Download PDF

Download PDF

The Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act is unjust legislation that disregards citizenship rights and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The proclamation of this Act opens the floodgates of the financial abuse of thousands of Alberta citizens and human rights abuses on an unprecedented scale.

The Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act is parallel to the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928/72. Then, it was the academia who determined who should have their organs removed. Today it is the same academia who determines who should be stripped of rights and personhood.

Some of the more virulent legislative abuses contained within the Act, are as follows:

Section 104. The court has the ability to compel a senior to undergo a capacity assessment and permits the assessor “to enter the adult’s residence” for the assessment. The Act gives the legal right to violate the privacy and safety of your domicile. You will no longer be safe in your own home from those who would strip you of your rights. In the 90’s, the court ordered that Martha M., an 84 year old, 80 lb. senior be assessed. When the Psychologist arrived at her home, she strongly instructed him: Leave! Get off my steps! Out of my yard! And called after him that she did not need a doctor. He left. If this Act proceeds, seniors will be in contempt of court if they do not give entrance to an assessor.

Section 38(2) Police may be called to enforce the court order. This legislation is designed to disarm seniors of their right to protect themselves and their property.

Section 105 The Court may determine your competency in your absence, without an assessment, no matter where you may be, even if you are out of country. This happened in 2008.

A lawyer, whom we allege did not have standing at a court Hearing, stated to the court that the referred to senior was “over the threshold” (incompetent) though he had never met her. Thus, the police apprehended the senior from her home (where she was functioning and not a cost to taxpayers) and hidden at the Royal Alex. Hospital by declaring her a “confidential patient”.

Section 26(1) Any interested “person” can apply for guardianship in respect of any resident of Alberta. No senior citizen in Alberta can safely assume that they will be able to enjoy their retirement and the fruits of their labours in peace and dignity.

Section 74(2) The Act allows ex parte Applications by the Public Guardian (they do not have to notify you of the Court Application).

It must be clearly understood, that to be declared incompetent, a senior is stripped of rights. Rights such as access to monies/bank account, birth certificate, identification papers/ whom to associate with, key to own house, may be denied a phone, mail (Christmas cards), phone calls, right to financial statements, determining where to live, self-determination, and personhood. The guardian determines if you have a non-resuscitation order, which means that in nursing home, when very ill, you will probably not be sent to hospital for treatment. The guardian/agent may restrict or ban friends and neighbours from visiting. Studies indicate that isolating a senior often provokes depression and Alzheimer disease.

Section 17. You may opt out of a co-decision Order, BUT the “withdrawal” must be filed at the court, & the Office of Public Guardian takes over. Once in the system, you are in. There is no opting out.

Section 26(5) If it is concluded that it is in your best interests not be notified, you won’t know that you have been placed under Guardianship. The same senior Martha M. had not been informed/served that she had been placed under guardianship. She went to her bank as she had done for decades in order to withdraw money to pay her monthly bills. The bank clerk informed her that she could not give her any of her money. She fainted.

Denying seniors their own money is bullying of the worst kind.

Section 40(1) A senior may apply to the courts for a review of any Order. This is an empty remedy! There is no guarantee of right to counsel. The senior who has been declared incompetent has no access to money, how can he/she retain a lawyer to go to court? Furthermore, the agent/guardian may deliberately deny a lawyer for the senior. In one matter, we helped a senior to attend at a lawyer’s office. The son called the police & the police verbally chastised the lawyer. The son and his siblings actively denied their multimillionaire father access to legal counsel. In the same matter, an RN, ‘unceremoniously’ removed a well-known lawyer from the premises.

Thieves, murderers, rapists are assured legal representation as enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, however the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act does not afford such legislative protection.

Section 113(2) The Court may limit access, or close court hearings to the public, or media and impose secrecy. Courts are to be open and TRANSPARENT. The government is already denying court transcripts to advocates and the public.

Section 63. Under trusteeship, you will not be allowed to see how your hard earned money is being spent (or stolen). Only the Court may examine your financial records.

Section 67(1) With a court Order, the Trustee can disregard your last wishes, will and testament and liquidate property that has been specifically named & bequeathed in your will. This has been happening prior to enactment of the Act.

Upon Application to the Wetaskiwin court by Public Trust Officer, Cindy Lang, Justice of Calgary ruled that a name be removed from the title of a farm property, owned in joint tenancy by a senior. Neither of the persons whose name was on the title were served /notified in regard to the Public Trustee’s Application of April 17, 2007. The property has since been sold, the wishes of the senior disregarded.

Sections 87, 88. 89. Legislation allows a physician to select a specific decision maker who is given absolute power, parallel to a guardian.

D. C. was an independent Canadian citizen, who loved her Bonnie Doon home, paid her taxes, planted a large garden & and was not costing taxpayers any money. After a foot injury, she entered UofA Hospital & never allowed to return home. While there, a psychiatrist gave her a capacity test. D.C. speaks Ukrainian, German & Russian but is illiterate in English & her spoken English is colloquial & simple. She didn’t even understand why she was being questioned.

No interpreter was present for any assessment. To date, 7 psychiatrists have visited her. All, more than once or even twice, all making multiple charges to AB. Health. Some of her family members alleged she was starving, not capable of self care. A 3 ton dumpster, ordered by a daughter’s family, was placed in D.C.’s backyard and filled to overflow. Contents of which have been photographed and show jars of food that D.C.had preserved. Little 80 lb. D.C. has been detained for 8 mos., now on an Alzheimer ward, never allowed outside, recreation or attend Mass which is held in the same building.

Section 75 Section 76(2) Section 82 The Act allegedly provides appeal mechanisms, however in practice we have found that this complaint mechanism appears to be parallel to the Protection For Persons in Care Act.

The complaints officer appointed by the Minister, determines whether a complaint goes forward. Documented human rights abuses, such as seniors being unlawfully apprehended, unlawfully detained in total lockup, denied visitors, their rights totally abrogated, have been brought forward to Complaints Officer. Invariably remedies do not occur.

The Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act gives extraordinary, draconian powers to the Office of the Public Guardian, the Office of the Public Trustee and the courts.

Noted on our website are serious concerns about the behavior of the Office of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee and the failure by Ministers of the Crown to exact accountability from these, their employees. Note “DECEPTIVE GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION” as noted on our website, Understanding Personal Directives. Despite lengthy written complaints to government, we continue to find copies of this untruthful document available at the Calgary & Edmonton Court House library area. The Legal Resource Center also publishes this misinformation in a Publication titled “Making a Personal Directive”.

Though we accept that there are numbers of seniors who need protection nevertheless we submit that The Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, the Personal Directives Act, the Powers of Attorney Act and the Mental Health Act give unlimited, legislated power to control seniors and their wealth. After all, nobody appears to be locking up the homeless or inner city seniors who may be living in appalling circumstances.

In practice, this legislation grants absolute power to agents, decision makers, guardians and trustees. There is no onus of duty of care on any of these to act in the dependant adult’s best interests. These legal appointees are virtually untouchable. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In Alberta, the rights and final wishes of the maker of a Personal Directive or Power of Attorney, are not protected by legislation. THEY CAN BE EASILY OVERTURNED BY THE COURTS.

There are no standardized guidelines/protocol to regulate competency assessments. We have documented a litany of untrustworthy, unprofessional assessments / irregularities, processes where seniors have had their rights and monies unfairly or even illegally taken/seized from them.

In 2006, a multi-million dollar estate was seized, without a lawyer, without a Court Order, with a Personal Directive that had not been properly enacted. However the Banks, the Courts, all accepted the flawed process.

The victimized senior, a hard working Canadian citizen, though fully oriented to date, time and place, was detained

behind locked doors in an assisted living facility. His children actively denied him his money & right to a lawyer. They told him many times that he would never get out of there.

However In the fall of 2007, this man of indomitable spirit and courage was allowed to wander throughout the building, a work site and ultimately would walk around a nearby lake and to his former bank. One day he walked over to visit his family physician. Though, after his walks, on return to the assisted living building, Mr. PM always had to return to the locked unit, to his room over the facility’s garage. Finally in summer of 2009, almost 3 years after incarceration, he was moved out of the locked unit into a unit in the general population, where he knows everyone, greets everyone and is very well liked. Though he appears to have more freedom, he still has not been allowed his gold wrist watch, & his visitors continue to be restricted by family & courts.

It is time to for legislators to legislate rights and protection for seniors.

1. Call or write your MLA. Tell them that this unjust legislation is offensive and is a human right’s violation
2. Sign a petition. Petition can be downloaded from website. We will present Petition to Legislature.

Report

September 9, 2008

2008 Bill 24
First Session, 27th Legislature, 57 Elizabeth II
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA
BILL 24
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND TRUSTEESHIP ACT

We wish to thank you for allowing us to make this submission to your Committee concerning Bill #24, Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act.

We wish to begin by pointing out the sheer folly of attempting to pass legislation that flies in the face of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The abuse of seniors, especially senior’s rights has been a totally hidden issue. Furthermore it is difficult to believe that senior abuse and blatant rights violations are actually happening in our fair, prosperous province. After all this is Alberta, a province built on democratic principles.

We, the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society are an anomaly across this province and probably across Canada in that we accept and investigate complaints of elder mistreatment It is a stressful and labour intensive process. But through this process, much to our shock and often disbelief, we uncovered an unbelievable reality of legislative abuse, human rights violations and charter violations.

We found that in the early seventies, the Alberta Government established a legislative framework intended to deny rights to seniors and legislative protocol designed to allow the seizing of senior’s estates.

We found that age is not included under the Alberta Human Rights legislation. In elder care facilities, seniors can be harmed with impunity, because there is no viable, enforceable, protective legislation.

In Alberta, the rights and final wishes of the maker of a Personal Directive or Power of Attorney, are not protected by the legislation. The Personal Directive or Power of Attorney can be easily overturned by the court thereby disregarding and permanently voiding the wishes of the maker. There is no requirement to register enacted Personal Directives and Powers of Attorney with government. This failure allows estate theft, a hidden crime which can be carried out with impunity. Through the years we have come to personally know the anguish and human devastation resulting from the Dependent Adults Act legislation.

This Act strips vulnerable seniors of all rights, all decision making, right to any monies, bank account, estate, birth certificate, personhood. Vulnerable seniors are denied the right to a fair court hearing. In a criminal court there would be requirement for an expert witness, for verbal testimony, cross examination of witness and documents.

But in a dependent adult hearing, the surrogate court accepts a Form 1, which is a one page form letter, filled out by a physician who may or may not have assessed or even interviewed the proposed Dependent Adult. The decision, too often influenced by those with a vested interest. The surrogate court does not allow the senior, whose total rights are on the block, to address the court, to speak in his own defence. If no one opposes the Application for guardianship or trusteeship, the Application may be carried out in Judge’s Chambers without any hearing. In the court, dependent seniors are referred to as “the estat of”, as if they were already deceased, even if the person is sitting there in the court. The Judge’s Order grants absolute power to the guardian and trustee.

If the senior has owned a home/ house, the trustee changes the locks and denies the owner/dependant adult a key. When the senior may be allowed to enter the home, they are cautioned not to touch anything. They have to pay someone to supervise their visit.The house may be sold without the owner’s permission and often against the senior’s wish. Family properties, land, farm, ranches and other properties built up over a lifetime are liquidated by the Office of the Public Trustee, with disregard for the senior’s last Will & Testament. The Office of the Public Trustee administers the second largest fund in Alberta, folowing the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund. There is no onus of duty of care on the guardian or trustee to act in the dependant adult’s best interests or to spend monies on behalf of the dependent adult or ameliorate his situation. We can give appalling, documented examples of such situations.

One would assume that the intent of guardianship and trusteeship is to keep the senior safe. Why then do we have to spend hours writing letters to government in defence of vulnerable seniors, appealing for their safety? Why did we have to spend several hours with the Edmonton Police Service last week in regard to a man detained at Alberta Hospital Edmonton? This frail, elderly, wheel chair dependent man, who is being physically and chemically restrained has been drugged until he was stuporous, administered a contraindicated medication that could kill him, had an injury to his left hand, wrist and fingers, finger nil picks on his right lower arm and elbow, a gash on his forehead. His wife wishes to have the husband removed from Alberta Hospital, however the court took away her rights as Agent and appointed the Public Guardian giving full rights to the Office of the Public Guardian. The guardians and trustees are untouchable because there is no provision within legislation to hold them accountable or to discipline them except to apply to the court. Who will apply to the court, the dependent senior who now has absolutely no access to monies or lawyer? Furthermore, these legal appointees are immune from liability.

A dependant adult has no right to sue his detainers. A dependant adult is denied the right to review or even see documents/ assessments which declared him incompetent A common criminal, however, has a full right to sue, he also has the right to full disclosure of charges made against them. A senior, who may be in his 70’s or 80’s, may be kept going from one stressful assessment to another. We know of one senior, a multi-millionaire, who is now defenceless, in 15 months was assessed 12 times by physicians, psychologists, geriatric specialists, etc. This could be considered an industry or maybe a feeding frenzy. Thesenior is desperately hopeful that his rights will be restored, when the matter is heard again and again, before the court. The estate is withheld, literally stripping the senior naked, rather than allowing the senior to go forward in his/her life to enjoy the fruits of his/her lifelong labours. Who pays? The senior/ dependant adult pays. In surrogate court matters, the court orders that all lawyers, physicians and the court get paid by the senior’s estate. His hard earned money pays for his keep, for court applications and for all the ongoing assessments which may each cost in the area of $5,000. His carefully earned money pays for the lawyer who is retained to deny him his rights.

Often these dependent adult matters may continue on for years, until the estate is exhausted. We are aware of one such estate matter which has been before the Edmonton Surrogate Court since 1996, which will be heard again this week. Finally, all this is not known to the trusting seniors. How could they know? Most would never believe it until it affects them. Then they are helpless to do anything about it.

Legislators:

The proposed legislation has forgotten that the actual ownership of the wealth of a “dependent senior” actually belongs to the senior That the first priority should be for the well being of the senior himself or herself as the case may be.

We urge you to allow your conscience to guide you, to strongly direct the legislative specialists to go back to the drawing board in order to craft compassionate, equitable legislation. Legislation, that safeguards the well being, the human rights and charter rights of Alberta’s senior citizens.

Press Conference

Monday, November 17, 2008 11:00 AM
Old Timers Cabin
9430 Scona Road, Edmonton, AB

Draconian legislation infringing on privacy rights and the right to safety and security of person.
The facts relating to this legislation will be fully discussed at the Press Conference by Mr. Allan Garber of Parlee McLaws LLP.

Letter

Hand Delivered

December 8, 2008

The Honourable Ms. Alison Redford, QC
Minister of Justice and Attorney General

The Honourable Mr. Ron Liepert,
Minister of Health & Wellness

The Honourable Ms. Mary Anne Jablonski,
Minister of Seniors and Community Support Services

CAPACITY ASSESSMENT TRANSCRIPTION

We are calling on our Government to legislate that all capacity assessments be recorded and transcribed. The proposed legislation should require that, a Certified Realtime Reporter must be present, to transcribe each and every assessment.

When completed, the Reporter should make the certified transcription directly available to the assessed senior, without delay. It is no longer acceptable, that seniors are being stripped of all rights in an unmonitored, secret process.

We further submit, that the trite, meaningless, commonly used phrase, “poor insight and judgment” should no longer be recognized, as a stated reason for incapacity.

We must safeguard senior Alberta citizens from further predation.

Thank you.

We shall be awaiting a response and be grateful to be in receipt of your response by the 20th of December, 2008.

Elder Advocates Of Alberta Society

Responses

Schedule Form I – Assessing Competency

We are calling for a Public Inquiry in regard to the way people, primarily seniors, are being assessed for competency.

We are challenging a severely flawed process that has existed for over 50 yrs.

A physician, has a powerful quasi-judicial position in society by virtue of the reliance on his assessments by the judicial system, in that his assessment can lead to the detaining of lawful citizens behind locked doors and removal of property and human rights.

The current standards required for a physician in the performance of his assessment are not well defined. We believe that if the judiciary is to rely on a physician’s assessment, specific standards and criteria must be developed for the exercise and documentation of a physician’s assessment. These should include cross examination of the physician & documentation/affidavit testimony which outlines the process which was followed as well as practical avenues for appeal and review of that assessment.

THE JUDICIARY, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE, ARE RELYING ON AN OPINION THAT IS NOT WELL SUPPORTED. Seniors are being abused through the process that declares them incompetent to look after their finances and personal decisions.

We are calling for:

• hearings across the province of persons who have been victimized by a process that has no safe, measurable guidelines to ensure a fair, ethical assessment. Hearings to include those Alberta citizens who are detained behind locked doors who wish to be heard. The public needs to understand the magnitude of this issue.
• establish legislated criteria & standards to govern the assessment protocol, that recognizes constitutional rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• establish practical avenues of accessible, appeal protocol
• establish penalties for those who are in breach of legislation.
• a definitive time line in regard to these undertakings

Letter

HAND DELIVERED

April 16, 2010

Honourable Ms. M. Jablonski, Minister of Seniors
and Community Supports

Mr. Robert Bhatia BA, Deputy Minister, Seniors
and Community Supports

Dear Ms. Jablonskio, Mr. Bhatia:
Reference – Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act

The Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act is unjust legislation that disregards citizenship rights and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

1. Who are the legislative specialists responsible for drafting the legislation?
2. Who initiated and directed the process?
3. Who established the criteria for this legislation?

It is clear that it was not the elected MLA’s. Those whom we met with did not even have name recognition of the Act.

As citizens of this province, we believe this information should be readily available to all.

We would be grateful to be in receipt of such information by the 3rd of May, 2010. Thank you.

Yours truly,

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society

cc.
Dr. Kevin Taft, MLA

Response

The Honourable Iris Evans, Minister of Health and Wellness
Room # 107, Alberta Legislature Building,
Edmonton, Alberta.

Dear Ms. Minister:

It is a well established principle of common law that health care providers owe a duty of care to provide a reasonable level of safety to their clients It has become public knowledge that owners, administrators and professionals in continuing care facilities fail to exercise their duty of care.

Alberta facilities are licensed and in large part paid for by Albertan’s tax dollars, therefore it becomes incumbent upon government to assume the duty of care. Government can readily monitor facilities by means of video cameras in every resident’s room. This process is already in place in some child care centers. After all, very elderly, dependant persons are much like frail children.

We urge you to monitor all elder care facilities with cameras and demand ethical care and safety from those who have been entrusted the care of vulnerable Albertans.

Government must be able to assure the safety and protection of all its’ citizens.

This law has been expressed in
Stewart v. Extendicare Ltd.
1986 4 WWR 559
(1986) 38 CCLT67
(1986) 48 Sask R 86
Sask QB. Malone, J.

Thank you. We would be most grateful to be in receipt of a response concerning this long standing and urgent matter by September 10, 2006.

Elder Advocates Of Alberta

CC:

The Honourable Mr.Ron Stevens,Minister of Justice and Attorney General
The Honourable Ms.Yvonne Fritz, Minister of Seniors and Community Support Services
Dr. Kevin Taft, MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr.Brian Mason BA, MLA

Response

Click to Enlarge Pages

The Honourable Mr. Gene Zwozdesky
Minister of Community Development
Alberta Legislature Building
Edmonton AB T5K 2B6

Dear Mr. Minister:

Further to our correspondence of January 2, 2001 concerning this matter, our meeting of October 30, 2003, and further correspondence of November 12, 2003. We again appeal to you to include the noted amendments to the said legislation.

Re: Section 1, the following should be added and state by definition the following:

Abuse defined as:
Subsection i. an act of physical mistreatment or injury which harms or threatens a person through action or inaction by another individual. Excessive or inappropriate use of physical or chemical restraints

Subsection ii. violation of personal rights – including but not limited to any deprivation of a person’s right to choose, to privacy, to make decisions. Lack of freedom to keep personal items around the room, the absence of a lockable drawer or closet (if requested) to keep personal items.

- psychosocial intimidation – instilling the fear or denial of care/ and or abandonment, or of violence, a spontaneous or systemic effort to intimidate or dehumanize thus diminishing the vulnerable person’s sense of dignity and self worth.
a. denying persons in care access to visitors such as family members, friends or advocates

b. failure to maintain a written Protocol concerning any imposed restriction of visitors by the institution. If anyone/ institution/guardian restricts visitation, a Report outlining reasons should be prepared and sent to a government agency with copy to restricted visitor/s.

C. failure to provide social and emotional support, necessary to maintain reasonable mental health.

Subsection iii.
-Excessive or inappropriate use of chemicals (medications), use of chemicals as a restraint.

Subsection v.
-Failure to use the monies and assets of the person in care, by the guardian or trustee, in order to ameliorate their needs and for their welfare, care and comfort.

- failure to maintain a comfort fund for the person in care at their care facility.

theft -
a. act of stealing, unlawful taking of the belongings of the person who is in care.

b.. failure to maintain an appropriate Protocol for addressing the matter of “missing” items such as clothing, money or personal items.

“neglect” -
- a pattern of conduct resulting in deprivation of care necessary to maintain minimum physical and mental health such as:
- failure to provide or facilitate adequate nursing care, nursing assistance and or physic-therapy resulting in weight loss, deadly bedsores, over medication, positional deformities and other neglect.

- failure to provide an appropriate physical environment that fosters positive mental and physical health.

Subsection (c) “client” – page 2
means a vulnerable adult who has some functional, mental or physical inability to care for himself / herself therefore requiring services by an agency.

Under Section 1 (b)
We recommend that the Act must include as possible abuser, the guardian, the trustee, family members or anyone who interacts with or has a duty of care to the vulnerable person who is in care.

We recommend that the Act must be crafted in order to provide protection to all vulnerable Albertans who are in care, inclusive of persons living in privately owned facilities.

We recommend that all received complaints be recorded, whether verbal, written or faxed – verbal complaints be recorded, similar to a 911 call.

(Presently, a complainant must repeat their complaint three times. First to the person who attends the abuse line, then again to a person who reviews the complaint and then to the investigator. This is extremely distressing in a situation where the complainant is already distressed by the abuse and must repeat and repeat).

We recommend stronger wording as follows, in place of Section 4, subsections (1), (2) & (3) concerning protection of the complainant. Complainants have been and continue to be harassed, intimidated, staff have lost their jobs and on occasion been sued for thousands of dollars or have incurred costs.

(a). A person participating in good faith in the making of a report pursuant to this Act or testifying as to alleged patient abuse or neglect in a judicial proceeding shall in so doing be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, arising out of such reporting or testifying under any law of this province or its political subdivisions. No action for defamation may be founded on a communication that consists of or pertains to a complaint, notification or disclosure regarding the neglect or abuse of a vulnerable person

(b) If the complainant is an employee of a facility within the Province of Alberta which gives care and services to vulnerable persons, it shall be an unfair practice under this act to dismiss the said employee for such activity. Nor shall they be subjected to suspension, transfer, altered assignment, demotion, reduction in pay or benefits or work privileges, negative work performance evaluation, denial or withholding of benefits or services, or any other detrimental action because of the report.

(c) Conduct conforming with the reporting requirements of this Act shall not be deemed a violation of the signing of a “confidential oath” which may be a requirement for employment in facilities which give care to vulnerable persons.

(d) Complainants who are persons in care, shall not be subject to alteration, interruption or discontinuance of services to which they are normally entitled, because of a report of abuse or neglect.

(e) Complainants are entitled to the right to privacy from interaction with or interference from the alleged abuser.

Re: Section 6(1), We recommend that complaints should be investigated within a defined time limit, depending on the nature of the complaint) rather than, “as soon as possible”. The Complainant shall be promptly informed of the investigating Bureau’s proposed course of action. The investigator shall prepare a report of the investigation within 10 days of receipt of the complaint and every 10 days thereafter until the investigation is complete.

We recommend that the investigative Bureau when receiving a report of an incident of a person in care who has deceased or who has had physical injury or injuries inflicted other than by natural means, or who has suffered severe neglect, shall be immediately directed to a specially trained unit within a law enforcement agency for investigation and immediate appropriate action which may be needed to stop the continuation of the abuse.

We recommend that not only must the abuser be held accountable and disciplined for his/her actions, but the care facility and its officers must be held accountable for the care performance within the facility. Therefore every care facility licensee, or any partner, officer, director, owner of 5% or more of the assets of the care facility, administrator or managing employee, should be held accountable and penalized for both intentional and reckless behavior committed by service provider personnel within its premises.

We recommend that Section 7 of the Act be rewritten to reflect the following: The investigating bureau must be able to investigate at any hour and demand immediate access to all financial and medical records. Failure to grant access to a facility or the withholding of documents should be deemed an offense. Hourly penalties shall be imposed for denial of access or the withholding of documents.
Presently, the investigator is unable to access medical or financial records, without permission, which results in anecdotic, hearsay reporting.

Some persons in care do not have a guardian nor are they able to give permission to access documents. Furthermore, in our experience, Application to the Court for entry to a care facility or access to documents as recommended by the Act, does not necessarily guarantee production of records.

We recommend that Section 7, subsection (5) be deleted.

We recommend that the Act must state proposed penalties such as fines, suspensions of licenses, jail terms.

We recommend annual, published reports, listing all abusing licensees by name and address, indicating -

(1) the number of offences and the nature of each charge issued to each licensee during the previous twelve month period and the status of any action taken pursuant to each violation, including penalties assessed, and

(2) the number of actions, nature, status and action taken with respect to each uncorrected violation for which there is an outstanding charge.

(3). the report shall be available to the public.

(4) the names of duly authorized officers, employees or agents of the Bureau shall also be deemed public.

Presently, investigations are carried out by “contract” persons, many have no health care background. Because the investigator is on contract, he is not a government employee and therefore cannot be held to accountability or even held accountable by the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus any decision or lack of decision on their part cannot be investigated or appealed.

We recommend that the Act be renamed VULNERABLE PERSONS PROTECTION ACT because of the present proliferation of private foster care homes for the frail elderly and vulnerable persons. These homes do not necessarily require a license and therefore extremely vulnerable persons are unprotected.

The Quarterly Report of the Protection For Persons in Care Act, April 1/00 to June 30/00, articulates an interpretation concerning the matter of intent, which we find unacceptable .

We continue to recommend that the Act be totally enforceable.

We continue to recommend a policy of ZERO TOLERANCE regarding elder abuse.

We continue to recommend an Alberta wide Registry which lists abusers. We would like to see this Registry become a Canada wide Registry.

We are persons who work at a grassroots level and understand the need for strong, protective legislation. We ask that we will be consulted when changes are being initiated. If this legislation has been made in good faith, then the legislation will be amended to make it effective and enforceable in order to protect the vulnerable citizens of our province.

Elder Advocates of Alberta

The Honourable Mr. Ron Stevens, QC
Minister of Justice and Attorney General

The Honourable Mr. Greg Melchin,
Minister Seniors and Community Support Services

Dear Sirs:

Personal Directives Act, Powers of Attorney Act

We ask that your government legislate that all enacted Personal Directives and Powers of Attorney be registered with the provincial government.

The present legislation allows estate theft with impunity. We perceive this to be a most serious and even pressing matter. Monies/estates have been stolen by those who were placed in a position of trust by this legislation. Presently, this is a hidden crime.

We must safeguard vulnerable Alberta citizens from predation.

Thank you. We shall be awaiting your reply and be grateful to be in receipt of such reply by the 20th of February, 2008.

Elder Advocates Of Alberta Society

cc:

Honourable Marjory LeBreton, P.C. Leader of the Government in the Senate,
Senate of Canada, Ottawa
Office of the Public Guardian, Alberta
Office of the Public Trustee, Alberta

Response

Click to Enlarge Pages

Recent headlines in the Edmonton Journal, July 5/99 such as “The Aging Menace” or “Growing Aging Population Increases Demand For Health Care” instil fear. Health Region #11, spokesperson, CEO Sheila Weatherill, Edmonton area, publicly reinforced this by informing us that in her region alone there are waiting lists for long term care beds of over 500 people:

“The pressure is definitely building [...] the challenge is escalating as the population grows and ages.”

However, since 1995, Health Authorities, across the province have been closing hundreds of long term care beds. In the Edmonton area alone, probably close to 700 beds have been closed and continue to be closed. Entire long term care units have been closed and entire wings within long term care units have been converted to respite beds , subacute care beds (recovery beds for orthopedic patients), C.H.O.I.C.E. beds and beds for rehabilitative plastic surgery. In some long term care centres, rooms have been simply locked. In instances where elder care facilities have been grossly overcrowded, such as having two four bed wards sharing one toilet, bed numbers have been reduced.

At Alberta Hospital Edmonton, two hundred and forty six or more geriatric beds have been closed. The relocation of the geriatric Youville Rehabilitation Hospital from downtown Edmonton to the Glenrose Hospital, resulted in a considerable reduction of beds, all of which helped create the pressure and challenge Weatherill is referring to.

In Peace River, Lethbridge, St. Paul, Glendon, Isley, Red Deer, Vilna and elsewhere, entire care facilities were emptied of their vulnerable elderly. The process of closing numbers of beds continues to be an ongoing process in Vegreville, Valleyview and Peace River. We have been recently informed that Drumheller is closing twenty more nursing home beds.

In 1995, the Peace River Auxiliary Hospital was forced to close and its facility turned into offices for health care office staff. Presently, their active treatment hospital is being closed to make way for a new hospital, however the long term care beds which existed in the old hospital will not be replaced. The total number of long term care beds in Peace River have been reduced from one hundred and twenty five beds to sixty seven beds, the projected number is fifty beds, some have informed us that the projected number is forty beds.

In the face of the closing of Our Lady Health Care Centre of Vilna, strong objections emerged, not only from local residents, but also from such centres as St. Paul, who will have to accomodate Vilna’s displaced seniors, but which have their own backlog of elderly who need care.

The present dramatic shortage of long term care beds is due to bed closing across the province. THE AUTHORITIES HAVE CREATED THE CRISIS. In fact, the crisis has been artificially created and blame is being laid on the seniors of this province.

Further to this matter, another front page article informed us that:

“Fort McMurray and Grand Prairie between them have grown by 3,500 people and that’s like a whole new city has been added.”

In fact, frail seniors were removed from beds in Fort McMurray and other residents, who were native to such outlying areas such as Fort Chipewan, were summarily dispatched to St. Josephs Auxiliary Hospital in Edmonton, much too far for regular personal and family visits. The Fort McMurray Public Health Officer who objected to this process, was abruptly relieved of his position.

Because long term care beds are not available in their home communities, seniors are often sent many miles away from family and friends. Wetaskiwin area seniors may be transported to Breton or Winfield, Stony Plain residents to Devon or Westlock. Strathmore elderly are removed to Drumheller, even though they live in close proximity to Calgary.

Isolating these elderly persons from family loved ones, friends and community is in blatant contravention of the Protection for Persons in Care Act Chapter P-19, 5.

This Act defines abuse to include:

1(a) ii “Intentionally causing emotional harm [...] coercing or restricting from appropriate social contact.”

Undoubtedly, moving elderly people leads to suffering, emotional and mental destabilization possibly premature death and dramatically affects the families involved.

Inevitably, numbers of elderly persons, who desperately need to access long term care beds, end up in expensive active treatment beds. A 95-year-old friend, who resided in Drayton Valley, had to be admitted to the intensive care unit, until a place could be found for her in the active treatment area, where she then awaited placement in long term care.

Others, may end up in unmonitored, unregulated unlicensed group homes. They may have to pay exorbitant rents, as high as one hundred dollars a day. Despite this, there is no guarantee that they will receive adequate food or care.

The relatively small percentage of elderly who require this care are being perceived as problematic and even a menace to the health care system. Sick, elderly persons are being shifted around like pawns in a chess match.

The attitudes of health care decision makers in this province, throw an unfavorable shadow over older Albertans. Their decisions cause a blight on a province which boasts prosperity, plenty and surplus.

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society

Quotes and facts taken from various Alberta news outlets, available upon request.

References that go beyond the bare-bones details of employment dates, job title and job description are increasingly hard to come by as companies seek to avoid potential legal headaches.

You could be the most incompetent, lazy, ne’er-do-well on the job, sexual predator or thief, but chances are your future employer will never hear about it from your current boss.

In Edmonton, a convicted thief was able to obtain employment in three nursing homes despite a criminal record. (See Sanjeeta Gill)

Though the section of Alberta’s Personal Information and Protection Act does allow an employer to collect personal information about a potential employee without consent. It also allows a former employer to disclose personal employee information to a prospective employer. They can keep that information confidential.

“If it’s a good reference, it’s not a problem,” said Dan Scott, a labour and employment lawyer.” The problem for companies is when they have a problem former employee.

“The reality is companies tend to be litigation adverse. They don’t want to get sued or have anybody suggesting they’re defaming former employees.”

Because of the high risk and sensitive nature of nursing home care, we are calling for:

• detailed information of total, past work history recorded on every caregiver’s file.
• Reason(s) for leaving all previous employment(s), which has been substantiated by sworn, written statements of previous employer(s). Strong penalties for those who might provide misinformation.
• Criminal record check of all employees
• Photo I.D. of each employee (see letter Yvonne Fritz)

The work history of people who give intimate care to vulnerable persons must be know. Such persons must be protected.

Legislation should hold employers accountable for the behavior / misbehaviors and work performance of their employees. Then employers would strongly endeavour to obtain accurate, comprehensive work histories of their employees.

Alberta’s privacy legislation fails to act in the best interests of vulnerable senior Albertans and as a result, seniors may be placed in harms way.

Adapted from “Companies know how to keep trap shut on bad employees”, Sara O’Donnell The Edmonton Journal, April 30, 2007.

A recent PROTECTION FOR PERSONS IN CARE ACT (PPCA) 2004-2005 Annual Report provides troubling information as follows:

• 65% of complaints concerning nursing homes and auxiliary hospitals were dismissed, (documented complaints www.jeanwarden.com). These facilities house Alberta’s most vulnerable citizens.
• 73 % of abuse was caused by service providers.
• Of the 779 complaints made to the PPCA, 22% (148) of the complaints were “Failure to provide the necessities of life without a valid consent.” Was Section 215 of Criminal Code applied?
• Recorded were 36 incidents of sexual contact, activity or behaviour. Were the police called and the Criminal code applied?
• 434 of the 457 investigations were carried out by persons contracted to government and therefore cannot be held accountable for their performance.

Perhaps most troubling item is found on Page 12 of the Report, Appendix I, entitled
BATHING INCIDENTS.

“In 2004/05, there were several complaints made to the PROTECTION FOR PERSONS IN CARE relating to residents who sustained burns from bathing.”

These “bathing incidents” happened the year of the Jennny Nelson scalding which was widely publicised across the country in early January of 2004 with Press Releases and Press Conferences. Also made public was the fact that another senior was fatally scalded (blanched) at the same facility some years earlier.

January, 2004, Marguerite Rowe RN, a Chief Operating Officer of the Capital Health Authority spoke on public television informing the public that detailed bathing instructions would be posted in every long term care facility bathing room and that all caregivers would have to adhere to these instructions. The public was assured such horrific incidents would never happen again. Obviously this was not true.

Until these crimes against vulnerable Alberta citizens are recognised as criminal offences, vulnerable persons will not be safe in long term care facilities.

Furthermore, when one considers that one letter or complaint, essentially represents 100 letters or complaints, consider the magnitude of the problem.

We are again MAKING A LOUD CALL for an Alberta wide Registry which will list those who abuse, neglect and prey on the vulnerable elderly.