment but ultimately became somewhat of a street person, a social out cast.

Nobody understood her pain, they had judgement and abusive treatment for her.

She died at Alberta Hospital with cigarette burns on her chest and abdomen.. Throughout her life, her rights were violated by those who were mandated to help her. That was 1993. Nothing has changed.

Frail, elderly seniors, who do not meet the criteria of being a threat to themselves, or a threat to others, are being committed to Alberta Hospital in breach of the Mental Health Act

One such senior whom we visited on September 7th, 2007 was restrained and hanging forward out of his chair in a most inhumane manner.

During the two hours that we were there, he could not be roused. He appeared totally sedated. Periodically, his entire body would jerk. He could not have eaten anything in this condition.

We took a photograph, of fingernail pick marks and abrasions on his right arm, which has been submitted to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Why is this old man at Alberta Hospital? He’s not a mental patient.

He’s an old man who needs and deserves compassionate care. His family are trying to remove him from Alberta Hospital but are finding it virtually impossible to do so. This frail, wheel chair bound man is behind locked doors, mental health certificates legally detain him there.

Similarly, on a Sunday evening at about 7:30 PM, we noted a whole row of old men sitting in short blue nightgowns in the day room of 12 1A, Alberta Hospital. It was cold and they appeared cold, uncomfortable and over exposed, physically and chemically restrained.

Often persons detained under the Mental Health Act are relegated to group homes where there is little or no supervision and the supervision that exists is by untrained persons who have a poor command of the English language. Patients languish because there are no activities except a television that may or may not function well. Some have been known to wander away, perhaps escape, die of exposure, freeze to death.

This year, a person burned to death In a Capilano group home. The fire was originally spotted by joggers passing the house. What kind of fire safety was there within the home? To date there has been no Fatality Inquiry, no accountability.

Mentally ill persons are sometimes restrained, pepper sprayed by police who have no training or understanding of the persons whom they are apprehending. And when these persons cry out for help they are disregarded such as Mr. Harrold of Lamont who took his life when he was turned away from an emergency ward.

Last week, we visited a group home, a house with plastic flowers on the deck where residents have to go down the hall for toilet and shower. A resident is being charged $2,600.00 a month for an 8′ x10′ 4″ poorly lit room, where she has to have lights on during the day. The Public Guardian, the Public Trustee, the psychiatrist, the Chairman of the Review Panel are aware of this abusive situation but she is helpless and perhaps fearful to complain because she has been stripped of all rights under the Mental Health Act and the Dependant Adults Act.

We the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, are an anomaly across the province and across the country in that we not only speak out for justice and the rights of seniors and vulnerable persons, but we maintain an office and accept and investigate complaints. It is labour intensive work.

In our long experience, we have documented a litany of untrustworthy, unprofessional assessments and declarations of incompetency. No one has been held accountable.

With a few strokes of a pen, professionals can strip a citizen of all rights, deny them the right to their bank accounts, their homes and belongings.

Similarly professionals can medicate, humiliate, detain behind locked doors. There is no viable appeal, in most instances the Protection For Persons in Care Act does not apply, the College of Physicians and Surgeons does not listen. There is no accountability.

We have documented instances where no testing, assessment or even interview was carried out prior to filling out a declaration of incompetency or mental health certificate. We have documented where no certificate existed when Alberta citizens were detained at Alberta Hospital behind locked doors and then were pressured or deceived into signing the yellow Voluntary Admission Form thereby making them a voluntary patient.

The current standards required for a physician in the performance of his assessment are not well defined. Often the 2nd signature on a certificate is a rubber stamp of the 1st signature.

Within the existing legislation, no action lies against those who issue flawed, untruthful declarations.

The present legislation, gives professionals incredible power over lawful citizens and is a blatant violation of constitutional and charter rights. Professionals are not held accountable by any court or authority.

Because of these troubling irregularities, on August of this year we have made a formal request to the Minister of Justice to convene an Inquiry into this entire process of how Alberta citizens are being declared incompetent and how their rights and assets removed.

Finally, mentally ill persons are persons.

To the committee:

We urge you to not grant anyone any more power over vulnerable persons;

1. because the track record of professionals and others has not been good. We must remember it was physicians and psychiatrists who facilitated and carried out the Sterilization Act here in Alberta.
2. until a province wide inquiry has been held to examine the standards and protocol that exist in the issuance of professional certificates, declarations of incompetency
3. until those who would be the enforcers, have received education and relevant training in this regard such as Policemen, social workers, etc.
4. until a protocol of accountability has been established

*April 11, 2002 at Alberta Hospital Edmonton. an ex-lawyer who strongly criticized the Law Society was ordered by the court to Alberta Hospital for an assessment.

While at Alberta hospital, staff ordered the man to strip down to his underwear and 10 staff held him down on a mattress and the 72 hour drug zuclopenthixol acetate was injected into his buttocks. The psychiatrist who ordered this is the Head of the Forensic unit.

The man’s wife who visited well over 24 hours later described her husband as a walking “Zombie, slurred speech, impaired motor movements, could not keep his eyes open during the visit”. She said they humiliated him by stripping him of his clothes. She also noted that there was no appeal protocol to lodge complaints concerning the treatment/mistreatment.

October 15, 2007 @ 2:00PM, Queens Bench, Surrogate Court there will be a hearing in regard to a senior, Flora L’Heureux, who is fighting to regain her rights. We have affidavit evidence that the physican who filled out the declaration of incompetency, the Form1 which will damn her, deny her all rights, access to her bank account, did no assessment or even interview her. We urge you to attend.

A decision was made in the early 90’s to print stationary, envelopes and business cards with the name Elder Advocates Of Alberta and the admonition, “Rise in the presence of the aged and honour the face of the old man.” Even the envelopes bear these words.

The business cards contained the designation, Elder Advocate. This was a new concept and much scorned in those early years – we were often asked, what is an elder advocate?

On December 21, 1992, the name Elder Advocates Of Alberta was formally registered with Consumer and Corporate Affairs disallowing anyone in future to use this name or form thereof.

A vision to create an elder advocacy poster was discussed with artist, Susan Farrow Milner. There were those who derided this project, asking why would one wish to produce another poster. However the artist comprehended the vision and the dream was born. The poster bore the words, the elderly deserve
dignity and our respect, they built this country. A ten member committee was formed and the concept was brought to reality, 10,000 posters were printed. Because the posters began to dissipate very quickly, another 10,000 were immediately printed. They were distributed by volunteers locally and across the province and mailed across the country and even to the US. A call came one morning form South
Carolina. The caller stated she had seen the poster in a neighbouring town in a nursing home.

The words dignity and respect were perceived to be old fashioned words, however 15,000 posters later, these words are found on every senior’s publication where care is defined.

Each poster, which Elder Advocates Of Alberta sends out, is accompanied by a letter that states.

“We are attempting to raise the consciousness and conscience concerning
the aged, not only because they are elderly, but because they have made
an invaluable contribution to our country. We owe them a debt which can
never be repaid. The very aged are the ones who endured hardships, the
great depression, fought two world wars, faithfully paid their taxes
and never asked for handouts. They worked from dawn to sunset; theirs
was a difficult and arduous life. Today they deserve our honour and
respect. We perceive the aged to be like sheaves of grain which reach
their greatest value at maturity, old age should be a time of fullness
and completion. Perhaps you would be interested to know that the
watercolor painting on the Poster is by the Ottawa artist, Susan Farrow
Milner who presently lives in Fort McMurray. The elderly lady portrayed
on the Poster is a Mrs. McGinnis of Fort McMurray. She was a much
beloved lady, an inspiration to many, who spent her last years in a
wheel chair, cared for by her daughter. The lady portrayed in the wheel
chair is a native lady who is being visited by her son”.

Shortly after, we developed an Elder Advocacy Display and an Elder Abuse Display.

These displays have travelled back and forth across the province and have been viewed by thousands at seminars, meetings, hospitals, senior fairs, malls, health and church conferences. They silently articulate the issues of elder respect and the untold abuses. For example, following a senior’s conference in Calgary, the premier viewed the Displays of Elder Advocates Of Alberta. The Next day some of the Calgary papers carried the headlines that elder abuse was an issue and would be dealt with.

A three page elder abuse handout titled “What is elder abuse?” was prepared. Thousands of reprints have been made and we believe this information has promoted understanding of elder abuse issues and influenced the massive number of complaints and requests for investigation of elder abuse and neglect
which have been made to the Health Facilities Review Committee, the Minister of Health, the present Minister for seniors, and the Protection For Persons in Care Act line.

In the early to mid 90’s Elder Advocates Of Alberta continued to press for protective elder abuse legislation, meeting numerous times with MLA’s of all political persuasion, presenting them with accounts and photographs of abuse which illustrated our concerns.

In 1995, legislation was passed with the consensus of the entire assembly and Elder Advocates Of
Alberta was named in Hansard, with others, as those who had been instrumental in bringing about this legislation. It was not until 1998 that the legislation was proclaimed. The legislation is seriously flawed and is both ineffective and unenforceable, nevertheless it has been a strong acknowledgment by those in authority, that elder abuse and neglect is a societal issue.

December 5, 1997, a Fatality Inquiry was held at the Provincial Court of Alberta concerning
Gerald Awasis who had been a patient at the Alberta Hospital Edmonton. Elder Advocates Of Alberta appealed to the Honorable Judge David J. Tilley to have the Inquiry reopened. The Inquiry was reopened on
September 22, 1998 and Elder Advocates Of Alberta was given standing.

Elder Advocates Of Alberta were also given standing at the Nels Karsten Norregaard Fatality Inquiry of April 12 and 13th of April 2000, the Honorable Judge P.G.Sully presided.

In May of 2004, the members of the Alberta Legislature recognized the Elder Advocates Of Alberta Society for their: “mission to bring mercy and compassion to our sick and helpless elderly and bring public
awareness to the situation which frail elderly sometimes find
themselves in”.

In September of 2005 the Elder Advocates Of Alberta commenced a province wide radio
campaign which is intended to stir the consciousness and conscience of
those who are accountable for the care of the frail, dependent,
voiceless elderly. The public service announcement which has been and
which will be aired, reads as follows:

The Elder Advocates Of
Alberta, advocate for the frail, dependent, voiceless elderly.

They hold that all care
facilities, large and small, that exist to serve the frail elderly,
must be places of mercy and compassion.

And equitable justice
applied, to those who mistreat or harm the elderly.

Society and
its’ leaders must not rest, until every vulnerable Albertan,
receives safe, ethical, compassionate care. In this text, we are
introducing the words and concept of service, mercy and compassion.

Though we fully
understand that the blight of elder abuse is not confined to our
province but is a world wide phenomenon, we do strongly believe that
the systemic culture of neglect which exists in our province today, can
and will be healed.

It would take endless
space to articulate all the advocacy issues the Elder Advocates Of
Alberta have been involved in, from nursing homes to the court house,
to the offices of professional associations, to the offices and
chambers of the legislative assembly. It is a never ending, labor
intensive journey.Seniors, their families
and concerns are referred to the Elder Advocates Of Alberta Society by
the Elder Abuse line, social workers, nurses, policemen, persons in
government, persons employed in ministerial offices and others. Though
they are aware that we have little power, they know that we will in
some way help, encourage, advise, guide and support the individuals
through their difficulties.

The journey continues. We will not rest until
justice, mercy and compassion define the care in Alberta’s
elder care facilities. We will not grow weary.

The Canadian Human Rights Declaration proclaims that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principals of fundamental justice,” however as one ages, one’s rights diminish. Justice becomes an elusive hope for the elderly pioneers of this country.

We wish to help you understand the severe problems of injustice endured by the elderly by calling your attention to the legislation which has been put forward in Alberta over a period of 29 years. Legislation which has been prepared by Legislative Council lawyers on the instructions of the Justice Department of the Crown in Right of Alberta; legislation which purports to protect the elderly while in fact it is largely ineffective, unworkable and even discriminatory.

Indeed these are Charter issues.

• 1972 Health Facilities Review Comittee Act
• 1998 Protection For Persons in Care Act
• 1972 The Social Care Facilities Review Committee Act
• 1972 The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Act
• 1980 Dependant Adult Act D32
• 1980 Fatality Inquiries Act Chapter F 9
• 1980 Medical Profession Act
• 1984 Nursing Profession Act
• 1985 Nursing Home Act
• 1985 Criminal Code
• 1980 Alberta Mental Health Act
• 1990 Patient Advocate Regulation under the Mental Health Act
• 1986/87 Health Disciplines Act
• 1991 Legal Profession Act
• 1992 Residential Tenancies Act
• 1994 Alberta Housing Act

1972 Health Facilities Review Committee Act

Health Facilities Review Committee which administers this impotent and immoral piece of legislation, is a Government appointed body, responsible for about 180 health-care institutions in Alberta. Most appointees have no background in healthcare field.

Their stated mission “is to ensure that quality, care, treatment and standards of accommodation are maintained in health care facilities in Alberta”
-Health Facilities Report, January 2000.

For over 30 years, government leaders and personnel have used this committee to field complaints, and mislead the public into believing that the quality of care of the frail, elderly in nursing homes and other elder care facilities is being monitored. Further, the public is misled by the committee that purports to intervene in regard to elder abuse and neglect issues when in fact they have no power to enforce regulations, recommendations or impact decisions.

Section 10 of the Act does not allow the Committee access to medical or financial records;* therefore their reports are superficial, anecdotic hearsay that would never stand up in a Court of Law. They report to the Committee Chairman who is an elected MLA, presently Mr. Bob Maskel MLA Edmonton Meadowlark, who replaced Ms. Mary O’Neil of St. Albert, Vice Chairman being Mr. Lloyd Snelgrove MLA Vermillion-Lloydminster.

Section #16 of the Act does not require the annual report to the Minister of Health and Wellness, which is copied to the Legislature, to record the reality of elder care facilities but it is to “submit a report summarizing its activities in that year“.

Their annual Report to the Legislature fails to reflect the reality of elder care facilities.

*“unless the patient or his guardian gives his consent to those records being viewed” Some elderly persons do not have a formal guardian nor may they be able to give consent.

Back to Top

1998 Protection For Persons in Care Act

The Protection For Persons in Care Act appears to be an embellished version of the Health Facilities Review Committee Act of 1972. The Protection For Persons in Care Act was passed in 1995 and proclaimed on January 5, 1998. After a quarter of a century the government has again provided us with a seriously flawed piece of legislation that purports to protect vulnerable seniors of this Province but is not able to do so.

The name itself, Protection For Persons in Care Act Protection For Persons in Care Act (PPCA) is a misrepresentation inferring that it protects all Albertans who are in care when in fact all Albertans in private care facilities and even some who are in public facilities such as Alberta Hospital Edmonton and Alberta Hospital Ponoka are not included. Furthermore, in some large facilities such as the 700 person Kensington Shepherds Care, Edmonton, a complaint was dismissed because according to the dismissal report, the particular room that the victimized senior was in — was private.

With encroaching privatization, there are more and more large facilities across Alberta like the Terra Losa, Edmonton, which has a locked Alzheimer unit or the Dr. Hemstock of Lloydminster, AB. which do not fall under the Protection For Persons in Care Act.

In fact, the Terra Losa is licensed by the city of Edmonton with a “rental accommodation” license and the Dr. Hemstock has a “catering”license posted.

In Summary, the Limitations of The Protection For Persons in Care Act are:

1. Impotent, government appointed body which fields complaints, investigators often having no background in health care field.
2. Has no power to enforce regulations, recommendations or impact decisions. They investigate and report to the Office of the Minister, the Minister cannot be held accountable by the Officeof the Ombudsman.
3. Section 7 of the Act prohibits investigators to access medical or financial records. The medical and clinical records of persons in care are private and will not be examined with out the consent of the person or their legal guardian, though the person may not be able to give consent. According to one interpretation, the Act prohibits the investigator from applying for a Court Order to gain access. Therefore their reporting is superficial, anecdotic hearsay which would never stand up in a Court of Law.
4. Investigations are carried out by persons on contract to the government. Because they are not government employees, they cannot be investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman or in any way held accountable for their reporting.
5. The legislation is contradictory (does not make common sense.) Consider this: Section 2 (1) states that it is:
   “mandatory for people (every individual or service provider) who believe abuse is occurring to report it” Section 2(5) specifies a penalty for failing to do so in all instances of elder abuse.
   However:
   1. As noted above, many facilities both large and small, private and public, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Act. If the complaint fails to fall within the authority of the Act, the complaint is summarily dismissed even though there may be clear evidence of elder abuse or neglect.
   2. There are those who consistently fail to report elder abuse and neglect such as nursing staff, physicians, physiotherapists, undertakers or officers of the Public Examiners office. Has anyone been fined or jailed?
   3. In dismissing a complaint made to the Protection For Persons in Care Act Office, Report of a Decision Respecting Complaint , No. # 3537, a Ph.D. Seniors, Deputy Minister, wrote on May 21, 2002 “The dismissal of alleged abuse, per the definition of abuse in the Act, does not indicate that the care or practices that occurred are acceptable”
6. The final Report of Decision contains recommendations; the investigated agency is not obligated to implement any of the recommendations. According to a government publication explaining the Act, “It should be emphasized that the recommendations are simply recommendations.”
7. The Complaint is not recorded such as a 911 call would be.
   1. The complaint is made verbally to the Intake person, then must be
   2. repeated to the person who assigns the complaint and
   3. repeated to the investigations person. Because of the shoddy, hearsay, intake process, PPCA personnel may accuse the complainant prior to, during and after the process, of not having made certain statements or of not having included certain issues in their complaint.
8. The legislation requires no mandatory Fatality Inquiry into the sudden death which occurs in an elder care facility contrary to a federal prison sudden death.
9. The Protection For Persons in Care Office is open 8:00AM to 4:00 PM, closed during the lunch hour, for several weeks during the Christmas season and other holidays so frequently no one is accessible to accept complaints.
10. The Report of a Decision Respecting Complaint is a report which frequently fails to address the issue or distorts the issue. It does not contain the name of the victimized person, is vague and sometimes dishonest. Complaints which we have made, have been trivialized, dismissed, disregarded, lost or never investigated.

According to the Protection For Persons in Care Act – Alberta Regulation 159/98

applies to a person residing in an institution or organization operated by the Government of Alberta or receives part or all of its operating funds, directly or indirectly, from the Government of Alberta nevertheless, the following institutions and organizations are not included:

1. Alberta Hospital Edmonton;
2. Alberta Hospital Ponoka;
3. Raymond Care Centre;
4. Claresholm Care Centre;
5. a housing accommodation as defined in the Alberta Housing Act; (seniors apartment housing where the government is the Landlord.)
6. a correctional institution as defined by the Corrections Act.

Note: Most of the above are government owned Institutions or government subsidized and yet the seniors in these facilities are not considered persons in care.

The Act provides no appeal mechanism!

A review of this legislation was undertaken in spring of 2002. In March of 2003, a Report on the Review of the Protection For Persons in Care Act was submitted to the Legislative Review Committee at which time we made a strong objection to the Honourable Mr. Gene Zwozdesky, Minister of Community Development concerning the proposed recommendations of the Report.

We strongly stated to him, that:

“if the recommendations are accepted, it will mean that the Protection For Persons in Care Act will continue to be an embellished version of the unenforceable, ineffective, unethical Health Facilities Review Committee Act of 1972 and continue to provide little or no protection to vulnerable Albertans.”

Back to Top

1972 The Social Care Facilities Review Committee Act

The Social Care Facilities
Review Committee which
administers this piece of legislation is a Government, appointed body
which is mandated to investigate mistreatment in adult daycare centers,
group homes and some unique lodges. They field complaints, and mislead
the public into believing that the quality of care for the frail,
elderly in such facilities is being monitored and that their Committee
can intervene in regard to elder abuse and neglect issues when in fact
they have no power to enforce regulations, recommendations or
impact decisions. Sections 10 and 11 of the Act disallow access medical
or financial records. They report to the committee Chairman which is an
elected MLA, presently the Chairman is Ms. Cindy Ady, MLA Calgary-Shaw,
Vice- Chairman is Ms. Jean Wilkinson.

Their reporting is superficial, anecdotic hearsay. The Committee has
never been listed in the phone book.

Back to Top

1972 The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

The Alberta Human Right
and Citizenship Commision proclaims that Alberta is for ALL Albertans,
but the under girding
legislation contradicts this. It would probably amaze most Albertans to
know that our elderly pioneers are not protected by the legislation of
the Alberta Human Rights Commission
in the area of services in which they are most
vulnerable.

Although the Alberta Human Rights Commission
will act on complaints of discrimination because of race, religious
beliefs, colour, sex, ancestry, and place of origin, they are not
mandated to protect the rights of the aged. Alberta’s Act does not
prevent discrimination in obtaining goods, service and
accommodation.

What does this mean to the ordinary Albertan? Eviction without notice!
In another matter, in most Lodges, it is POLICY that residents, if they
are ill in bed, do not have to be served a breakfast tray, tea or any
nourishment. Seniors must come to the dining area. They must get up and
get the liquids or nourishments or do without. In central
Alberta, an employee was dismissed because she served breakfast to an
elderly Lodge resident who was sick in bed.

In a nursing home, an elder can be chemically restrained; psychotropic
drugs can be prescribed and administered without the informed consent
of the resident, the resident’s guardian or other authorized
representative. A nursing home resident can be permanently relegated
to bed, without the informed consent of the
resident, the resident’s guardian or other authorized representative.

A continent elder can be diapered without consent and told to use
his/her diaper. A story emanated from Calgary concerning a strapping
six foot man who had been institutionalized. He
was crying inconsolably. It turned out that he had been diapered, given
a laxative and told to use his diaper (soil himself).

When personal belongings are stolen from lodge or nursing home
residents, nothing is done; in facilities where we have received a
complaint or made a complaint, no protocol was in place. Elders and
family members are informed that items are “missing.”
As a matter of fact most residents are afraid to complain that theft
has occurred. It is our experience that if you make complaints in an
elder care facility, you may be disciplined, evicted to a mental health
ward or even declared incompetent.

Back to Top

1980 Dependant Adult Act D32

The Act sharply curtails and strips the
elderly person of all
his/her rights and fails to protect and provide physical, mental,
emotional/financial safety and protection for the dependent adult. The
dependant adult becomes a non-person and is referred to in the court as
the estate.

The Act does not require that the proposed dependant adult be notified
that his/her monies/estate is being taken over by a trustee.

As the Court appointed guardian or trustee exercise
their authority, there is no onus of duty of care to
the dependent adult to:

1. provide the necessities of life
2. provide social and mental stimulation
3. provide safe, ethical nursing care where required.
4. ensure that the dependant adult is not physically or chemically restrained
5. spend the dependant adult’s money to ameliorate and benefit the dependant adult’s life

The court appointed guardian/trustee is seldom held accountable for his/her failure.

When a Trustee fails to pass accounts (brings his accounts to the court for examination), frequently, he/she

1. is not held in Contemptof Courtby the Court, when Orders of the Court have been breached.
2. is seldom disciplined by the Law Society in the case of one of their own members.

The accounting standards for the Office of the Public Trustee are very relaxed and do not rise to a level required of ordinary
citizens in supplying ANNUAL Income Tax Returns. It appears that the
“passing of account” may be
only required once every six years and that this process does
not involve any independent audit, save and
except the judge to view as he sees fit. This
suggests that the framers of the Dependant Adult Act
in Alberta have presented a very misleading document to the Public.

Back to Top

1980 Fatality Inquiries Act Chapter F9

The Act states that:

Deaths that require notification . . . to a
medical examiner or an investigator:
(2) (c) deaths that occur as the result of violence, accident
or suicide;
(e) deaths that may have occurred as the result of improper or negligent treatment by any person;
(20) The Chief Medical Examiner may at any time
(a) direct a medical examiner to make an investigation into any death at any place in Alberta.

Besides
reporting to the Medical Examiner, the Act
makes no requirement to hold an Inquiry in regard to the sudden or
violent death of a senior resident of an elder care facility.

In one instance, a male resident of a private nursing home, 1988, was
severely scalded in a tub of hot water. He died two weeks later at the
University Hospital. The Public Examiner’s Office informed
us that they did not interview anyone except some personnel at the
nursing home. This was the same nursing home where, a year previously,
a man had been beaten to death by a long time violent resident; and
where also, another elderly man had taken suicide by jumping from the
third floor window of the nursing home, in no instance was a Fatality
Inquiry held. Later, a despondent lady also took her life from the same
third floor of the home.

A horrific 1989 scalding of a senior who was in care in another
facility which resulted in immediate death of the senior, also did not
result in a Fatality Inquiry. Silence surrounds the
violent death of elderly persons.

1980 Medical Profession Act

The Medical Profession
governs the College
of Physicians and Surgeons which allows it to be a
self-governing and according to its legislation, its’ members
cannot be held accountable by the public.

The College
has failed to deal with such issues as the failure of
those physicians who visit nursing homes and auxiliary hospitals who
fail to visit their patients though making regular entries in the
patient files. For those entries, the physician receives payment. For
example, one senior complained to us that she had never seen her
doctor. This lady, like many, had been declared to have dementia,
although we were not fully convinced of this. Hence we inquired of the
charge nurse as to the name of the physician and would he have visited
this resident. The reply was that this physician visited the facility
between 6:00 and 7:00AM and therefore the resident would probably not
have been seen by him.

These physicians do not take responsibility for the neglect which some
nursing home residents suffer such as bedsores, injuries due to neglect
/ falls. A physician, whose patient had developed an advanced
3″diameter bedsore which exposed the spine, had caused the
elderly
person to have generalized septicemia. In his office, the physician
informed us, that he had no knowledge of the bedsore.

We have documentation that demonstrates that at times, physicians act
as the enforcers in a systemic culture of neglect.

Detailed, documented complaints made to the College of
physicians and Surgeons have been trivialized and serious
issues disregarded.

Back to Top

1984 Nursing Profession Act

The Act was granted to the
Alberta Association of Registered Nurses (AARN) in 1984.

The Alberta Association of Registered Nurses is
self governing and its’ members cannot be held accountable by
the public.

In 1984, the AARN discontinued confirming the
status of
nurses by way of employer’s submission of personnel lists and
also
deleted the requirement for orientation to Canadian nursing. This
regressive legislation places the onus to have a permit or registration
on the individual “nurse” and on the employer.

An out of province/country person may qualify for RN
status or Certified Graduate Nurse (CGN) by
obtaining a permit without having written any provincial examination.

We have knowledge of complaints of elder abuse including a fourteen
page complaint of elder abuse, which was made to the Alberta
Association of Registered Nurses which was dismissed without
being investigated.
Should the professional association be held culpable for the deaths and
injuries which resulted after their failure to discipline their members.

We maintain that there is strong failure, to provide safe, ethical,
compassionate, nursing care to clients in many elder care facilities
which should be the goal of organized nursing in Alberta. Therefore,
we have asked the professional association, the Alberta
Association of Registered Nurses to
take on the primary role of advocacy for those in care and confront the
significant issues which result in less than safe, ethical,
compassionate, nursing care to vulnerable clients.

Back to Top

1985 Nursing Home Act

The Nursing Home Act has minimal requirements. The
regulations have not been upgraded for over twenty years.

Back to Top

1985 Criminal Code

The Criminal Code is not applied. It clearly states:

Section 215
(1) Everyone is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Everyone commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, to perform the duty, if

(a) the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed, or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be endangered permanently; or
(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

(3) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Back to Top

1980 Alberta Mental Health Act

The
physician / psychiatrist, has a powerful quasi-judicial
position in society by virtue of the privileges conferred on him by the
state and the College of Physicians and Surgeons in that he has the
legal authority to detain lawful citizens behind locked doors.

Therefore, he has an ethical and moral obligation, to safeguard the
processes which are carried out in a hospital for the mentally ill and
to safeguard all vulnerable, elderly or unwilling participants who
become part of that system”.

The Form 1 Admission
Certificate of the Mental Health Act (c.
M-13.1, S.A. 1988) Section 2, is information obtained from
hearsay and requires the physician to fill in the following:

“I have formed my opinion (ii) on the following
facts communicated to me by others”

“This hearsay opinion
(evidence inadmissible as testimony) cannot be challenged according to
the Mental Health Act – Part 7, Section #5a.”

For example: A senior had complained about blood
sausage which had
been served to eat at the lodge where she resided. She attended at the
North Edmonton Health Center, and then was transported to Alberta
Hospital by ambulance. Prior to her admission, a psychiatrist on
September 29, 1999 filled out the Form 1 as
follows, although he had never interviewed, assessed or even met her.

In the Form I, he wrote that he “observed the
following facts” @1:30 PM:

Pt. is paranoid, delusional and extremely
distressed. She speaks
of food at the lodge being “rotten, contaminated, with blood
all over
it”. She displays depressive symptoms and has not been
compliant with
treatment.

A complaint concerning
this physician’s untruthful,
written statement recorded on a legal document, which abrogated this
person’s right to self determination, was made to the Alberta
College of Physicians and Surgeons, but the complaint was
summarily dismissed.

The Review Panel Hearing which is an
appeal mechanism for
detainees, is conducted by a lawyer/judge. There is no recording of the
hearing, it is an anecdotal, “he said, she said”
forum. Four
panel members and fifteen minutes later may determine whether the
detainee will obtain his/her freedom or spend further months behind
locked doors at the facility. The hearing which we attended was
frightening, the attending psychiatrist made allegations about a car
accident which we knew were not true. We had a police report verifying
the detainee’s account.

Back to Top

1990 Patient Advocate Regulation under the Mental Health Act

Section 3. Power
to act on a complaint relating to a formal patient.
Unfortunately most admissions to Alberta Hospital are encouraged to
sign a voluntary admission Form which makes them
ineligible for advocacy by the Patient Advocate.

We are aware that persons are frequently detained
in breach of the Mental Health Act, by means of the Voluntary Admission
Form. The large
numbers of voluntary patients at Alberta Hospital,
as cited by the Acting Medical Director of the Alberta
Hospital Edmonton, bears this out. The practice of the Voluntary
Admission Form
is built into the system. Professional nursing staff cooperate in this
deception which allows professionals to illegally detain vulnerable
persons.

The signing of this Form by a patient, declares him/her to be a
voluntary patient. A voluntary
patient, cannot appeal for advocacy because allegedly he/she is being
hospitalized by choice. In 1987, the Office of the Ombudsman
had jurisdiction to receive complaints from patients at the Alberta
Hospital Edmonton. Since 1990, the Patient Mental
Health Advocate has been given jurisdiction to assist and
investigate concerns of certified persons.

During a Fatality Inquiry Hearing (Norregard), a psychiatrist gave the
following answer when asked concerning the “purpose and
function” of the Alberta Hospital Edmonton.
He makes strong reference to the voluntary admission process:
(Transcript, dated July 13/99, page 88)

Q: Could you, Doctor, describe for us the purpose and function of
Alberta Hospital Edmonton?

The response:

“Alberta Hospital Edmonton is one of 14 designated facilities in the Province that is able to admit psychiatric patients. It is designated in order to be able to take certified patients, that is formal patients under the Mental Health Act. We also admit voluntary patients. Approximately half of our admissions are voluntary. In other words, the patient agrees to be admitted for treatment. The other half on admission are detained in some way, usually under one or more certificates of the Mental Health Act and after admission that group of patients, almost two thirds of them at each month end are, in fact, voluntary.”

The response would seem to indicate that the purpose and
function of the hospital is to detain persons. The Alberta
Hospital Edmonton and Ponoka are not
included under the Protection For Persons in Care Act.
The response reflects that he is very much aware of the Voluntary
admission process, participates
in the process, and even dares to explain the
process of admitting and detaining persons in a process which is a
breach of the Mental Health Act.

We have knowledge of vulnerable persons who have been detained under
the Mental Health Act, who have had their rights
revoked, been medicated, threatened, disciplined and detained behind
locked doors

An updated Statement of Claim, along with further documents including an Opt-Out form is available from the Parlee McLaws website.

Update

Madame Justice Sheila Greckol has ordered that this letter be published in all major newspapers across Alberta.

Update

We are pleased to announce that Court of Queens Bench, Madame Justice Sheila Greckol has certified this as a class action.

This action is not primarily about money, this is about rights, about the way the government treats its’ citizens.

In her ruling, Madame Justice Greckol wrote that the lawsuit can proceed on allegations of

• breach of contract,
• breach of duty,
• overcharging of fees
• unlawful discrimination under the Charter of Rights.

Introduction

This is a landmark case, the first of its kind in Canadian history.

The court has acknowledged that there are serious issues that need to be examined.

We maintain that the residents of long-term care facilities have been subsidizing health-care costs that are insured under the Canada Health Act.

It should be noted, this concerns only 0.4 % of the Alberta population, essentially those elderly persons who built the wealth of this province. These are the issues.

The Statement of Claim will be updated.

On July 29, 2005, the Elder Advocates Of Alberta Society filed a class action against the Province of Alberta and the nine Health Regions in the Province.

The claim relates to the accommodation rate increase that took effect August 1, 2003 which over the past two years amounts to one hundred and twenty eight million, seven hundred thousand dollars ($128, 700, 000) for the 13,437 Alberta residents affected.

The essence of the claim is that while there was a 40% increase in long term care fees charged to nursing home residents, the Defendants reduced health care funding for nursing homes.

In the Governments Press Release of June 17, 2003, it was claimed that the accommodation rate increase would “improve the quality of resident care services”. It is a matter of public record that this did not happen.

The Statement of Claim alleges that by raising the accommodation charge and failing to adequately fund health care, the Defendants acted in bad faith and with careless disregard for the interests of the class members.

The accusations contained in the Statement of Claim reflects a massive deception that was perpetrated against vulnerable Albertans.

• NASGA: National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse
• JeanWarden.com
• Elderly Liberation Movement Society of BC
• Bears by Beasley (Sponsor)
• The Alberta Association of Sexual Assault Centres
• ParentsWish.com
• W-Five Report: The Royal Crest File

All trademarks are copyright of their respective owners.

Best viewed in Safari 2.0+, Firefox 1.5.0+, or IE 6+. Broadband connection recommended.

A resolution of 800×600 is required to view this site, 1024×768 or higher recommended.

Design based on Blue Wave by Cirkuit Networks, Inc.

Elder Advocates is powered by Wordpress.