The College is getting sued by it's own lawyer !!!
Dr. Heidi Oetter - bullying, punitive, and immoral ? A doctor refusing to accommodate medical needs ?
Ex-official sues doctors college
Keith Fraser, The Province
Published: Wednesday, May 01, 2013
A former top official at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. is suing her one-time bosses for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was harassed and bullied on the job.
Elaine Peaston, the deputy registrar of the college's legal department, names college registrar Dr. Heidi Oetter and Michael Epp, the chief operating officer, as defendants along with the college.
She says that in the spring of 2009, as a result of a significant increase in work hours and responsibilities, she began to experience depression and stress, and felt generally overwhelmed.
Oetter and the college ignored the note and refused to accommodate her medical needs, says Peaston.In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Peaston says her doctor wrote a note to the college stating that for medical reasons she needed to limit her work schedule. In January 2010, her condition had not improved, another medical letter was sent to the college and she provided "considerable detail" about her issues, she says.
The college, the regulatory body for B.C.'s doctors, still refused to accommodate her medical problems, and in the summer of 2011, the workload increased and she had to cancel her holidays.
On June 8, 2012, she says she suffered a breakdown and took medical leave. At the direction of Oetter and Epp, the college blocked her access to her work computer, including her emails, she says.
Peaston, who was fired in February of this year, is seeking unspecified damages for the alleged bullying and harassment and punitive, aggravated and "moral" damages.
In an email, the college said it "completely and strongly" denies the allegations.
© The Province 2013
For the full details.... See the actual court documents, further down this page .
Keith Fraser, The Province
Published: Wednesday, May 01, 2013
A former top official at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. is suing her one-time bosses for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was harassed and bullied on the job.
Elaine Peaston, the deputy registrar of the college's legal department, names college registrar Dr. Heidi Oetter and Michael Epp, the chief operating officer, as defendants along with the college.
She says that in the spring of 2009, as a result of a significant increase in work hours and responsibilities, she began to experience depression and stress, and felt generally overwhelmed.
Oetter and the college ignored the note and refused to accommodate her medical needs, says Peaston.In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Peaston says her doctor wrote a note to the college stating that for medical reasons she needed to limit her work schedule. In January 2010, her condition had not improved, another medical letter was sent to the college and she provided "considerable detail" about her issues, she says.
The college, the regulatory body for B.C.'s doctors, still refused to accommodate her medical problems, and in the summer of 2011, the workload increased and she had to cancel her holidays.
On June 8, 2012, she says she suffered a breakdown and took medical leave. At the direction of Oetter and Epp, the college blocked her access to her work computer, including her emails, she says.
Peaston, who was fired in February of this year, is seeking unspecified damages for the alleged bullying and harassment and punitive, aggravated and "moral" damages.
In an email, the college said it "completely and strongly" denies the allegations.
© The Province 2013
For the full details.... See the actual court documents, further down this page .
Elaine Peaston .................. Heidi Oetter
Elaine Peaston and Heidi Oetter
(Before the wars began !)
(Before the wars began !)
A disabled lawyer working to look after
a disabled brother ....
Sueing the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C.
To the knowledge of the College and the defendants Oetter and Epp, Ms. Peaston was at all material times the principal income earner in her family, which she supported along with her disabled brother. The College and the defendants knew Oetter and Epp knew that financial securtiy and Ms. Peaton;s ability to provide for her family was a paramount concern and that any interruption in her income would cause severe stress to her ...
The College covenanted to "treat employees fairly, with respect and dignity" and that all terminations would be handled by the College adhering to "principles of fair and appropriate treatment".
"The College covenanted to "provide a fair and positive work environment in which all staff feel comfortable and are able to perform competently"
The College covenanted to provide protection from workplace harassment and bullying...."
BUT....
To the knowledge of the College and the defendants Oetter and Epp, Ms. Peaston was at all material times the principal income earner in her family, which she supported along with her disabled brother. The College and the defendants knew Oetter and Epp knew that financial securtiy and Ms. Peaton;s ability to provide for her family was a paramount concern and that any interruption in her income would cause severe stress to her ...
The College covenanted to "treat employees fairly, with respect and dignity" and that all terminations would be handled by the College adhering to "principles of fair and appropriate treatment".
"The College covenanted to "provide a fair and positive work environment in which all staff feel comfortable and are able to perform competently"
The College covenanted to provide protection from workplace harassment and bullying...."
BUT....
Overworked, abused, stressed out lady lawyer .....
"In the spring of 2009, as a result of significantly increased work hours and responsibilities for College work, Ms. Peaston began to experience situational depression and stress, a decreased in energy, and felt generally overwhelmed ...
Ms. Peaston's physician wrote a note to the College stating that, for medical reasons, Ms. Peaston would need to limit her weekly work schedule to thirty-five hours per week to accommodate her medical condition ...."
Ms. Peaston's physician wrote a note to the College stating that, for medical reasons, Ms. Peaston would need to limit her weekly work schedule to thirty-five hours per week to accommodate her medical condition ...."
The Notice of Civil Claim. ( The document that starts the lawsuit against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., Dr. Heidi Oetter, and Michael Epp)
The short version of what is alleged in the Notice of Civil Claim is that .....
Ms. Peaston has had a long and honourable contact with the College(since 1994)
Ms. Peaston has a long and strong contract with the College (hey, she's a lawyer !)
Squabbles and bickering seems to have broken out
Dr. Oetter and Mr. Epp starting acting like jerks, did all sorts of illegal, immoral, intimidating, and bullying things. Maybe even sexual harrassment !
They went out of their way to torment Ms. Peaston
They eventually fired her, illegally, while she was off on disability.
And these are the folks who monitor honourable conduct among physicians !
Ms. Peaston has a long and strong contract with the College (hey, she's a lawyer !)
Squabbles and bickering seems to have broken out
Dr. Oetter and Mr. Epp starting acting like jerks, did all sorts of illegal, immoral, intimidating, and bullying things. Maybe even sexual harrassment !
They went out of their way to torment Ms. Peaston
They eventually fired her, illegally, while she was off on disability.
And these are the folks who monitor honourable conduct among physicians !
"You simply are the best ..."
- Ms. Peaston was then employed by the College since 17 January 1994
- in March 2004 in recognition of exemplary service to the college, she was appointed to the office of Deputy Registrar [Legal] to the College, a position she held until unlawful termination of her contract of employment
- Ms. Peaston was at all times the principal income earner in her family, with which she supports herself and her disabled brother
- her employment was for a fixed term continuing to 24 July 2023
- the college has very specific covenants about illness and disability among members of the college, and about workplace harassment
In an email dated 16 December 2011 Dr. Lawrence Jewett, VP of the Board and Chair of the Legal Services Committee advised Ms. Peaston in writing:
“I think you simply are the best. You are pretty, articulate, brilliant, dedicated, always well prepared, respected, communicative, have an ability to bring others to a higher level of performance and always do what is best for the college. This is what we all feel at the board. Any other message to the contrary is not just so.”
Dr Lawrence Jewett, ENT Surgeon, Cranbrook.
Get me another note from your doctor ....
Then Dr. Oetter began being mean to Ms. Peaston.
- Giving her a negative performance evaluation the day her Christmas holidays started !
- (And there was absolutely no evidence to back up the bad evaluations - quite the contrary.)
- Refusing to accommodate Ms. Peaston's disability.
- Have secret meetings, intercepting her personal mail and destroying it, refusing to pay her benefits due to her
- Taking Ms. Peaston's name off of committees.
- Tormenting her department, taking away staff, refusing to sign documents, demanding doctors notes, and then not abiding by them
- "Sexual and non-sexual harassment" was going on in the legal department.
Dr. Darlene Hammel
Ms. Peaston sought help and advice from another member of the College - Dr. Darlene Hammel, a past president of the college and the current board member.
Ms Peaston described the awful evaluation given her by Dr. Oetter.
Dr. Hammel expressed her view that the treatment of Ms. Peaston as “awful and cruel” and described the conduct as "bullying" .
Dr. Hammel said that Dr. Oetter’s conduct toward Ms. Peaston was “unethical, and it was appalling as a board member to have a CEO like that.”
Ms Peaston described the awful evaluation given her by Dr. Oetter.
Dr. Hammel expressed her view that the treatment of Ms. Peaston as “awful and cruel” and described the conduct as "bullying" .
Dr. Hammel said that Dr. Oetter’s conduct toward Ms. Peaston was “unethical, and it was appalling as a board member to have a CEO like that.”
" Terry Robertson is a fucking asshole with dementia..."
Terrance L Robertson, QC and / or 'demented asshole'
" Terry Robertson is a fucking asshole with dementia..."
Although this is a little off the topic, it was too good a quote not to share.
Apparently it was made by one of Dr. Heidi Oetter's allies at the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Mr. Robertson is one of the senior partners of the law firm Harper Grey, which defends doctors against malpractice actions.
And frivolous College accusations ! Hence his contact with members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C.
Apparently respect for one's colleagues is a widespread problem at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Perhaps a course in professional behaviour would be appropriate !
Although this is a little off the topic, it was too good a quote not to share.
Apparently it was made by one of Dr. Heidi Oetter's allies at the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Mr. Robertson is one of the senior partners of the law firm Harper Grey, which defends doctors against malpractice actions.
And frivolous College accusations ! Hence his contact with members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C.
Apparently respect for one's colleagues is a widespread problem at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Perhaps a course in professional behaviour would be appropriate !
“When Heidi asks you to jump, the only question is how high.” Michael Epp
Kick 'em while they are down....
Ms . Peaston was allegedly fired for no good reason, while she was off on disability, without any severance benefits, in an illegal manner.
And all of this is done by a regulatory agency that is supposed to ensure morality and professional conduct and standards !
And while they are doing all of this internal bickering and squabbling, who is looking out for the provinces medical standards ???
And do they do as bad a job at that as they do co-operating with each other ?
And all of this is done by a regulatory agency that is supposed to ensure morality and professional conduct and standards !
And while they are doing all of this internal bickering and squabbling, who is looking out for the provinces medical standards ???
And do they do as bad a job at that as they do co-operating with each other ?
Ms. Peaston is seeking ...
Peaston fights back !
o damages against the college for breach of contract
o damages against all of the defendants for the intentional or alternatively the reckless infliction of mental distress, intimidation, bullying, and retaliation
o punitive aggravated and moral damages against all of the defendants
o recovery of healthcare services costs pursuant to section 3 [1] of the health care recovery act
o enhanced damages because of lack of good faith and fair dealing
o liability for intentional or alternatively reckless infliction of mental distress harassment an
o compensation for the tort of intimidation
You go girl !
Michael Epp, C.O.O.
Another notable quote, this time from Mr. Michael Epp, Dr. Heidi Oetter's co-defendant.
In response to a remark from Ms. Peaston, his reply was apparently what is written above !
Mr. Epp is a professional businessman, and was at all material times the Chief Operating Officer of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Prior to this he worked for 15 years at the British Columbia Medical Association.
There is no mention in the Notice of Civil Claim as to whether he is a fucking asshole or not, but ....
In response to a remark from Ms. Peaston, his reply was apparently what is written above !
Mr. Epp is a professional businessman, and was at all material times the Chief Operating Officer of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Prior to this he worked for 15 years at the British Columbia Medical Association.
There is no mention in the Notice of Civil Claim as to whether he is a fucking asshole or not, but ....
And the College admits that they fired Ms. Peaston for ....no good reason !
According to official court documents....."the College terminated the plaintiff's employment for reasons it has now admitted did not exist ....."
In other words, the College fired Ms. Peaston without cause, just because they felt like it.
Does the term " asshole" spring to mind here ???
And this is the entity that ensures proper medical and moral standards throughout the province ! Does anyone have a problem with this ?
In other words, the College fired Ms. Peaston without cause, just because they felt like it.
Does the term " asshole" spring to mind here ???
And this is the entity that ensures proper medical and moral standards throughout the province ! Does anyone have a problem with this ?
Supreme court says College of Physicians and Surgeons should be sued more often...
October 2004 Regulators could be more open to public lawsuits
Supreme Court decision in Quebec case, and subsequent case in B.C., offers indication of what constitutes “bad faith”By James Langton
The Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision that threatens to expand the scope for the public to sue regulators for falling down on the job. The case dealt with Quebec, but a subsequent decision in British Columbia makes it clear the effects may reverberate across the country.
The critical decision, Finney v Barreau du Quebec, is being hailed as important because it essentially expands the definition of what constitutes bad faith on the part of a regulator, in this case the law society of Quebec. The ruling also appears to extend to other regulators, including securities regulators, and into other provinces.
That’s important because the decision also seems to broaden the grounds on which regulators can be sued over performance of their regulatory duties.
high court appears to expand the definition of what constitutes “bad faith.” Generally, regulators are immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties in “good faith,” but if they act in “bad faith,” carrying out a malicious prosecution for example, they could be held liable in court.
The concept of bad faith must be given a broader meaning that encompasses serious carelessness or recklessness.”
“The primary objective of [statutory regulators] is not to provide services to their members or represent their collective interests. They are created to protect the public,” the court’s decision notes.
The Finney decision may not make it open season on regulators, but it should serve to remind them that indolence may be as likely to get them into trouble as disciplinary zealotry.}"
The Supreme Court says that Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons perhaps ought to get sued more often.
Supreme Court decision in Quebec case, and subsequent case in B.C., offers indication of what constitutes “bad faith”By James Langton
The Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision that threatens to expand the scope for the public to sue regulators for falling down on the job. The case dealt with Quebec, but a subsequent decision in British Columbia makes it clear the effects may reverberate across the country.
The critical decision, Finney v Barreau du Quebec, is being hailed as important because it essentially expands the definition of what constitutes bad faith on the part of a regulator, in this case the law society of Quebec. The ruling also appears to extend to other regulators, including securities regulators, and into other provinces.
That’s important because the decision also seems to broaden the grounds on which regulators can be sued over performance of their regulatory duties.
high court appears to expand the definition of what constitutes “bad faith.” Generally, regulators are immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties in “good faith,” but if they act in “bad faith,” carrying out a malicious prosecution for example, they could be held liable in court.
The concept of bad faith must be given a broader meaning that encompasses serious carelessness or recklessness.”
“The primary objective of [statutory regulators] is not to provide services to their members or represent their collective interests. They are created to protect the public,” the court’s decision notes.
The Finney decision may not make it open season on regulators, but it should serve to remind them that indolence may be as likely to get them into trouble as disciplinary zealotry.}"
The Supreme Court says that Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons perhaps ought to get sued more often.
What is the connection between this picture and the College of Physicians and Surgeons ? Tell you later !
