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

THE DEATH INVESTIGATIVE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL--appointed by Liberal majority government and --under jurisdiction of Liberal Minister of Corrections

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

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…

2,817

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.

Mr Shanoff, (Toronto Sun Columnist) I don't know if you have done an article on the Ombudsman's Office, but you may wish to take this on as they are not questioning the contradictions. We already know the CPSO is corrupt and HPARB from your article where you 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 appear this week before Tuesday, 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

Wednesday, 3 August 2016

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

Result of my Meeting today with Ontario Ombudsman, P Dube

Mr Dube, I do appreciate you taking the time to meet with me. Your hands are tied as is your voice box which keeps you from giving a personal opinion as you job doesn't allow you to do so.

ANOTHER FAILED ADVENTURE. ONTARIO CITIZENS, YOU HAVE BEEN SCREWED OVER AGAIN.

Firstly, Mr Dube is a very professional and likeable individual. He stated right off I would not be impressed at what he was going to say. He felt he had to meet me to convey his condolences and to speak to me in person.

He is very careful with his wording and refused to comment merely as an private individual, off the record. He maintained his role as Ontario Ombudsman throughout the one and a half hour meeting.

He stated the Ombudsman Office had seriously looked into every complaint I had made over the years. He stated the HPARB panel had looked at all of what I had sent them and based their decision on the facts at hand. I pointed out that the facts on hand contradicted the College's third decision. Mr Dube stayed away from commenting on these contradictions and basically stated his mandate was to see that HPARB follow the procedures which in the Ombudsman's Office felt they did!

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

SO, BASICALLY HAD TERRA BLED TO DEATH DUE HER THROAT BEING SLASHED FROM EAR TO EAR BY THE SURGEON'S SCALPEL, HPARB WOULD SUPPORT THE COLLEGE'S DECISION AND THE OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE WOULD HAVE TO CONFIRM HPARB'S DECISION -- EVEN IF THERE WAS A VIDEO SHOWING IT BEING DONE! THAT'S HOW BROKEN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS!!!


Sorry Mr Dube, the above statement would be discredited by you as complete conjecture on my part. Yes, it is ridiculous but so is HPARB third decision ignoring facts! Yes, I know they can come up with whatever decision they want. They are answerable to no one.

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

Mr Dube made a point of recording phrases that I used such as, "I think that, I would guess that, It would appear, I suspect, my impression, I believe etc. He made a point that my phrases were not based upon fact but conjecture --- words to that affect.

Basically, the impression I got was he had to accept the HPARB decision no matter what! He can't question the obvious contradictory evidence even though I again pointed it out to him. He said HPARB made their decision based on what was before them.

I firmly commented on the many people who have been let down by all the same avenues that I have dealt with. I told him the entire system is completely broken! The only people who will know about Terra's surgeon are those institutions that I have dealt with and provided proof. What about the citizens of Ontario???

One thing I object to is when Mr Dube stated that when the Independent Opinion Provider and the College use the word "neglected" to adminster the antibiotic prophylaxis, who is it to say they really meant to say "omitted" rather than neglected. I would not have expected this to come from Mr Dube. That comment, to me, appears to me something the College would say. This last sentence would be something Mr Dube would point out as what I stated three paragraphs above. Perhaps a trained lawyer would not use these terms but an ordinary citizens will undoubted convey their thoughts the same way as I had. I would not have expected this to come from Mr Dube.

LET TAKE A QUICK REVIEW OF MY FAILED ATTEMPTS AT ACHIEVING ACCOUTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND THE TRUTH.

Humber River Regional Hospital
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario -- 3 decisions
The Health Professions Review and Appeal Board --- 3 meetings
The Chief Coroner's Office of Ontario
The Death Investigative Oversight Councils -- twice
The Minister and Ministry of Health
The Minister and Ministry of Corrections
The Ontario Provincial Police
The Ontario Ombudsman's Office ---so many times I can't count

Next up: Patient Ombudsman  -- Am I confident this institution will do anything---NO

Arnold Kilby

http://anangelinourlives-awk.blogspot.ca/ 
******************************************************************
LETTER FROM THE OMUDSMAN'S OFFICE
BULLSHIT RESPONSE FROM THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN:

May 31, 2016
Mr. Arnold Kilby
88 County Road 2 they can't even get my address right!
Lansdowne, ON K0E 1L0 awkilby@hotmail.com
Via mail and email

Dear Mr. Kilby:
Re.: Our Case No. 211450

Further to our May 30, 2016 telephone conversation, I am writing regarding our review your complaint to our Office about the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board’s decision to decline your requests for reconsideration. We have now completed our review, and for the reasons outlined below, we have determined that we will not be taking further steps regarding your concerns. As requested, we will be sending a copy of this letter and the enclosures to your Member of Provincial Parliament, the Honourable Steve Clark.

Before addressing your complaint, however, we want to again express our condolences regarding the tragic death of your daughter, Terra, on July 21, 2006. We also want to acknowledge the frustration you have expressed while dealing with various organizations, including our Office.

Background
The Board’s reviews and reconsiderations

In June 2007, you complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the College) about the adequacy of the treatment Dr. Klein provided to your daughter prior to her sudden death. The College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the Committee) determined that the doctor had provided appropriate and adequate medical care and decided not to take further action. You asked the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the Board) to review the Committee’s decision, and in a decision dated March 31, 2010, the Board concluded that the Committee’s decision was unreasonable and referred the matter back to the Committee with a recommendation that it address certain issues.

While the Committee reviewed the matters referred to it by the Board, you submitted additional concerns about your daughter’s care to the Committee. In its decision, the Committee addressed the issues remitted by the Board as well as the additional issues you raised. The Committee decided to take action on some, but not all, of the matters it considered.

You were dissatisfied with this decision and asked the Board to review it. In a decision dated June 7, 2012, the Board concluded that the Committee’s investigation was adequate. However, it also determined that a section of the Committee’s decision contained conflicting information about the use of antibiotics and was thereby unreasonable. The Board referred the complaint back to the Committee to address the conflicting information.

In response to the Board’s decision, the Committee obtained additional information from an independent expert about the use of antibiotics. Based on this information, the Committee made various suggestions to Dr. Klein for educational purposes. You again asked the Board to review the Committee’s decision, and in a decision dated July 31, 2013, the Board concluded that the Committee’s investigation was adequate and its decision was reasonable. You subsequently asked the Board to reconsider this decision, as well as the Board’s decision dated June 7, 2012. In a letter dated August 27, 2013, the Board declined to do so.

In various emails from December 2014, you asked the Board to reconsider each of its three previous decisions. In a letter dated January 13, 2015, the Board rejected this request, noting that it had already declined to reconsider its decisions from June 2012 and July 2013 and that your continued disagreement with the Board’s decision is not a basis for further reconsideration. Regarding its March 2010 decision, the Board noted that there was nothing to suggest that its review was not carried out in accordance with the principles of natural justice or that it lacked procedural fairness. The Board suggested that you might wish to request a judicial review of the Board’s decisions if you remained dissatisfied.

Your previous complaints to our Office regarding the Board

You contacted our Office in August 2013 to complain about the June 2012 and July 2013 decisions of the Board, as well as the Board’s denial of your request that it reconsider these decisions. You alleged that the Board did not base its decisions on the evidence and that if the Board had considered your evidence, it would have concluded that your daughter’s death was due to negligence.

Our Office carefully reviewed your concerns, and in a letter dated December 30, 2013 (enclosed), we told you that our review indicated that the Board followed its practices and acted within its legislative mandate. We noted that the Board’s decisions referred to the information it considered in reaching its conclusions, including information you provided.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of our review, you continued to complain to our Office that the Board did not base its decisions on the evidence. You also raised a new concern that the Board had refused your request for an investigation. In a letter dated December 1, 2014 (enclosed), we explained that we had already reviewed your concern that the Board did not base its decisions on the evidence. We also explained that the Board only has the authority to conduct investigations where there is a delay and the Committee has not issued a decision. We noted that this was not the circumstance in your file. Having thoroughly reviewed your concerns and the three decisions of the Board, we informed you that we would review future submissions about these matters and place them in your file.

Your other complaints to our Office

Since 2008, you have also complained to our Office about the actions of several organizations directly and indirectly connected to your daughter’s death. In our communications with you, we explained our authority and informed you that we cannot review complaints about private individuals or organizations, such as doctors, hospitals, and the College. Due to the seriousness of your concerns, we nonetheless made enquiries with a hospital and the College to facilitate communication between yourself and those organizations.
You also complained to our Office about organizations that are within our mandate, including the Office of the Chief Coroner and the Death Investigation Oversight Council. You were frustrated by how long their processes were taking. Each time you raised new concerns, our Office reviewed your complaint, contacted the organization, and provided you with updates and an explanation of each organizations’ process. In response to your concerns, we also spoke with the Coroner about a conflict of interest allegation you raised and provided you with the contact information for an individual at the Death Oversight Investigation Council who could directly address your questions.

Your current complaint

Our review of your email dated February 3, 2016, determined that you were raising a complaint that our Office has not previously considered. In your email, you complained that the Board’s January 13, 2015 decision to deny your requests for reconsideration was unreasonable. You said that you provided the Board with seven examples of how you had been denied procedural fairness and that as a result the Board should have reconsidered its previous decisions.

As part of our review, we examined the information you provided, including your correspondence to the Board requesting reconsideration, the Board’s January 13, 2015 reconsideration decision and your February 3, 2016 submission to our Office. We also reviewed the Board’s files for each of its three reviews. These files include the documents that were available to the Board’s panel members when they made their decisions. In addition, we reviewed relevant portions of the Board’s Rules of Practice, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and Schedule 2 of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Review
The Ontario Ombudsman is appointed under the Ombudsman Act as an independent Officer of the Ontario Legislature. Our Office has the authority to conduct impartial reviews and investigations of complaints about the administrative conduct of public sector entities, including the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. When our Office reviews Board decisions, we consider issues such as whether the Board:

* complied with governing legislation;
* followed proper processes;
* made its decision based on the evidence before it; and
* provided adequate reasons in support of its decision.

The Board’s January 13, 2015 decision
You complained that the Board’s January 13, 2015 decision to deny your request for reconsideration was unreasonable. You identified seven examples where you feel you were denied procedural fairness and said these should have led the Board to reconsider its past decisions.

In its January 13, 2015 decision, the Board’s Chair responded to your request that the Board reconsider its decision in each of the three reviews it conducted. It explained that reconsideration is discretionary and will only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances that demonstrate the Board acted outside of its jurisdiction, did not consider an issue it was mandated to determine, or that its process was in breach of natural justice or lacked procedural fairness.

The decision noted that the Board had previously reviewed your requests for reconsideration of the Board’s June 2012 and July 2013 decisions. The Board indicated that it had already provided you with a response outlining the reasons why it would not be reconsidering these decisions, and advised that your continued disagreement with the Board’s decisions was not grounds for further reconsideration. The Board enclosed a copy of its previous decision.

Regarding your requested reconsideration of the Board’s March 2010 decision, the Chair advised that her review found no basis upon which to reconsider the decision. The Chair determined that the Board conducted its review in accordance with its legislated mandate and found nothing to suggest that the review lacked procedural fairness or natural justice. The Chair acknowledged your continued dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Board’s reviews and suggested you consider requesting judicial review of the decisions.

You were dissatisfied with this outcome and complained that the Board should have reconsidered its decision based on the seven grounds you identified. Our Office reviewed each of these grounds.

1. Conflict of interest
You explained that the panel chair for the Board’s third review and the College's independent expert are active professional men in their community. You said it was likely their paths crossed. You raised this concern in your December 2014 reconsideration request, but you did not provide the Board with evidence of an actual conflict of interest.

As the College does not identify the independent expert it retains to the parties of the complaint, you have speculated about the expert’s identity. Further, all Board members must sign a Code of Conduct, which requires that members act with honesty, integrity and high ethical standards. You have not provided details of an actual relationship between the panel chair and the independent expert or a contravention of the Board’s Code of Conduct.

2. Expert opinion
You said that the Board has ignored the opinion of your experts, which is supported by documentary evidence.

We previously addressed this concern in our letter dated December 30, 2013. We noted that the Board has explained to you that in professional regulation, there is a legal principle that requires the Board to give the benefit of the doubt to the health professional subject to the complaint when there are competing expert opinions and there is a respectable expert opinion that supports the actions taken by the health professional. While you disagree, the College received an expert opinion that supported the actions taken by Dr. Klein.

3. and 6. Standard of practice
 You alleged that the Board became “side tracked” and did not deal with whether the doctor met the appropriate standard of practice. The standard of practice issue was the subject of the Board’s third review. During this review, you told the Board that you disagreed with the opinion of College’s independent expert. You raised this issue again in your December 2014 reconsideration request.
We previously addressed this concern in our 2013 review. At that time, we explained that the Board found it reasonable for the College to have exercised its medical expertise and to have relied on the independent expert’s opinion.

4. Closed mind
 You said that the Board’s July 31, 2013 decision was issued in “record time” (i.e. 2 months). You felt this indicated that the panel members had made up their mind prior to the review. You did not provide further evidence to support your assertion that panel members had pre-judged the issue.
The time between the review and the hearing does not mean that the Board did not turn its mind to the issue before it. We note that the Board wrote a 12-page decision, which reflected that it thoroughly considered the evidence and submissions made

5. June 5, 2013 submission
You alleged that you were unable to fully present your case at the Board’s third review. You explained that you had provided the Board with a written submission in advance of the review and had intended to walk the panel members through the documentary evidence to show the inconsistencies in the Committee’s decision. However, during your oral presentation, the Panel Chair interrupted you and told you that this was not necessary, as they had read your submission.
Our December 30, 2013 letter advised you that your written submission was included in the materials available to Board. We note that your written submission consisted of approximately 100-pages of information, sent on April 30, May 15 and 17, 2013. Included in these materials was a copy of the Committee’s decision with your annotations and portions of the medical records, as well as the 107 medical and expert opinions you obtained. Further, our review indicated that the Board considered your views and evidence regarding the adequacy of the Committee’s investigation and the reasonableness of its decision.

7. Doctor’s response to the complaint
You complained that Dr. Klein’s July 13, 2011 letter “laughs off the College's decision.” You contend that it demonstrates his lack of understanding regarding the standard of practice and expressed concern for the safety of his patients. You raised this concern with the Board previously and in your December 2014 reconsideration request.

Our 2013 review determined that this letter, which was Dr. Klein’s response to the College’s independent expert’s May 8, 2011 opinion regarding the standard of practice, formed part of the Board’s file and was specifically referenced in its findings in its decision dated July 31, 2013.
Accordingly, our review indicates that the Board has considered and responded to your reconsideration requests. It has explained what criteria must be met for the Board to reconsider a decision and provided reasons for declining your requests for reconsideration.

Conclusion
Based on the available information, we have decided not to proceed with a further review of your complaint about the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. If you have any questions or you would like to discuss the content of this letter, please contact me by email so we can arrange a time that is convenient for us to speak. My email address is lboucher@ombudsman.on.ca

Sincerely,
Lorraine Boucher
Investigator
Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario
Enclosures Letter from Ontario Ombudsman dated December 30, 2013
Letter from Ontario Ombudsman dated December 1, 2014
cc: Honourable Steve Clark, Member of Provincial Parliament at info@steveclarkmpp.com
*****************************************************************************
Att: MPP CLARK. PERHAPS YOUR OFFICE CAN ARRANGE FOR OMBUDSMAN DUBE TO MEET WITH ME, as I am sure he will not grant my own request for a meeting.
UPDATED today
http://anangelinourlives-awk.blogspot.ca/
https://www.linkedin.com/…/p-dube-ontario-ombudsman-arnold-…

P. Dube: Ontario Ombudsman

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

COLLEGE THIRD DECISION STATES THE SURGEON DID NOT KNOW HE HAD TO DO A COLON RESECTION PRIOR TO CONVERTING FROM MINIMAL EVASIVE SURGERY TO OPEN SURGERY AND THIS EXPLAINS WHY THE MANDATORY ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAS WAS NOT ADMINISTERED

BUT THE HOSPITAL RECORDED CLEARLY STATE DR KLEIN, UNDER THE FIRST PROCEDURE, ATTEMPTED TO PERFORM A COLON RESECTION PRIOR TO CONVERTING TO OPEN SURGERY.
THIS FACTUAL DOCUMENTATION CLEARLY CONTRADICTS THE CPSO'S UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION

AND OBVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATES HPARBS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE COVER-UP OF NEGLIGENCE BY THIS SURGEON.

AND NOW WE HAVE THE OMBUDSMAN NOT QUESTIONING THIS AND THUS FULLY SUPPORTING HPARB'S REFUSAL FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THEIR THIRD DECISION WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED TWICE BY HPARB. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATOR HAS NO IDEA AS TO HOW TO INVESTIGATE AND TO HIGHLIGHT THE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS OF MY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND EXTENSIVE AND WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THESE CONCERNS.
ALTHOUGH THIS INVESTIGATOR HAS MANY YEARS WITHIN THIS OFFICE, IT IS CLEAR IN THIS CASE, SHE HAS SETTLED IN TO ACCEPTING A PAYCHEQUE AND CONTINUE UNTIL RETIREMENT TO REAP EVEN MORE BENEFITS. PERHAPS, WE NEED TO HIGHER QUALIFIED PERSONS SPECIFICALLY TRAINED TO CONDUCT THOROUGH QUESTIONING OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.

The CPSO and their own expert on several occasions in both the second and third decisions clearly stated the surgeon "NEGLECTED" to adminster the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of open surgery!

IT IS TRULY AMAZING HOW THE OMBUDSMAN OVERLOOKS THE OBVIOUS!
In the letter above the Ombudsman:
"When our Office reviews Board decisions, we consider issues such as whether the Board:"
1* complied with governing legislation;
2* followed proper processes;
3* made its decision based on the evidence before it; and
4* provided adequate reasons in support of its decision.
Ombusman investigator Lorraine Boucher clearly does not understand Numbers 2, definitely Number 3 and 4 from their own mandate:

Please send your comments to own MPP and to:

Lorraine Boucher; pdube@ombudsman.on.ca; steve.clark@pc.ola.org; patrick.brownco@pc.ola.org; patrick.brown@pc.ola.org; ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca; ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca; gopublic@cbc.ca;