SHOULD AN ADVERSE EVENT OCCUR IN ANY ONTARIO HOSPITAL, THE CITIZENS OF ONTARIO WILL BE ENSURED IT WILL BE COVERED UP BY ALL OF THOSE SEEN BELOW:

THE HOSPITAL --under jurisdiction of Liberal Minister of Health

THE CHIEF CORONER'S OFFICE--appointed by Liberal majority government and --under jurisdiction of Liberal Minister of Corrections and is a member of the CPSO and CMPA!

THE DEATH INVESTIGATIVE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL--appointed by Liberal majority government and --under jurisdiction of Liberal Minister of Corrections --has Chief Coroner or Deputy sitting on this council!

THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO

THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD--appointed by Liberal majority government --under jurisdiction of Liberal Minister of Health

THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN--appointed by Liberal majority government

THE ONTARIO PATIENT OMBUDSMAN--appointed by Liberal majority government

THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE--under jurisdiction of Liberal Minister of Corrections

THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR--appointed by Liberal majority government and --under jurisdiction of Liberal Minister of Corrections

THE LIBERAL MINISTER OF HEALTH and is a member of the CPSO and CMPA!

THE LIBERAL MINISTER OF CORRECTIONS

THE LIBERAL PROVINCIAL PREMIER

WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT, THE PRESENT LIBERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE COME CLEAN TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF ONTARIO.

ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE IN "BREACH OF TRUST" AS THEY COVER EACH OTHERS' ASSES

A FATHER’S FAILURE

Without a doubt; a Conspiracy exists,
Self-protecting Officials; such hypocrites!

If you were a MPP’s daughter; it would cause a fit,
Because you’re mine; they don’t give a shit!

For years we have yearned for justice,
The lack of moral integrity merely disgusts us!

Government institutions that won’t expose,
The Medical negligence concealed by those!

Medical Immunity granted; regardless of guilt,
Preserving Ontario Health Care’s patchwork quilt!

So many individuals paid through our taxes,
Failing us all; what a bunch of asses:

Premier of Ontario --Premier Wynne, Premier McGuinty,

Ontario Minsters of Health --Dr. E. Hoskins, D. Matthews, Rick Bartolucci

Ontario Ministers of Corrections --Yasir Naqvi, Madeleine Meilleur

Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament --majority of them from 2006 to the present

CPSO -- Angela Bates Manager Committee Support Area Investigations and Resolutions, Sandra Keough Investigator

HPARB --Chair Janice Vauthier, Past Chair Linda Lamoureux, Lori Coleman Registrar, Third Appeal Chair Tom Kelly, Members Stephen Jovanoviorc and Brenda Petryna

Ontario Ombudsman --Paul Dube Ombudsman, A Marin-Ombudsman, Investigator Lorraine Boucher- Investigator, Fran Cappe-Investigator,

Humber River Hospital --CEO B. Collins, past CEO Rueben Devlin,

Ontario Chief Coroner’s Office --Dr. D. Huyer, Dr. A. McCallum, Dr. A. Lauwers

DIOC --Joseph C.M. James (Chair), Emily Musing (Vice-Chair), John Pearson (Vice-Chair), William (Bill) McLean, David Williams, Dorothy Cynthia (Cindy) Prince, Denise St-Jean, Fiona Smaill, Lidia Narozniak, Lori Marshall, Lucille Perreault, William (Bill) J Shearing, Michael Pollanen, Fiona Foster Manager of DIOC

Ontario Patient Ombudsman --Christine Elliott, Investigator Marie Claire Muamba

Ontario Provincial Police --Commissioner J.V.N. (Vince) Hawkes, Inspector Bradley McCallum

OIPRD -- Director Gerry McNeilly

*****************************************************************************
Terra Dawn Kilby
"An Angel In Our Lives"
April 22/78 to July 21/06

Linked 2612 Connections/Followers
https://www.linkedin.com/…/humber-river-hospital-still-cove…

2,884

http://thepatientfactor.com/…/the-unholy-alliance-between-…/

DO YOU SMELL SOMETHING ROTTING WITHIN ONTARIO?
https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApBprmlxiUUnhHumD25kXQnNQ4f_

http://www.torontosun.com/…/why-did-woman-die-after-routine…

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/10/18/secret-medical-cautions

https://www.linkedin.com/…/ontario-patient-ombudsmans-offic…

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/another-failure-arnold-kilby…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/death-investigation-oversight-co…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/terra-dawn-conspiracy-arnold-kil…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/help-bring-true-transparency-acc…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/breach-trust-chief-coroners-offi…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/hparb-merely-mirage-valid-avenue…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/p-dube-ontario-ombudsman-arnold-…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/att-ontario-provincial-police-co…

https://www.linkedin.com/…/truth-kept-hidden-abusing-legisl…

READ ALL OF MY POSTS AS I ATTEMPTED TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO ONTARIO.

SCROLL DOWN FOR POSTS
--Look on right side under "Blog Archive" (oldest to newest)

*********************

College of Physicians and Surgeons - Stories of Failure

What is especially interesting in this recent Star (last week Feb/2016)article is the following:

“We are not a public organization. . . Our accountability is to our members,” said the College’s executive director, Dr. Francine Lemire" CPSO

ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE FAILS TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM HPARB'S LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

We already know the CPSO is corrupt and HPARB from the article where it stated "it looks like HPARB just threw up their hands and said we give up"

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/10/11/why-did-woman-die-after-routine-surgery

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/10/18/secret-medical-cautions

But for the Ombudsman's Office to swallow such garbage leaves the citizens of Ontario with no where to go.

Coalition For Physician and Surgeon Oversight is a group who has been harmed or had a loved one taken through negligence by a doctor/surgeon.

****************************************************

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFqWujTEVA&feature=youtu.be

Terra Dawn Kilby --- A Father's Memories
An Angel In Our Lives, Terra Dawn Kilby November 2014

A tribute to the life of my daughter who died due to the negligence of a surgeon at Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Covered up by Humber River Regional Hospital, the CPSO, HPARB, Chief Coroner's Office of Ontario, the DIOC, Ontario's Ombudsman and the entire Provincial Liberal Party!


TERRA DAWN KILBY April 22, 1978 - July 21, 2006. College’s Decision “The routine use of antibiotics prior to bowel surgery is an important aspect of care that was NEGLECTED by Dr. Klein in this case.”…
00:35:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMof3T--zUY&feature=youtu.be
******************************************************
THE PATIENT FACTOR

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-stories/the-unholy-alliance-between-organized-medicine-and-government-a-fathers-quest-for-truth-and-justice-in-public-health-care/

HPARB's Decisions Kilby vs Laz Klein.
First Decision:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhparb/doc/2010/2010canlii44390/2010canlii44390.html
Second Decision:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhparb/doc/2012/2012canlii39837/2012canlii39837.html
Third Decision:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhparb/doc/2013/2013canlii46625/2013canlii46625.html

The Letter I Sent to the Chief Coroner's Office Outlining My Numerous Concerns
Coroner's Comments.doc

Death Investigative Oversight Council's Decision

2 years after my initial request and after both Chief Coroner and Deputy Chief Coroner left the OCC.
DIOC Decision Aug 2013.doc
*********************************************************
The Chief Coroner's Office, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, the Death Investigative Oversight Council, the Liberal government and Ms Deb Matthews and Premier Wynne apparently agree that it is perfectly within the accepted Standard of Care to:
--have open abdominal surgery without the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis

--having not had the above, accepted that there was no need for antibiotics when the abdominal incision was oozing purulent liquid and was so infected that all staples were removed

--when test results showed "many gram negative bacilli", still it was quite acceptable to provide no antibiotics

ONTARIO CITIZENS----
And the College/HPARB totally ignored Dr. Andrew McCallum's letter to the College when he was Eastern Ontario Coroner. In it he states that infection was a contributing factor in Terra's death.
One must also wonder how on earth the Chief Coroner's death investigation failed to note the lack of antibiotics plus other issues contained within the hospital records and yet I have numerous pieces of correspondence from both Dr. Lauwers and Dr. McCallum stating they saw no issues with respect to the Standard of Care???
HOW DO YOU SPELL COVER-UP???



************************************
THE OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE has allowed the College and HPARB to establish the above as precedence for future complaints/appeals made to both of them.
VERY DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO PATIENT SAFETY AND CARE WITHIN OUR HOSPITALS.


********************************************************





http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-stories/the-unholy-alliance-between-organized-medicine-and-government-a-fathers-quest-for-truth-and-justice-in-public-health-care/

https://plus.google.com/100940639342885447409/posts/YwvYaMn7eTw

http://www.yelp.ca/user_details?userid=BslEQAF9s6rUav3VSPqcWQ

**************************************************
Gan Reporter to appeared July 21, 2015
Terra Dawn Kilby
“An Angel In Our Lives”
April 22, 1978 – July 21, 2006


Tears still appear when we think of you.
Visits to your grave site we often do.
Loving memories convey serenity too!

Our precious daughter, Terra Dawn;
It’s been nine years since you’ve been gone.
Within our hearts you still belong!

July Twenty-first is a time of sorrow.
Additional years, I wish we could borrow.
Maybe then, we’d not feel hollow!

Today, messages guided to heaven above.
Channeled to you on the wings of a dove.
Expressing our heartfelt, everlasting love!


LOVE MOM, DAD AND BRANDY

Monday, 7 December 2015

No Accountability or Transparency in Ontario--Dr. Laz Klein/Dr. Bert Lauwers/Dr. Andrew McCallum/Dr. Kirk Huyer/--Part Thirty-FiveA


I sent the following to Ontario's Attorney General.   We will see what kind of response I may receive if I do get one.  I also posted this on Facebook.

Her office replied saying they did not have the authority to do a single  thing and suggested I contact the Minister of Correction so I did with copies to all MPPs (January 21, 2016
ATT:  --- Resent to Minister Naqvi
Please contact the above and request that he contact the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate the Chief Coroner's Office for the criminal charge of "Breach of Trust'

Should you wish to support my request for an OPP investigation into Breach of Trust by the three men who conducted an inept death investigation please contact your local police station, and/or local OPP station

ATT: Commissioner J.V.N. (Vince) Hawkes
General Headquarters
Lincoln M. Alexander Building
777 Memorial Avenue
Orillia, ON L3V 7V3 

(705) 329-6111 1-888-310-1122

Let your voice be heard.
I'm sure if they extend their investigation into death investigations involving hospital deaths more evidence to Breach of Trust will be discovered!
How Chief Coroner Dirk Huyer reacts to the family of a loved one who died due to medical negligence besides just concealing the truth and covering it up.
re: DEATH INVESTIGATION OF TERRA DAWN KILBY

--totally inept death investigation whereby their own independent opinion provider investigating Terra's overall care contained numerous omissions that were very relevant to her death.
PLEASE READ THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR. LAUWERS' INDEPENDENT OPINION PROVIDER AND SUPPORTED BY BOTH DR. McCALLUM AND DR HUYER.   THEN LOOK AT THE OMISSIONS FROM THIS REPORT.  KEEP IN MIND, ALL THREE LOVE TO QUOTE FROM THIS REPORT.  I will highlight the parts that the medical records contradict his opinion.
From the Chief Coroner’s independent expert:


November 17,2008


Dr. A.E. Lauwers,CCFP, FCFP
Associate Deputy Chief Coroner
Office of the Chief Coroner
26 Grenville Street
Toronto, Ontario


M7A 2G9
Dear Dr. Lauwers:
RE: Terra Kilby
Deceased: July 20,2006 OCCFileNo.: 2006-11425


As you requested, I have reviewed the file on the above person and provide my report. In reaching my opinion, I have reviewed the following materials:


1. The hospital record from Humber River Regional Hospital related to admissions from March 3 to March 4, 2006 and July 11 to July 20, 2006.
2. The Coroner's investigation statement (statement number 2006-054-8).
3. The report of postmortem examination by Dr. Caroline G. Rowlands dated March 22, 2007.
4. A compact disk containing images taken at autopsy and provided to me by Dr. Rowlands.


In summary, the deceased presented to Humber River Regional Hospital on March 3rd with abdominal pain. She was found to have a large mesenteric cyst. There were no acute issues, and she was therefore discharged for further investigation as an out-patient. She was assessed by Dr. Klein and underwent further investigation. A decision was reached to resect the mesenteric cyst. On July 11th she underwent attempted laparoscopic resection of the cyst, but because of intraoperative concerns the procedure was converted to  laparotomy. Removal required right hemicolectomy with resection of the associated mesentery that contained the cyst. On the second postoperative day, the patient did have a low-grade fever but this resolved by the following day. 
However on the fourth postoperative day it was noted that she had a wound infection. The skin was opened and the infection appeared to be confined to the subcutaneous space and not extend below the fascia. She then had some diarrhea and cultures for Clostridium difficile were negative. This seemed to settle and she was discharged home on the ninth postoperative day. Arrangements were made for Home Care visiting nurses to manage the abdominal wound with the intent that it would heal by secondary intention. The records indicate that on the evening of discharge she collapsed at her parent's home and was returned to hospital by ambulance but died in the emergency room despite resuscitation efforts. A Coroner's investigation was undertaken and a forensic autopsy carried out. The  pathologist concluded that the patient died from hemorrhagic shock secondary to acute intraperitoneal bleeding. It was noted that on arrival in the emergency room on the evening of death, the patient had a marked coagulopathy. The pathologist concluded that a clear source for the bleeding was not identified and that the underlying coagulopathy could have been a contributing factor.  




You have requested that I review the quality of care that this patient received and I have done so. In preparing this report, I have given consideration to the concerns that the patient's family expressed specific to the quality of medical care provided.
I believe that the initial assessment and care plan on March 3rd and 4th was entirely appropriate. Dr. Klein subsequently carried out an appropriate investigation and reached a management plan that reflects a good standard of care. The operative procedure was carried out according to the appropriate standard and good decision making is evident. The postoperative care was appropriate.  Specifically, treatment of a superficial wound infection is opening of the wound and allowing drainage. Subsequently allowing the  wound to heal by secondary intention is the correct management. The use of antibiotics in the absence of systemic sepsis is not  necessary, and does not improve the outcome. Unnecessary use of antibiotics does have risks including increasing the probability of development of antibiotic resistant infections including Clostridium difficile. There were no clinical indications for a CT scan or other  investigation. It is not unusual for patients to be discharged without having had a solid bowel movement and there certainly are care paths for bowel resection that do not even require passage of flatus. There was no indication of a pre-existing nutritional deficiency, nor was the length of time without oral intake sufficient to lead to major nutritional deficits.  Therefore there was no indication for supplements of things like vitamin K and calcium.   

Postoperatively, the hemoglobin, white cell count and platelet count remained within expected ranges. Culture from the infected  wound grew the expected bowel related organisms. Samples of the loose stool for Clostridium difficile were negative. The last hemoglobin measurement that I can identify was on July 18 \ There was no evidence of any hemorrhagic event subsequently nor change in vital signs that would have merited repeat laboratory investigations.  Discharge on July 20,2006 was therefore clinically appropriate.

I concur with the pathologist that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock. It is my opinion that the coagulopamy was a dilutional coagulopathy as a result of the hemorrhage, rather than a causeof the hemorrhage. I believe that the bleeding came from one of the staple lines on the anastomosis. Following removal of the right colon, the bowel was reconstructed using mechanical staplers and a technique known as a functional postoperatively, or be delayed. When it is delayed it is not uncommon for this to happen 6 to 10 days postoperatively. This complication  end-to-end anastomosis. This is the predominant technique in use today for joining two ends of bowel together. This was properly done by Dr. Klein. One of the risks of any anastomosis is bleeding or leak from the anastomosis. This can occur very early happens in spite of proper surgical technique. Its incidence varies based on numerous factors, but is generally quoted to be in the order of 1 -5% of all bowel resections. 

I believe that the defect occurred because of ischemic necrosis at the intersecting staple lines created by the functional end to end anastomosis. This led to an open edge of bowel that subsequently bled. This led to hemorrhagic shock, subsequent dilutional coagulopathy and the patient ultimately expired from these events.


I find no area of concern with respect to the standard of care that she received.

If you have any further questions, I would be happy to discuss this at any time

UNSIGNED
 
--totally inept death investigation whereby their own independent opinion provider investigating Terra's overall care contained numerous omissions that were very relevant to her death.
--NO MENTION OF ALL THE STAPLES BEING REMOVED FROM THE ABDOMINAL INCISION AND THAT TEST RESULTS INDICATED THE PRESENCE OF MANY GRAM NEGATIVE BACILLI (SAME CATEGORY AS C DIFFICILE)
No mention of the many Gram Negative Bacilli Seen and how it should be treated?
Many species of Gram-negative bacteria are: pathogenic, meaning they can cause disease in a host organism. This results in reduction of oxygen transported to the tissues thus explaining the necrosis of the tissue surrounding the re-sectioned colon.
--NO MENTION OF MANDATORY ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS NOT BEING ADMINISTERED
--NO ANTIBIOTICS GIVEN AT ANY TIME? THIS IS APPROPRIATE?
--NO MENTION OF ABDOMEN GOING FROM FLAT TO ROUNDED TO ENLARGE
Abdominal Distension may occasionally result from the accumulation of fluid in the abdomen, which can be a sign of a very serious medical problem. In the peritoneal cavity, distention may reflect acute bleeding, accumulation of ascitic fluid (Ascites is an accumulation of fluid in the abdominal cavity.), or air
--NO MENTION OF LOW HEMACRIT, LOW RED BLOOD CELL COUNT AND LOW HEMACRIT COUNT
Decreased hematocrit indicates anemia, such as that caused by iron deficiency or other deficiencies. Further testing may be necessary to determine the exact cause of the anemia.(iron deficiency)
Other conditions that can result in a low hematocrit include vitamin or mineral deficiencies, recent bleeding etc
Red Blood Cells, sometimes referred to as erythrocytes, are responsible for delivering oxygen throughout the body.
--DOES NOT MENTION LOW ABSOLUTE LYMPHOCYTE 
(type of white cells to fight infection)?
--NO MENTION OF HIGH PULSE RATE
34/38 readings above 90
--DOES NOT COMMENT ON MANY PMN'S.
(polymorphonuclear Neutrophils) –? hall mark of acute inflammatory process.
The presence of many PMN’s implies an inflammatory process.
PMN’s are the hallmark of acute inflammation
PMN’s are rapidly recruited to tissues upon injury or infection
--NO MENTION OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OOZING, INFECTED ABDOMINAL INCISION -- ALL STAPLES WERE REMOVED DUE TO INFECTION
Excessive or prolonged serosanguineous drainage could indicate increased inflammation and the possibility of infection, which could in turn lead to wound dehiscence. This is what happened to Terra, her resection broke down.
THERE WERE FAR TOO MANY ISSUES NOT COMMENTED ON, DELIBERATELY, AND THE COO OFFICE FAILED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE MY CONCERNS SENT TO THEM!
************************************
I don't know if I have the right to request an investigation by the OPP into the 'breach of trust' criminal offence. If I do, they I truly am requesting one.
I think after reading the medical information and the rather inept death investigation, you would agree the COO not only failed my daughter but all citizens of Ontario. On my blog.
***********************************************
"We speak for the dead to protect the living'
The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario serves the living through high quality death investigations and inquests to ensure that no death will be overlooked, concealed or ignored. The findings are used to generate recommendations to help improve public safety and prevent deaths in similar circumstances.
They, in no way did the above!
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and the Chief Coroners Office are guilty of the following:
Confirmation bias = seeking or interpreting information that (one thinks) will support one's favored hypothesis or diagnosis.
Ego bias = biasing probability estimates in a self-serving way.

Where the Chief Coroner evaluates death investigations and forms his responses to citizens' requests. 

This Office has decline multiple requests:
a. my request for a public inquest
b. MPP Runciman's, now Canadian Senator, request to reconsider the public inquest
c. my request for Terra's death to go before the Patient Safety Death Panel
d. my request for an Eastern Ontario Coroner's Review since Terra passed in Kingston
e. my request to initiate the Chief Coroner's Review Process
         The Chief Coroner's Review Process allows the chief coroner to appoint a panel to review the            work of a coroner should serious concerns be raised about that work.
f. refused the Ombudsman Office request to meet with me and respond to my concerns
g. refused the OPP Detective's request to meet with me and respond to my concerns.
What do all of the above say about transparency and accountability?

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? 
Note: Dr Huyer did meet but the meeting was useless. He was careful to state that there were many patient care issues, (did not use the words patient safety) and they should be dealt with by the CPSO and Hospital--- this was a cop out and he neglected his duty to all of Ontario. When I bought up the other two names (McCallum and Lauwers) he basically said they no longer work here so no comment.
I BELIEVE QUITE POSSIBLY THAT PAST CORONER, DR ANDREW MCCALLUM, PAST DEPUTY CHIEF CORONER DR BERT LAUWERS AND THE PRESENT CHIEF CORONER SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR "BREACH OF TRUST"
But your careers will be in jeopardy should you pursue this matter too far. However, Ontario would benefit and changes would be made.
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
* R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

Breach of Trust By Public Official
Accused intended to use his/her public office for purpose other than public good.
Interpretation of the Offence
The purpose of this offence is to ensure that the public retains "the confidence of the public in those who exercise state power".
The offence is a codification of the common law offence of "misconduct in office"
Misconduct of officers executing process
128. Every peace officer or coroner who, being entrusted with the execution of a process, wilfully
* (a) misconducts himself in the execution of the process, or
* (b) makes a false return to the process,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
* R.S., c. C-34, s. 117.
Actus Reus
A "breach of trust" can include "any breach of the appropriate standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of the accused by the nature of his office as a senior civil servant of the Crown."
Mens Rea
The mens rea requires a prohibited act that is done intentionally or recklessly, with the knowledge or wilfully blind to the facts making up the offence.
There must also be an "subjective foresight of the consequences" (that their actions will result in a benefit).
There is no need for an intent to act dishonestly.
The accused need not be aware that he was breaching trust, it only requires that a reasonable person would conclude that there was a breach of trust.
Pleadings Breach of public trust is a straight indictable offence. The defence has an election under s. 536.
The prohibited act must cause a personal benefit to the accused and must be contrary to the duties imposed upon them.
The breach does not need to be in respect of trust property.
The offence does not capture mere nonfeasance or neglect of duties.
There must be a marked departure from the standard expected from the official.
***********************************************************************************
I believe this would apply: Regarding breach of trust offences under s. 122, commission of offences was done in connection with duties of accused’s office and accused breached standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of his/her by nature of his/her office. His/Her conduct also represents serious and marked departure from standards expected of an individual in his/her position of public trust. Accused also acted with intention to use his/her public office for purpose other than public good. ie--to conceal the truth, to cover up negligence by a fellow member of the CPSO and others within the CCO.
SHOULD THE CHIEF CORONER LIE TO YOU OR AVOID ANSWERING DIRECTLY TO QUESTIONS POSED, AND/OR REFUSES TO PROVIDE FACTUAL DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS OPINION THEN HE CAN BE CHARGED WITH THE FOLLOWING:
Misleading Justice:
Perjury
131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
Fabricating evidence
137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
* R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.
Obstructing justice
139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
* (a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
* (b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of
* (c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
* (d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
139. (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
**********************************************************************************
Breach
--a failure to perform some promised act or obligation
--act in disregard of laws and rules
That HPARB, the CHIEF CORONER OF ONTARIO, The DIOC and the ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN would actually fulfil their duties/responsibilities according to the Ontario Health Regulations Act and the Coroner’s Act of Ontario!
Trust
1. firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.
That HPARB, the CHIEF CORONER OF ONTARIO, the DIOC and the ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN would actually based all decisions on facts presented, not opinions stated without medical truth supported by documentation.
Instead ALL have done their utmost to conceal the truth, misrepresent the facts, and prevent Ontario citizens from learning the truth and thus has placed Ontario citizens at serious risk to their physical well-being.
2. acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation.
That HPARB, the CHIEF CORONER OF ONTARIO, the DIOC and the ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN would actually do this, but in reality did the complete opposite!
Instead ALL have done their utmost to conceal the truth, misrepresent the facts, and prevent Ontario citizens from learning the truth and thus has placed Ontario citizens at serious risk to their physical well-being.
3. the state of being responsible for someone or something.
That HPARB, the CHIEF CORONER OF ONTARIO, the DIO and the ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN would actually fulfil their duties/responsibilities according to the Ontario Health Regulations Act and the Coroner’s Act of Ontario!
Instead ALL have done their utmost to conceal the truth, misrepresent the facts, and prevent Ontario citizens from learning the truth and thus has placed Ontario citizens at serious risk to their physical well-being.
THE PAST AND CURRENT HEALTH MINISTERS AND MINISTERS OF CORRECTION BY REFUSING TO INVESTIGATE HAVE ALSO NOT FULFILLED THE DUTIES/RESPONSIBILITIES OF THEIR POSITIONS AND THUS ARE:

“IN BREACH OF TRUST” according to the Criminal Code Of Canada and the Criminal Code of Ontario.
Code of Ethics for Coroners July 2005
It is my opinion based upon my research, my own medical experts and the medical records that DR LAUWERS , Dr McCallum and Dr.Huyer have all FAILED THE FOLLOWING:
Coroners shall exercise their duties and responsibilities without fear, favour, prejudice, bias or partiality towards any person.
4. Coroners shall proceed in the public interest to carry out diligently, and with all due dispatch, their duties and responsibilities as set out in the Coroners Act
5. Coroners shall have due regard for the fact that they are performing a public duty and that their actions and decisions affect the public interest as well as the interests of private individuals.
8 Coroners shall not, in the discharge of their duties, make decisions beyond the scope of their personal expertise and knowledge but shall seek guidance from the appropriate source or sources.
21. Coroners shall not conduct themselves in a manner which might tend to bring their office into disrepute or affect public confidence in that office.
*************************************************
Mr Devlin, Ms Collins,

I, once again, am requesting a copy of HRRH's internal death investigation of Terra Dawn Kilby.  I am the father; I deserve this report.  We all know who the surgeon is so you can omit his name for privacy reasons.  But the facts must become public, for the interest of patient safety, accountability and transparency!


I AM RE-SENDING THIS AS I HAVE HAD NO RESPONSE  --I have given you the concerns on numerous occasions that HRRH doesn't want to comment on.

I'm sure your death investigation would have dealt  with these concerns even though for two years you maintained  Terra had received the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis  prior to surgery simply because you asked Dr. Klein and he said yes.  Two years to finally look at the records to discover he lied!  Remember, I have Dr. Phillip Hebert's questions that were answered by HRRH in the fall of 2008.  The following is the answer to the first question:

Dr Hebert's first question:   a.  Was antibiotic surgical prophylaxis done at the proper time before time of operation?

HRRH's Response:  Dr. Klein has advised that Terra was given the appropriate pre- operative antibiotics.

HRRH has never addressed any of the medical concerns I have sent to you via numerous e-mails in the past.  All of which dealt with Terra's pre and post care!  

If you recall, often you had mentioned that we could meet, and I had said that unless some measure of acknowledgement that Terra's care should have been better then there was no point in meeting.  You never commented on this. 

Considering the numerous unquestionable issues this was not an unreasonable request.   If you recall I met with five administrators in May of 2008 whereby not a single issue was address by Dr. Barkin.   So really, how does one expect that a meeting with HRRH would be any different?

As well, when the parents of another of Dr. Klein's patient (who died in Dec of 2012, Crystal Rose), requested a meeting with the hospital, HRRH agreed to meet.  HRRH asked Mr & Mrs Rose to submit the questions/concerns they wanted addressed at the meeting.    
Then, upon receiving Mr Rose's questions/concerns, HRRH cancelled the meeting!
So, things have not really changed at all!!! 



How responsible is Dr. Laz Klein for Terra's death and this hospital for

concealing the truth?
Dr. Laz Klein knows the answer.

The act referred to below is used by hospitals to conceal the truth behind adverse events.
From Alan Shanoff's article:  Shielding doctors from the consequences of their actions isn’t fair to patients and won’t improve health care
FIRST POSTED: 
The Quality of Care Information Protection Act.     
"This legislation places restrictions on the release of any information collected by or prepared for a hospital’s quality of care committee.
This is the legislation that allowed Humber River Regional Hospital to keep secret information on how a baby was wrongly declared dead in February, 2013
Quality of care information is not available under freedom of information legislation and even if disclosed is not admissible in any court proceeding.
Hospital administrators attempt to justify such secrecy legislation, arguing that without assurances of confidentiality candid reviews would not take place.
But what does that say about hospitals and doctors?
That they are more interested in protecting themselves and their colleagues and would compromise on honesty and patient safety?"
********************************************
It is a shame that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario are allowed to continue to operate in the same manner it has for over two decades without the Provincial Government stepping in to protect its citizens.

A thank you to Pamela Nicholson for responding.

Dear Mr. Kilby,

I am sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine the grief felt from losing a child. The poem you wrote is beautiful, and I can tell it was written with great emotion. I have tried to follow the thread of this series of emails, and I wanted to clarify one aspect. When you say “Please, don’t allow the CPSO to persuade you to adopt their own initiative of improving their own accountability and transparency” are you referring to the open consultations the CPSO is holding on the posting of Quality Assurance Committee SCERPs?

Pamela Nicholson                                                                                                                                                          
Constituency Assistant
Barrie MPP Ann Hoggarth
********************************************
TYPICAL RESPONSE FROM A MPP:
Good morning Mr. Kilby,

Thank you for your email. As it is a custom and a courtesy to allow each legislator the opportunity to respond to their own constituents’ concerns, please continue correspondence with your MPP. Here at the Constituency Office of MPP Tracy MacCharles, we usually only handle cases of residents within our riding. Please do not re-send this email to our office again.

Thanks,

Scott Simons
Constituency Assistant
Tracy MacCharles, MPP
Pickering-Scarborough East
905-509-0336 | ssimons@liberal.ola.org

MY RESPONSE BACK:     With no return response from him.

Mr. Scott Simons 
Constituency Assistant
Tracy MacCharles, MPP

It certainly does not reflect well on all MPPs if they think as you and MPP MacCharles does.

When I taught school I was responsible for the class I taught, those students were my constituents and
I was a staff member of a school as you are a MPP for your constituents and a member of the Legislature.   

But my role extended beyond the classroom.  As a staff member of the school, my responsibilities extended to
all the students of the school much like a MPP's responsibilities should extend beyond his/her own constituents
and should include all Ontario citizens!

When the staff met to discuss issues affecting the entire school (legislature) and all the students (citizens), we had
to decide what was best for the entire school (Ontario)

PLEASE TELL ME WHY MY ROLE AS A TEACHER APPEARS TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE
THAN YOURS AS A MEMBER OF THE PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT.  
 IT SHOULD NOT BE; BUT PERHAPS YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE NOT HELD TO AT 
LEAST THE SAME STANDARD AS I WAS?

**********************************************

It is without question that a MPP's role is:

The MPP as Elected Representative

As a representative of his or her riding, an MPP meets with constituents, deals with the provincial government to
solve problems, helps constituents find services that are available to assist them in different ways, and attends and
supports community events. An MPP may be able to help with and present a petition to the Legislature concerning
a specific problem or issue in the riding. 

BUT

 HIS/HER INPUT IN MATTERS THAT COME BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE AS STATED BELOW,

INVOLVES MORE THAN HIS/HER CONSTITUENTS--- IT PERTAINS TO MATTERS AFFECTING ALL 

CITIZENS OF ONTARIO

The MPP as Legislator

As a legislator, an MPP will attend meetings of the Legislative Assembly to participate in the debating and 
making of laws.  An MPP will also take part in meetings of legislative committees where draft legislation 
will be studied in detail, and where the public can participate to have face-to-face input into legislative 
proposals. An MPP may have additional duties as a cabinet minister, parliamentary assistant, house leader or
whip, or even as Speaker of the Assembly.
A Member of the Provincial Parliament participates in the discussion and creation of provincial laws in the legislature. When present, they vote in favour of or opposition to proposed legislation. 

SO WHEN BILL 29 COMES UP FOR SECOND READING, TRACY MacCHARLES WILL BE VOTING.  
THIS VOTES AFFECTS ALL CITIZENS OF ONTARIO
Respectfully yours,
AWKilby

****************************************************
THIS IS SO TRUE IN ONTARIO'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. ALL OF THE INSTITUTIONS ARE BROKEN WHEN IT COMES TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. 
WHAT IS WORSE THEY ALL PURPOSELY DO THE OPPOSITE.
THE CPSO, HPARB,  AND THE CHIEF CORONERS OFFICE ARE THE WORST OFFENDERS ALONG WITH OUR PRESENT LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.
************************************
Our Ontario Liberal Government Should be holding the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to the following:
************************************
Investigations and Resolutions Department of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. They handle all complaints.
Submit your complaints to: resolutions@cpso.on.ca
The investigators shown below will handle you complaints with the utmost sincerity, integrity and competency???
************************************
The Executive Administrators of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pictured below! TIME FOR A CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY.
Please contact your Ontario MPP and ask him/her to support Conservative Steve Clark's Private Member's Bill 29.
It's time to force these stubborn jackasses into today's reality.
************************************
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario excel at the following:
************************************
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario SHOULD BE PLACING PATIENT SAFETY FIRST but they put it well behind protecting negligent doctor/surgeons' reputations! But the CPSO does not!
************************************
When I read about the College of Physician and Surgeons of Ontario with regard to their investigations?


************************************
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario are guilty of the following:
Confirmation bias = seeking or interpreting information that (one thinks) will support one's favored hypothesis or diagnosis.
Ego bias = biasing probability estimates in a self-serving way.
Demand that your MPP support Bill 29 to make this College more accountable and transparent to the citizens of Ontario.
************************************
When the College of Physicians and Surgeons actually find fault they simply say:
College’s Decision “The routine use of antibiotics prior to bowel surgery is an important aspect of care that was NEGLECTED by Dr. Klein in this case.”
--have open abdominal surgery without the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis
--having not had the above, accepted that there was no need for antibiotics when the abdominal incision was oozing purulent liquid and was so infected that all staples were removed   
--when test results showed "many gram negative bacilli", still it was quite acceptable to provide no antibiotics


And patient bleeds out 12 hours after being discharged from the hospital this is CPSO's reaction:

The CPSO issued a secret written caution to Dr. Klein and stated that PERHAPS he MIGHT want to CONSIDER administering the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis in THE FUTURE when converting from minimal evasive to open surgery!
THIS IS YOUR COLLEGE PUTTING PATIENTS SAFETY FIRST????

************************************






The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario have been stuck some where between the following for decades:
Bill 29 will help the College find their way back to respectability.




************************************



When the College of Physicians and Surgeons investigate a citizen's complaint the outcome is always the same. They do not place the public first! Please contact your MPP and ask for his/her support of Steve Clark's Private Members Bill 29.


************************************





Bill 29 will tip the balance in favour of the citizens of Ontario when they place a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This is the way it should be but has not been for over two decades. Call your MPP and ask for his/her support of Bill 29 to make the College more transparent and accountable.




************************************





This Bill will help the College complete the puzzle.







************************************

Bill 29 will remove the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario from wearing this and hiding underneath it. Call you MPP and demand his/her support of this Bill.


************************************

When an Ontario Citizen submits a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons you are on this path.

                                               

************************************







The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario exhibits a superb comprehension of the following:
************************************







The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario are unable to exhibit any of these since they don't comprehend the meaning of them:

************************************
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario gets very upset and defensive when confronted with the truth.

************************************

It will be a great day for Patient Safety if we see this with regards to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario:
       
And where the corrupt, deceitful should end up!


                                                                                                                                                                 

They have failed the citizens of Ontario.

But we would be satisfied if the CPSO were no longer allowed to investigate the public's complaints.

HOW CAN OUR MPPS AT QUEEN'S PARK ALLOW THIS ABUSE TO CONTINUE?

************************************
A PRIMER ON THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN ONTARIO
"Defamation is comprised of two subcategories between libel (libel refers to written defamatory statements)and slander(broadcasting of spoken defamatory words)

Proving a Claim in Libel and/or Slander
"the statement must be false!"

Defences to Actions in Libel and Slander
TRUTH--
"The first defence is the defence of truth. The defence can be made that the statement was truthful and therefore there was nothing false about the statement, meaning therefore, that the statement was not defamatory."


FAIR COMMENT--

"The second defence to an allegation of libelous statement is that the statements made were made as a fair comment. The defence of fair comment would be considered by the Court in situations where, by looking at the statement made, the facts and the situation, a conclusion can be made that the statements made were in actuality a fair commentary on the situation at hand and that the comments were fair and were not malicious."

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE--
"The defence of qualified privilege arises normally in situations where the individual publishing these statements will escape any liability if it can be proven that the public good could be furthered in open debate.