Nightmare In Montreal, Canada 2004
AT Douglas Hospital
www.douglas.qc.ca
A McGill University Hospital!
Montreal-Quebec-Canada
From: 2004-02-10 to: 2004-05-10
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Victim of Injustice
In Illegal Involuntary Hospitalization
Douglas Hospital-Verdun-Montreal
CANADA
Tuesday, 10th February 2004
I experienced severe professional jealousy from Branko Ladanyi (an old Professor working in my
specialization: Cold Regions Engineering, at Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, he never had any
University degree in Cold Regions Engineering). He illegally introduced me to legality and psychiatry
to eliminate the competition by wasting my valuable time dealing with people working outside my
specialization. It started by lies and false accusations (harassment); there were no presumptions of
innocence in the legal and health systems. This consumed years of Dr. Youssef (a Canadian Doctor
Engineer and an International Academic Scholar) life with the results of jeopardizing Dr. Youssef
financial situation personal life and Academic reputation since 13th June 1988.
This situation ended in Montreal Court House (Place des Justice) on October 11, 2001 with dismissal
and acquittal of all charges. I did not contact Ecole Polytechnique since then. In addition, since then, I
had nothing to do with the Tribunal Administratif du Quebec or admission to Douglas Hospital (a
McGill University mental Hospital!).
This Nightmare should end once it was started in 1988 should I had my Complete and Entire Files
According To the Access to Information Act to Defend Myself.
Until Now I do not have The Files!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At 08:00 AM on Tuesday 10th February 2004, I was very much surprised to see five Police Officers at
my apartment door for no reason what so ever. I asked them why you are here. They said you have to
come with us for a meeting at Douglas Hospital, and they forced themselves inside my apartment,
which is illegal since they did not have a search warrant.
I asked to see the paper work, they said it is in the car, I insisted that one of them go to the car and
bring the papers. The officer came back after few minutes with three pages of paperwork; I read in the
first page the word meeting. I said I never heard of police going to some one house just for a meeting
at a hospital; I said I have to make a copy of these papers. I was working on my computer and I
started using my scanner to make photocopy, once the first page started coming out of the printer,
they snatched the papers from the Scanner and said let us go we can make a copy at the Hospital!
I phoned my friend and neighbour Sultan Hemed, I told him there are five police officers in my
apartment and I asked him to contact a lawyer, few minutes later he phoned back and said he is
coming right away. The police said let us go we will wait for your friend in the car, I just had few
minutes to get dress and have my copy of the Holy Quran and my phone book in my bag. There were
two police cars parking in front of the building, once we get in one of them, three officers get in the
other car and drove away. I expected from the two officers with me to keep their word and wait until my
friend Sultan will come, they did not, they just said he could come to Douglas Hospital!
Once we arrived at Dobell Pavilion-Douglas Hospital, I asked the Secretary in the first floor if it is ok to
make photocopy of three pages, she said yes, however the police officers, for the second time,
refused that I have a copy of the paper work they came with. Again, I told them you should keep your
words. All the Police Officers behaviour was professional misconduct and illegal. I do not have copy of
the paper work until now!
The police presence in my apartment was harassment to me; they disturbed my peace and security in
my own home for no reason. They illegally interred my house without a search warrant and refused to
give me copy of the paper work or wait for my friend. Obviously, their presence in my apartment was
embarrassing and humiliating to me in front of my landlord and neighbours for fifteen years. I do not
know what everyone was thinking when they saw the police in my home. The least personal damage
the police presence caused was creating a doubt about me, people will ask questions, and I do not
even have the paper work to answer my own questions.
Moreover, in front of my building there were two police cars, what was a scenery in my neighbourhood
for fifteen years! I was very much embarrassed. Everyone will ask what is all that about.
At Douglas Hospital, I was accompanied by the two police officers to the conference room B-2115 of
the Dobell Pavilion. The officers talked to some people inside the room while I was waiting outside. I
took the chance and used my cell phone to talk to my friend Sultan, he said I came to your house and
no one was there, where are you now? I said at Douglas Hospital, Dobell Pavilion, in front of room B-
2115, he said I would come right away.
It was around 09:00 AM when the police officers asked me to come to the Conference room; there
were four people. I did know later, one of them was the Secretary of Douglas Hospital’s Director of
Professional Services, Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau, and the other three people were from the Tribunal
Administratif du Quebec presided by lawyer Jean-Claude Lafleur, the other two were Pierre Hélie and
Louise Blain. Mr. Lafleur asked the two police officers to set down around the table!
I said what is all that for, I did nothing wrong, and you called the police to my house. Mr. Lafleur said
you were notified for a meeting at 11:00 AM and to be sure that you will attend I had to call the Police!
I said first of all I had nothing to do with the Hospital and Tribunal since October 11, 2001. Second, it
is 09:00 AM not 11:00 AM and according to the law, the Tribunal meeting is a public meeting. How can
a meeting be public without having my files at the Hospital and Tribunal? How can a public meeting be
held two hours in advance and my friend Sultan was contacting a lawyer and said he is coming right
away? How a public meeting can be held secretly with two armed police officers setting around the
meeting table. Mr. Lafleur said just set down.
I gave everyone my Business card:
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., Civil Engineer (Cold Regions)
I also gave each of them a copy of my academic contribution to The International Conference on Port
and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions-POAC03- Trondheim-Norway 2003, and said: ‘I am
very busy man, what you and the police did today was and is wrong, this meeting is illegal, I cannot
cooperate in attending such an illegal meeting’.
I said: ‘Dr. Youssef is representing Montreal, Quebec and Canada in an important International
Engineering Conference, where no single Professor from the four Montreal Universities has even one
accepted paper to present, and this is my reward and that is how I am treated in Montreal.’
I get a chair, and sat down near the window, turning my back to these four people and their two police
officers.
I rightly refused to participate in this illegal meeting with the police presence.
Mr. Lafleur asked the police officers to accompany me to the Emergency of the Douglas Hospital
where I refused to sign any paper. It was around 09:30 AM. The two police officers left the Hospital
once the security guard accompanied me to the interior of the Emergency unit and closed the door.
And the nightmare began at Douglas Hospital.
Abusive Physical Torture
Douglas Hospital-Verdun
www.douglas.qc.ca
Montreal-Quebec-Canada
Tuesday 10th February 2004
I had to wait in the waiting room of the Emergency unit all the day until around 05:30 PM, when two
people a man and a young women came, the man said: ‘this is dr…will you come with us!’ I said: ‘Dr.
Youssef is not mentally disturbed and should not be in mental Hospital, I did not do anything wrong.
What you did today was and is wrong and I should leave the Hospital right away.’
The Psychiatrist, dr…(this GD young women) said: ‘ok, that is it’.
Few minutes later, six people four men and two women came suddenly to the waiting room in the
Emergency. They attacked me; two held my hands and the others carried me by force to the Isolation
room of the intensive care unit of Douglas Hospital.
Two of them held my hands against the wall while the others stripped me almost naked in front of men
and women; they even took off my long bottom and top underwear. They were doing all of that
casually with cold blood. It was very much humiliating. I was thrown to a piece of plastic in the floor; still
two of them were holding my hands forcefully. They took away every thing I have: the Holy Quran, my
cell phone, my keys and wallet, my money, my clothes. They through a blue piece of fabric at me,
then they went out the room and looked the door.
I stayed on this piece of plastic in the floor with nothing to cover my body except of this piece of fabric.
Nothing else was in the room. I had no contact with the outside world, since they took away my cell
phone. I was very angry and humiliated from the criminal abuses and the criminal attack from the
Hospital staff.
All my Rights were taken away for no reason what so ever.
I felt cold, and there was no washroom. I was just shaken and angry from the criminal behaviour of
these six criminals and the two other criminals in the Emergency unit of Douglas Hospital who ordered
them to do that. Later, I get to know that one of these six people is a nurse at the Intensive care unit
his name is Danny Berthiaume, he can identify the names of the others.
I had to stay in the isolation room for hours. Later at night the nurse Danny opened the room. I
refused to talk to him; I just went to the washroom. I was very tired and angry, he showed me a room
in the intensive care unit, and I asked for my cell phone and my personal belongings, he refused even
to give me my cloths back. I asked for my copy of the Holy Quran, he refused and said you do not talk
to us we will not talk to you. It took hours until I had the Holy Quran from the nursing station. I stayed
on the bed for long time until finally I felt sleep wearing only this piece of blue fabric.
How I could protect and defend my rights in these severe abusive situations at Douglas Hospital of
Montreal, a McGill University Hospital! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How this can happen in Montreal-Quebec-Canada.
Psychiatric Medications
What Medications?
www.douglas.qc.ca
Weeks later, I get, by chance, the attached prescription written by a Psychiatrist, at the same time all
of that was going on at the isolation room of the intensive care unit, at 06:00 PM, Tuesday 10
February 2004. I did not have any medical complaint, I did not sign any admission paper at the
Hospital, I had never seen the Psychiatrist (who called herself or himself a dr.), and there were no
interviews, no medical tests or examinations.
Therefore, on what medical basis this Psychiatrist wrote the prescription!
I refused to even talk to the Intensive care unit Psychiatrist, dr. Hani Iskandar; I was not interested. I
refused to take any medication, and it is my right to refuse. Two patients at Calgary-Alberta Foothill
Hospital (a man and a woman) died from taking wrong medications (ref; The Montreal Gazette 2004).
In spite of respecting my right, Douglas Hospital staff illegally practiced daily reprisals to force me to
take the illogical and illegal Psychiatric drugs! However, I persisted in keeping my right of medication
refusal; moreover, the law prohibits any form of reprisal. The Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics, which
obliged the Hospital staff to treat everyone with respect and dignity, was ignored most of the time;
there is culture of reprisals among most of the Hospital staff I did have to deal with. They did not
respect the law or even their work place Code of Ethics.
I had to write several complaints to the Hospital administration, specially the Ombudsman, Mrs.
Francine Bourassa, and the Director of Professional Services dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau. In addition, I
kept almost daily contact with the Hospital Beneficiaries Committee (Mrs. Martha Bishop and Mr.
Sylvain Bernier). I get a copy of The Code of Ethics, and The Hospital Annual Report 2003. I
contacted the Hospital medical records department to request complete copy of my files.
This prescription was written on Tuesday 10th February at 6:00 PM!
How anyone calls himself or herself a doctor writes such prescription!
Several Examples of the Illegal Reprisal
By
Douglas Hospital Staff
www.douglas.qc.ca
Abusive Mental Torture
Intensive Care Unit
Friday 20th February 2004
The incident started at 09:45 AM.
I take shower every day; I perform ablution five times daily for the Muslim Prayers, however, the nurse
assigned to me (Kelly) asked me if I would like to take a shower. I said yes, the visiting hour is 10:00
AM, and I expect a friend to visit and I plan to take shower in the after noon. She said ok and went to
the Nursing station.
For no reason what so ever, the nurse Margo Bloom came out of the Nursing station to the Hallway
and started shouting severe abusive and criminal insults at me with loud voice and in front of
everyone. Here are quotations from what she said:
-‘I am in charge here, you are a Doctor; I do not care about your qualifications’
-‘You are dirty; your room has fungus, get out of here.’
-‘You are criminal! You do the crime, you do the time.’
-‘You are mentally disturbed, delusion, I can give you injection.’
And she kept going on.
Her criminal behaviour and abuses went on, while the two other nurses Kelly and Linda, as well as the
nurse aid Marina, were standing there and did nothing! They as well as all the people in the Intensive
Care Unit were witness to her crimes.
I reported her crimes by phone right away to three friends out side the Hospital. In addition, I reported
the incident to The Douglas Hospital Beneficiaries Committee (Tel: 761-6131 Ext. 2273). One of my
friends came to visit at around 10:30 A.M, and again I reported in detail what she did.
In order to protect and defend my rights, I filed a complaint to The Hospital Ombudsman Mrs. Francine
Bourassa (Complaint Reference File No: 200300345). This in addition to, my first complaint to the
Ombudsman concerning the physical torture incident of Tuesday, 10th February 2004 (File No:
2003300346).
I phoned several friends to file police complaint against Douglas Hospital staff, and one of my friends
went to the Police Station in Ville LaSalle-Montreal to file the complaint. They refused to come to the
Hospital and said to my friend, I should file the complaint personally with the police after leaving the
Hospital!
The delay and lack of immediate response from the Police and the Ombudsman, as well as The
Beneficiaries Committee to my serious complaints did encourage Douglas Hospital staff to continue
their practice of daily abuses and reprisals.
Abusive Mental Torture
Douglas Hospital
Intensive Care Unit
Saturday 21st February 2004
The criminal harassment incident started at 08:30 AM, I was reading in the smoking room, the two
nurses working in the intensive care unit were Margo Bloom and Danny Berthiaume. Danny opened
the door of the smoking room and said: ‘Some people complain that you are dirty and your room is
dirty and smell.’ I said: ‘Ok, write down their names and your name as well as your complaint on a
piece of paper, and I will give it to the Hospital Ombudsman in Monday for investigation.’ He said: ‘No I
will not give you any name; you think the Ombudsman will solve your problems!’
I said: ‘Listen, I do not have a problem, you are the ones who have problems. I take shower every day,
all my laundry is clean, the nursing staff changes my bed sheets regularly, so what are you talking
about! In addition, I share the room with another gentleman, did you talked to him, and in this way!’
He said: ‘No, I will not talk to him; it is you who is dirty! We can not force you to take medication, we
can not force you to take injection, but we can force you to take a bath!’
He also said: I will not leave the smoking room until I am done with you.’ I said: ‘Listen, your language
is offensive. Expressions like forcing you, and done with you are the language of criminals. Dr.
Youssef does not talk to criminals, you can leave now.’
He said again: ‘I will not leave until I am done with you!’
I said: ‘By the way, what are the names of the other five criminals who were with you in the Isolation
room on Tuesday 10th February 2004?’ He said: ‘I will not give you any name.’ I said: ‘Typical cover-
up from criminals like you and them.’ Finally, he left the smoking room and went to the Nursing station.
I reported the incident by phone to my friends outside the Hospital, as well as on the answer machine
of the Hospital Beneficiaries Committee.
In order to protect and defend my rights, I filed the Complaint File No: 2003300378 with Douglas
Hospital Ombudsman, Mrs. Francine Bourassa.
Douglas Hospital
Staff Misconduct
Saturday 21st February 2004
The incident started at 12:00 PM, in the Intensive Care Unit of Douglas Hospital.
Although I asked the dietician last week for Islamic (Halal) diet, today’s lunch did not include Halal
meat. I returned the lunch tray, and asked the nurse Linda for my own food from the fridge. She
talked to the other nurse in the unit, Margo Bloom, and came back and said: Margo is the one in
charge here and she said. No!
I did not have lunch today because of the misconduct of the two nurses Linda and Margo, although I
have my own food in the fridge. In the previous days, since 10th February 2004 I had my own food at
the mealtime. !!!
The nurses Linda and Margo’s behaviour is in disparity with their own employer’s Code of Ethics. In
page 10 of Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics, under Section 1 Other Fundamental Rights, include the
rights to decent living conditions, and the Right to Healthy Food. Simply, I could not have lunch today
because of the nurses' misconduct.
In order to protect my rights, I filed the Complaint No: 200300377 with Douglas Hospital Ombudsman
Mrs. Francine Bourassa.
Professional Misconduct and Abusive Mental Torture
At Douglas Hospital-Intensive Care Unit
www.douglas.qc.ca
Monday, 23rd February 2004
The incident of professional misconduct started at 08:30 AM.
The nurse Danny of the criminal incident of Tuesday, 10th February 2004 (as well as other incidents),
came to the smoking room, and again said as he said several times before: ‘We can not force you to
take medication”, and hinted to reprisals as of the incident of 21st February 2004 (e.g. but we can
force you to take a bath), then he left the room.
Around 10:30 AM, the nurse Danny came again to the smoking room, this time with dr. Hani Iskandar,
the Intensive care unit Psychiatrist. In this very abusive situation, Iskandar practised non ethical
behaviour and professional misconduct, he threat to deprive me from my Right to receive my visitors,
The Right to Have Visits, unless I accept to take medications and treatment. I said: ‘What you did and
are doing is wrong; Dr. Youssef is not mentally disturbed and should not be in mental Hospital’. He
just said: ‘ok, your right of visitation is taken away.’
At 03:00 PM, I received a phone call from a friend; he came to visit me today. The staff at the
Intensive care unit did not permit him to visit; they did not even notify me at the time of his visit. This
illegal behaviour from Douglas Hospital staff is obvious reprisals for my rightful refusal to take illegal
psychiatric medication. The law prohibits any form of reprisal and the Hospital staff should know that.
The Hospital staff behaviour is against the principals of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics Book, Page 10 stated that: ‘I have the right to be treated all the times
with courtesy and dignity and with respect for my privacy.’
In order to protect and defend my rights I reported the incident to several friends out side the Hospital
as well as to the Hospital Beneficiaries Committee. In addition, I filed the Complaint No. 200300376
with Douglas Hospital Ombudsman, Mrs. Francine Bourassa.
Professional Misconduct and Confidentiality Break
Head Nurse: Marc Lasnier
Intensive Care Unit
Douglas Hospital- Montreal
Tuesday, 24th February 2004
One day after I submitted complaints to, and get acknowledgements from Mrs. Francine Bourassa
(Douglas Hospital Ombudsman), and one day after dr. Hani Iskandar took the illegal and
unprofessional decision for preventing my visits (reprisal decisions are against the law). The Head
Nurse of the Intensive Care Unit, Marc Lasnier, without my permission or presence, talked to one of
my friends who used to come regularly to visit me. Mr. Lasnier told my friend that they like to contain
the situation, and offered to agree to my constant request for immediate and complete discharge,
shall I agree to a formal meeting with him with the attendance of my friend.
My friend phoned me around 11:30 AM, and said: ‘we arranged something, you will be discharged. I
had an agreement with the Head Nurse Marc Lasnier for your discharge it may be today or tomorrow.
You have to agree for a formal meeting with the Head Nurse and I will attend the meeting as
observer.’ I said ok, he said: ‘the meeting will be at 01:00 PM this afternoon.)
My friend came to the Intensive care Unit around 01:00 PM (on the non visiting hours, the visiting
hours start at 02:00 PM). The ICU staff welcomed him, and Mr. Lasnier invited my friend and me to his
office. We expected a formal meeting and I will be discharged from the Hospital. I was very much
disappointed, before even we sat down the nurse Danny (of the 10th February incident), which the
Ombudsman had already his name in my complaints, came to the office and joined the meeting. It was
obvious that there was prearrangement agreement between Danny and Marc Lasnier. The two of
them talked non sense, all what they wanted is to show in front of my friend that Danny is a good man,
and I should agree to talk to dr. Hani Iskandar and cooperate with them.
My friend and I were very much frustrated and disappointed from their sneaky approach,
confidentiality break and giving false promises to get what they wanted. After the meeting, they gave
my friend all the time to visit and talk to me in the waiting room. During our talk I received a phone call,
Danny took the chance that I am on the phone and rushed from the Nursing station with a paper and
pen in his hand and asked my friend and then me to sign a paper stating that my friend can talk on
my behave. Off course, I refused and asked Danny to go back to the Nursing Station.
Obviously, this meeting ended after few minutes. I did not accept to talk to dr. Iskandar, and my
complaints from the Hospital staff do stand.
The proof that they tried to used my friend is due to the fact that, he came to visit next day and in the
visiting hours, they prevented him from visiting me and we had to talk through the door while he was
standing outside!
What Marc Lasnier did was confidentiality break and professional misconduct. No single staff from the
Hospital should talk, or make any arrangement with any of my friends and visitors without my
authorization.
Professional Misconduct and Mental Torture
The Intensive Care Unit-Douglas Hospital
www.douglas.qc.ca
Tuesday, 24th February 2004
The criminal physical torture incident of 10th February 2004 at Douglas Hospital was reported in my
complaint to the Hospital Ombudsman and the Police was notified with the crimes committed by the
Hospital staff at the Intensive Care Unit. Hani Iskandar is the Head of The Intensive Care Unit.
Without any medical complaint from my part, or health problem what so ever (Dr. Youssef has his
family Doctor), and without any interview, examination or medical tests, dr. Iskandar just wrote a
prescription for me with what ever medications I do not know about and obviously I do not need. I have
my family Doctor and I am in excellent health.
If Hani Iskandar calls himself a Doctor, and prescribes medication to someone, he never met or
examined, then his conduct is obviously a professional misconduct and his behaviour is unethical. His
medical practice licence should be suspended by the Quebec College of Physicians.
For almost two weeks now, couple of times a day he send nurses to me asking that I take medications
I rightfully refuse. His and their criminal threat, intimidations, insults and humiliation as reprisals for my
refusal to take medications, were their daily illegal practice to force me to take medications I do not
need and they know I have the right to refuse. Some examples for their illegal reprisals:
1- Forcing me, to wear a blue piece of fabric, instead of my personal cloths. This was and is always
public humiliation especially in front of my friends. Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics stat that: everyone
has the right to be treated with respect and dignity.
2- Depriving me, of my right to have lunch on Saturday 21st February 2004.
3- Their illegal decision on Monday 23rd February 2004 to take away my right to receive visitors
during the visiting hours (daily from 10-11:30 AM, 2-3:30 and 7-8:30 PM).
In order to protect and defend my rights, I filed complaints with Douglas Hospital Ombudsman and The
Medical Examiner dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau: File No. 200300378.
In this complaint as well as in the previous complaints, I requested from Douglas Hospital
Administration to carry out immediate investigation, and take disciplinary actions against their staff for
their professional misconducts. I always reported by phone my complaints to the Beneficiaries
Committee and requested their follow up of my complaints during the Complaints Examination Process
to be sure that my rights are protected.
Martha Bishop’s Intervention!
The Beneficiaries Committee
combenef@douglas.mcgill.ca
Douglas Hospital- Montreal
Wednesday, 25th February 2004
The Government of Quebec Publication: Improving Services, Health and Social Services, Complaint
Examination Process, Ombudsman, state that:
‘The Law prohibits any form of reprisals against a person who files or intended to file a complaint.
Should such incidents occur, immediately contact the Service Quality Commissioner (the
Ombudsman) of the institution or of the regional boards or the health services Ombudsman. They are
obliged to intervene immediately in order to stop any reprisal.’
I have the rights to refuse taking medication, and to file complaints without any reprisals. However,
since Tuesday 10th February 2004 until the present, there are daily continues reprisals from the
Hospital staff at the Intensive Care Unit. From the start of each incident and several times there after, I
reported the incident of reprisal to the Beneficiaries Committee and the Ombudsman of Douglas
Hospital. The staff of both offices failed until the present to carry out their obligations according to the
law and to intervene immediately to stop any Reprisal.
I phoned Mrs. Martha Bishop of the Beneficiaries Committee at 08:15 AM today, and asked her to
meet her obligations. She declined and hanged up the phone after saying: ‘Dr. Youssef, I will not talk
to you again!’
Two days later, Mr. Sylvain Bernier of the Beneficiaries Committee and Mrs. Francine Bourassa, the
Ombudsman of Douglas Hospital came to The Intensive Care Unit to talk to me. Again, I asked them to
intervene immediately to stop the reprisals, especially my right to receive visitors. Again, they failed to
meet their obligations!
SO, WHAT THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC LAW WAS WRITTEN FOR!
Head Nurse Marc Lasnier
Call for a Meeting
Thursday, 26th February 2004
At 09:30 AM, the nurse Helene said the Head Nurse, Mr. Marc Lasnier wants to meet me at 10:30 AM.
I said ok, and started writing my requests (Dr. Youssef Requests) and made copy for me. At 10:30
AM, I waited in the waiting room of the Intensive Care Unit. Helene came and said Mr. Lasnier is ready
to meet you in his office. I said no, I prefer to meet here. Mr. Lasnier came out of his office and sat
down in the waiting room, he said we could not meet in public. I said every thing has to be in public.
I gave him the original of the one page (Dr. Youssef Requests) and asked him to sign my copy that he
received the original. He said: no I will not sign. I said: ok the meeting is over. He said: ok. I will sign.
After he signed my copy as a Head Nurse, I said: you have my requests; the meeting is over. The
nurse Helene was present as a witness.
Dr. Youssef Requests
From
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Thursday 26th February 2004
1- The Letter of Complete discharge from Douglas Hospital.
2- The letter of Apology to Dr. Youssef from Douglas Hospital.
3- The Complete and Entire File of Dr. Youssef from Douglas Hospital, and copy of every paper
under Dr. Youssef name and/or has Dr. Youssef name.
Dr. Youssef also requests the full name and status of the following Douglas Hospital Staff:
· The names of the Doctors and Nurses in the Emergency unit, especially those of the evening
staff (around 05:00 PM) on Tuesday 10th February 2004.
· The full names of the Doctors and Nurses at the Intensive Care Unit, at and after 05:00 PM (5:
00 to 6:00 PM), including the full name of the nurse Danny.
· The Full Names of Douglas Hospital Nursing staff at the Intensive Care Unit, (Margo, Linda,
Kelly, Marina,).
· The Full Names of Douglas Hospital Staff (six men and women) of the Isolation Room-Intensive
Care Unit around 05:00 PM (from 5:00 to 6:00 PM) On Tuesday 10th February 2004, including the full
name of the nurse Danny.
Original received and copy signed
by Marc Lasnier, Head Nurse
Intensive Care Unit-Douglas Hospital. www.douglas.qc.ca
The Ombudsman Visit
Francine.Bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
17 Days after the Incident
The Intensive Care Unit
Douglas Hospital- MONTREAL
Friday, 27th February 2004
One day after the Head Nurse Marc Lasnier received Dr. Youssef Requests. At 11:00AM, on Friday
27th February, without any previous notification for a meeting, Mrs. Francine Bourassa (Douglas
Hospital Ombudsman, Francine.Bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca), and Mr. Sylvain Bernier (of the
Beneficiaries committee, combenef@douglas.mcgill.ca) came to the Intensive Care Unit to see me for
a meeting. Again, I did not accept to meet in an office, I insisted to meet in public, in the waiting room.
They started by saying that some of my friends came to see the Ombudsman yesterday concerning
my rights, and she had received my two complaints on Tuesday 24th February 2004. I talked again
about my requests for immediate discharge, the apology of Douglas Hospital to me, as well as my
rights according to the Access to Information Act to receive the complete and entire copy of my files
from the Medical Records Department of Douglas Hospital. In addition, I reminded her with the failure
of her office (her failure) to meet her obligations and intervene immediately to stop the reprisals,
especially returning my right to receive visitors. She was not cooperative in anything related to
Douglas Hospital:
1- She said no, to my immediate and complete discharge,
2- She said no, to my right to have complete copy of my entire files at Douglas Hospital,
3-She said no, to my right to stop the reprisals and to receive visitors,
4- She said no, to my right to have my personal cloths,
5- She said no, to my request that she talk to the staff at the Intensive Care Unit to stop the reprisals
immediately as she has the obligation to do since Tuesday 10th February 2004, this is her job!
6- She said no, when I asked her to talk to the Intensive Care Unit staff about their illegal criminal
behaviour on Tuesday 10th February 2004, as well as the incidents of reprisals; I made her as well as
the Beneficiaries Committee aware of.
I reminded the Ombudsman with the complaints she had already received, and said I also wrote other
complaints, and I would like her written acknowledgements as well as the follow up through out all the
Complaint Examination Process.
After a long discussion, and my emphasise that according to the by-Law governing the Complaint
Examination Process, her obligation is to provide all the information I requested to assist me through
out the procedures, and my right to have complete copy of my files immediately from Douglas
Hospital. Mrs. Bourassa just offered to ask someone in an office in the Hospital, concerned with the
Access to Information Act, who has an authority over the Medical Records Department, to come and
see me! I said my right to the access to information is already over due, the Medical Records
Department has already acknowledged my written request and my lawyer’s letter requesting my files
in January 2002.
Talking about my rights for immediate access to my files!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mrs. Francine Bourassa offered to contact the Tribunal Administratif du Quebec office in Quebec City
to resolve any misunderstanding from their side. I explained to her again that Dr. Youssef has nothing
to do with the Tribunal Administratif du Quebec or Douglas Hospital. What they both did and doing is
wrong, their crimes now are forced kidnapping and hostage taking. I asked to be discharged
immediately from the Hospital.
She and Mr. Bernier made (and have) copies of the final court paper dated October 11, 2001, to end
theirs and others previous crimes. There are no conditions in the court paper that I have anything to
do with the Tribunal Administratif du Quebec or admission to Douglas Hospital. I did nothing wrong
and I am not mentally disturbed, so what I am here for! Mrs. Bourassa again promised to contact the
Tribunal office in Quebec City.
I presented to them my Business card and copies of the technical program of the International
Conference on Ports and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC03), Trondheim-Norway-
2003. The Conference program includes three academic papers of my contribution to the Conference
publications; I said Dr. Youssef is representing Quebec and Canada Internationally, and where he is
now? Dr. Youssef is in a Mental Hospital in Montreal? This is my reward!
I said Dr. Youssef is a busy man and has no time to waste in this non-sense of yours and others. The
meeting ended after about half an hour, and all what I get was some promises!
I wonder what the Ombudsman’s Job is! In addition, what is the Beneficiaries Committee’s job! Both
offices at Douglas Hospital failed to meet their obligations to intervene to stop the reprisals since
Tuesday 10th February 2004 until today.
My rights are still taken away for no reason whatsoever!
Confidentiality Break
Hani Iskandar, Psychiatrist
Intensive Care Unit-Douglas Hospital
www.douglas.qc.ca
Monday, 1st March 2004
The incident of the confidentiality break happened today, when two of my friends (Loui and Mustapha)
came to visit me at the Intensive Care Unit-Douglas Hospital, they were not allowed to visit! All the
illegal decisions to take away my rights, for no reasons, were taken away by dr. Hani Iskandar.
I was not notified when my friends arrived at the outside door of the Intensive care unit. Hani Iskandar
met them at the door, talked to them and invited them for a meeting in an office outside the Intensive
Care Unit. He did not have my permission to talk to any of my friends; this is confidentiality break and
professional misconduct.
During the meeting, he asked them to phone me! I just get a phone call from my friends; Mustapha
was just coming to Montreal from a trip overseas. I expected that they were using their cell phone, and
they are in their way to visit me, so I talked to Mustapha in a very friendly and personal way as in any
conversation between friends. I was very much surprised and angry to know that they were with Hani
Iskandar without my permission. This is obviously a confidentiality break. Once I did know that they
are with Iskandar, I just said good-bye and hanged up the phone.
Iskandar tried to arrange a meeting with me on Wednesday at 01:30 PM, off course I refused. Hani
Iskandar is the one who made the decision to take away my right to receive visitors. He talked a lot to
my friends, however he did not allow them to visit me and they had to leave! Later they phoned and
told me everything.
My friends came to visit me; instead Hani Iskandar met them at the door and did steel my visit. They
came and gone without seeing me because this person Iskandar! He told them many lies and asked
them to apply pressure on me to cooperate with him and take medication! That is to see, he tried to
use my friends to solve his problems of professional misconduct at the Intensive Care Unit since
Tuesday 10th February 2004. He did misuse his position at the Hospital. His illegal behaviour and
confidentiality break, as well as using intimidations and threats are illegal and against Douglas
Hospital Code of ethics, as well as any professional practice.
In order to protect and defend my rights, I filed a complaint against Iskandar with the Director of
Professional Services (and the Medical Examiner), Dr. Jean Bernard Trudeau. He received my
complaint through Douglas Hospital Ombudsman, Mrs. Francine Bourassa, (Complaint File No.
200300376).
Tuesday 2nd March 2004
Last day at the
Intensive Care Unit
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
I asked the nurse Jennifer to mail some letter for me, she asked the Head Nurse and came back to
say Dr. Iskandar took away my right to send or receive mail! This is against the freedom of
expressions, as well as the Hospital Code of Ethics.
My friend Sultan phoned and said he is in the Hospital, and since my visitation right was still taken
away, he asked me to come to the front door of the Intensive Care Unit and we can talk through the
door glass window. By the time I went to see my friend, I found the Head Nurse Mr. Marc Lasnier
standing at the half-opened door talking to my friend. I exchanged greetings with Sultan and pointed
to the Isolation Room, and said this is where they did what they did on Tuesday 10th February 2004. I
said to the Head Nurse, it had been few days and I have not received your reply to Dr. Youssef
Requests, did you wrote down the names of the six criminals of your staff who attacked me in this
isolation room.
Marc Lasnier had nothing to say! He just closed the door and walked inside the unit, and then he
turned around and said: ‘You will be transferred this afternoon!’ I did not know to where I will be
transfer. So, I asked my friend to call me in the afternoon and we said our good byes for now.
Around 01:00 PM, the nurses said I would be transfer to another Pavilion in Douglas Hospital,
Burgess I Pavilion. In few minutes, another nurse from outside the unit took my personal belonging to
Burgess I. And I left the Intensive Care Unit, after three weeks of living in very abusive confinement for
no reason what so ever. From the first day to the last, I did not talk to dr. Hani Iskandar, even to
exchange greetings. He was not worth talking to. I also did not say a word to any of the nurses when I
left the unit; they acted as hypocrites by coming to say good luck and good-bye. None of them was
worth talking to.
For three weeks, I was declined to wear my personal cloths, I did not had a key to my locker, every
time I need anything from my personal belongings, I had to ask the nurses to open the locker and
most of the time they just say later we are busy now. For three weeks I did not had any fresh air or
exercise not even going out for a walk. For three long weeks I was isolated from my friends and
visitors it was humiliating to talk to them through the door glass window, while I was wearing this piece
of blue fabric. For three weeks every day there were reprisals for my rightful refusal to take
medications. My freedom of expression was severely affected by the limitation on using the Hospital
phone while my cell phone was taken away from me; in addition, they held my letters in the nursing
station for days without mailing them. There was no good quality of daily life it was a nightmare.
I did not get the complete discharge yet from Douglas Hospital of Montreal.
First Day at Burgess I Pavilion
Douglas Hospital Montreal
www.douglas.qc.ca
Tuesday 2nd March 2004
On Tuesday 2nd March 2004, I was admitted to the Burgess I Pavilion of Douglas Hospital around 2:
00 PM. I had all my personal belonging back, I had my right to receive visitors and the right to go out
of the unit for a walk and have fresh air in the Hospital ground. I had all my rights back. It is surprising
why I was denied all of that last three weeks! Why all my rights were taking away for no reason what
so ever, and for a long three weeks! And why all the rights came back, also for no reason! Just like
that! I feel some pressures from that daily life at the Intensive Care Unit had been lifted off my
shoulders. However, there is a long way in front of me to fight back. I am still in a Psychiatric Hospital,
a victim of injustice in illegal involuntary hospitalization. It is too much stressful to just be here.
In the evening the nurse Laval offered me medication prescribed by dr. Lydia Balingo of Burgess I
Pavilion. Off course I refused. Like dr. Iskandar, dr. Balingo wrote a prescription and ordered
medications without any medical complaint from me, without interview (we never talked), or medical
tests or examination! How she dared to call herself a doctor and just write a prescription just like that.
Those Psychiatrists!
Wednesday 3rd March 2004
Burgess I Pavilion
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Again, I refused to take any medication this morning. At 10:00 AM, the nurse George came to talk to
me about the medication refusal! I explained to him that I should not be here, the Hospital for me now
is the Ombudsman and any contact with me has to be through Mrs. Francine Bourassa, I have
nothing to do with the Hospital (so called) medical team. At 11:00 AM, George came back again and
said dr. Balingo like to see me; I said I am not interested. She tried again, and again I refused. She
already made her mind when she illegally ordered that prescription. In addition, what Dr. Youssef has
to do with any Psychiatrist! I have nothing to do with Psychiatry all together.
At 12:00 PM, I talked to the Head Nurse Mrs. Solange Urban that I did not had the chance to check my
E-Mail for three weeks, and if I can work in any computer in the Unit. She said you could only ask the
Burgess I clerk to print out couple of pages from your inbox E-Mail address. I said ok, and gave the
clerk my E-Mail address and password; she said ok, I will do that in few minutes using the computer in
the nursing station. I waited until 03:00 PM and she did not come back to me, so I went to her office
and asked her. She said she did not check my E-mail, the nurse George took the paper with my E-
Mail address and the password, and she asked me to talk to him. I just said how you could do that! My
password is confidential; and you should not give it to any one. I asked her to get back my paper from
George she refused. I talked to George, he just said he through away my paper with my E-Mail and
password on it. I said no, I have to get it back and be sure that no one misses with my E-Mail. He went
to the office, came back with the paper, and said sorry!
This is a confidentiality break and professional misconduct from the Hospital clerk and the nurse
George.
All the day I have the freedom to go out of the unit for a walk in the Hospital ground without
supervision or asking for permission, I went to the Mail Room at Perry Pavilion to mail some letters
and make photocopies, I took long walks and had the chance to buy few things I needed from the
corner store. In addition, I had the chance to use my card to withdraw some money from my bank
account. The daily life looks a little better than the previous three weeks at Douglas Hospital-Intensive
Car Unit.
In the evening my friends came to visit, I also had my cell phone back which made my daily life much
easier, I am not very much isolated as before.
Confidentiality Break and Professional Misconduct
Burgess I pavilion-Douglas Hospital-Montreal
www.douglas.qc.ca
Thursday 4th March 2004
Many incidents happened today, which will have severe negative effect in the quality of my daily life
for more than two months.
First, the nurse George came in the morning to the smoking room to talk about the medication refusal
and to give me some papers. I refused; I just said all contacts have to be with the Hospital
Ombudsman. He uttered threats of reprisals; I ended the conversation in a diplomatic way!
Around three o’clock in the after noon, my friend Mustapha came to visit, we talked in my room for a
while, and then we were going for a walk when George just came from the nursing station to talk to my
friend without my permission, this is a confidentiality break.
Mustapha said it is ok; let me talk to him about the complete discharge from the Hospital. I said fine,
until today I have the right to walk in the Hospital ground unaccompanied so I just opened the Burgess
I front door and went outside the Pavilion to get some fresh air and to give them all the time and
freedom to talk. They talked for more than half an hour!
Mustapha came downstairs in front of the Burgess Pavilion to see me, and said he had chance to talk
to George and also to dr. Balingo, and he would like to talk to me about the outcome of the
conversation. I said ok, and we went out for about an hour. I expected the nurse George to give us all
the time and freedom to talk, as I gave him all the time and freedom to talk to my friend.
Before the nurse George ended his workday at four o’clock, he wrote an unauthorized leave report
(ULR) about me to be faxed to the Hospital security and the police as if I escaped from the Hospital!
I did not know about George’s report until I came back to Burgess I with my friend Mustapha. We were
talking in front of the Nursing station and saying our good byes, when the nurse Laval came from the
nursing station and said you are back, I do not know why George wrote the report? He said he would
fax the security to cancel the report! We were very much surprised, for three days now I had the right
to leave the unit without supervision or accompanied by anyone and there was no problem what so
ever.
Now after George and dr. Balingo talked to my friend without my authorization, and I went out with my
friend and he came back with me to Burgess I Unit, I find that George did that! Something is wrong
with dr. Balingo and this nurse George Samadi!
Mental and Physical Torture
At
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital
Montreal
Friday 5th March 2004
Today at 11:00 AM, it was raining outside; I wanted to go to Perry Pavilion to mail some letters and
make some photocopies. I had my house shoes on (slippers), so I decided to take the tunnel from
Burgess Pavilion to Perry Pavilion. Once I opened Burgess I door and took few steps downstairs, the
assistant Head Nurse Franco Plaich came out of the Nursing station and said: where are you going? I
just said I am going to the mailing room. He said: you are not allowed I will phone the doctor! He then
rushed back to the nursing station and phoned dr. Balingo, she came right away to the front of the
Nursing Station. By that time I was already in the smoking room wondering what made Franco do that!
Last three days I was going outside the unit anytime, I went out without any problem.
Few minutes later, the nurse Dorothy came to see me in the smoking room and said: dr Balingo would
like to see you. I said: ‘I already explained to George that any contact has to be through the Hospital
Ombudsman. I should not be here; Douglas Hospital for me now is the Ombudsman and the
Beneficiaries Committee, I talked to them last Friday and they said there must be misunderstanding
from the Hospital and the Tribunal side. Mrs. Bourassa promised to phone the Tribunal administratif
du Quebec office in Quebec City to clear out any misunderstanding. In the mean time I have all the
rights.’
Dr. Balingo came outside the smoking room and started knocking on the window and shouting as she
was talking to someone in a kinder garden or something! She was waving her hands and saying:
come here, come here! I just said: I already said no, my contact is with the Ombudsman, and you can
talk to the Ombudsman. Right away, she sent the nurse Franco and the assistant nurse Allen, as well
as the nurse Dorothy with this piece of blue fabric in Allen’s Hand to the smoking room. They uttered
threats, and said either you agree to talk to dr. Balingo or you will lose your right to have your
personal cloths and wear this blue piece of fabric instead! This was illegal reprisal in this very abusive
situation.
I just went outside the smoking room, and said I can meet her here in public, in the waiting room. She
refused, and the nurses almost forced me to the Burgess I Conference room, she asked Franco to be
with her in the meeting. What kind of meeting is that!
She and Franco did not give me any chance to talk to them and explain the situation in a very
diplomatic way! Dr. Balingo just said I need treatment and I should take the medication!
I just said: ‘what medication? What medication you are talking about? Medication to treat exactly what!
Moreover, how you dare you call yourself a Doctor and write that prescription without any medical
complain or examination? I request complete copy of the paper work in my file in the Hospital since
Tuesday 10th February 2004 until now.’ They just said talk to the Ombudsman about that.
Franco rushed to defend dr. Balingo, and said she did not write the prescription it was written by dr.
Iskandar. I said: ‘I request the paper work.’ Franco threat that if I do not cooperate with them I will be
transferred back to the Intensive Care Unit! Dr. Balingo listened to Franco and said nothing. I just
said: ‘and you call this place a Hospital! And, University Hospital!’
I said: ‘Dr. Youssef is not mentally disturbed and should not be in a mental Hospital. You had no
excuse for what you did on Tuesday 10th February 2004 until now. I should be discharged from the
Hospital without any conditions and immediately.’
‘It is professional misconduct from any Doctor to just write and order prescribed medication just like
that for no medical reason what so ever. Montreal is a large city and there are many honest Doctors
in Montreal, I have my family Doctor.’ Again, I asked for complete copy of the paper work and my files
at Douglas Hospital.
In order to protect and defend my right I filed a complaint with The Hospital Ombudsman requesting
disciplinary actions against dr. Lydia Balingo and the assistant Head Nurse Franco Plaich for
professional misconduct.
Professional Misconduct
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital
Saturday 6th March 2004
At 09:00 AM, the nurse George Samadi came to the smoking room; he apologized and said sorry for
writing the Unauthorized Leave Report on Thursday 4th March 2004. I said: ‘You were wrong, I gave
you all the time to talk freely with my friend Mustapha, you should also give me the time to talk to my
friend freely about what you and dr. Balingo talked to him about. So, what the hell you did?’
We talked for a while, I explained to him that the Hospital’ staff were and are wrong for all what they
did and what they are doing. He agreed and said he understands.
I talked about my work, about my qualifications, about my scientific contribution to the International
Engineering Conference (POAC03-Trondhiem-Norway), about the recent E-Mail I received from the
University of Ottawa concerning my chances to join the Department of Civil Engineering in a Professor
position, about the publication of my accepted Engineering book in Holland, I gave him my Business
Card.
He said these people should respect you and should not do what they did to you, and then he said:
‘you should hire a lawyer.’ I said: ‘I know what I am doing.’ He said: ‘Oh, Yah!’
At 11:00 AM, George met me at the hallway and said: ‘I like to talk to you, I have a strict order to take
away your right to have your personal cloths and you have to wear the Hospital pyjama (this piece of
blue fabric)!’ I just said: ‘What!’ He said this is a Doctor Order, I said: ‘This is reprisal for my rightful
refusal to take medication, the law prohibits any form of reprisal, and it is illegal.’ He said: ‘it is not me!
I just have Dr. Balingo’s Order.’
I said: ‘We will talk later, I am expecting a visit.’
I had my friends over to visit in the afternoon; they stayed until after the working shift of the day staff.
At 04:00 PM, George came and said, you are with your friends now, we will talk tomorrow!’
And they call this place a Hospital! And a University Hospital!
Professional Misconduct
Burgess I Pavilion
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
www.douglas.qc.ca
A McGill University Hospital!
Sunday 7th March 2004
At 09:00 AM, the nurse George Samadi came to my room with this blue piece of fabric, and said you
have to give me your personal cloths and wear this pyjama now!
I asked him in a polite but a firm way, to set down, I said I like to show you something.
I get his work place (Douglas Hospital) Code of Ethics Book, in page 10 under the title: ‘Fundamental
Rights’ is the right to decent living conditions. As it is written: ‘during your hospitalization: you have the
right to the protection of your person, to decent living conditions, to healthy food and to the regular
upkeep of your cloths.’
I also showed him (and gave him a copy) of The Government of Quebec-Improving Services-Health
and Social Services-Ombudsman booklet, which stated that:
‘The law prohibits any form of reprisals against a person who files a complaint. Should such incidents
occur, immediately contact the Services quality Commissioner of the institution, or of the regional
board, or the Health Services Ombudsman. They are obliged to intervene immediately in order to stop
any reprisals.’
I asked him to follow his own work place-Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics, and The Government of
Quebec law.
The Douglas Hospital nurse (this person George Samadi) showed me dr. Lydia Balingo (this women)
order written in my file (chart), and insisted that I wear the pyjama or he would call for help to force me
to! I said: ‘What is the health reason for wearing this piece of fabric instead of my own personal
cloths?’ He said: ‘I do not know why!’ I said: ‘How you can ask anyone to do something against the law
for no reason what so ever?’
He insisted that I have to wear this blue piece of fabric, he took away all my personal cloths and
placed them in the locker in my room, moreover he asked to take the key of the locker! And he did all
of that according to the order of what she called herself a doctor! Dr. Lydia Balingo!
I told that nurse what you did is illegal reprisal and with the intention of illegal public humiliation in this
very abusive situation, The Ombudsman is not here today but I will file a complaint first thing in
Monday morning in order to protect and defend my rights.
Lydia Balingo’s Professional Misconduct
Burgess I Pavilion
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Monday 8th March 2004
Although on Sunday 7th March 2004, the nurse George Samadi promised to talk to both dr. Balingo
and the Assistant Head Nurse Franco to cancel all the illegal decisions they made since my friend
Mustapha visited on Thursday 4th March 2004, he and them did not keep their promises. Moreover,
George and Franco harassed me in the hallway around 11:00 AM; they asked to take away the key to
my locker, although I paid for it. They just wanted to limit my freedom and have control; I refused to
give them my key.
While I was reading in the smoking room, dr Balingo came and insisted that I see her! I agreed to
meet her in the waiting room. I explained to her that I did nothing wrong to be here and I have nothing
to do with the Hospital or the Tribunal since October 11, 2001; I showed her the final court paper. I
also complaint from: the illegal behaviour of the police, the Tribunal, and the Hospital staff since
Tuesday 10th February 2004. I asked for complete copy of my files, complete unconditional
discharge, as well as an apology from Douglas Hospital and assurance that this will not happen again.
Even after a relatively long meeting, she still insist to take away my rights to have my personal cloths,
and to go out for a walk in the Hospital grounds as of last week! I get nothing from meeting her, so
why she asked to see me in the first place!
Wednesday 10th March 2004
Professional Misconduct
This morning around 10:00 AM, the nurse Mary Claude came to the smoking room and said dr.
Balingo wants to see you right away, you have to come to see her now! She did not even give me
couple of minutes, I was writing and I had to put all my papers in my briefcase in a hurry to go with her,
my expectation off course was to meet dr. Balingo alone in her office. The surprise was that, the nurse
opened the door to Burgess I cafeteria and invited me in. Once I went inside the cafeteria I found out
that Lydia Balingo was setting down with other five women for a meeting I was not notified to attend
and I do not know anything about. I do not know any of these people and I have nothing to do with
such a meeting. I was not notified with whom I will meet and what was the objective of the meeting! I
did not have any knowledge about the meeting or the time to prepare for it! This is professional
misconduct from Lydia Balingo.
I asked the nurse Mary Claude who are these people. There was no answer from her! Lydia Balingo
just said has a seat, and then she said in front of everyone ‘you need treatment! You will not be
discharged.’ I said I do not need any treatment and I should be discharged immediately, time is money
and you are wasting Dr. Youssef time as you did several times before.
I received a phone call on my cell phone; I took the chance and walked away to the other end of the
cafeteria to take the call. My friend Sultan said I like to talk to you about something important it will
take time. This was a good chance to leave such people and their meeting; I just told them we will talk
later and left the cafeteria to talk to Sultan.
In order to protect and defend my rights I filed a complaint to the Hospital Ombudsman.
Mental Torture
By
Dr. Lydia Balingo and her Nurses
Burgess I Pavilion-Douglas Hospital-Montreal
www.douglas.qc.ca
Friday 12th March 2004
On Friday 12th March 2004, I had the rights for having my personal cloths, to receive visitors and for
outing with friends in the Hospital grounds.
At 10:00 AM, George Samadi asked me if I would like to go out for a walk, I said sure. We went out for
a long walk for almost an hour. During the outing I get a phone call from my friend Mustapha, he said
he will come over for a visit and to take permission that I will go out the Hospital to LaSalle Mosque for
Friday prayer. I said for sure I should be able to go to the Mosque today.
By the time we were back at Burgess I Pavilion (around 11:00 AM), my friends Mustapha and Loui
came over to visit. They stayed for a while with me in my room, and then Mustapha went to talk to dr.
Balingo. I talked with Loui for almost half an hour, and when Mustapha did not came back, we went out
the room to see where he is, we found dr. Balingo in the Nursing station reviewing some files, the
nurse Mary Claude and other nurses were also in the nursing station. We wondered where Mustapha
went! He was supposed to be talking to dr. Balingo to take permission for my outing to LaSalle
Mosque.
I told Loui, let us go outside Burgess Pavilion to get some fresh air and wait for Mustapha until he
comes back. Loui went to the Nursing station and told them that we will wait for Mustapha outside the
building, they said sure, and the nurse Mary Claude opened Burgess I Pavilion door for both of us in
front of dr. Balingo and the other nurses. We waited in front of the building for about 15 minutes, and
then Mustapha came and said he was in a meeting with the Hospital Ombudsman Mrs. Francine
Bourassa as well as dr. Jean Bernard Trudeau, the Hospital Director of Professional Services. They
agreed that I would be able to go out every Friday starting next week for Friday prayer. They also
agreed that the Hospital would provide Islamic meals (Halal) starting next Monday.
I talked with Mustapha and Loui for a while in front of Burgess Pavilion, and then they had to leave for
Friday prayer. Mustapha went to get the car, Loui came with me up stairs to Burgess I, and we said
our greetings in front of the nurses at the Nursing Station.
It was noon (12:00 PM) the time for lunch, the assistant nurse (Vitalise) was standing at the Cafeteria’
s door, and I walked past him to go to the washroom before having lunch. He said with loud voice in
front of everyone: Mr. Youssef come here, I expected that he wants me to go to the cafeteria to have
lunch right away, I said I am going to my room for a few minutes and will be back. He started shouting
and said: where were you! My friend Loui was still waiting for Mustapha outside the door of Burgess I
Pavilion, when he heard that assistant nurse shouting, he knocked on the door of Burgess I and came
in front of the Nursing station to talk to the nurses and see what is going on.
All the nurses as well as dr. Lydia Balingo came outside the Nursing Station in front of the cafeteria’s
door where Vitalise was standing, dr. Balingo said: ‘Where were you, you left the Hospital!’ I said:
‘what! What is all that for! I went outside Burgess Pavilion with my friend Loui for less than half an
hour to wait for Mustapha, you were in the Nursing Station when he talked to the nurses, everyone
said ok, and the nurse Mary Claude opened the door to both of us, and Loui is still here, and
Mustapha is still outside ‘
They did not give Loui any chance when he talked to them, they just kept telling lies, they were
obviously wrong and made up their mind on something we did not know what? Loui and I could not
find any reason for their behaviour and professional misconduct. Later, I thought may be dr. Balingo
get a phone calls from the Ombudsman and The Director of Professional Services about their meeting
with my friend Mustapha, and she thought that we went over her head, so she did all of that as
reprisal. The Law prohibits any form of reprisal.
The time for Friday prayer was close, and Loui had to leave, he promised to talk to Mustapha and
phone me after the prayer. Once Loui left Burgess I, Dr. Balingo said to the nurse George Samadi to
take away my rights to have my personal cloths, to go out the unit, and to receive visitors! I said to her
in front of everyone: ‘the law prohibits any form of reprisals, and I did not do anything wrong in the first
place for reprisals, you have no excuse what so ever and reprisals for what! All what you said are lies
and it is illegal from you to take away any of my rights.’ She just walked away without saying anything!
Two hours later (about 02:00 PM), the nurse George came to the smoking room and said: ‘Dr. Balingo
wrote what she said, and you have to wear this blue piece of fabric (so called Hospital pyjama) now!’ I
did my best to explain to him that her illegal decisions are against the law and her work place
(Douglas Hospital) Code of Ethics, I asked him to go back to talk to her to cancel her illegal decisions.
He said he already talked to her and she insisted in taking away all my rights! I said: ‘Fine, it is the
work of the Hospital Ombudsman to intervene immediately to stop all the illegal reprisals.’
I asked George to wait until 03:30 PM and I will talk to him again after contacting the Ombudsman and
the Beneficiaries Committee, he said no you could do all of that later, now you have to wear the
pyjama. I said: ‘Listen, I have the right to file complaint and I have the right to take my time to phone
the Ombudsman for intervention, this is her obligation according to the law.’ He said: ‘I will only give
you fifteen minutes’!
I left a message of my complaint in the Ombudsman answer machine, and other urgent message in
her pager; I filed my complaint and asked for her immediate intervention. When she did not phone
back for about ten minutes, I phoned the Beneficiaries Committee to file my complaint and ask them
for immediate intervention to stop the reprisals. They said Mrs. Bourassa (the Ombudsman) is in her
office now, just a minute we will transfer your call.
I talked to the Ombudsman of Douglas Hospital, Mrs. Francine Bourassa; I was very much surprised
that she did not show any sign that she would come to Burgess I Pavilion to intervene to stop the
reprisals immediately according to her job obligations! I told her this is the time for you to act and
intervene to immediately stop the reprisal it is your job, you should come immediately to Burgess I
Pavilion to talk to dr. Balingo and the nurses. She just said: ‘I will send Mr. Sylvain Bernie of the
Beneficiaries Committee to meet you on Monday to write your complaint!’ I reminded her that I already
filed five complaints before, almost two weeks ago, and asked for her confirmation letters. She said:
‘sure I will do that on Monday 15th March 2002.’ Again, I reminded her to meet her job obligation
according to the Government of Quebec law to intervene immediately to stop the reprisals; again, she
said you have to wait for Mr. Bernie meeting on Monday!
There was no use to talk to her any longer.
I just wonder what her job is, as Douglas Hospital Ombudsman!
Few minutes later I received a phone call from my friend Sultan Hemed, he was already in the Hospital
with my friends Mohamed, Habib and Yasin Abd El Hakim and in their way to visit me. He asked me to
meet them at the front door of Burgess I Pavilion. By the time I went to meet them, I found out that the
nurse George Samadi already met them and asked them to leave because my right for visitation had
been cancelled. He did not give them a chance when they told him my friends Mustapha and Loui
visited me only couple of hours ago, and they have the right to visit me.
The nurse George Samadi just called the Douglas Hospital security.
It was quit a scenery and surprise for me to see my four friends surrounded by two security guards
and this person George Samadi in front of the Nursing Station, and everyone in Burgess I Pavilion just
standing around to see what is going on! Soon the Head Nurse Mrs. Solange Urban came and asked
all of us to go to the Conference Room. Soon after, she phoned the Ombudsman, dr. Balingo, and the
Nursing Director Mrs. Robyn Kershaw, they came in few minutes to the Conference room where
myself, my friends, Solange Urban and the two Security guards were seated around the table, and the
meeting started!
It was around 03:00 PM, Mrs. Kershaw introduced herself and I presented to her my Business card.
My friends talked to them about respecting their work place (Douglas Hospital) Code of Ethics as well
as The Law of the Government of Quebec. To our surprise, dr. Balingo insisted that she took the right
decisions (i.e. she never wrong!) of:
1- Taking away my right to go outside the unit of Burgess I even for a walk in the Hospital ground!
2- Taking away my right to have my personal cloths!
3- Taking away my right to receive my visitors and friends!
We expected the Ombudsman, Mrs. Francine Bourassa to meet her obligations and intervene
immediately to stop these illegal reprisals and ask dr. Balingo to cancel her illegal decisions, as well
as to respect the Code of Ethics and the Government law. However, Douglas Hospital Ombudsman
failed to meet her obligations especially when her intervention was most needed in this very abusive
situation! Mrs. Bourassa did nothing; moreover, she tried to cover-up for her (Balingo) and her staff
illegal behaviour and professional misconduct!
All of us were very surprised I showed everyone Douglas Hospital book entitled: Code of Ethics, and
The Government of Quebec Booklet and I read to them the Government law: ‘The law prohibits any
form of reprisals’ and the obligation of the Hospital Ombudsman to stop immediately the reprisals. I
told them the law is clear and the law prohibits these reprisals. The Ombudsman is here, and should
intervene immediately this is her job.
When my friends found out that these people simply cover-up for each other as one Hospital staff,
they decided that there is no use of talking to them. One of my friends (Sultan Hemed) asked to have
the paper work for their decisions. I supported the request right away, and asked dr. Balingo to write
down her three illegal decisions in the Douglas Hospital official papers and she and the Ombudsman
should sign the letter. I asked that this letter should be given to my friends before they leave the
Hospital.
Lydia Balingo said there is no way that I will give you any letter, paper work or files, she get off her
chair and just rushed out of the door and left the meeting!
Mrs. Francine Bourassa said ok you will have the signed letter by next Monday, 15th March 2004; you
are also have the right to have your files at the Hospital. The entire meeting attendants were witness
to her promise, and the unprofessional behaviour of dr. Balingo.
The meeting ended at that, just promises and no immediate intervention to stop the illegal reprisals,
then what the Government of Quebec wrote the law for!
My friends had to leave Burgess I Pavilion, escorted by two security guards! Soon after the meeting, I
had to wear this blue piece of fabric, and was told that I am not allowed to receive visitors or to leave
the unit of Burgess I! That is to see, public humiliation and almost forced total isolation which is not
healthy at all.
This happened in a McGill University Hospital!
Can this happen in Montreal-Quebec-Canada!
It is of interest to stat the fact that, Lydia Balingo’s three illegal decisions were taken right away and
only one hour after my friend Mustapha’s meeting with the Director of Professional Services and the
Ombudsman of Douglas Hospital! This is obvious reprisal.
In order to protect and defend my rights I filed a complaint.
Professional Misconduct
Restricting the Freedom of Expression
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Monday 15th March 2004
I gave four letters this morning to one of the patients (Frank, who work as a mail messenger in the
unit) to mail them to me through the Mail Room at Perry Pavilion, since I am not allowed to leave
Burgess I. The letters were addressed to some of the staff at Douglas Hospital:
1- Dr. Jean Bernard Trudeau, the Director of Professional Services.
2- Mrs. Francine Bourassa, the Ombudsman.
3- Mr. Sylvain Bernie, the Beneficiaries Committee.
4- Mrs. Robyn Kershaw, the Nursing Director.
At around 09:00 AM, Frank came back and said the nurses George Samadi and Franco Palich took
my four letters from him and he was not able to deliver them to the Mail Room. I just said: ‘what?’ I
went right away to the Nursing Station to inquire, George showed me a Doctor Order written in my file
for taking away my right for mail services, as he said he was just following orders!
According to Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics, my freedom of Expression does include my right for
sending written communication and specially during writing complaints, now I just get to know by
chance this right is also taken away for no reason what so ever and without previous notification from
the staff at the time this decision was taken!
I asked the nurse George to give me back my letters, he went inside the Nursing Station and talked
for few minutes to the Assistant Head Nurse Franco Palich, and then he came back with seven of my
unmailed letters, not four! The other three letters were addressed to:
1- Prof. Mohamed El Masry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress, the University of
Waterloo, Ontario.
2- Mrs. Louise Leduc of the Montreal News Paper La Press.
3- Mr. Loui El Maqati, Ville LaSalle, Québec.
I gave the above three letters personally to the nursing staff more than two weeks ago, I had no idea
that they were not mailed, I was not notified. I just wonder, are there any unmailed letters which were
kept in hold by the nurses for no reason what so ever!
This is obviously professional misconduct from Douglas Hospital staff.
I should be informed immediately and in writing with any decision concern me, especially under this
severe abusive situation.
Talking about the quality of services provided by Douglas Hospital staff! And the quality of the daily
life of the Hospital Users!
In order to protect and defend my right I filed complaint to the Hospital administration.
Professional Misconduct
Burgess I
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Thursday 18th March 2004
At 10:00 Am, I went with the nurse George Samadi to the Hospital Saving Office at Perry Pavilion to
get my personal identification cards. It did not take five minutes to go there from Burgess I Pavilion. In
the way back, I said I would stop for few minutes at the office of the Medical Records Department, just
next door to the Saving Office. George said: ‘No, I have a meeting!’ and tried to rush back to Burgess
I Pavilion. His behaviour was strange since we just came here from Burgess I few minutes ago and
there was no talks about any meeting! Furthermore, he knows since yesterday that we will be going to
Perry Pavilion this morning!
I insisted to stop by the office of The Medical Records Department; instead of coming with me, he
waited at the outside door. I went there to inquire about the confirmation letter for my request of my
files dated 3rd March 2004, Mrs. Donna Laflamme said I already sent the letter two weeks ago to you
at Burgess I, the Medical Secretary of Burgess I was with her and she confirmed that she had the
letter from the Medical Records Department and gave it personally to the nurse George Samadi at
Burgess I Pavilion. I was very surprised from the Professional misconduct of the Douglas Hospital-
Burgess I staff. I called George to come over, and asked them to talk to him. I was surprised that
George had nothing to say, and could not find any excuse to give to the Medical Records Department
Secretary! I said to George: ‘This is a work place, you have to be professional.’
I said: ‘I already filed complaint to the Beneficiaries Committee and the Ombudsman about your
professional misconduct on Monday 15th March 2004 for holding and hiding my outgoing mail without
my knowledge, and now this! You add to your series of professional misconducts the new act of
holding and hiding my incoming mail! This behaviour coupled with the illegal decision to take away my
right to receive visitors, which mean that I cannot send mail with my friends! This is against the
freedom of expression.’ George just said: ‘these things can happen; I will see when we return to
Burgess I where your letter is.
I asked for photocopy of the original letter, and I, as well as the Department kept a copy with my
signature:’ March 18, 2004, photocopy of the letter given directly to Mr. Youssef’.
Once we get Back to Burgess I, George went to the Nursing Station and right away came with my
letter: The Confidential letter from the Medical Records Department-Douglass Hospital and addressed
to: Hamdy Youssef, Burgess I Pavilion-Douglas Hospital. The letter was sent on 4th March 2004.
Obviously, George did know exactly where he did hide my letter. I was very much surprised and even
angry to see on the envelope the word CONFIDENTIAL, while the letter was opened and scotch
tapped and was punched with three holes to be kept in a file.
This is obviously confidentiality break and professional misconduct.
To protect and defend my rights I filed a complaint.
Professional Misconduct
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital
Friday 19th March 2004
At 09:30 AM today, one of the Hospital users (Jacob) told me he saw a letter for me at the Nursing
Station. The nurses did not mention to me that I had a letter! I went to the Nursing Station and I get
the letter from Franco Palich.
The letter was from Election Quebec and addressed to me at 6875 LaSalle Blvd.-Verdun-Montreal
(this is the address of Douglas Hospital)! I did not change my mailing address or signed a paper of
authorization to anyone to change my mailing address. Election Quebec has my home address for
fifteen years! I phoned Election Quebec and said I would like an investigation to know who contacted
you to change my address without my authorization. He said, we received a change of address
notification from the Quebec Medical Insurance Office. I said I did not notify anyone with a change of
address, my address has not been changed and I will phone the Quebec Medical Insurance office.
I talked to the nurse George Samadi; he said he sent, without my notification, some papers using my
name to the Quebec Medical Insurance Office two weeks ago to change my mailing address. George
or any other staff of Burgess I Pavilion did not notify me at the time! I did not give my permission to
anyone to change my mailing address.
This is obviously professional misconduct from the Douglas Hospital staff.
In order to protect and defend my rights I filed a complaint.
The Meeting with Dr. Balingo
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital
Friday 19th March 2004
I had a meeting in the Conference Room of Burgess I Pavilion with dr. Lydia Balingo and a nurse
around 10:00 AM. She proposed that I will be discharged from the Hospital, shall I agree to see a
psychiatrist at LaSalle clinic for a follow-up!
I refused her offer right away. I said: ‘what you did on Tuesday 10th 2004 was and is wrong. Dr.
Youssef is not mentally disturbed and has nothing to do with psychiatrists or psychiatry all together. I
should get complete discharge immediately as well as a letter of apology from Douglas Hospital.’
I also repeated my request for complete copy of my entire files at Douglas Hospital. She just said:
‘what you need your files for!’ I said: ‘it is my right according to the Access to Information Act, no
question to be asked.’
The meeting ended without any conclusion. She just wanted to know if I accept conditional discharge,
off course, I did not and I do not.
A Meeting with Sylvain Bernier
The Beneficiaries Committee
combenef@douglas.mcgill.ca
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Monday 22nd March 2004
I had a meeting with Mr. Bernier of The Beneficiaries Committee around 11:00 AM at The Conference
Room-Burgess I Pavilion-Douglas Hospital.
Mr. Bernier brought with him the Ombudsman confirmation letters for my previous complaints, and I
presented to him my new complaints against Burgess I staff for holding, without notification, my
incoming, as well as my outgoing mail. I emphasized to Mr. Bernier that this behaviour from Douglas
Hospital Staff is against my Freedom of Expression; moreover they did and are still limiting my
communications by preventing my friends from visiting me since Friday 12 March 2004.
To give him an example, I showed Mr. Bernier the envelope of the Medical Records Department letter
sent to me at Burgess I Pavilion on March 4th 2004 as confidential letter. This letter was held at The
Nursing Station of Burgess I, without my notification, from March 4th to March 18th 2004, and I only
did know about by chance when I went personally to the office of the Medical Records Department.
The confidential letter was opened by the nurses and then scotch taped and punched with three
holes for file classification. This is obviously a confidentiality break.
In addition, I showed Mr. Bernier the letter I received at Burgess I from Election Quebec, I did not sign
any authorization to change my mailing address from my home address to anyone, one of the nurses
changed my address without my notification. The Burgess I nurse, George Samadi, phoned and
mailed some paper to the Quebec Medical Insurance office to change my address and they informed
Election Quebec with that change!
This is obviously professional misconduct and confidentiality break.
I had to phone both Quebec offices to file complaints and restore my same mailing address for fifteen
years.
I asked Mr. Bernier to provide me with some information and Douglas Hospital publications, especially
the four annual reports submitted to the Board of Directors by the ombudsman, The Medical Examiner
and the Complaint Review Committee of Douglas Hospital.
Finally, I repeated my requests for reply from Mr. Marc Lasnier-Head Nurse-Intensive care unit, as well
as the official letter of dr. Balingo and Mrs. Bourassa concerning Friday 12th March 2004 illegal
reprisals. He promised to follow up my requests and talk to them.
This meeting was a follow up and information meeting. However, still the members of the Beneficiaries
committee fail to meet their obligations to intervene to stop the illegal reprisals.
They simply act as bureaucrats, they come and go and do nothing. I had similar experience with
Douglas Hospital Ombudsman, Mrs. Francine Bourassa.
Professional Misconduct
Dr. Lydia Balingo
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital
Tuesday 23rd March 2004
Today Dr. Balingo twice misused her authority as the one in charge in Burgess I Pavilion. First time
when we met by chance in the hallway, she said: ‘did your friend found another psychiatrist? He
better, otherwise you will stay here for ever!’ The second time when we met also by chance around 3:
00 PM, she said: ‘you smoke a lot, you smell!’ All of this while I am forced to live under severe abusive
situation in illegal involuntary Hospitalization, talking about her work place Code of Ethics, which state
that: Everyone should be treated with courtesy, dignity and respect and having decent daily living
conditions is a fundamental right of everyone while he is staying at Douglas Hospital.!
Confidentiality Break
The Nurse Laval
Burgess I- Douglas Hospital
Tuesday 23rd March 2004
In the evening around 7:00 PM, I went to the Nursing Station to make photocopy of few papers. The
nurse Laval could say yes or no; instead, he took my papers and went inside the Nursing Station and
start reading each page of my personal papers without my permission! I just said what you are doing.
He said just second, and kept reading. I said: ‘Ok Laval give me my papers, you should realize what
are you doing is confidentiality break and professional misconduct.’ The other nurse Andre was in the
Nursing Station and a witness of what Laval did.
Dr. Lydia Balingo Promise to Review the files
At
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital
Wednesday 24th March 2004
Around 11:00 AM, I met dr. Balingo and informed her with the letter I just received from the Medical
Records Department suggesting that I meet with her to review my complete and Entire files at Burgess
I Pavilion. She said yes, and promised to set a date for my review. She asked again, if my friend found
another psychiatrist.
The Assistant Head Nurse Franco Palich, came to see me, and said I would like to talk to your friend
Mustapha, can you ask him to come and see me. I said sure I will phone Moustapha. Then Franco
said: ‘you are ok, you do not take medication and you do not need to. We like to see you discharged
as soon as possible.’
It is worth mentioning here that, considering my previous experience with the Medical Records
Department of Douglas Hospital, as well as today’s reply to my new request, I signed an authorization
for release of my files to a psychiatrist from outside Douglas Hospital, to be sure I will have the
complete copy of my Entire files. Once she phoned the Medical Records Department, they phoned Dr.
Balingo at Burgess I Pavilion! Moreover, Dr. Balingo told me that, Dr. Renee will represent you she
already requested your files!
Dr. Lydia Balingo Promise for
Complete Discharge from
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Thursday 25th March 2004
My friend Mustapha came to visit around 01:30 PM, right away the nurses Franco Palich and George
Samadi came out of the Nursing Station-Burgess I and invited him to meet in the Conference room. I
gave them all the freedom to talk, and went to my room to check my mail.
Fifteen minutes later Mustapha came to my room and said Franco and George attended a Burgess I
staff meeting with dr. Balingo, and all of them agreed that Dr. Youssef is not mentally disturbed, is not
danger to himself or the society, he did not and does not need to take any medication, and there is no
need for hospitalization. They recommended unconditional and complete discharge from Douglas
Hospital. They said there must be misunderstanding from the staff of the Tribunal administratif du
Quebec, and dr. Balingo promised to write a report for the Tribunal recommending unconditional
discharge.
My friend Mustapha went to see dr. Balingo, she asked him to meet with himself and me at her office
in Burgess I Pavilion. We met with Dr. Balingo around 2:00 PM, she confirmed all the above to
Mustapha and me. She said I did not do any thing wrong to be at Douglas Hospital. She promised to
write a report to the Tribunal recommending complete and unconditional discharge as soon as
possible.
I asked to have a copy of her report prior to it is being send to the Tribunal, she promised to do so
and also give Mustapha a copy. After the meeting I told my friend Mustapha, that is great for now, I
cannot wait to get out of this place.
However, until now, still my rights were taken away, especially the right of visitation as well as the right
of outing in the Hospital ground.
The Wonder of the Decision Making at
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
www.douglas.qc.ca
Monday 29th March 2004
On Sunday 28th March 2004, my friend Ahmed Mequal came to visit me. The Nurses opened to him
the door and he came to my room, we talked for a while and I offered him soft drink. A nurse came to
my room and said: ‘we had a meeting in the Nursing Station and we agreed that your friend should
leave!’ We tried to talk to him, and I said: ‘you are the one who opened the door and welcomed my
friend to visit me, I do not see any reason why just now you come and ask him to leave, ok give us few
minutes until we finish our drinks and we complete our conversation.’ He said: ‘no, he has to leave
now!’
My friend just put his glass of coke, half full, on the night table and said ‘it is ok I will go now.’
Obviously, I was very disappointed and frustrated; especially my friend may feel that, this non-sense
is discrimination because he is black.
Next morning, I talked to the nurse George Samadi about restoring my right of visitation, which dr.
Balingo took it away on Friday 12th March 2004; He said he would talk to her. Today in the same
morning Dr. Balingo reversed her illegal decision of 12 March 2004 and restored my right of visitation
by all friends and visitors!
Today I have my right of visitation again, and I am very much surprised, why my right was taken from
me on 12/03/2004, and why it stayed from 12/03/2004 until 29/03/2004, in spite of filing complaints to
the Ombudsman.
On what Bases the Decisions are taken at Douglas Hospital!
Professional Misconduct
The Ombudsman and dr. Balingo
Francine.Bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
A Meeting without Notification
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Monday 5th April 2004
On Friday 2nd April 2004, I went to Friday Prayer at LaSalle Mosque, the nurse Allen was with me, he
told me there is a message to my friend Mustapha, dr. Balingo like to see Mustapha on Monday 5th
April 2004 at 2:00 PM. I said ok, I will let him know. After we returned to Burgess I Pavilion and around
3:30 PM Mustapha came and I gave him the written message. He said possibly dr. Balingo like to give
him the copy of her report for my complete discharge from the Hospital, this is good news.
On Monday at 1:30 PM, I asked the nurse George to wait with me for Mustapha outside Burgess
Pavilion. He said ok, only few minutes before the 2:00 PM meeting, George said that he phoned the
Ombudsman and she will come to the meeting! Moreover, he said I also will be in the meeting. I said
what meeting, in addition what the Ombudsman will be here for? My friend Mustapha just had a
message to see Dr. Balingo! Mustapha’s, as well as my expectation is that Dr. Balingo will give
Mustapha copies of her report for my complete discharge as of her promise in our meeting of
Thursday 25th March 2004.
The nurse George Samadi said: ‘no, Mustapha will be in the meeting just as witness!’ I just said:
‘witness for what!’ Few minutes later Mustapha came and three of us went upstairs to Burgess I unit. I
was surprised to see the Ombudsman and dr. Balingo waiting in front of the Nursing Station.
George opened the door to Burgess I Cafeteria and invited all of us, we sat down five of us around a
table for a meeting I do not know anything about, I was not notified with whom I will meet and what the
objective of that meeting.
Douglas Hospital Ombudsman, Mrs. Francine Bourassa, just started the meeting by saying that she
received a contact from the Tribunal administratif du Quebec concerning my correspondence to them
requesting my files. Instead of supporting my rights according to the Access to Information Act, Mrs.
Bourassa used threat of going to the Quebec superior court to limit my freedom of expression! I said
for sure you couldn’t.
It was obvious that Mrs. Bourassa is the one who arranged for this meeting! She had Mustapha and
my phone numbers, why she did not phone us on Friday for notification! This is misleading,
dissipative and obviously a professional misconduct from three of them: Mrs. Bourassa, Dr. Balingo
and the nurse George.
Respecting the Access to Information Act!
Professional Misconduct
Dr. Lydia Balingo and the Nurse George Samadi
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital-Montreal
www.douglas.qc.ca
Thursday 8th April 2004
According to the suggestion of The Medical Records Department-Douglas Hospital, on Wednesday
24th March 2004 Dr. Balingo promised to set a date for my review of my files at Burgess I pavilion with
her presence. It took from her two weeks to set up that date!
Today, I had a meeting with Dr. Balingo and the nurse George Samadi at the Conference Room at 02:
15 PM to review my complete and Entire Files at Douglas Hospital! This meeting ended exactly at 03:
00 PM. I was in a rush by both of them, they started the meeting by saying it is late in the after noon
and they are busy, they have work to do before they leave at 04:00 PM. They are the ones who set
up this time for the meeting and it took them two weeks to do that, so what was the hurry!
The nurse George slept in his chair during the 45 minutes meeting, and I had to talk to Dr. Balingo to
wake him up! Good examples of Douglas Hospital’s always busy staff! They are busy doing what? Dr.
Balingo kept asking me to go through the files fast because she and her sleepy nurse have no time!
I had only the chance to have a general idea about some of the papers on my files and how they were
arranged. I had almost no chance to read anything. Dr. Balingo refused my request to make
photocopy of my files, even after I offered to pay for the expenses!
I then requested another meeting to review my files and take my time to do so, she promised to set up
another date for another meeting. She never did. She failed to keep her promise; it is obvious that the
Medical Records Department suggestion to review my files with Dr. Balingo instead of complying with
my request of having the complete copy of my Entire files is not practical.
I do not have copy of my files according to the Access to Information Act until the present!
An example of why, having copy of my files is very important to protect and defend my rights:
During this 45 minutes meeting, I started by reviewing the present file (chart) at Burgess I. I was very
much surprised to find out that the first few papers in the chart are Unauthorized Leave Report,
(ULR), written by the nurse George Samadi on Thursday 4th March 2004. This report is false and
illegal since I did not leave the Hospital without authorization (I did not escape from the Hospital)!
This ULR is placed in my chart for everyone to see from dr. Balingo to the nurses working three shifts
every day. This report (ULR) gives, since 4th March 2004 until the present, the impression that Dr.
Youssef attempted to escape from the Hospital and he is high risk to leave the Burgess I unit! That is
to see, my outing even in the Hospital ground has to be restricted and supervised! This obviously,
severely affects in negative way the quality of my daily life, as well as my health, since having daily
fresh air and exercise are basic health concerns.
I had the right to leave the Burgess I unit and Pavilion unsupervised in Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday, March 2nd, 3rd and 4th 2004 without any problem what so ever, I did not leave the Hospital
without authorization.
This right for unsupervised outing in the Hospital ground obviously had been changed since the nurse
George Samadi wrote this illegal ULR report based on lies and for no reason what so ever. He himself
came to see me and said: ‘sorry, I made a mistake by writing the ULR report!’ so why this report is in
my chart since then? This report in my chart simply limits my freedom.
There was no time at the meeting to talk about the ULR report, since there were many papers in front
of me to review in a very short time, 45 minutes.
After the meeting, I talked strongly to George and asked him to remove this ULR report from my chart;
he simply, with cold blood, said he cannot do that!
This ULR report has to be removed and the nurse George Samadi has to have disciplinary action for
his professional misconduct.
To protect and defend my rights I filed a complaint.
In addition, during the meeting, I reminded Dr. Balingo with her promise to write and give me copy of
her report to the Tribunal recommending my complete and unconditional discharge from Douglas
Hospital. She promised to do so. She never did, I only had a copy from my lawyer on 10th May 2004!
I should have copy of my complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital long time ago. In fact,
professionally I should have a copy of each paper in my files once and as soon as it is included in my
own file.
Timed knowledge is timed power for self defence, especially against lies and false accusations.
Dr. Youssef was and is victim of injustice, in good part due to professional misconducts. This was and
is very serious matters, professional misconducts contributed to jeopardizing my academic reputation,
professional career as well as my personal life and financial situation since 1988 until the present
2004. Something has to be done to protect and defend my rights. I have the rights to know.
Professional Misconduct
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital Staff
Re: Régie de L’assurance Maladie
My Medical Card Renewal
Tuesday 13th April 2004
Today afternoon, I phoned the Regie de L’assurance maladi office to inquire about the renewal of
medical card. I already received the renewal forms at my home address along with the driver licence
renewal forms. I already went to their designated office and paid the required fees ($8.00) for photos,
and I already received my new driver licence mailed to my home address. However, I did not receive
my new Medicare Card yet!
The Lady who answered my phone call at The Regie de L’assurance maladi office (phone number
514-864-3411) said: ‘someone phoned us on Thursday 4th March 2004 at 03:30 PM and asked for a
change of address to 6875 LaSalle Blvd., Verdun, Quebec H4H 1R3!’ I did not give anyone my
authorization to phone on my behave and change my mailing address! My mailing address is my
home address for fifteen years now, and still the same, I should receive my Medicare card by now in
similarity to my driver licence at my home address. The lady said: ‘we already sent to you the
Medicare card at the Verdun address, but we will cancel that since you had not receive it yet, and we
will send you the new card at your home address.’
Next day, Wednesday 14th April 2004, the nurse George Samadi was not working in Burgess I, he
already told me before that he unprofessionally and un-ethically phoned to change my address
without my notification and authorization!
I talked to the nurse Danielle at Burgess I and asked her to please get my mail from the Nursing
Station, I also asked her to summarize and present my complaint to the Head Nurse Mrs. Solange
Urban. She did and came back with a letter from the Regie de L’assurance maladi du Quebec
addressed to me at: Hamdy Youssef, 6875 Boul. LaSalle, Verdun, Quebec H4H 1R3.
This old letter was in the Nursing Station since early March, and I did not receive it until today, 14th
April 2004, I asked her to have the letter with my new Medicare Card, which had been sent to me two
weeks ago. She said she did not see it at the Nursing Station!
I said my mail should not be opened by anyone, and I should receive my letters on the same day. She
said sure.
I did not get my new Medicare Card from the Nursing Station until Wednesday 28th April 2004, the
nurse George just gave me the Card with the renewal papers, and obviously he opened my mail
without my authorization. This was not the first time; he did that before with my mail from the Medical
Records Department-Douglas Hospital!
This is Professional misconduct and confidentiality break.
A Meeting with Dr. Lydia Balingo
Notification for the Tribunal (TAQ) Meeting
Burgess I
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Friday 30th April 2004
I had a meeting with Dr. Balingo this morning around 11:00 AM. She notified me with the date of the
Tribunal meeting on Monday 10th May 2004 at Dobell Pavilion-Douglas Hospital, and she
recommended that I attend the meeting with my lawyer.
Again, I requested copy of her report to the tribunal as she promised in our meeting with her and
Mustapha on Thursday 25th March 2004. I said it is more than a month now, my friend Mustapha and
me expected to have copy of your report long time ago.
She just said she did not write the report yet, but I will have a copy of her report. She repeated again,
that, she would recommend complete and unconditional discharge. Then, she asked me about the
names of my lawyer and my family doctor! I said this is confidential.
While they decline my rights and specially my right according to the Access to Information Act to have
complete copy of my files, they keep doing their best to know personal and confidential information by
direct and indirect way!
Moreover, they call this place a work place and a University Hospital!
A Meeting, Upon My Request,
To
Change the Nurse George Samadi
Burgess I Pavilion-Douglas Hospital
Monday 3rd May 2004
I had a meeting from 10:30 to 11:00 AM, with dr. Balingo, the Head Nurse, Mrs. Solange Urban, the
Assistant Head Nurse, Franco Palich and the Nurse George Samadi to study my request to change
the nurse George Samadi, for his confidentiality breaks and professional misconducts. I presented my
several complaints against him, George had nothing to say, he was wrong.
The meeting ended with the choice of the Nurse Nelia as the new nurse.
On Thursday 6th April 2004 I asked Nelia to remind dr. Balingo with my copy of her promised letter to
the Tribunal, she did, however until Friday 7th April 2004 dr. Balingo failed to meet her promise since
25th March 2004. The Tribunal meeting is next Monday 10th May 2004, and until now, I do not have
dr. Balingo’s letter. Moreover, Douglas Hospital as well as the Tribunal administratif du Quebec failed
to meet their obligations according to the Access to Information Act. Until now, I do not have complete
copy of my Entire files. Then I was invited to attend the Tribunal Meeting next Monday based on what!
How I can protect and defend my rights in such a meeting!
DOUGLAS HOSPITAL
www.douglas.qc.ca
Director of Professional Services letter
Monday May 3rd 2004
According to Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics (page 15), since I am in involuntary hospitalization, I
should receive a letter from the Hospital Director of Professional and Hospital Services (Dr. Jean-
Bernard Trudeau) stating that I was admitted to Douglas Hospital on Tuesday 10th February 2004, as
well as the reasons and conditions for my Hospitalization. However, I did not receive that letter in the
first day of the illegal involuntary hospitalization and for long time there after, I kept asking why I am
here and requested in a meeting with the Ombudsman and Dr. Balingo to receive the letter, with no
response. Then I requested that in writing (on 7th April 2004) from the Ombudsman and she informed
dr. Trudeau, however I did not receive an answer.
On Monday 3rd May 2004, I phoned around 10:00 AM, Mr. Sylvain Bernie of the Beneficiaries
Committee, he preferred that I talk to the Ombudsman (Mrs. Francine Bourassa) and said that dr.
Trudeau will meet me this week. I phoned Mrs. Bourassa and she confirmed that dr. Trudeau will meet
with me this week concerning:
1- the retained attachment to her reply to my complaints
2- his much belated letter concerning my admission and involuntary hospitalization
3- his reply to my two complaints against dr. Hani Iskandar and dr. Lydia Balingo, and
4- the Tribunal meeting next week, Monday 10th, 2004.
I asked Mrs. Bourassa, when and where I will meet Dr. Trudeau. She said she would phone him right
away and get back to me to let me know. She never did!
Around 04:30 PM, a secretary came to Burgess I Pavilion and handed me personally a letter from dr.
Trudeau (instead of informing me about the meeting). His letter was dated three days ago, Friday
30th April 2004! There were three pages attachment to Dr. Trudeau’s letter, the secretary did not say
anything about the meeting, she just handed the letter and left Burgess I Pavilion!
Douglas Hospital’s Director of Professional and Hospital Services raised many questions without
answers!
I trusted that the Beneficiaries Committee and the Ombudsman keep their word when they stated that
Dr. Trudeau would meet with me to answer personally my complaints and concerns. He must have
informed both offices that he will meet with me this week before the Tribunal administratif du Quebec
meeting next week; however I never met Dr. Trudeau as I was promised.
After almost three months of the illegal involuntary Hospitalization at Douglas Hospital, and only one
week before the Tribunal meeting, Dr. Trudeau sent the following letter:
Douglas Hospital
April 30, 2004
Mr. Hassan Hamdy Youssef
Douglas Hospital
Burgess I Pavilion
SUBJECT: decision Rendered by the Tribunal administratif du Quebec (TAQ)
Dear Sir:
Please find herewith enclosed the documents requested through Mrs. Francine Bourassa, Local
Service Quality commissioner, to which you are entitled by right and which you can use to prepare
your defence for the hearing by the Tribunal administrative du Quebec on May 10, at 10 o’clock. For
this hearing, we strongly recommend that you be accompanied by your lawyer. Should you so wish
and upon your request, we could also help you to retain the services of a lawyer, if need be.
As stipulated in the Code of Ethics currently in force at Douglas Hospital, I hereby also wish to confirm
that your current legal status under the provisions of the tribunal administrative du Quebec (TAQ) is
as follows:
‘Detention without Conditions.’
Thank you and best regards,
Jean-Bernard Trudeau, M.D.
Director of Professional and Hospital Services
Encls:
Cc: Mrs. Francine Bourassa, Ombudsman (Local Service Quality Commissioner)
Dr. Lydia Balingo
Mrs. Marguerite Lamarre- President- Review Board (Tribunal administratif du
Quebec)
Dr. Martin Lalinec-head of Division-Burgess I
Mrs. Solange Urbain, Head, Clinic Administrative-Burgess I
I was very much surprised to receive such a letter and at this time from Dr. Trudeau, while he failed to
meet his promise for a meeting to answer my complaints and concerns. His letter raised more
questions than giving answer to any of my previous questions and requests.
I wrote my reply to, the Director of Professional and Hospital Services-Douglas Hospital, Dr. Trudeau
letter. I forwarded a copy to everyone concerned.
Dr. Youssef Reply
To Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau’s letter
The Director of Professional Services
Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Monday 3rd May 2004
Mr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Douglas Hospital 35-9361 Rue Francoeur
6875 LaSalle Blvd. Montreal-LaSalle-Quebec
Montreal-Quebec H8R 2G5
H4H 1R3
Monday 3rd May 2004
Ref: Your letter dated April 30, 2004
Dear Mr. Trudeau
Today, 3rd. May 2004 around 04:30 PM, your secretary personally handed me an envelope from you
at Burgess I-Pavilion. In addition to your letter, dated April 30th, 2004, there were three pages
attachment concerning the Tribunal administratif du Quebec illegal behaviour and decisions,
concerning the crimes they committed against Dr. Youssef on Tuesday 10th February 2004.
This morning around 10:00 AM, I phoned Mrs. Francine Bourassa, the Ombudsman of Douglas
Hospital inquiring about the missed (retained) attachments in her letter with comments concerning my
complaints, as well as to inquire about your letter which I should receive on Tuesday 10th February
2004, and your reply to my two complaints against Mr. Iskandar and Mrs. Balingo.
Mrs. Bourassa informed me that you plan to meet me this week, at Douglas Hospital, either at Burgess
I Pavilion or at your office, concerning all the above, as well as the proposed meeting with the Tribunal
on Monday 10th May 2004. She promised to phone you right away and get back to me to let me know
the time and date of our meeting. Until now I did not hear from Mrs. Bourassa or your secretary about
this meeting.
In your letter of April 30th, 2004 you strongly recommended that I be accompanied by a lawyer for the
10th May 2004 meeting!
Can Douglas Hospital and The Tribunal administratif du Quebec explain legally this recommendation?
Since both of these institutions refused as recently as 23rd March 2004 my requests to have
complete copies of my paper and recording files at The Hospital and The Tribunal, since 1988 until
the present 2004.
How can I protect and defend my rights without having my files?
How can I hire a lawyer without having my files?
How the Tribunal meeting can be public without having my files?
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Canada
cc: To whom it may concern
The Tribunal administratif du Québec
Professional Misconduct, Confidentiality Break and
Intimidation attempts
Montreal-Quebec
Thursday 6th May 2004
Few days before the Tribunal meeting at Douglas Hospital on Monday 10th May 2004, some one from
the Tribunal office in Montreal phoned my lawyer Mr. Conrad Shatner and asked him if he will attend
the meeting and talked about the decisions will be made: conditional discharge from Douglas Hospital.
I was very much surprised, disappointed and angry from their contact, without my authorization, with
my lawyer. This is obviously professional misconduct, confidentiality break and an attempt from a
Government office to intimidate my lawyer to agree with and apply pressure on me, to agree with
whatever they want.
Off course I stated clearly to my lawyer that I will not accept any condition, and expressed my anger
and frustration from their continuous professional misconduct.
I trust that they get to know my lawyer’s name from his request to have copy of my files at the
Tribunal. Until now they did not comply with the Access to information Act. I did not get the complete
paper and recording files, and they get the name of my lawyer and started to apply pressure few days
before the meeting! What kind of legal professional behaviour is that!
Friday 7th May 2004
Burgess I-Douglas Hospital
Montreal
This is the last working day before the Tribunal meeting on Monday 10th May 2004 at 10:00 AM.
To be prepared to participate in the meeting, to protect and defend my rights. I should have the
following recording and paper work:
1- My complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital since 1988 until the present 2004.
2- My complete recording and paper files at the Tribunal administratif du Quebec since 1988 until
the present 2004.
3- Dr. Lydia Balingo’s letter to the Tribunal as she promised since Thursday 25th March 2004.
However, I had none; the two institutions kept refusing my repeated and continuous requests
according to the Access to Information Act. Why they deny my right to know? And what is the timed
law is written for! What they cover-up?
I talked through the weekend to my lawyer and my friends to arrange our participation in Monday
Tribunal meeting, and to be ready!
The Tribunal administratif du Québec Meeting
Dobell Pavilion-Douglas Hospital
www.douglas.qc.ca
Montreal-Quebec-Canada
Monday10th May 2004
This morning at 10:00 AM at Dobell Pavilion-Douglas Hospital-Montreal, the Tribunal administratif du
Quebec meeting was held with the participation of the Director of Professional and Hospital Services
(Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau), The Ombudsman (Mrs. Francine Bourassa), Mrs. Nathallie Tratour
accompanied the Ombudsman, Dr. Lydia Balingo of Burgess I, three members of the Tribunal office:
Mrs. (Lawyer), Mrs. (Social worker), and Dr. (Psychiatrist).
I participated in the meeting with my Lawyer Mr. Conrad Shatner, as well as five of my friends: Dr.
Amin Siafa, Dr. Abd El Aziz Fennouny, Eng. Tarak Hocine, Mr. Khaleel Hosein, and Mr. Sultan Hemed.
Before they started the meeting, they asked my friends to wait outside the meeting room until they will
be invited later! I refused, I said: ‘the Tribunal meeting is public meeting, and my friends have the right
to attend from the first moment of the meeting’, they agreed. The Tribunal lawyer was the president of
the meeting:
The meeting started by the reading of Dr. Balingo’s report to the Tribunal, I said I do not agree with
her report. The three members of the Tribunal kept asking questions to me, my lawyer, Dr. Balingo.
Dr. Trudeau and the nurse Franco Palich, just get in the conversation at one point and start talking
nonsense.
My lawyer asked the Tribunal to give my friends the chance to talk about our friendship and me
personally. They all had the chance to talk; they defended and supported me strongly against their
lies and false accusations. They were great in their support and emphasized the fact that we are one
Muslim community in Ville LaSalle and we see each other almost daily for years.
Dr. Trudeau did give small talk, which my friends and my lawyer as well as I did not agree with.
The meeting president then asked everyone to please wait outside the conference room until the
three member of the Tribunal agree on their decision:
There were three choices to choose one of them (1) unconditional discharge, (2) conditional
discharge, and (3) hospitalization until another meeting.
We waited outside the conference room for few minutes, and then they invited us back and give us
their decision:
‘UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE’
I left Douglas Hospital with my friends’ right after the meeting; we celebrated the end of this nightmare.
On Friday 14th May 2004, my friends and the Muslim community of LaSalle were very kind to have
large supper, after the sun-set prayer at LaSalle Mosque, to celebrate my discharge from the Hospital
and the end of these three stressful months for all of us.
I am very grateful for the support. They were great all along
.
Douglas Hospital-The Ombudsman’s
Francine.Bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
Reply to Dr. Youssef Complaints
31st March 2004
Douglas Hospital
Personal & Confidential
March 31, 2004
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Burgess I Unit
Burgess Pavilion
Subject: Your Letters regarding your Dissatisfaction with the Care Provided to you
at the Intensive Care Department and Burgess I Admission Unit
Dear Dr. Youssef:
Upon examination of your request and complaints, in accordance with the Complaint Examination
Procedure By-Law in force at the institution, the present renders my conclusions regarding the above-
mentioned issues, except for the medical complaints that are being handled separately by Dr. Jean-
Bernard Trudeau, Medical Examiner, as earlier informed.
· In order to complete my examination of the above-mentioned subjects, I have taken into
consideration your perception of the deplored episodes of care having occurred since you were
unwillingly brought to Douglas Hospital on February 10, 2004 by police officers who were enforcing an
order of the Commission d’examen des troubles mentaux designated by the Tribunal administratif du
Quebec (T.A.Q.), with regard to the Criminal Code, your medical record and the observations made
by the Clinical Administrators involved. But first, please refer to the following attachments:
· 1- Procés-verbal d’audience du Tribunal administratif du Québec
· 2- Décision remise a l’audience (ENGLISH TRANSLATION WILL
BE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST) :
· 3- Mandat de depot: Décision de detention Formule 49 (art. 672.57
C. cr.) ;
· 4- T.A.Q. Commision d’examen des trouble mentaux (Guide) March
2003.
In brief, despite your refusal to recognize the Commission’s jurisdiction in your well-being and the
safeguard of society, the Commission d’examen pour trouble mentaux ordered Douglas Hospital to
detain you against your will. Consequently, until further notice, this means that your treating
psychiatrist is obliged to take the means necessary to ensure that you will not leave the premises and
that staff members carry any medical orders. For any issues concerning the T.A.Q., please refer to
the following address:
Me Marguerite Lamarre, President
T.A.Q.-Commission d’examen des troubles mentaux
500, René-Lévesque Blvd. West, 21st Floor
Montréal, Qc, H2Z 1W7
File No. 200300345-Complaint Concerning Nurse Margo Bloome
Mr. Marc Lasnier, Clinical Chief Administrator of the Intensive Care Department (ICU), met with Nurse
Bloome in order to discuss and review the particular incident you have reported in writing, regarding
some comments and the authoritarian tone she would have used towards you while she was the nurse
in charge of ICU. Nurse Bloome recognized having used an inadequate tone of voice to try to exercise
some control over an episode where you refused to cooperate. The staff seemed to struggle with the
fact that you refused to be treated against your will at Douglas Hospital, for the motives you have
shared with Mr. Bernier and me, when we both visited you in ICU.
Consequently, Mr. Lasnier will provide clinical supervision to Nurse Bloome, to further the
development of her professional skills and her own awareness of counter-transference material.
Moreover, she will review her responses and better master situations where she may be challenged
by a client who does not want to cooperate to his treatment, regardless of the reasons. It is important
for a nurse to have positive communications with her client at all times, in order to gain or maintain the
trust needed to establish a therapeutic relationship. Firmness can be used on a ward, in specific
circumstances, but always for a just cause. Moreover, the Code of Ethics of Douglas Hospital
promotes courtesy between everyone: staff, clients as well as all visitors.
File No. 2003300346-Use of Isolation
On February 10, 2004, at 6 p.m., you were sent to ICU, in accordance with an order for strict
detention signed earlier by the Commission d’examen pour trouble mentaux. At 6:10 p.m., the
physician on duty at the Read Pavilion gave a telephone order authorising the use of
seclusion/restrains in case of agitation or agressive behaviour. This order was received by Nurse
Danny Berthiaume.
Since you refused to cooperate during your admission to ICU, the nursing staff unfortunately needed
to carry out the above-mentioned order. Mr. Lasnier reviewed the nursing episode during which you
were asked to put on a Johnny shirt before going into isolation room. According to Mr. Lasnier, the
nursing protocol was carried out in accordance with the applicable standards. But, I can certainaly
understand that this negative experience can be perceived as diminishing and hostile for anyone who
contests the loss of control of one’s own body in such emotionally-charged circumstances. From a
nursing point of view, it is also difficult to carry out such a team intervention.
File No. 200300376-Request for Assistance Regarding Access to your Medical Record
You have contacted the undersigned’s office regarding the fact that your request for access to
information was denied three (3) years ago. The Medical Records Department sent me a copy of the
response forwarded to your home address on December 28, 2001. Please find Annex II, a copy of the
letter sent to your attention authorising you to consult your medical record on the premises as well as
a copy of the memorandum by Dr. Lalinec, the psychiatrist replacing Dr. Mejia, who made herself
available to you for any further questions. It did not meet your approval and on January 10, 2002, you
were referred to the Commission d’accés a l’information (C.A.I.).
Furthermore, on January 25, 2002, Me Doug Mitchell, your lawyer, wrote to the Acting Director of the
Medical Records Department. In turn, the Medical Records Department directed Me Mitchell to the C.
A.I.
On February 19, 2004, I was informed that the Hospital’s Beneficiaries Committee had been given you
the address and telephone number of the C.A.I.
More recently, on March 4, 2004, you submitted a new request to access information contained in
your medical chart. On March 23, 2004, the Medical Records Department forwarded a reply to your
attention suggesting you contact Dr. Lydia Balingo, psychiatrist, who was willing to let you consult your
entire chart in her presence. If the psychiatrist’s response is not satisfactory, you may file a request
with the C.A.I., free of charge, at the following address:
Commission d’accéss a l’information
480, St. Laurent Blvd., Suite 501
Montréal, Québec, H2Y 3Y7
File No. 200300376-Complaint against Dr. Hani Iskandar, ICU’s Medical Chief
On March 12, 2004, this complaint was sent to Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau, Medical Examiner for
Douglas Hospital, who has 45 days following the date on which the complaint was forwarded to his
attention, to render his decision.
File No. 200300377-Complaint Regarding Nurses not Allowing Hallal Food
Mr. Lasnier pointed out to the undersigned that the dietician assigned to ICU was consulted and that a
special diet was set up for your need. But, Nurse Bloome, as well as other nursing staff members,
could benefit in her professional development and advanced nursing practice, to be more respective
to other cultures. Mrs. Hewitt, the Chief of Nutrition, was able to solve this problem to your satisfaction
by purchasing Hallal food directly from your Islamic community Market.
I also want to thank you for sending ‘The Truth About Islam/ Islam At A Glance’ to my attention on April
2, 2004.
File No. 200300378-Complaint Regarding Nurse Danny Berthiaume
Mr. Lansier took the time to review the episode and to meet with Nurse Berthiaume in order to discuss
how the latter had intervened while your own personal hygiene was at the center of a confrontational
issue between you and him. The way the nurse handled the situation and the wording he might have
used seemed to have contributed to antagonizing this specific situation even more. But this being
said, Nurse Berthiaume was within his right regarding the fact that, according to the Québec Civil
Code, it is not necessary to obtain an explicit court order to manage the personal hygiene of a person
who refuses to care of himself. In ICU, it seemed that other patients complained about this fact, thus
requiring the staff’s intervention. Your refusal to cooperate with the staff, based on your own personal
reasons, seemed to have triggered the application of such measures.
Mr. Lasnier has retained the necessity to provide clinical supervision to increase Nurse Berthiaume’s
savoir-faire in order to develop more skills and handle counter-transference issues. In addition, Nurse
Berthiaume will be reminded to promote a more caring approach in his relationship and
communication with patients, even when using firmness with a client displaying a negative or
uncooperative attitude.
File No. 200300379-Complaint against Dr. Lydia Balingo, Treating Psychiatrist
On March 17, 2004, this complaint was forwarded to Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau, Medical Examiner for
Douglas Hospital, who has 45 days following the date on which the complaint was forwarded to his
attention, to render his decision.
File No. 200300380-Complaint against the Ombudsman for Lack of Immediate Intervention on
Allegations of Reprisals from the Treating Psychiatrist
As explained during our telephone conversation, a treating psychiatrist has the obligation to ensure
that a patient is kept under strict detention as per the Commission d’examen du Québec and must
take all measures needed to make sure that his patient will not leave the Douglas Hospital premises.
Furthermore, you demanded that the undersigned come immediately to the unit to counteract your
doctor’s orders, which is something that I cannot do. You urged me to reverse the medical decision,
because you perceived definite reprisals when your privileges were cut back. Later, due to the
escalating tension between your visitors who refused to leave the unit and the staff members, the
Director of Nursing requested my presence to act as a facilitator, in meeting organized at the last
minute.
However, earlier that day, I had met with Mr. Mustafa, at the request of Dr. Trudeau, Director of
Professional and Hospital Services, and we looked at the possibility of arranging accompaniment for
prayers at the Mosque on the following Fridays.
File No. 200300396-Information Requested
The purpose of the following is to answer your three questions:
I- Please find herewith attached, a copy of the Rapprt annuel sur les plaints des usagers des
établissements du réseau de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec 2002-2003.
II- Please find herewith attached a copy of the Douglas Hospital Annual Report for 2002-2003.
The names of Douglas Hospital Staff were provided to you when the need arose.
III- To obtain the addresses of the various Québec Government Departments, contact
Communication-Québec at the following telephone number: (514) 873-2111; to contact the Faculty of
Medicine of McGill University, please dial the following telephone number: (514) 398-3515
We realize that your expectations may not be fully met, but we nevertheless hope that the
clarifications provided and actions taken while examining your complaints are helpful and answer
some of your concerns. However, should you disagree- for the non-medical complaint only- you may
submit your grievances, in writing, to the Ombudsman of Health and Social Services, located at 500,
René-Lévesque Blvd. West, Suite 6.400, Montréal, Qc, H2Z 1W7.
Sincerely,
The Ombudsman (Local Service Quality Commissioner),
Francine Y. Bourassa, M.A.
CC : Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau, M.D., Medical Examiner
Enclosures (3) Attachments pertaining to the T.A.Q.
Rapport sur les plaints des usagers..2002-2003
Douglas Hospital’s Annual Report 2002-2003
Francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
www.douglas.qc.ca
Douglas Hospital: The Ombudsman Letter!
The three attachments were retained until further notice!
And the Ombudsman wrote: ‘please first read the attachments!’
Dr. Lydia Balingo’s Tribunal Report
Douglas Hospital-Montreal-Quebec-Canada
www.douglas.qc.ca
Monday 10th May 2004
Dr. Balingo presented her report to the Tribunal dated 6 May 2004, in the meeting at Dobell Pavilion-
Douglas Hospital on Monday 10th 2004. Here is her report to the Tribunal administrative du Québec:
Douglas Hospital
RAPPORT POUR LA COMMISSION D’EXAMEN
IDENTIFICATION :
This is a 56-year-old Egyptian origin, single, no children, an engineer by formation, lives alone in
9361 Francoeur, apt 35, LaSalle and on social assistance.
REASONS FOR READMISSION:
Mr. Youssef has a long psychiatric history going back to 1989 with repeated admissions following
recurrent harassment of staff at Ecole Polytechnique. He was last discharged from the Douglas on
August 18th, 2000. On October 11th, 2001 he was acquitted of all charges in court and referred to
the Quebec Administrative Tribunal for follow-up of the case. At that time he was being treated by Dr.
Martin Lalinec.
Mr. Youssef did not show up for his revision December 3rd, 2001 but was placed on conditional
liberation based on the recommendation of Dr. Lalinec. He showed for his revision on January 15th,
2002, the last time he presented himself for revision and the decision rendered was for him to
continue on conditional liberation.
Mr. Youssef failed to present himself for revision of his case on 10th December 2002 and November
11th, 2002. The decision rendered by the Tribunal was to bring him back to the hospital.
On February 10th, 2004 he was brought before the Tribunal by police officers in accordance with
article 692-8b of the criminal code. During his audience he refused to cooperate, refused to sit down
and presented a threatening attitude. His attitude with the Tribunal and the fact he had no psychiatric
follow-up for over a year, he was considered danger to the public and the Tribunal’s decision was to
bring him back to the hospital for treatment
OBSERVATION OF MR. YOUSSEF SINCE HIS ADMISSION TO THE DOUGLAS:
He was kept in the Intensive Car Unit from February 10th to March 2nd, 2004 when he was
transferred to Burgess I. From what I gather in his chart he was not cooperative to questioning, to
undergoing routine admission procedures and to taking his medication prescribed by Dr. Hani
Iskandar, he was not mentally sick, that his admission was a mistake since he was finished with the
Douglas and the Tribunal in October 2001. He claimed he had not done anything wrong, had not
harassed anyone at Ecole Polytechnique in three years. For three weeks in Intensive Care Unit he
remained isolated, negativistic and feeling victimized.
On Burgess I, he presented largely similar attitude and behavior. He refused to sit when interviewed
for his first time. He just kept repeating he is not ill, should not be here. He kept going back to his false
convictions that his case was over in October 2001. He does not require the Douglas Hospital nor the
Tribunal. To make him understand otherwise his existing status with the Tribunal is impossible. He has
steadfastly refused medications. He would not divulge anything he did for three years he did not go
for psychiatric follow-up. He is guarded and hyper-vigilant for any acts of staff which he unfailingly
interprets as intended malice, persecution or discrimination; otherwise he is calm, aloof, pleasant with
others and spends his time smoking, writing or talking on his cell phone. Since March 12th, 2004
following impromptus visit by his future brother-in-law, Moustafa to Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau’s office
wanting clarification as to why Mr. Youssef was not allowed to go out, permission was given to Mr.
Youssef to go to the Mosque every Friday noon for two hours accompanied by staff. Doctor Trudeau
also advised they get a lawyer to represent him and another psychiatrist for expert evaluation.
At no time have we observed any physical aggression or threats from Mr. Youssef. He may be
annoying at times but in my opinion he is not dangerous to others or if at all, minimal.
I would also like to bring up an evaluation for dangerosity requested by Dr. Lalinec from Pinel done
during his hospitalization at the Douglas on January 17th 2000, his last admission here. Dr. Louis
Bérard from Philippe Pinel Institute concluded that despite Mr. Youssef’s severe illness, he felt that
Mr. Youssef’s dangerosity to himself or to others is extremely low and that an aggressive acting out is
highly unlikely.
PRESENT MENTAL STATUS:
I have not had any substantial interview with Mr. Youssef due to his negativistic attitude to anything
that would brand him an having a mental illness. Generally he is cooperative, alert, and well-
mannered. Mood has always been good. Speech short, noncommittal. Attitude and behaviour are
guarded and suspicious for any perceived malice. Thoughts are normal but occupied by his
delusional ideas of having been wronged. No evidence of perceptual distortions. Memory, orientation,
comprehension, abstraction seemed intact. Judgment and insight in relation to his psychiatric
condition are poor.
IMPRESSION:
Paranoid delusional disorder.
RECOMENDATION:
It is my impression that Mr. Youssef has been suffering from a psychiatric illness since a very long
time and which he fails to recognize and accept and consequently his refusal for treatment. Yet he
has been functioning relatively quietly the past three years without any treatment. The fact he has
friends around and his future brother-in-law who seems supportive to him could have been helping
him along. Based on my observation I don’t see the need to keep him further in the hospital. I feel that
he is not dangerous. He could be discharged unconditionally. Unfortunately he refuses any follow-up
or takes medications. I suggest he could be followed by his family physician but he even refused to
provide me his name.
Dr. Lydia Balingo
Psychiatrist
/hc
Typed: 2004-05-06
Douglas Hospital
Specializing in Mental Health
And Psychiatric Care
Code
Of Ethics
McGill University Collaborating Center Montreal WHO Collaborating Center
Teaching Hospital of the World Association for Research and Training
for Psychological Rehabilitation in Mental Health
Published by Douglas Hospital administration under the responsibility of the Ombudsman and the
Beneficiaries Committee. Approved by the Board of Directors on May 15, 1996.
www.douglas.qc.ca
In accordance with section 233 of the Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services, Douglas
Hospital published this Code of Ethics.
The Code of Ethics outlines the users ‘rights and responsibilities, as well as the practices and conduct
expected from staff
Legal context (page 3)
Section 3 of the Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services (R.S.Q., chapter 5.-4.2) stipulate
that:
‘For the application of this Act, the following guidelines shall guide the management and provision of
health services and social services:
1- The person requiring services is the reason for the very existence of those services.
2- Respect for the user and recognition of his rights and freedoms must inspire every act
performed in his regard.
3- The user must be treated, in every intervention, with courtesy, fairness and understanding,
and with respect for his dignity, autonomy and needs.
4- The user must, as far as possible, play an active role in the care and services which concern
him.
5- The user must be encouraged, through the provision of adequate information, to use services
in a judicious manner.’
1 Users’ rights
1.1 Rights according to the Act (page 6-9)
In accordance with the Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services, Douglas Hospital
recognizes the following users’ rights and expects its staff to respect these rights.
You have the following rights:
To information
You have the right to receive from your physician, in terms, which you can understand, all relevant
information concerning your treatment and your medication (advantages, foreseeable risks, side
effects), as well as the various alternative treatment available.
All professionals involved in your treatment must keep you informed about the nature of their actions.
To adequate services
You have the right to receive health care and social Services, which are continuous, accessible and
respectful of your human rights and your spiritual needs, whether this be from a scientific, a human or
a social perspective.
You also have the right, to the extent possible and depending on the nature of your problem, to
receive the least restrictive, least intrusive and least toxic treatments available.
To the professional and the institution of your choice
You have the right to choose the professional from whom you wish to receive health care or social
services.
To receive care in emergency situation
If your life or integrity is in danger, you have the right to receive the care that your condition requires.
Your right to receive help takes precedence over the freedom of the professional involved and binds
the institution to ensure that care is provided.
To give or refuse your consent
Before you can be submitted to an examination, sampling or any other intervention or research
project, the institution must obtain your consent, with the exception of emergency situations. Your
consent must be the result of a free (without threat or pressure) and knowledgeable (informed)
decision. The institution must obtain your consent even if you are under confinement in the institution,
unless you present a real and imminent danger to yourself or to others.
You also have the right to refuse to consent, at all times and for whatever reason. This refusal must
be the result of a free and informed decision.
To participate in decision
You have the right to participate in any decision affecting your health or well-being, especially, to
participate in the development of your treatment plan or individualized service plan. This applies as
well to any modifications made to these plans.
To be accompanied or assisted
You, or your legal representative, have the right to be accompanied or assisted by a person of your
choice (friend, family member, community worker, the Hospital’s Beneficiaries Committee or a
designated mental health community organization) when you are trying to obtain information or to
undertake procedures regarding a service provided by or on behalf of the institution or by any
professional practicing in the institution.
To be represented
If you are unable to exercise the rights recognized in the Act Respecting Health Services and Social
Services, your legal representative can exercise these rights on your behalf.
To English and French services
You have the right to receive health care and social services in either English or French.
To have access to your medical record
You have the right to have access to your chart. To obtain copies of documents or to consult your
chart, you must make a request, preferably in writing. If you desire, the Hospital will provide you with
the assistance of a qualified professional who can help you understand the clinical and social
information on these charts.
In accordance with the Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection
of Personal Information, the Hospital can temporarily refuse to give you information when, in the
opinion of your attending physician, your health could suffer serious harm.
You will have the opportunity to exercise your right to appeal such a decision.
To file a complaint or to lodge an appeal
You or your legal representative, have the right to file a complaint or lodge an appeal against the
institution, its directors or staff or on the grounds of professional or other misconduct. No one can
make you give up these rights.
1.2 Other fundamental rights (pages 10-11)
In accordance with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Quebec laws or Douglas
Hospital’s administrative regulations, you have other fundamental rights:
To confidentiality
You have the right to confidentiality of your medical record and to professional secrecy.
To respect and dignity
You have the right to be treated at all times with courtesy and dignity and with respect for your
privacy.
To decent living conditions
During your hospitalization, you have the right to the protection of your person, to decent living
conditions, to healthy food and to the regular upkeep of your clothing.
To the protection of your belongings
You have the right to protect your personal belongings.
To freedom of expression
You have the right to communicate with anyone in writing, in person or by phone without being
censored. However, this freedom could be temporarily suspended by your psychiatrist, if it is felt that
this is a best for your health!.
Even if you are under confinement in the institution, your letters will be sent immediately, without
interference, to any person appointed by the Act Respecting the Protection of Persons Whose Mental
State Presents a Danger to Themselves or to others, i.e., a lawyer, th public Curator or the tribunal
administratif du Québec.
To a complete and full defense
You have the right to consult a lawyer.
If you feel there is disparity between the rights set forth in this Code of Ethics and the way you are
being treated by staff, we suggest that you first notify your head nurse or department head. If you do
not obtain satisfaction, you should then contact the Hospital’s Ombudsman, in person or in writing.
2 Users’ responsibilities
2.1 Responsibilities according to the Act
In accordance with the Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services, you have the following
obligations, to the extent that this is feasible;
To cooperate in your treatment
You must cooperate as much as possible with Hospital staff providing your care and services, insofar
as you have consented to your treatment plan. You should make sure to obtain all relevant
information before giving or refusing your consent to care.
To cooperate in the processing of a complaint
Once you have formalized a complaint, you must provide all information, which will enable the Hospital
to examine this complaint and you must attend any meetings organized to deal with the complaint,
unless you have a valid reason.
2.2 Other responsibilities
In accordance with Douglas Hospital’s administrative regulations, you also have the following
obligations:
To take care of your person
In order to preserve as much autonomy as possible, you must take care of yourself as well as you
can. You must feed yourself, wash yourself, comb your hair and dress properly.
To take care of your belongings
You must keep an eye on your belongings.
3 Status of admitted users (pages 14-17)
If you were admitted as a user, you should ask your attending physician to advice you of your status
in the Hospital.
If your status at the Hospital corresponds to one of the three categories below, you will receive a letter
to this effect from the Hospital’s Director of Professional Services. Do not hesitate to discuss your
conditions of stay with your psychiatrist.
Psychiatric clinical examination or
Order for Confinement in a Psychiatric Milieu
According to the law regarding the protection of persons whose mental health presents a danger to
themselves or to others, you may be kept in the Hospital against your well in order to undergo a
psychiatric examination. This indicates an emergency situation and that your mental condition makes
you a real and imminent danger to either yourself or to others. Thus you may be put under preventive
confinement for 72 hours, without any prior authorization from the court.
If you object to this examination or confinement, or if you object to your representative taking this
decision on your behalf, it will be up to the court to consent on your behalf, in order to submit you to a
psychiatric examination or provide you with care.
The court will study your case at the request of either a physician, of someone having a particular
interest in you or of someone who has a reason to believe that his own safety of another person is
threatened. You must be informed of this motion, if the court considers that your mental condition is
such that you represent a real danger for yourself or for others it will authorize your confinement.
In this case you must not leave the Hospital grounds. However, you have the right to lodge an appeal
with the tribunal administrative du Québec for a review of your situation. The Hospital’s Director of
Professional and Hospital Services will advice you in writing of the exact dates of your period of
confinement.
Quebec Review Board-court order or custody or parole
If you are found unfit to stand trial, or not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, the Review
Board must hold a hearing in your case (except if a court has handed down a decision, and reach a
decision as soon as possible, but no later than 45 days after the verdict.
The Review Board must take a decision, from among the three listed below, which is the least severe
and the least restrictive of your freedom, while taking into account the necessity to protect the public,
the state of your health and your needs:
· A decision to authorize your leave without conditions, if the court or Board is of the opinion that
you do not represent a high risk to public safety.
· A decision to authorize your leave, subject to conditions set by the court or the Board.
· A decision to keep you in custody at the Hospital, subject to conditions set by the court or by the
Board.
The Review Board, which must hand down a decision in your case, can delegate to the person
responsible at the Hospital the authority to give you more or less freedom, within the limits provided by
the court order. This decision will be recorded on your medical chart and, if relevant, the Review
Board will be informed.
If you were found unfit to stand trial and the court has not handed down a decision in your case, the
court can, on request from the prosecution, take the decision that you receive treatment for a
maximum period of 60 days, subject to conditions set by the court.
However, the court cannot authorize psychosurgery or electroshock therapy or any other treatment
prohibited by regulation. The court can order treatment without your consent or the consent of your
representative. The court cannot hand down a decision without having previously obtained the
agreement of the Hospital in which you must receive treatment. As long as you are under custody, the
Review Board will grant you a hearing every 12 months. Meanwhile, you cannot leave the Hospital
grounds during the entire duration of the court order or of the custody, unless the Review Board has
provided for certain exceptions.
Court order-mandate of observation and assessment
In this case, you are under court jurisdiction at the Douglas Hospital. In fact, a judge can order that
you be kept in a health care institution for psychiatric observation for a certain number of days, if he is
convinced that such an observation period is required. You can regain your freedom at any time
during this procedure, by decision from the court. Meanwhile, you cannot leave the Hospital grounds
until the court order expires.
7 Beneficiaries Committee (Users Committee- pages 19-20)
The mandate of the Beneficiaries Committee, According to the Act Respecting Health Services and
Social Services, is to promote and defend the rights and the collective interests of users, or upon
request, to accompany or assist a user in lodging a complaint to the Ombudsman, the Regional Board
or the Complaints Commissioner. This committee consists of at least five members elected by users,
with the majority being users as defined by the law.
In addition, the Committee must promote the improvement of the quality of life of users and evaluate
the satisfaction of users with regard to services provided by the hospital.
If you have concerns regarding the collective interests of users, or if you need information about your
rights and responsibilities, please contact the Beneficiaries Committee, Newman Pavilion, Room H-
2123, (514) 761-6131, Ext. 2273, 2280.
combenef@douglas.mcgill.ca
8 Ombudsman (page 20)
The Ombudsman must insure the promotion and protection of the individual rights of users. All users
or their legal representative have the right to receive help from the Ombudsman, whether they are
inpatients or living in the community.
Furthermore, the Board of Directors has authorized, by resolution, the designated senior
management officer to delegate to the Ombudsman the mandate to receive and examine all users’
complaints, except for the examination of medical, dental or pharmaceutical complaints, which are
processed by the Council of Physicians, Dentists and Pharmacists. For additional information, please
consult the publication Summary of the Complaint Examination Procedure.
If you feel your rights have infringed, it is suggested that you first speak with the manager involved. If
this proves to be difficult, you can contact the Ombudsman who will help you or direct you to the
appropriate persons or recourse:
Newman Pavilion, H-2122, (514) 761-6131, Ext: 2255, or 3287.
Francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
www.douglas.qc.ca
Douglas Hospital
Montreal
2003
Complaint Examination
Procedure By-Law
Adopted by
The Board of Directors of the Douglas Hospital
Adopted May 15, 2002
Amended June 25, 2003
NOTICE TO THE READER:
With the author’s permission, this draft by-law has been adapted from the projest- Type de Réglement
sur la procédure d’examen de plaintes usagers, prepared by the Association des CLSC et des
CHSLD du Québec and the Association des hopitaux du Québec, 2002.
Douglas Hospital June 2003
www.douglas.qc.ca
By-Law regarding the User Complaint Examination Procedure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREAMBLE 4
SECTION 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 5
SECTION 2 MAKING AND RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT 8
SECTION 3 DEALING WITH A COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE
INSTITUTION BY THE OMBUDSMAN 11
SECTION 4 DEALING WITH A COMPLAINT CONCERNING A PHYSICIAN,
DENTIST, PHARMACIST OR MEDICAL RESIDENT
BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER 14
SECTION 5 HANDLING OF A REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY THE
REVIEW COMMITTEE 17
SECTION 6 USER’S COMPLAINT RECORD 19
SECTION 7 ANNUAL-REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE
COMPLAINT EXAMINATION PROCEDURE AND
IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICES 20
SECTION 8 FINAL PROVISIONS 21
www.douglas.qc.ca
PREAMBLE
www.douglas.qc.ca
WHEREAS the raison d’étre for an institution is the person who receives its services;
WHEREAS respect for users and acknowledgement of their rights and freedoms must guide the
actions taken on their behalf;
WHEREAS users must, in any intervention be treated with courtesy, fairness and understanding, with
respect for their dignity, autonomy and needs;
WHEREAS the purpose of the institution is to insure the delivery of quality, continuous and accessible
health and social services that respect the rights of individuals and their spiritual needs and to reduce
or resolve problems of health and cares of the populations;
WHEREAS every person is entitled to receive adequate health and social services on the medical,
human and social levels, with continuity and in a personalized manner, while taking into account the
legislative and regulatory provisions governing the organized and operation of the institution as well
as its human, physical and financial resources;
WHEREAS the user has the right to file a complaint concerning the services he received, ought to
have received, is receiving or requires from the institution, an intermediatiary or family-type resource
or from any other organization, partnership or person to which or whom the institution has resource, in
particular by an agreement under section 108 of the Act for the provision of those services;
WHEREAS the user who so requires, has the right to assistance in preparing a complaint and in all
other proceedings with respect thereto;
WHEREAS the user has the right to a responsible, confidential and diligent examination of his
complaint, without risk of reprisal;
WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the board of directors of the Douglas Hospital to ensure the quality of
services, the respect of users’ rights and the diligent handling of user complaints;
WHEREAS the board of directors must draft a by-law establishing a user complaint examination
procedure;
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HEREBY ENACTS THE BY-LAW CONCERNING THE USER
COMPLAINT EXAMINATION PROCEDURE OF THE DOUGLAS HOSPITAL.
SECTION 1-GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Purpose and field of application
This by-law is intended to establish the procedure for implementing procedures in respect of the
examination of complaints by the Douglas Hospital, in accordance with the Act Respecting Health and
Social Services (R.S.Q., c. S-4.2).
2. Preamble
The preamble forms an integral part of this by-law.
3. Title
The short title of this by-law is ‘User complaint examination procedure.’
4. Responsibility for application
The Ombudsman (local service quality commissioner) of the Douglas Hospital is responsible for
applying the user complaint examination procedure.
5. Definitions
In this by-law, unless the context dictates otherwise, the following expressions or terms shall mean:
a) Act- the Act Respecting Health And Social Services (R.S.Q., c. S-4.2);
b) C.P.D.P.- the institution’s council of physicians, dentists and pharmacists;
c) Community organization –an organization mandated by the minister in accordance with section
76.6 of the Act, to assist and support on request, a user who wishes to file a complaint with the
institution of the Health and Social Services Ombudsman;
d) Complaint- any dissatisfaction expressed verbally or in writing by a user to the ombudsman
regarding the services he received, ought to have received, is receiving or requires from the
institution, an intermediary resource or family-type resource or any other organization, partnership or
person to which or whom the institution has recourse, in particular by an agreement provided under
section 108 of the Act, for the provision of those services;
e) Complaint against a physician, dentist, pharmacist or resident- for the purpose of section 4,
the dissatisfaction in respect of the quality of services by any person to the ombudsman concerning
the conduct, behaviour or competence of a physician, dentist, pharmacist or medical resident as well
as any dissatisfaction in respect of the quality of an act pertaining to the professional practice of such
persons constitutes a complaint; an allegation of failure to comply with the by-laws of the institution or
failure to respect thye terms of the resolution to appoint or renew the appointment of a physician,
dentist or pharmacist also constitutes a complaint;
f) Executive director- the executive director of the institution;
g) Health and Social Services Ombudsman- the Ombudsman appointed by the government under
the Act Respecting the Health and Social Services Ombudsman and amending Various Legislative
provisions (S.Q. 2001, c. 43);
h) Institution- The Douglas Hospital which includes any intermediary or family-type resource
organized under its responsibility, and the Douglas Hospital Research Center;
i) Local commissioner- the Ombudsman appointed by the board of directors of the institution, on
recommendation of the executive director; hereafter called the Ombudsman;
j) Medical Examiner- the physician named by the board of directors in accordance with section 42
of the Act;
k) Minister- the Minister of Health and Social Services;
l) Outside resource- an intermediary or family-type resource or any other organization,
partnership or person to which the institution has recourse, in particular by an agreement under
section 108 of the Act for the provision of those services;
m) Review committee- the committee established by the board of directors to review the handling
by the medical examiner of a complaint concerning a physician, dentist, pharmacist or resident;
n) Services- health or social services offered by the institution, an intermediary or family-type
resource or any other organization, partnership or person to which or whom the institution has
recourse, in particular by an agreement under section 108 of the Act for the provision of those
services. Also included are the services dispensed by physicians, dentists, pharmacist and residents;
o) Staff- any personnel member of the institution, intern, volunteer or contracted party working in
the institution, as well as any physician, dentist, pharmacist or resident called upon to intervene in
respect of a user in the exercise of his functions or profession;
p) Substitute medical examiner- the physician appointed by the board of directors to carry out the
duties of the medical examiner, when the medical examiner is the subject of a complaint, or has a
conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest. Each year, the board of directors, on the
recommendation of the council of physicians, dentists and pharmacists, shall appoint tw0 (2)
substitute medical examiners;
q) User- any person, who has received, ought to have received, is receiving or requires services
from the institution. This term includes, as the case may be, any representative of the user within the
meaning of section 12 of the Act as well as any heir or legal representative of a deceased user. For
the purposes of section 4, the term ‘user’ also includes any person other than a user who has made a
complaint against a physician, dentist, pharmacist or resident, as well as any human subject involved
in a research;
r) Users’ committee- the committee set up in any hospital center for psychiatric care which has
among others the function of assisting and aiding, on request, any user who wish to file a complaint;
s) User representative- any person recognized as a user’s representative in accordance with
section 12 of the Act;
t) Written complaint- a complaint is deemed written when it is made in such a manner that it is
possible to recognize the signature of the person filing the complaint. A complaint, even if written but
not signed by its author, cannot be deemed a written complaint.
SECTION 2-MAKING AND RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT
6. Making the complaint
A user may make a written or verbal complaint. The complaint must be sent to the Ombudsman. When
a user intends to formulate a complaint, he shall be referred to the Ombudsman, and any intervention
party must provide the user with the information required allowing the user to rapidly access the
services of the Ombudsman. For these purposes, the executive director shall take the necessary
means to insure that the information regarding the making of the complaint and how it is processed
becomes public knowledge.
7. Procedure
Any intervention party who receives a written complaint from a user must promptly send it to the
Ombudsman.
In exception cases, depending on the circumstances, in particular an emergency or the state of the
user, an intervening party may make the user’s verbal or written complaint by completing the form to
such effect and sending it promptly to the Ombudsman.
8. Content of the complaint
A complaint must contain at least the following elements:
- The date;
- The last name, first name, address and telephone number of the user;
- The clinical service or care unit identified in the complaint, if applicable;
- Where the complaint is made by the user’s representative, the last name, first name, address
and telephone number of such representative;
- The last name, first name, address and telephone number of the person, the users’ committee,
or community organization assisting the user, if applicable;
- The reason for the user’s dissatisfaction;
- A statement of the facts;
- The expected outcome, if applicable.
9. Assistance
The Ombudsman must assist or ensure that assistance is provided to the user in preparing the
complaint or with any steps taken in respect thereof, including with the review committee.
The Ombudsman must inform the user that the users’ committee of the institution or the local
community organization can provide assistance and support.
Every user has the right to be supported and assisted by any person of his choice
10. Information to the user
The Ombudsman shall provide, upon request from the user, any information concerning the
application of the complaint examination procedure. As well, the Ombudsman must inform the user
regarding the legal protection afforded to any person who cooperates in the examination of a
complaint.
11. Receipt of the complaint
On receipt of the complaint, the ombudsman records the date of receipt on the form provided for such
purposes and opens a complaint record.
12. Notice of receipt
The Ombudsman must, as soon as possible after the date on which the complaint is received, inform
the user in writing.
This notice must indicate:
· The date of receipt of the complaint;
· Where the complaint concerns a physician, dentist, pharmacist or resident, the date of its
transfer to the medical examiner;
· The name of the users’ committee of the institution and of the community organization of the
Montréal region and the time limits prescribed by law for examining the complaint or, if applicable, the
date of the transfer to the medical examiner;
· That if the Ombudsman fails to communicate the outcome of the complaint examination within 45
days, the user shall have a right of recourse to the Health and Social Services Ombudsman, or in the
event of such failure by the medical examiner, a right of recourse to the review committee;
· In all cases, the recourses available to the user who disagree with the conclusions of the
Ombudsman or, if applicable, the medical examiner.
13. Transfer of the complaint by the ombudsman
When the complaint concerns a physician, dentist, pharmacist or medical resident, the Ombudsman
shall promptly transfer the complaint to the medical examiner. The ombudsman shall transfer any
writings or documents in respect of such complaint.
However, when the complaint pertains to administrative or organizational problems involving medical,
dental or pharmaceutical services, the complaint is examined by the Ombudsman in accordance with
the provisions of section 3, unless the Ombudsman deems, after consulting with the medical
examiner, that such complaint concerns one or more physicians, dentists, pharmacists or residents, in
which case the complaint will be transferred to the medical examiner.
14. Notice to an outside resource
In the case of complaints in respect of services given by an outside resource to which the institution
has recourse for the provision of services, the Ombudsman shall inform the authority concerned, and
if the complaint is in writing, shall send a written notice to the authority.
SECTION 3- DEALING WITH A COMPLAINT BY THE OMBUDSMAN
15. Admissibility of the complaint
The Ombudsman shall assess the admissibility of the complaint by ensuring that it is made by a user
and pertains to services offered by the institution or by an outside resource to which the institution
has recourse for the provision of those services.
16. Lack of jurisdiction
When a complaint or one of the reasons for the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the
institution, the Ombudsman may, with the consent of the person concerned, inform the competent
authority.
17. Frivolous, vexatious or complaint made in bad faith
The Ombudsman may, on summary examination, dismiss any complaint that, in the Ombudsman’s
opinion, is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. The ombudsman shall so inform the user and, if
the complaint is in writing, send the user a written notice, and place a copy of his decision in the user’
s complaint record.
18. Notice of examination
The Ombudsman shall promptly send a written notice to the user, and if applicable, to the department
head or division manager concerned within the institution, or as the case may be, to the highest
authority of the outside recourse that is the subject of a complaint when contemplated by his decision
to examine such complaint. The notice must state that each party may present arguments and shall
set out the procedures as to how such arguments may be made. For these purposes, the
Ombudsman shall establish procedures that permit all parties to present their arguments as easily as
possible.
19. Mediation
The Ombudsman who examines a complaint acts as a mediator. The Ombudsman must weight the
merits of the complaint and, based on the facts and circumstances that gave rise to such complaint,
propose to the persons concerned any solution likely to mitigate the consequences or avoid its
repetition. The Ombudsman may, moreover, make any recommendation he deems appropriate.
20. Notice of meeting
The Ombudsman may call any person to a meeting and request such person to provide any
information that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, would be useful to the examination of the complaint.
When the person who is summoned by the Ombudsman or required to provide information is an
employee of the institution or practices his profession in the institution, such person must comply with
the Ombudsman’s request. Except with a valid excuse, any other person must attend a meeting called
by the Ombudsman.
21. User’s record
The Ombudsman shall have access to the user’s record and to any information or document
contained therein.
22. Consultations
The Ombudsman may consult any person whose expertise is deemed useful. If the board of directors
so authorizes, the Ombudsman may consult any outside expert.
23. Disciplinary questions
During the course of the examination, where a practice or conduct of an employee raises questions of
a disciplinary nature, the Ombudsman shall inform the competent authority of the institution and the
human resource director or the outside resource for review and decision.
24. Examination of disciplinary question
The authority contemplated by section 23 must diligently examine the complaint and from time to time
report to the Ombudsman on the progress of the investigation.
The Ombudsman must be informed of the outcome of the case and of any disciplinary measure taken
against the employee concerned. The Ombudsman must in turn inform the user in writing.
25. Conclusions and time limits
The Ombudsman must diligently examine the complaint. The Ombudsman must communicate the
conclusion of his examination to the complaint no later that 45 days following receipt of such
complaint, accompanied, if applicable, by the recommendations he transmitted to the competent
authorities.
The Ombudsman must also inform the user of the recourses he may exercise before the Health and
Social Services Ombudsman and how to exercise these recourses.
26. Presumption
When the Ombudsman fails to respect the time limit stipulated in section 25, the Ombudsman is
deemed to have communicated negative conclusions to the complainant, who may then exercise his
right of recourse to the Health and Social Services ombudsman.
27. Report or recommendations
The Ombudsman may transmit to the board of directors any report or recommendations pertaining to
the improvement of the quality of the services as well as to user satisfaction and respect of their
rights. The board of directors shall examine any recommendation or report transmitted by the
Ombudsman and makes such decisions it deems appropriate under the circumstances.
28. Refusal to act upon a recommendation
When the department or service manager concerned by the complaint within the institution, or as the
case may be, when the highest authority of the outside resource that is the subject of a complaint
does not intend to act upon a recommendation made in the Ombudsman’s conclusions, the
Ombudsman may submit to the board of directors any report or recommendation pertaining to the
improvement of the quality of the services as well as to user satisfaction and respect of their rights.
The board of directors shall examine any recommendation or report transmitted by the Ombudsman
and makes the decision it deems appropriate under the circumstances.
29. Disciplinary measures
When he is informed that a disciplinary measure has been taken regarding a personnel member of
the institution following a user complaint, the Ombudsman must so inform the board of directors. If the
gravity of the complaint so justifies, the Ombudsman may, at any time, so inform the board of directors.
If, in the opinion of the board of directors, the gravity of a complaint against an employee of the
institution who belongs to a professional order so warrants, the board shall transmit the complaint to
the professional order concerned and notify the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall inform the user
in writing of this decision by the board of directors. When disciplinary measures are taken against a
professional, the executive director must inform the professional order in writing. The Ombudsman
must also be informed who in turn must send a written notice to the user.
30. Obligation of the executive director
The executive director of the institution must expeditiously send to the board of directors any report or
recommendation transmitted by the ombudsman under this by-law.
SECTION 4- DEALING WITH A COMPLAINT CONCERNING A PHYSICIAN, DENTIST, PHARMACIST
OR MEDICAL RESIDENT BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER
31. Frivolous, vexatious or complaint made in bad faith
The medical examiner may, on summary examination, dismiss a complaint if, in the medical examiner’s
opinion, it is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. In such a case, the medical examiner shall
inform the complainant and if the complaint is in writing, send a written notice. A copy of the medical
examiner’s decision shall be placed in the user’s complaint record and the Ombudsman shall also be
informed.
32. Preliminary evaluation
The medical examiner must, as soon as possible after the complaint is brought to his attention,
proceed with the preliminary evaluation of the complaint in order to determine the most appropriate
method of handling the complaint in light of the available information.
33. Disciplinary sanctions
After preliminary evaluation, the medical examiner may, if in his opinion the complaint pertains to facts
that could entail the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, decide to send the complaint concerning a
member of the council of physicians, dentists and pharmacists to such council for examination in
accordance with the rules in effect at the institution. When such a council does not exist or when the
complaint concerns a resident, the medical examiner may, in the same manner, send the complaint to
the competent authority. In all cases, the medical examiner must transmit a copy of his decision to the
person named in the complaint. The medical examiner shall also inform the complainant and the
Ombudsman.
34. Follow-up report
The medical examiner must, every 60 days from the date on which the complainant was informed that
the complaint was referred to a disciplinary committee for examination, inform the complainant in
writing on the progress of the investigation.
35. Examination by the medical examiner
The medical examiner may, after preliminary evaluation of a complaint, decide to proceed with his own
examination in the manner described in sections 36, 43.
36. Notice of examination
The medical examiner shall promptly send a written notification to the complainant as well as to the
person contemplated by the complaint of his decision to examine such complaint. The notice must
state that each party may present his argument and shall set out the procedures as to how such
arguments may be made. For these purposes, the Ombudsman shall establish procedures that permit
all parties to present their arguments as easily as possible. The notice sent to the person named in
the complaint must state that such person may access the user’s complaint record and set out the
modalities to this end.
37. Mediation
The medical examiner who examines a complaint acts as a mediator. The medical examiner must
weight the merits of the complaint and, based on the facts and circumstances that gave rise to such
complaint, propose to the persons concerned any solution likely to mitigate the consequences or
avoid its repletion. The medical examiner may, moreover, make any recommendation he deems
appropriate.
38. Notice of meeting
The medical examiner may call any person to a meeting and request any person to provide
information that, in the medical examiner’s opinion, would be useful to the examination of the
complaint. When the person who is summoned by the medical examiner or required to provide
information is an employee of the institution or practices his profession in the institution, such person
must comply with the medical examiner’s request. Except with a valid excuse, any other person must
attend a meeting called by the medical examiner.
39. User’s record
The medical examiner shall have access to the user’s record and to any information or document
contained therein.
40. Consultations
The medical examiner may consult any person whose expertise is deemed useful. If the board of
directors so authorizes, the medical examiner may consult any outside expert.
41. Transfer of the complaint
If the medical examiner deems that the facts submitted to him for examination could entail the
imposition of a disciplinary sanction, he may, during the examination, transfer the complaint to be
handled in accordance with section 33.
42. Conclusions and time limit
The medical examiner must proceed diligently and communicate the conclusions of his examination to
the complainant no later than 45 days following the date on which, the complaint was transferred to
him by the Ombudsman. The medical examiner must also inform the complainant of the right of
recourse he may exercise before the review committee and how to exercise this right. The medical
examiner shall transmit a copy of his conclusions to the person made in the complaint as well as to the
Ombudsman.
43. Presumption
When the medical examiner fails to respect the time limit set out in section 42, he shall be deemed to
have transmitted negative conclusions to the complainant, who may then exercise his recourse before
the review committee.
44. Report or recommendation
The medical examiner may transmit to the board of directors and, if applicable, the council of
physicians, dentists and pharmacists, any report or recommendation that he deems useful in the
performance of his functions. A copy of the report or recommendation shall be sent to the
Ombudsman.
45. Transfer to a substitute medical examiner
When the medical examiner is the subject of a complaint, or has a conflict of interest or an
appearance of a conflict of interest with respect to the complaint under examination, he shall inform
the Ombudsman who will excuse him from examining the complaint, and will then transmit the
complaint to a substitute medical examiner for examination.
SECTION 5- DEALING WITH A REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
46. Request for review
A complainant who disagrees with the conclusions transmitted or deemed to have been transmitted by
the medical examiner may request to have them reviewed by the review committee. Such request
must be made in writing and sent to the chair of the committee at the address of the administration of
the Douglas Hospital accompanied, if applicable, by the medical examiner’s conclusions.
47. Reason for the request and exclusions
A request for review must relate to the examination of the complaint by the medical examiner. It may
not relate to the summary dismissal of a complaint or to the medical examiner’s decision to forward the
complaint for disciplinary reciew.
48. Time limit
The request for review must be made within 60 days following receipt of the conclusions for which the
review is requested or the expiration of the time limit set out in section 42 if such conclusions have not
been transmitted. The review committee may receive a request beyond the time limit if it deems the
complainant could not have acted sooner.
49. Assistance
The Ombudsman must provide assistance to any person who wishes to submit a request for review, in
particular, by helping him with the preparation of the request and with any steps taken with the users’
committee of the institution or the competent community organization.
50. Notice of receipt
The chair of the review committee shall promptly send a written notification to the person who
requested a review of the date the request was received. The notice must state that each party may
present its arguments and set out the procedures as how such arguments may be made. The chair
shall send a copy of the notice to the medical examiner, the person named in the complaint and the
Ombudsman.
51. Complained record
The medical examiner shall transmit the complaint record to the review committee within five (5) days
of receipt of the notice stipulated in section 49.
52. Review
The review committee shall examine the complaint record and determine whether the medical
examiner examined the complaint diligently and fairly. The review committee must also ensure, if
applicable, that the conclusions of the medical examiner respect the rights of the parties as well as the
applicable professional norms and standards.
53. Notice of meetings
The review committee may call any person to a meeting and request any information it deems useful
to the examination of the complaint. When the person summoned by the review committee or required
to provide information is an employee of the institution or practices his profession in the institution,
such person must comply with the request of the review committee. Except with a valid excuse, any
other person must attend a meeting called by the review committee.
54. User’s record
The review committee shall have access to the user’s record and to any information or document
contained therein.
55. Jurisdiction
The review committee must make one of the following decisions:
a) Confirm the conclusions of the medical examiner;
b) Require the medical examiner to make an additional examination within the delays prescribed
by the committee and transmit his new conclusions to all the parties concerned as well as to the
Ombudsman,
c) Forward the complaint to be handled in accordance with section 33 (dismissal for disciplinary
purposes) when it concerns a physician, dentist or pharmacist, to the C.P.D.P.;
d) Forward the complaint to be handled for disciplinary purposes by the concerned authority in
virtue of subsection 2 of section 506, when the complaint concerns a resident;
e) Recommend to the medical examiner, or if applicable, to the parties themselves, any
reconciliatory measures.
56. Decision
The review committee must reach a decision and give reasons that may include a dissenting opinion
within 60 days following receipt of the request for review and send a written copy to the parties
concerned and to the Ombudsman.
57. Final decision
The decision of the review committee shall be final and not subject to review.
58. Report and recommendation
The review committee may transmit to the board of directors and, if applicable, to the council of
physicians, dentists and pharmacists any report or recommendation it deems useful in the
performance of its functions with copies to the Ombudsman and to the Health and Social services
Ombudsman.
SECTION 6- USER’S COMPLAINT RECORD
59. Creation of a complaint record
A complaint record shall be created and kept by the ombudsman or, if applicable, by the medical
examiner.
The user’s complaint record is confidential and shall not be accessed except in accordance with the
law.
60. Content of the user’s complaint record
Subject to a regulation adopted under section 505, subsection 23 of the Act, the user’s complaint
record must include any documents pertaining to the complaint and its handling produced or received
by the Ombudsman, and if applicable, by the medical examiner or the review committee.
61. Transmission to the Health and Social Services Ombudsman
The Ombudsman must, within 5 days of receipt of the written communication contemplated in section
10, subparagraph 4 of the second paragraph of the Act Respecting the Health and Social Services
Ombudsman and amending various legislative provisions (L.Q. 2001, chapter 43), transmit a
complete copy of the complaint record to the Health and Social Services Ombudsman.
62. Prohibition
No document in the user’s complaint record may be placed in the record of a personnel member or of
a CPDP member of the institution. However, the reasoned conclusions of the medical examiner and, if
applicable, the accompanying recommendations, may be placed in the record of a member of the
CPDP.
63. Conservation and destruction
Following its closure, the complaint record shall be kept for the period stipulated in the by-laws of the
institution. At the end of such period, the Ombudsman shall see to its destruction.
SECTION 7- ANNUAL REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE COMPLAINT EXAMINATION
PROCEDURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICES
64. Annual report of the institution
The Ombudsman shall prepare the report stipulated in section 76.11 of the Act no later than the date
set by the board of directors.
65. Annual report of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman must transmit to the board of directors an annual report describing in particular, the
number of and reasons for the complaints received the number of complaints dismissed on summary
examination, examined or abandoned. The annual report must indicate the time taken to examine the
complaints, to carry out the follow-ups as well as the number of complaints that gave rise to an
application to the Health and Social Services Ombudsman and the reasons for those complaints.
The annual report must also contain the Ombudsman’s recommendations for improving the quality of
the care and services. The report may contain any other recommendation the Ombudsman deems
appropriate.
66. Annual report of the medical examiner
The medical examiner must transmit to the board of directors and, if applicable, to the council of
physicians, dentists and pharmacists, an annual report describing, in particular the number of
complaints transferred to him, the number of such transfers dismissed on summary examination, the
number directed in accordance with sections 33 and 41, as well as the reasons for the complaints
examined. The annual report must also contain the medical examiner’s recommendations for
improving the quality of the care and services. The report may contain any other recommendations
the medical examiner deems appropriate. A copy of such report shall be transmitted to the
Ombudsman.
67. Annual report of the review committee
The review committee must transmit to the board of directors and, if applicable, to the council of
physicians, dentists and pharmacists, an annual report describing, in particular the number of
requests it received, the reasons for such requests, the decisions it rendered as well as the time
taken to examine the requests for review. The annual report may also contain the recommendations
of the review committee for improving the quality of the care and services. The report may contain any
other recommendation the review committee deems appropriate. A copy of such report shall be
transmitted to the Ombudsman as well as to the Health and Social Services Ombudsman.
SECTION 8- FINAL PROVISIONS
68. Reprisals
The Ombudsman, the medical examiner or the review committee must intervene, in the manner it
deems appropriate and without delay, when informed that a person who filed or plans to file a
complaint has been subjected to reprisals of any nature whatsoever.
69. Effective date
This by-law shall come into force on April 1, 2002 after its adoption by the Board of Directors of the
Douglas Hospital. It shall not apply to complaints concerning a physician, dentist or pharmacist
received prior to this date.
www.douglas.qc.ca
Government of Québec
Le Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ)
Commission des troubles mentaux (CETM)
Guide March 2003
FOREWARD
The law has a special way of dealing with mentally disturbed people who have committed an offence.
They receive a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. They are not found
guilty of the charges brought against them and yet they are not acquitted. Therefore, they are not
automatically released. First, the importance of the threat they represent for the safety of the public
has to be assessed.
It is the responsibility of the Commission d’examen des troubles mentaux (CETM) to carry out this
assessment and, if necessary, to decide what measures should be taken to ensure the protection of
society.
The CETM is one of the least known of the administrative tribunals. In fact, most people have never
heard of it and those who are aware of its existence often know very little about its purpose, duties,
powers, responsibilities and operation.
This guide was designed for all those involved in its operation in any capacity.
This guide is divided into five parts:
Part 1: Presentation of the CETM and its operation;
Part 2: Description of the pre-hearing procedure-deadlines, notices to the parties, calling of
witnesses, place where hearings are held, etc.;
Part 3: Everything related to the hearings-the parties, their rights, the evidence, the conduct of a
hearing, etc.;
Part 4: Responsibility for the follow-up to the decisions rendered by the CETM;
Part 5: Other procedures related to the hearing.
The content of this guide has no effect as regulation or rules of practice and procedure. Moreover,
this guide is not a compilation of legal guidelines or directives.
Section 2, 16 and 672.95 of the Criminal Code remain the reference for anyone wishing to become
acquitted with the manner in which criminal law handles mental disorder. It provides special rules to
govern the proceedings held before the CETM. The provisions of the Act respecting administrative
justice or those of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal administrative du Québec do not apply
within the context of those proceedings.
THE COMMISSION D’EXAMEN DES TROUBLES MENTAUX
A TRIBUNAL
1. The Commission d’examen des troubles mentaux (CETM) is an administrative tribunal
established under the Criminal Code. It renders decisions (it makes no recommendations or
suggestions) that are binding in the same capacity as judicial court decisions.
Since April 1, 1998, its duties are carried out by the social affairs division of the Tribunal administratif
du Quebec (TAQ).
THE CETM CAN ONLY ACT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A HEARING
2. The CETM acts within the framework of hearings held in accordance with the provisions of the
Criminal Code following the subpoena of witness. A decision can be reviewd, made more specifice or
ameded only within the framework of a new hearing, held in accordance with the provisions of the
Criminal Code.
CHAIRPERSON AND ALTERNATE CHAIRPERSONS
3. The Commission is currently chaired by the Deputy Chairperson of the Social Affairs Division
of the Tribunal administratif du Quebec. The Chairperson names the alternate chairpersons, who
must be lawyers. The later perside over hearings, and in the performance of their duties have the
same powers and responsibilies as those confered upon the chairperson. Among others, they are
invested with the powers provided under sections 4 and 5 of the Inquiries Act (S.R.C., C. I-11).
QUORUM OF AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS
4. The CETM always sits in a quorum of at least three members, two of which must be a lawyer
and a psychiatrist. The third person is another member from the Social Affairs Division of the TAQ.
DUTIES OF THE CETM
5. The CETM has for duty to render decisions concerning persons who have found:
· Unfit to stand trial,
The CETM must determine if those persons have become fit and, if such is the case, decide on the
measures needed to ensure that they remain so and also to ensure the safety of the public.
· Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder;
The CETM must assess the significance of the threat to public safety these people represent and, if
that threat is significant, decide on the measures needed to ensure the protection of the public, while
taking into account the needs of the accused, especially the need for rehabilitation.
THE PRE-HEARING PROCEDURE
NO INTRODUCTORY PROCEDURES
6. The CETM hears the case of an accused by the sole operation of the law (the Criminal Code),
following a verdict of unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible by a court jurisdiction.
TIME LIMITS
7. The first hearing following a verdict of not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial must be
held within the following time limits:
a) 45 days if the judicial court has not rendered a decision concerning the discharge or detention
of the accused.
b) 90 days if the judicial court has rendered such a decision;
c) Any other time limit of less than 90 days determined by the court.
Annual reviews
8. For as long as the accused is not unconditionally discharged or deemed fit to stand trial, a
review must be held within 12 months following the first hearing and subsequently within every 12-
month period following a CETM decision.
Review at the request of a hospital official
9. The CETM must hold a hearing as soon as it has been notified that the person responsible for
the hospital:
· has proceeded, in accordance with a delegation of power, to significantly restrict the freedom of
an accused;
· requests a review of the previous decision.
Review for reason of dual status
10. The CETM must hold a hearing as soon as it has been notified that an accused subject to a
decision for detention has received a prison sentence ( dual status cases).
Optional reviews
11. The CETM can also hold a hearing at any time at the request of the accused or another
party. It can also do so of its own motion.
SUMMON OF A WITNESS
12. Any party can ask the CETM to summon a witness by supoena.
FILING OF DOCUMENTS
13. A party wishing to file a document must make a copy of this document for each of the other
parties. These copies must be forwarded to the parties at the beginning of the hearing at the latest.
PLACE WHERE THE HEARINGSARE HELD
Generally, the place where the accused is detained or receives treatment
14. Hearings are generally held where the accused is detained or receiving treatment.
Considering the context, that place is usually a hospital. This way of doing was adopted especially to
facilitate the presence of the accused held in custody and of the clinical and hospital staff.
However, there is no obligation to proceed in this manner. If a proper hearing room is not provided,
the CETM could decide to hold the hearings in a TAQ courtroom, either in Montréal or in Québec, in a
courthouse or any other room anywhere in the province.
Teleconference hearings
15. Hearings can also be held by teleconference. This exceptional procedure is used in cases of
emergency, or when for reasons of logistics it is difficult to hold hearings where the accused is
detained or receiving treatment. To proceed in this manner the consent of the accused is required.
ROOM WHERE THE HEARINNG IS HELD
Hospital required to provide a hearing room
16. The establishment where the hearing is held must ensure that an adequate hearing room is
available.
Accessibility and safety of the hearing room
17. The hearing room must be easily accessible to anyone who wants to attend. It must be safe, i.
e., the persons who will be meeting there-the members of the CETM, the parties or witnesses- should
be able to leave the premises rapidly and safely if there is any danger or if their physical integrity is
threatened.
Arrangement of the hearing room
18. The hearing room must be equipped with chairs for everyone present. There must also be a
table large enough for the installation of the recording equipment, and for the members of the CETM
and the parties to deposit the various documents they use and to take notes.
Meeting room
19. The establishment must also provide the accused and his counsel access to a place where
they can have a confidential talk. It must be located near the place where the hearing is being held.
THE HEARINGS
THE PARTIES
Who are the parties?
20. The following are parties to a hearing:
· The accused
· The person responsible for the hospital where the accused is detained or receiving treatment;
· The Attorney General, as soon as he requests it;
· Any other person who, after demonstrating to the CETM that he has a substantial interest in
protecting the interests of the accused, is granted the status of party by the CETM.
Rights of the parties
21. All parties are entitled to:
· Be summoned to the hearing;
· Submit evidence;
· Call witness;
· Cross-examine the witness of the other parties;
· Cross-examine the author of an assessment report submitted in written form;
· Be represented by counsel.
Furthermore,
· A person who is unfit to stand trial must be represented by counsel; if this person does not have
an counsel, it is up to the CETM to appoint one for him;
· When the CETM considers that it is in the best interests of justice that the accused be
represented by counsel and he does not have one, the CETM must appoint one for this person;
The victim is not a party
22. A victim cannot be granted party status. However, the victim can draw up and file with the CETM a
written statement describing the damages or loss sustained as a result of the offence perpetrated by
the accused. This statement will be filed in the record of the accused as documentary evidence.
PUBLIC CHARACTER AND LACK OF FORMALITY OF THE HEARINGS
Public hearings
23. Hearings are public. Therefore, anyone who wishes to attend a hearing is entitled to do so, unless
the CETM orders them to be held in camera.
When circumstances warrant it, the CETM may make a non-publication order.
Lack of formality
24. The hearings are as informal as possible, considering their particular circumstances.
However, lack of formality does not mean familiarity, unruliness or disrespect. All participants must
wear suitable clothing and have a dignified and respectful demeanour.
The chairperson can expel anyone, including the accused, when this person’s behaviour has an
adverse effect on the conduct of the hearing.
The chairperson can also expel the accused:
· When the chairperson considers that the presence of the accused may have an adverse effect
on the life or safety of a third party or be detrimental to his treatment or recovery;
· In order to hear evidence, the cross-examination of witnesses or oral or written submissions,
decide if it is expedient to expel the accused on the ground that his presence could be detrimental to
the life or safety of a third party or have an adverse effect on his treatment or recovery.
RECORDING OF THE HEARING
Mandatory recording
25. The hearings are recorded. This is a legal requirement. Therefore, a party cannot oppose
recording.
Copy of the recording
26. Copies of the recording may be obtained, except in exceptional cases specified in the Criminal
Code, by submitting a request to the office of the Tribunal administratif du Quebec. To obtain a copy,
a fee is required.
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
FRENCH and ENGLISH
27. The hearings can be held either in French or in English.
Right to an interpreter
28. A party or witness unable to follow the proceedings because of his inability to understand or
speak the language used in the proceedings, is entitled to be assisted by an interpreter, whether for
English, French or for any other language.
No charge for the services of an interpreter for the accused and certain witness
29. The CETM provides the accused with the services of an interpreter free of charge. These
services are also free of charge for parties or witness who are deaf.
In other cases, the parties and the witness must meet the cost of their interpreters.
THE EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
30. The evidence consists of:
· The psychiatric report of the attending physician;
· A second opinion, if applicable;
· Any other useful document (report or notes from the nursing care team, the social services
team, etc.);
· Testimonies;
· Documents from judicial authorities (indictment, minutes of the trial, warrant of committal, etc.)
and police authorities (criminal history, briefs);
· All documents and things that were field in the record of the accused during the previous
hearing, including the decisions;
· Statement of the victim.
Lack of presumption of dangerousness
31. The dangerousness of the accused cannot be presumed on the sole basis of a verdict of not
criminally responsible for reason of mental disorder.
Significant threat not established
33. If the CETM is unable to conclude that the accused is a significant threat to the safety of the
public, it must discharge the accused absolutely. If there is a doubt as to that threat, the CETM directs
that the accused be granted an absolute discharge.
Content of the psychiatric report
34. The CETM gives special attention to the psychiatric assessment and progress report drawn up by
the treating team. The more complete and well documented it is, the better informed the CETM, the
accused and his counsel, as well as the parties to the proceedings will be. This report provides for a
better understanding of the progress of the accused, of his condition at the time of the hearing and
consequently, provides an analysis of the threat the accused could pose to public safety in the future.
Therefore, one must not only take into account the condition of the accused at the time of the
hearing, but also try to anticipate what his progress will be.
35. Therefore, the following elements should be featured in the psychiatric report concerning the
condition of the accused:
· Psychiatric history and current clinical status;
· Psycho-social background;
-social environment and socio professional integration;
· Description of behaviour;
- Attitudes and co-operation;
- Response to frustrations, impulsiveness, aggressiveness;
- History of violence
- Alcohol and drug abuse;
· Description of attitude towards illness and treatment:
-acknowledgement, understanding and acceptance of the disease;
- taking the prescribed medication
· CARE PLAN OF THE TREATING TEAM;
- Intervention plan and prognosis;
- Resources, adaptation abilities and self-sufficiency of the accused;
- Family support and social support;
- Need for supervision of the accused and his willingness to contribute to his treatment plan;
· Opinion and recommendations of the psychiatrist:
- Opinion as to the dangerousness of the accused;
-Recommendations concerning the measures to be implemented to ensure public protection and the
needs of the accused, especially with regard to his social reintegration.
THE DECISION
Types of decisions that can be rendered by the CETM
36. In view of the need to protect the public, the mental condition and the needs of the accused,
especially concerning his reintegeration into society, the CETM makes one of the following decisions
that is the least onerous and least restrictive for the accused:
i) unconditional release if the CETM considers that the accused is not a threat to public or if it cannot
conclude with certainty that the threat is a significant one; if it cannot conclude with certainty that the
threat is a significant one; therefore, if there is a doubt as to the importance of the threat posed by
the accoused, the accused is discharged absolutely;
ii) discharge subject to conditions if the CETM concludes that the accused is still a significant threat to
the safety of the public but that this threat will be sufficiently reduced if the accused complies with the
conditions the CETM deems necessary to impose, and if the latter has serious reason to believe that
the accused will in fact comply;
iii) detention, with or without the possibility of temporary absences, if the CETM believes that the
threat to the safety of the public posed by the accused cannot be controlled adequately if the later is
released into the community.
Treatment as a condition of discharge
37. The CETM cannot prescribe treatment or direct that an accused submit to treatment. However, it
can make treatment a condition of his discharge or temporary absences, without escort, outside the
institution. If the accoused refuses to submit to treatment, the CETM may, if it considers that treatment
is required to ensure the safety of the public, refuse to discharge the accused or forbid temporary
absences.
Delegation of power
38. The CETM may also delegat to the person in charge of the hospital the authority to direct that the
restrictions on the liberty of the accused be increased or decreased within any limits set out in the
decision.
Recourse of the person responsible for the hospital with delegation of power
39. The person responsible for the hospital who, in accordance with a delegation of power,
significantly increases the restrictions on the liberty of the accused as granted by the CETM, must
make a record of the increased restrictions on the file of the accused, immediately give notice of the
increase to the accused and, if this increased restriction remains in force for more than seven days,
also notify the CETM. The Commission will then hold a new hearing as soon as practicable.
Copy of the decision handed at end of hearing
40. A copy of the decision is usually handed to the parties at the end of the hearing. The reasons for
disposition are drawn up subsequently and sent to the parties in the weeks that follow. When the
written decision is not delivered to the parties at the end of the hearing, it will be sent to them within
the next few days.
Translation of documents
41. Parties may ask to have the decision and reasons for disposition translated in French or in
English. The CETM meets the cost of these translations.
However, the CETM does not meet the translation costs of other documents, for example, the
psychiatric reports and others (those made by the nursing team or the social services team),
documents in the record, etc.
PART 4
RESPONSIBILTY FOR FOLLOW-UP OF DECISIONS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FOLLOW-UP DOES NOT COME UNDER THE CETM
42. It is not up to the CETM to ensure that the accused or one of the other parties complies with the
decision it has rendered because if it did the CETM would act both as judge and party to the
procedures.
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOSPITAL
43. The person responsible for the hospital where the accused is detained or treated has, primarily
and through the treating team, the duty to ensure that the accused complies with the decision of the
CETM.
WHAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOSPITAL CAN DO WHEN THE ACCUSED DOES
NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED
44. When the person responsible for the hospital notices or learns that the accused does not comply
with the conditions the CETM has imposed upon him, he should first determine to what extent the
conduct of the accused increases the significance of the threat he poses to the safety of the public. If
he considers that this conduct significantly increases the threat in the short term, the person
responsible for the hospital should:
· request the intervention of the police, who can then act according to the provisions of section
672.91 of the Criminal Code, that is to say, proceed to the arrest of the accused without a warrant,
and bring him before a justice of the peace,
· if the CETM has granted him a delegation of power, increase the restrictions on the liberty of the
accused within limits determined within the framework of this delegation; if the accused also does
comply with these new conditions, he can ask the police to proceed in accordance with the provisions
of section 672.91 of the Criminal Code (see the previous paragraph);
· if he considers that the threat for the safety of the public will not increase significantly in the
short-term, he can ask the CETM to do a review. This review must be carried out as soon as possible.
PART 5
OTHER PROCEDURES
COMMITAL FOR TRIAL WITHOUT A HEARING (ON RECORD) WHERE ACCUSED IS FOUND UNFIT
45. The CETM chairperson (the term also designated alternate chairpersons) may, without holding a
hearing, order the committal for trial of the accused found unfit to stand trial before the judicial
tribunal; when the following conditions apply:
· the accused has become fit (a psychiatric assessment report must be provided);
· the accused and the person responsible for the hospital agree to this committal;
· the Review Board does not expect to hold a hearing within reasonable time.
REQUEST SUBMITTED USING THE FORM PROVIDED IN SCHEDULE 2
46. Requests are made to the CETM using the forms in Schedules 2A and 2B. Requests may be
made by the person responsible for the hospital, the accused or his counsel.
TRANSFERS BETWEEN HOSPITALS
Prior authorization of the CETM
47. Any transfer between hospitals must be previously authorized by the CETM. Such authorization
can only be granted following a hearing that allows it.
Designated hospitals
48. The only transfers allowed are to designated hospitals (Appendix 1).
Power of the CETM to order a transfer
49. The transfer of an accused to a designated hospital can be ordered at any time by the CETM,
which takes into account the interest of the accused and the extent of the threat he represents for
society.
APPEAL FROM A CETM DECISION
Court of Appeal of Québec
58. A party who is not satisfied with a decision rendered by the CETM may file an appeal before the
Court of Appeal of Québec.
SCHEDULE 1
DESIGNATED HOSPITALS
MINISTERIAL ORDER 98-11
DATED 2 JULY 1998
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and the
Young offenders Act in consequence whereof (S.C. (1991), c. 43, sections 4, 33):
CONCERNING the list of places designated for the custody, treatment or assessment of adults or
adolescents, provided for in the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act;
WHEREAS under section 672.1 of the Criminal Code, instituted by section 4 of the Act amend the
Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and the Young Offenders Act
in consequence whereof (S.C. (1991), c. 43), the Minister of Health and Social Services must
designate places in the province for the custody, treatment or assessment of an accused in respect of
whom an assessment order, a disposition or a placement is made;
WHEREAS under paragraph (11) of section 13.2 of the Young Offenders Act instituted by section 33
of the Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and
the Young Offenders Act in consequence whereof (S.C. (1991), c. 43), the Minister of Health and
Social Services must designate hospitals in the province for the custody, treatment and assessment
of adolescents;
Consequently, IT IS ORDERED, by the Minister of Health and Social Services;
THAT the custody, treatment or assessment of an accused in respect of whom an assessment order,
a disposition or a placement decision is made, within the meaning of section672.1 of the Criminal
Code, be entrusted to the care of the following establishments:
REGION 06- MONTREAL-CENTRE
· Douglas Hospital
· Institute Philippe Pinel de Montréal
(Test concerning criminal responsibility)
(Signed by Jean Rochon)
Minister of Health and Social Services
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Justice Canada
www.justicecanada.ca
Department of Justice-Canada
Laws/Criminal Law/Mental Disorder/c. 672
Copy of the Law c.672 can be downloaded from the Internet
Government of Québec
www.protecteurdeusagers.gouv.qc.ca
Improving Services
Health and Social services
Ombudsman
Complaint Examination System
We all need health and social services at one time or another. When we are sick or have problems,
we would like to be received, treated and assisted with respect and competence. These are legitimate
expectations.
In most cases, users are satisfied with the services received. However, some services may sometimes
seem less than adequate. You may feel dissatisfies with the services you received or that your rights
have not been respected. Most often, to solve the problem, all you need to do is to discuss the matter
openly with the people concerned.
You can also use the complaint examination system. This mechanism is provided by law. It’s a normal
way to express dissatisfaction and to look for solution. The first step is to file a complaint with the
service quality commissioner (Ombudsman) of the institution or the regional board responsible for the
service in question. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome, you can request that your complaint be re-
examined, this time by the Health and Social Services Ombudsman.
The complaint examination system can help you solve the problem you are concerned with. By using
it, you will also be able to help improve the services for you and your family and friends as well as for
all users.
The aim of this pamphlet is to answer the questions that you probably have when undertaking this
process.
What are the rights of users under the law?
As a user, you have several rights under the Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services, in
particular the following rights:
· To be informed about existing services and how to obtain them;
· To be informed about your state of health; the various options open to you and their
consequences;
· To choose the professional or the institution from whom or which you receive services;
· To participate in the decisions concerning you;
· To accept or refuse care;
· To be accompanied or assisted when you seek information about services;
· To receive, with continuity and in personalized manner, services which are scientifically,
humanly and socially appropriate;
· To receive care in on emergency;
· If you are English speaking, to receive services in your language, according to the program of
access to these services established in your region;
· To have access to your record.
The Health Services Ombudsman shall, by any appropriate means, see to it that users are respected
and that their rights, as defined in the Act respecting health services and social services and in any
other Act, are enforced
To whom should I address my complaint?
Every institution and regional board has a designated person responsible for receiving and handling
complaints concerning the services under its responsibility. This person is called the Service Quality
Commissioner. All complaints must be addressed to this person.
How will my complaint be handled?
The service quality commissioner will confirm, in writing the date on which your complaint was
received. As from that date, he will have 45 days in which to examine your complaint and
communicate his conclusions to you.
To accurately define and solve the problem, the service quality commissioner will ask you for your
version of the facts. He will meet with the people concerned and may consult your record. He will
attempt to find the best solution possible.
After examining your complaint, the service quality commissioner will inform you of his conclusions,
including the reasons, and of the solutions being considered.
Can I file a complaint involving a physician?
If your complaint involves a physician, dentist or pharmacist, the service quality commissioner of the
institution will forward it to the medical examiner and will inform you of this.
The medical examiner is designated by the institution to investigate this type of complaint. He will
proceed in the same way as the service quality commissioner and will inform you of his conclusions,
including the reasons, within a 45-day period.
In the case of a serious fault which might call for disciplinary measures against the professional
concerned, the complaint will be handled according to another procedure that might require more
time. In this case, you will be informed, at least every 60 days, of the progress of the investigation.
Is the institution or the physician obliged to apply the recommended solution?
The service quality commissioner and the medical examiner, just like the Health Services
Ombudsman, have the power to make recommendations. They do not have the power to impose a
measure, as a court would have. Their approach is based on conciliation, that is, they seek solutions
that are satisfactory to all the parties.
What can I do if I disagree with the outcome of a complaint?
If you disagree with the conclusions or the recommendations of the service quality commissioner, or if
the later has not transmitted his conclusions to you within a 45-day period, or if the institution
concerned has not acted on his recommendations to your satisfaction, you can file a complaint with
the Health Services Ombudsman.
If the case of a complaint involving a physician, if you are dissatisfied with the conclusions of the
medical examiner, you have 60 days in which to submit your complaint to the review committee
designated by, the Institution’s board of directors.
The review committee will render a final decision, along with the reasons on which it is based, within a
60-day period.
How will the Health Services Ombudsman handle my complaint?
The Health Services Ombudsman is independent of the Institutions, regional boards and the ministére
de la santé et des Services sociaux. He can, if needed, assist you in formulating your complaint and
taking all the necessary steps.
In re-examining your complaint, the Health Services Ombudsman will:
· Hear your version of the facts;
· Read the conclusions of the service quality commissioner;
· Consult the relevant documents as well as your record, if necessary;
· Meet with the people concerned;
· Seek a solution that is satisfactory to everyone;
· Inform you as soon as possible of his conclusions, including the reasons and if, applicable, the
recommendations made to the institution.
Is my record confidential?
To learn all the facts and the circumstances, which gave, rise to your complaint, the people
responsible for examining the complaint can have access to your record, but must keep it confidential.
What will it cost me to have my complaint examined?
There is no charge for a complaint examination, whether it is examined by the service quality
commissioner or the Health Services Ombudsman.
Does filing a complaint prevent me from using other recourses?
Using the Complaint examination system does not in any way prevent you from taking advantage of
other recourses provided by law.
WHAT CAN I DO IF REPRISALS ARE TAKEN AGAINST A PERSON FOR FILING A COMPLAINT?
The law prohibits any form of reprisals against a person who files or intends to file a complaint.
Should such incidents occur, immediately contact the service quality commissioner of the institution or
of the regional board, or the Health Services Ombudsman. They are obliged to intervene immediately
in order to stop any reprisal.
Do you have other questions?
If you have any questions about the Health and social services complaint system, please call
· The complaint assistance and support center (CAAP) in your region, toll-free across Québec: 1
877 767-2227
· The service quality commissioner of the institution;
· The service quality commissioner of the regional board of health and social services;
· The Health Services Ombudsman Montreal region: (514) 873-3205. Elsewhere in Québec (toll
free): 1 877 658-2625
e-mail: protecteur@msss.gouv.qc.ca
Web site: www.protecteurdeusagers.gouv.qc.ca
Protecteur des usagers
En matieére de santé
Et de services sociaux
Québec
© Éditeur officiel du Québec
This document is not the officiel version.
Last version accessible
Updated to 1 June 2004
R.S.Q., chapter S-4.2
AN ACT RESPECTING HEALTH SERVICES AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Complete copy of the Act can be downloaded from the Internet
http://publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge
Complaints Against
Dr. Hani Iskandar
And
Dr. Lydia Balingo
Of Douglas Hospital-Montreal
Tuesday 10th February 2004 to 10th May 2004
1- Prescribing and ordering medications without medical complaint or examination;
2- Illegal reprisals for my rightful refusal to take illegal medications;
3- Taking away my rights to wear and have my personal cloths (public humiliation);
4- Taking away my right for outing in the hospital grounds for exercises and fresh air, (illegal
unhealthy confinement);
5- Taking away my right to receive visitors and friends (illegal isolation);
6- Holding without notification my outgoing and incoming mail (illegal behaviour against the
Freedom of Expression);
7- Confidentiality break (talking to my friends and visitors without my authorization),
8- Denying my rights for information, in my charts and files (illegal behaviour against The Access
to Information Act);
9- Not taking their responsibilities to held their staff accountable for their professional
misconducts and confidentiality breaks;
10- Using threats for reprisals for no reason whatsoever, while the law prohibits any form of
reprisal.
The decision of the Tribunal administratif du Quebec was for involuntary hospitalization without
conditions.
Drs. Iskandar and Balingo took all the decisions for restrictions and increased restrictions without
notifications and for no reasons whatsoever.
There was no reason to stay in illegal involuntary hospitalization under severe abusive situation for 90
days (three months).
Drs. Iskandar and Balingo should be responsible and accountable and face disciplinary actions by the
administration of Douglas Hospital.
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
35-9361 Rue Francoeur
Montreal-LaSalle-Quebec
H8R 2G5
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Presented to Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau, on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 in a meeting with Mr. Abd El Aziz
Fennouny (of University of Montreal, fennouny2004@yahoo.com), at Douglas Hospital-Montreal.
Douglas Hospital Ombudsman,
Douglas Hospital Medical Examiner
And
The Complaint Examination Procedure By-Law!
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
to: francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Object: Re: Request for Reply to the Medical Complaints//
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
2004-06-16
Dear Mrs. Bourassa
According to the Complaint Examination Procedure By-Law in force at Douglas Hospital, the Medical
Examiner, Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau has 45 days following the date on which the complaints was
forwarded to his attention to renders his decision, and reply to my complaints.
The following complaint:
File No.: 200300376-Complaint against Dr. Hani Iskandar, ICU's Medical Chief was forwarded by the
Ombudsman to Dr. Trudeau on March 12, 2004,
And the 2nd complaint:
File No.: 200300379-Complaint against Dr. Lydia Balingo, Psychiatrist was forwarded by the
Ombudsman to Dr. Trudeau on March 17, 2004.
I have not received any reply from Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau to my two complaints until the present,
June 16, 2004.
I request explanation for the delay, and professional reply to my complaints against Dr. Iskandar and
Dr. Balingo, as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Eng.
Montreal GeoHydro TSRI
35-9361 Rue Francoeur
Montreal-LaSalle, Quebec
CANADA, H8R 2G5
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
From: boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca
Subject: Ref.: Re: Request for Reply to The Medical Complaints// Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
To: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:17:41 -0400
Dear Dr. Youssef:
I thank you for informing the undersigned of the noticed delay, and Rest assured that I have
forwarded immediately your E-mail to the attention of Dr. Trudeau. Furthermore, I reminded the latter
that you had submitted two medical complaints for which you did not have received, at this stage, the
conclusions.
To offer a possibility to take some arrangements between yourselves, before pursuing any recourse,
could you send me a telephone number where Dr. Trudeau could reach you directly?
Hoping it is to your satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Francine Y. Bourassa, M.A
Ombudsman (commissaire locale à la qualité)
Hôpital Douglas
6875, boul LaSalle
Verdun, Québec, CANADA
H4H 1R3
francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
Téléphone: (514) 761-6131 poste 3287
Télécopieur: (514) 888-4059
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com> View Contact Details
Subject: Re: Réf._:_Re:_Request_for_Reply_to_The_Medical_Complaints//_Dr.Hamdy_Youssef,
Ph.D.
To: boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca, "Francine DouglasH" <francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca>
CC: protecteur@msss.gouv.qc.ca, "Action Autonomie" <lecollectif@actionautonomie.qc.ca>
Dear Mrs. Bourassa
Thank you for forwarding my two complaints (with my mailing address) against Dr. Iskandar and Dr.
Balingo to Douglas Hospital Medical Examiner, Dr. Trudeau on Mrach 12, and 17, 2004.
Reference is made to Dr. Trudeau (and your) failed promises during our telephone conversation at
10:00 AM on Monday, 3rd May 2004.
Dr. Trudeau failed his position as the medical examiner of Douglas Hospital to render his conclusions
to my two complaints within a 45-days period, according to the Act respecting the complaint
examination system.
This system mechanism is provided for by Law.
I request submitting my two complaints to the review committee designated by the Board of Directors
of Douglas Hospital.
I appreciate receiving the E-Mail address of the president of the review committee, and forwarding
copy of this E-Mail to his attention.
With my best wishes,
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Civil Engineer
Cold Regions Engineering
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
cc: To whom it may concern
Douglas Hospital Apology
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau-Medical Examiner
and Director of Professional and Hospital Services (DPHS)
From: gredia@douglas.mcgill.ca
Subject: COMPLAINTS TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER
To: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
CC: Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:23:36 -0400
Doctor Youssef:
I am sending you this letter on behalf of Dr Jean-Bernard Trudeau. As mentioned, you can address
your reply to Dr. Trudeau at the Following e-mail address:
jean-bernard.trudeau@douglas.mcgill.ca
Diane Grenon
Secretary to the DPHS
Montréal, June 29, 2004
BY E-MAIL
Mr. Hassan Hamdy Youssef
9361, Francoeur Street, Apt. 35
LaSalle, Québec
H8R 2G5
SUBJECT: Your Complaints Submitted to the Medical Examiner
Dear Sir:
In the capacity of medical examiner, I have been informed of your intention to resort to the review
committee given that I was unable to process your complaints within the forty-five (45) day time period
prescribed by law. I acknowledge that I did not have time to complete your file and I also acknowledge
your right to take action via the review committee as a second recourse for the processing of your
complaints.
However, I would like to propose a quick meeting next week, i.e. Tuesday, July 6, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:
30 p.m., so that I may hear your comments, carry out a follow-up with the physicians who are
designated in your complaint and finalize the issue by next July 22. In my opinion, this seems to be a
better way of doing things, even though I have exceeded the prescribed time period, and as a result,
you would not lose your right to resort to the review committee if, once your complaint processed,
which I am ready to process without delay, you are not satisfied.
Immediately resorting to the review committee would entail further examination by the medical
examiner, in view of the fact that your complaint has not yet been processed. If, afterwards, you would
still not be satisfied of the way that your complaint was processed by the medical examiner, you would
no longer have the right to resort to the review committee, since you would have already used their
services. Therefore, the method that I am proposing would safeguard your right to resort to the review
committee, even though the time period was exceeded, of which I assume full responsibility.
Please let me know, by e-mail, what you decide in light of the information that I have provided.
Thank you for your attention and I apologize once more for the delay in processing your complaint.
Rest assured of my availability and earnest attention in the processing of your file.
Jean-Bernard Trudeau, M.D.
Medical Examiner
C.c. Mrs. Francine Bourassa, (Local Service Quality Commissioner), Ombudsman
Mr. James Wright, President-Review Committee
From: boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca
Subject: Follow-up:Request for Reply to The Medical Complaints of Dr.Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
To: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
CC: Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:04:18 -0400
Dear Dr. Youssef:
Sorry about the delay to acknowledge your last E-Mail. But, I was absent since June 18 and back at
the Office as of today.
For your information, I took on me to try to establish contact with Dr.Trudeau about the fact that the
latter would not have taken the opportunity to answer your last correspondence. I was able to discuss
with the Medical Examiner over the telephone a few minutes ago, where I was given the engagement
that he would make the time to write to you, by E-Mail, by the end of the current week. Because,
despite my past request to obtain a telephone number where you can be reached, Dr. Trudeau has
only your electronic address to contact you.
If, the answer you should be receiving is not satisfactory to you, I enclosed the address for any
communication intended with Mr. James Wright, President of the Review Committee of the Board of
Directors of Douglas Hospital, at the attention of the Director General's Office, at the following
address:
Douglas Hospital
6875 LaSalle Blvd.
Borrough of Verdun
Montréal (Québec)
Canada
H4H 1R3
Trusting this information is helpful.
I remain,
Francine Y. Bourassa, M.A
Ombudsman (Local Service Quality Commissioner)
francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
Téléphone: (514) 761-6131 poste 3287
Télécopieur: (514) 888-4059
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: COMPLAINTS TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER/ 6th July Meeting Confirmation
To: gredia@douglas.mcgill.ca
CC: jean-bernard.trudeau@douglas.mcgill.ca, "Francine Bourassa" <boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca>,
"Francine DouglasH" <francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca>
Dear Mrs. Grenon
Thank you for your E-Mail.
I will be please to meet Dr. Trudeau on Tuesday, 6th July 2004 from 3:30 to 4:30 PM.
Will you please let me know the location of the meeting (office & Pavilion address) at Douglas Hospital.
With my best regards,
Dr. Youssef
From: gredia@douglas.mcgill.ca
Subject: Réf._:_Re:_COMPLAINTS_TO_THE_MEDICAL_EXAMINER/_
6th_July_Meeting_Confirmation
To: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
CC: Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca
Date: Fri, 2 July 2004 10:16:43 -0400
Dear Dr. Youssef:
Your meeting with Dr. Trudeau will be held at his office (B-2112) –Dobell Pavilion (2nd Floor).
Should you need further information, do not hesitate to contact me, either by e-mail or by telephone
(761-6131, ext. 3755).
Best regards,
Diane Grenon
Secretary to the DPHS
"Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng."
Subject: Follow-up of my complaints against Dr. Iskandar and Dr. Balingo
To: jean-berard.trudeau@douglas.mcgill.ca
CC: Francine Bourassa , Francine DouglasH , Abd El Aziz Fennouny
Dear Dr. Trudeau
We appreciate the time you allocated for me, and my friend Abd El Aziz Fennouny, considering my
complaints against Dr. H. Iskandar and Dr. L. Balingo. I enclose the above two attachments for your
kind consideration.
Looking for the pleasure to receive your written conclusions on 22nd July 2004.
With my best wishes,
Dr. Youssef
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Eng.
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Attachments:
1- Complaints_Against_Iskandar_and_Balingo.doc
2- Nightmare_2004_I.doc
gredia@douglas.mcgill.ca wrote: By E-Mail:
Dear Doctor Youssef:
Please find herewith Doctor Trudeau's answer to your complaints.
Diane Grenon
Tel. (514) 761-6131, ext. 3755
(See attached file: YoussefComRévision1(anglais).doc)
ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword
SENT BY E-MAIL,
July 22, 2004
Montréal, July 19, 2004
Mr. Hassan Hamdy Youssef
9361, Francoeur St., Apt. 35
LaSalle, Québec
H8R 2G5
SUBJECT: Your complaints submitted to the Medical Examiner concerning
Dr. Hani Iskandar and Dr. Lydia Balingo
Dear Sir:
From the outset, I wish to apologize once again for the delay in officially answering, in the
capacity of medical examiner, the above-mentioned complaint. I also want to thank you for agreeing to
meet with me on July 6, 2004, along with your friend Mr. Abd El Aziz Fennouny.
As explained during the meeting, as Director of Professional and Hospital Services (DPHS), I have
been actively involved in your hospitalization, as it relates to giving special authorizations
(accompanied visits to the mosque) and taking part in the outcome of the legal situation that occurred
on May 10, 2004. Under these circumstances, I voluntarily took a step back, as medical examiner, to
priorize my role as Director of Professional and Hospital Services with regard to this situation. At this
stage, with all the reservations that I must impose, I now take on my role as medical examiner to
answer your complaints regarding Dr. Hani Iskandar and Dr. Lydia Balingo.
To examine your complaints, I have reviewed your complaint file as set up by the medical examiner,
read your user file and, on different occasions, discussed primarily with Dr. Hani Iskandar and Dr.
Lydia Balingo. I will wilfully try to be brief and concise in the answers that I am supplying today, in light
of the many letters that are already in your file and the detailed answer that has been provided by
Mrs. Francine Y. Bourassa, the Local Service Quality Commissioner.
Let’s briefly recall the facts:
February 10, 2004: the Tribunal administratif du Québec unanimously ordered your detention without
conditions at Douglas Hospital, being of the opinion that you are an important risk to public safety.
From February 10 to May 10, 2004: detention in the intensive care unit of the Douglas Hospital, under
the care of Dr. Hani Iskandar, from February 10 to March 2, 2004, and in the Burgess 1 patient care
unit, under the care of Dr. Lydia Balingo, from March 2 to May 10, 2004.
May 10, 2004: the Tribunal administratif du Québec ordered your release without conditions from
Douglas Hospital, based on the testimony of numerous people, and mainly on the testimony of Dr.
Lydia Balingo supported by her written report.
In light of the above-mentioned facts, of the review of written documents as they relate to these facts, I
hereby want to express my conclusions regarding the various levels of complaint that you have
properly summarized in 10 points, in writing, during our meeting on July 6, 2004, which appropriately
cross-checked your written complaints:
1. Complaint against Dr. Hani Iskandar, Head Physician of ICU, received on March 12, 2004 from
the Local Service Quality Commissioner;
2. Complaint against Dr. Lydia Balingo, Treating Psychiatrist, received on March 17, 2004 from
the Local Service Quality Commissioner.
In the capacity of medical examiner, upon review of the context surrounding your hospitalization and
various supporting documents, I cannot retain, from the list of 10 items which you have supplied,
specific reprimands that could challenge the therapeutic good faith of the two physicians that you
target. In fact, there is your point of view regarding your complaint listed in item 1 and there is the
point of view of these
Physicians, as confirmed by Dr. Balingo’s report (the same report that has served as the basis for
your release) that states that your general cooperative behaviour was deficient during your
hospitalization.
In this context, these physicians acted in good faith regarding the proposed treatment plan by
gathering all information and observations made by themselves and other professionals. Therefore, I
do not propose any recommendations or disciplinary actions in this context.
With regard to the other items, they clearly prove how difficult it is to establish the therapeutic link
between hospital employees and yourself. The difference in opinion highlights how difficult it was for
our personnel to have you agree to the proposed treatment plan that, in your opinion, was not
necessary and generated all the other clinical or administrative problems that followed.
The team of professionals at Douglas Hospital acts in accordance with a therapeutic approach, which
it was unable to establish in your case. Hospital employees and Dr. Balingo as well as myself, in the
capacity of DPHS, have nevertheless come to the conclusion that, in spite of your non-cooperative
behaviour in a hospital and detention setting, you do not represent a risk to public safety.
This decision lead to a sooner-than-planned hearing whose purpose was to request your release to
allow you to pursue your life outside of a hospital setting, which obviously did not suit you and was
later agreed to by the Tribunal administratif du Québec.
In this global context, regarding items 2 to 10, I will not make any new recommendations, especially
since many items have been addressed, either directly or indirectly, by Mrs. Francine Y. Bourassa,
Local Service Quality Commissioner, since I endorse the answers provided and since you are well
aware of the other remedies that you may consider and could resort to, if you so wish.
As far as I am concerned, I believe that it must be admitted that your situation has been complex for a
very long time and that the therapeutic approaches tried by the different intervening parties cannot be
simplified, which does not allow me to impair by and large the good faith of the physicians and
employees during your stay at Douglas Hospital.
Should you disagree with these conclusions, you may apply for a review by the Review Committee.
This request must be submitted in writing and forwarded to Mr. James Wright, President of the Review
Committee, to the attention of the Office of the Director General, Douglas Hospital, 6875, LaSalle
Blvd., Verdun, Québec H4H 1R3, within the period of sixty (60) days following on date on which you
receive the conclusions from the medical examiner. Your request for review must deal with the
conclusions rendered by the medical examiner regarding your complaint.
This review committee will analyze your complaint file and determine whether the medical examiner
has examined your complaint with due care. The review committee may require the medical examiner
to further examine your complaint within a prescribed time frame and to send you his new conclusions.
The review committee may also forward the complaint to the Council of Physicians, Dentists and
Pharmacists so that it may examine the complaint for disciplinary purposes.
Sincerely,
Jean-Bernard Trudeau, M.D.
Medical Examiner
/dg
c. c.: Mrs. Francine Y. Bourassa, Local Service Quality Commissioner, Ombudsman.
Dr Lydia Balingo’s Professional File.
Dr Hani Iskandar’s Professional File.
Encls. Complaints Against
Dr.Balingo’s Report
NOTE: These documents will be forwarded to you by mail.
Dr. Youssef Reply
To the Medical Examiner Letter
Date: Tue, 27 July 2004 17:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: YOUR COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER
To: gredia@douglas.mcgill.ca, "Francine DouglasH" <francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca>
CC: "Wahida Valiante" <nvp@canadianislamiccongress.com>, "MSN"
<montreal@montrealmuslimnews.net>, noreen.majeed@staff.mcgill.ca, "Zaid Mahayni"
<zaid@mahayni.ca>, "CMJ McGill University" <cmjerusalem-owner@yahoogroups.ca>, "McGillMSA"
<msamcgill@montrealmuslims.ca>, "Message of Islam" <izzet@davetvakfi.com>, "RRiggi Italy"
<rriggi@sympatico.ca>, Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca,
"Tarak H" <htarak68@hotmail.com>, hazdine@hotmail.com, "Prof. Mohamad Elmasry"
<cic@canadianislamiccongress.com>, ezzeddinea@transcontinental.ca, "Abd El Aziz Fennouny"
<fennouny@hotmail.com>, "Abd El Aziz Fennouny" <fennouny2000@yahoo.com>, b.
elsolh@videotron.ca, "Aïcha Barkatis" <abarkatis@hotmail.com>, bilalhamideh@yahoo.com, "CAIR-
CAN" <canada@cair-net.org>, "The Beneficiaries Committee" <combenef@douglas.mcgill.ca>,
"Francine Bourassa" <boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca>
Mrs. Francine Bourassa, Ombudsman
Local Service Quality Commissioner,
Douglas Hospital
Verdun-Montreal-Quebec
H4H 1R3
Montreal, 27th July 2004
Dear Mrs. Bourassa
Please find attached The Medical Examiner (Mr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau) letter as reply to Dr. Youssef
complaints against Mr. H. Iskandar and Mrs. L. Balingo.
There is nothing in it! No contents! No complaints examination! And No professional decisions had
been taken!
The Medical Examiner (and The Director of Professional and Hospital Services-DPHS) of Douglas
Hospital failed to meet his obligations according to:
1- Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics
2- Douglas Hospital Complaint Examination Procedure
3- The Access to Information Act
4- The Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services in Quebec
5- Improving Health Care Services
I request forwarding my complaints to Douglas Hospital Review Committee for Examination, and
consideration for taking disciplinary actions against Drs. Iskandar and Balingo by the Council of
Physicians, Dentists and Pharmacists.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Eng.
Montreal GeoHydro TSRI
35-9361 Rue Francoeur
Montreal-LaSalle, Quebec
H8R 2G5
CANADA
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
ASCE_CSCE@yahoo.ca
GeoHydro2002@yahoo.com
Attachments: -1- Complaint against Drs. Iskander and Balingo July 6th 2004
-2- Dr. Trudeau Reply to Dr. Youssef Complaint July 22nd 2004
-3- Nightmare 2004-I
The Complaints Examination Procedures!
Dr. Youssef Complaints
To the Review Committee of
Douglas Hospital Board of Director
From: boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca
Subject: Submission of your complaints involving physicians to the Review Committee
To: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
CC: Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca, gredia@douglas.
mcgill.ca
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:28:02 -0400
Dr. Youssef:
As you have requested, I have forwarded your request to the Review Committee of the Board of
Directors of Douglas Hospital, as you were dissatisfied with the examination done by Dr. Trudeau,
Medical Examiner. The Review Committee will render a final decision, along with the reasons on which
it is based, within a 60-day period.
Hoping it is satisfactory to you.
Sincerely,
Francine Y. Bourassa, M.A.
Ombudsman (Local Service Quality Commissioner)
Douglas Hospital
6875, LaSalle Blvd.
Verdun, Québec, CANADA
H4H 1R3
francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
Telephone: (514) 761-6131 poste 3287
Fax: (514) 888-4059
www.douglas.qc.ca
From: boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca
Subject: Demande de révision_à_soumettre_au_Président_du_Comité_de
_révision_des_plaintes_du_C.A.
To: "06 DOUG iDirection générale" <06_DOUG_iDirection_g0xL182zn0xL182zrale@douglas.
mcgill.ca>, lorraine.henry@douglas.mcgill.ca
CC: Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca, dubcar@douglas.
mcgill.ca, drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:55:12 -0400
l'attention de : Me James Wright,
président du Comité de révision des plaintes du Conseil d'administration
Direction générale-Hôpital Douglas
la demande de Dr Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., Eng., je vous transmets la demande de révision ci-jointe,
conformément à la Procédure d'examen des plaintes des usagers en vigueur. En effet, Dr Youssef
n'est pas en accord avec les conclusions rendues par le Dr Jean-Bernard Trudeau, médecin
examinateur désigné, suite à l'examen de deux dossiers de plaintes médicales visant Dr Hani
Iskandar, chef médical des Soins intensifs, et Dre Lydia Balingo, psychiatre exerçant au Burgess1.
De plus, je porte également à votre attention que les médecins visés devront être saisis de cette
demande de révision, dans les meilleurs délais, pour être en mesure de vous faire parvenir leurs
observations, selon les modalités que vous aurez déterminées.
En espérant le tout conforme, je vous prie d'agréer, Me Wright, l'expression de mes salutations
distinguées,
Francine Y. Bourassa, M.A.
Ombudsman (commissaire locale à la qualité des services)
Hôpital Douglas
6875, boul LaSalle
Verdun, Québec, CANADA
H4H 1R3
francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca
téléphone: (514) 761-6131 poste 3287
télécopieur: (514) 888-4059
www.douglas.qc.ca
Douglas Hospital Complaints Examination Procedures!
And
The Complaints Review Committee-The Board of Directors-Douglas Hospital
From: pigric@douglas.mcgill.ca
Subject:
To: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
CC: Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca, boufra@douglas.
mcgill.ca, dubcar@douglas.mcgill.ca, iskhan@douglas.mcgill.ca
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:58:30 -0400
Please find enclosed a letter from Mr. James G. Wright, President of the Complaint Review Committee
(See attached file: Accusé demande de révision_youssef.doc)
Richelle Pigeon
Hôpital Douglas
Direction générale
de l'externe: (514) 762-3021
de l'interne: 2739
pigric@douglas.mcgill.ca
http://www.douglas.qc.ca
SENT BY E-MAIL
August 16, 2004
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Eng.
Montreal GeoHydro TSRI
35-9361 Francoeur Street
Montreal – LaSalle (Quebec) H8R 2G5
SUBJECT: Acknowledgement notice of your request for revision dated July 27, 2004
Complaint concerning Dr. Hani Iskandar and Dr. Lydia Balingo
Dear Dr. Youssef,
We hereby acknowledge receipt of the above mentioned request, which was received on July 28,
2004, in conformity with the Act respecting Health and Social services Ombudsman. As your request
for revision was received in writing within 60 days following the receipt of the conclusions forwarded to
you by the medical examiner, as per the Examination Procedure By-Law approved by the Board of
Directors of the Hospital, it will be submitted to members of the Committee for revision.
The Review Committee will examine the complaint record and determine whether the Medical
Examiner handled the complaint diligently and fairly. The Committee shall also ensure, if applicable,
that the conclusions of the medical examiner respected the rights of the parties as well as applicable
professional norms and standards.
In the course of this revision, each party can present its arguments in writing by addressing them to
me c/o the Executive Director of the Hospital before September 7, 2004 after which members of the
Committee will meet to study the complaint file prepared by the Medical Examiner. The Committee
may call any person to the meeting and request any information it deems useful to the examination of
the complaint. If you are summoned by the Review Committee you must comply with the request. You
may, if you wish, be accompanied by a person of your choice. The Ombudsman can assure that you
receive the necessary assistance.
The Review Committee must reach a decision and give reasons that may include a dissenting opinion
within 60 days following receipt of the request for review and send a written copy to the parties
concerned. The decision shall be final and not subject to review.
Yours truly,
James G. Wright, LL.L
President of the Complaint Review Committee
C.C.: Dr Jean-Bernard Trudeau, Medical Examiner
cc: Dre Johanne Martial, member of the Complaint Review Committee
: Dr John Pecknold, member of the Complaint Review Committee
: Ms Francine Y. Bourassa, Ombudsman (Local Service Quality Commissioner)
: Dr Hani Iskandar
: Dr. Lydia Balingo
Dr. Youssef Request for Information
A Letter to Douglas Hospital Ombudsman And
Douglas Hospital Medical Examiner
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Request for Information before September 7, 2004
To: "Francine Bourassa" <boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca>, "Francine DouglasH" <francine.
bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca>
CC: Jean-Bernard_Trudeau/Hopital_Douglas/Reg06/SSSS@douglas.mcgill.ca, pigric@douglas.
mcgill.ca
Dear Mrs. Bourassa
Enclosed you find please Mr. James G. Wright, President of the Complaint Review Committee August
16, 2004 letter concerning my complaints against Drs. Iskandar and Balingo of Douglas Hospital.
According to: The Complaint Examination Procedures By-Law Adopted by the Board of Directors of
the Douglas Hospital (May 15, 2002, Amended June 25, 2003) and in force at the Hospital:
Section 5: Dealing with a Request for Review by the Review Committee:
49. Assistance
“The Ombudsman must provide assistance to any person who wishes to submit a request for review,
in particular by helping him with the preparation of the request and with any steps taken with the
user's committee of the institution or the competent community organization."
As it is quoted from Mr. Wright's letter (August 16, 2004):
"In the course of the revision, each party can present its arguments in writing by addressing them to
me c/o the Executive Director of the Hospital before September 7, 2004 after which members of the
Committee will meet to study the complaint file prepared by the Medical Examiner."
Accordingly, I request complete and independent access to my complete and entire files at the
Medical Records Department of Douglas Hospital, as soon as possible (before September 7, 2004).I
should have the right to review my complete file and make Photo Copies of any paper or report I find
of interest.
The Commission d'Access a l'Information had informed me in writing that Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau is
the person at Douglas Hospital responsible for the Access of Information. I request from you and Dr.
Trudeau to instruct the Medical Records Department in writing, to provide me with all the time and
information I need to access my files at the Hospital.
According to the timed Access to Information Act: I have the Right to Know.
As I previously stated several times to you personally and to Dr. Trudeau, Douglas Hospital staff
should comply with my requests according to the Access to Information Act to have copies of my
complete and entire files as soon as they received my requests (within 21 days as the law stated).
The sad fact is that until now I do not have any copy of my files at Douglas Hospital! This raise lot of
doubts about some of the Hospital Staff Professional conducts. Moreover, it had severe negative
implications on my personal life and Professional Career and Reputation. I had and have the full right
for self defence based on the information in my files, which I should had the right to know right away,
for self defence and time saving according to the timed Access to Information Act. This is what the law
was written for.
Looking forward to receive your notification with the date and time, I can come to the Medical Records
Department of Douglas Hospital to start reviewing and make Photo Copies of my files, please accept
my best regards,
Very truly yours,
Dr. Youssef
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
cc: To whom it may concern
Dr. Youssef Request for Information
A Letter To Douglas Hospital
The Review Committee of The Board of Directors
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Complaints Against Drs. Iskandar and Dr. Balingo-Douglas Hospital
To: pigric@douglas.mcgill.ca
CC: "Action Autonomie" <lecollectif@actionautonomie.qc.ca>, "Abd El Aziz Fennouny"
<fennouny2004@yahoo.ca>, "The Beneficiaries Committee" <combenef@douglas.mcgill.ca>, "Jean
Bernard Trudeau" <jean-bernard.trudeau@douglas.mcgill.ca>, "Francine DouglasH" <francine.
bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca>, "Diane Grenon" <gredia@douglas.mcgill.ca>, "Francine Bourassa"
<boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca>
Dear Mrs. Pigeon
Thank you for your E-Mail and thanks to Mr. James G. Wright for his letter dated August 16, 2004. I
trust Mr. Wright received copy of my today's E-Mail to the Ombudsman and Dr. Trudeau requesting
access to the complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital before September 7, 2004 according to
the Access to Information Act, as well as to the request of Mr. Wright to submit additional arguments in
writing prior to the above date.
I request submitting copy of the enclosed attachments to:
Mr. James G. Wright, LL.L. President of the Complaint Review Committee
Dr. Johanne Martial, member of the Complaint Review Committee
Dr. John Pecknold, member of the Complaint Review Committee
Dr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau, Medical Examiner
Mrs. Francine Bourassa, Ombudsman (Local Service Quality Commissioner)
Dr. Hani Iskandar of Douglas Hospital
Dr. Lydia Balingo of Douglas Hospital
Very truly yours,
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Civil Engineer (Cold Regions)
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Attachments: 1- Complaints_Against_Drs._Iskandar_and_Balingo__2004.doc
2- Nightmare_2004_August_17th.doc
3- Dr._Youssef_Academic_Qualifications_2004.doc
Montréal, September 3, 2004
SENT BY E-MAIL
Mr. Hassan Hamdy Youssef
9361, Francoeur St., Apt. 35
LaSalle, Québec
H8R 2G5
SUBJECT: Your complaints submitted to the Review Committee concerning
Dr. Hani Iskandar and Dr. Lydia Balingao
______________________________________________________________________
Dear Sir:
As Director of Professional and Hospital Services, I hereby confirm that I have received your request
to have access to your complete medical file. According to the rules and regulations that govern us,
the treating physician must be the person who authorizes access to your file, or ultimately the Director
of Professional and Hospital Services.
In the situation that we are currently experiencing, and in light of the fact that you have lodged a
complaint against the two treating physicians who took care of you during your last stay at the
hospital, and that you contested the medical examiner’s conclusions in front to the review committee,
the situation is therefore rather delicate whether to authorize or not access to your medical file.
In order to avoid potential conflicts of interest, I have contacted Ms. Nancy St-Sauveur, Coordinator of
Medical Records, and considering that we are unable to correctly give you access to your file, I have
asked her to send you a letter that you should receive sometime next week or you could submit a
request directly to the Commission d’accès à l’information to obtain a copy of your file.
I hereby wanted to inform you immediately about that this upcoming letter.
Jean-Bernard Trudeau, M.D.
Director of Professional and Hospital Services
C.c. Mr. James Wright, President - Review Committee.
Mrs. Francine Bourassa, Local Service Quality Commissioner.
Ms. Nancy St-Sauveur, Coordinator – Medical Records.
Mrs. Nancy St-Sauveur, H.R.A. Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Coordinator/Admitting Office Civil Engineer
Medical Records Department 35-9361 Rue Francoeur
Douglas Hospital Montreal-LaSalle, Quebec
6875, LaSalle Blvd., Montreal H8R 2G5
Quebec, H4H 1R3
SEND BY MAIL 12th September 2004-09-12
Dear Mrs. St-Sauveur
As you indicated in your registered letter dated 9th September 2004, Dr. Youssef did always
requested, and in writing since 2001, printed copy of the complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital.
Until the present 12th September 2004, Dr. Youssef did not receive the paper or digital copy of the
complete and entire files (or any file in that matter) from the Medical Records Department of Douglas
Hospital.
In reply to your register letter of 9th September 2004, (which has nothing in it, in term of files? There
was no Medical Records included! You should be serious. Dr. Youssef will keep your letter as well as
Mr. Trudeau letters in file), I request complete and independent access to my complete and entire
files at the Medical Records Department of Douglas Hospital, as soon as possible. I should have the
right to review my complete files and make Photo Copies of any paper or report I personally find of
interest.
The Commission d’Access a l’information had informed me in writing that Mr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau is
the person responsible at Douglas Hospital for the Access of Information. I request from you and Mr.
Trudeau to instruct the Medical Records Department in writing, to provide me with all the time and
information I need to access my complete files at this Hospital.
According to the timed Access to Information Act, I have and had the right to know.
Finally, after all these long years of failure of some of Douglas Hospital staff (on my personal
expenses), it is obvious to everyone that: ‘honest people do not do their best to hide what they wrote,
moreover honest people do not do their best to cover up for others wrong doing.’
Looking for the pleasure to receive your notification (by registered mail, as of your 9th of September
2004 letter) with the date and time I can come to the Medical Records Department of Douglas Hospital
to start reviewing and make copies of my files, please accept my best regards,
Very truly yours,
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., Eng.
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
cc: To whom it may concern
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Réf. : Complaint Against Douglas Hospital
To: boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca
Dr. Youssef REJECT your E-Mail entirely.
boufra@douglas.mcgill.ca wrote:
Dear Sir:
I acknowledge receipt of your E-mail dated October 4, 2004 regarding the above subject.
For your information, the decision rendered by the Review Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Douglas Hospital concerning your medical complaint against the two doctors is final and without any
other appeal at an administrative level, according the Act Respecting Health and Social Services. The
Review Committee is not an Tribunal such as the Commission d'examen des troubles mentaux. At this
point, you may seek information from the Inquiries Division of the Collège des médecins du Québec
given its mandate to protect the public. You may consult its website: www.cmq.org.
As per the matter of not getting access to your medical record over the years, please refer yourself
the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec (CAI) which recourse was provided to you on many
different occasions. The CAI is the appropriate entity where to appeal for the
momentary suspension of your right to access your medical record by the Douglas Hospital's
authorities. This recourse is free.
Hoping that this information could be useful.
Sincerely,
Francine Y. Bourassa, M.A,
Ombudsman (Local Service Quality Commissioner)
Douglas Hospital
6875, LaSalle Blvd.
Verdun, Québec, CANADA
H4H 1R3
francine.bourassa@douglas.mcgill.ca , www.douglas.qc.ca
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Eng.
Montreal GeoHydro TSRI
35-9361 Rue Francoeur
Montreal-LaSalle, Quebec
H8R 2G5
CANADA
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
ASCE_CSCE@yahoo.ca
GeoHydro2002@yahoo.com
Mrs. Francine Bourassa, (Ombudsman)
Douglas Hospital
Montreal-Quebec
H4H 1R3
4th October 2004
Mrs. Bourassa
Please find attached The Review Committee letter dated September 23rd 2004 (sent by Mr. James
Wright secretary, Mrs. Caroline Dubé), concerning the meeting without my participation on September
16th, 2004.
Reference is made to Mr. James Wright letter dated August 16th, 2004, acknowledging my request for
complaint examination against Mr. H. Iskander and Mrs. L. Balingo of Douglas Hospital.
I did not receive the complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital, before or after September 7th,
2004, more over I was not notified with any meeting to attend with a defence lawyer and friends to
present our arguments based on the facts.
The members of Douglas Hospital-Board of Directors-Review Committee (Mr. James Wright, Mrs.
Johanne Martial, and Mr. John Pecknold), failed to meet their obligations according to:
1. The Access to Information Act
2. Douglas Hospital Complaint Examination Procedure
3. Douglas Hospital Code of Ethics
4. The Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services in Quebec,
5. Improving Health Care Service
There is nothing in their letter! No Facts! No Content! No Complaint Examination! And No Professional
decisions had been taken!
Dr. Youssef rejects their letter, as previously rejected Mr. Jean-Bernard Trudeau letter dated July 19,
2004. And his letter of apology dated June 30th 2004; he did not keep his words even in the presence
of a witness (fennouny2004@yahoo.ca).
Dr. Youssef rejects Mrs. Nancy St-Sauveur (of the Medical Records Department) letter dated,
September 29th 2004.
Dr. Youssef also rejects the Hospital Ombudsman letter dated March 31st, 2004.
Dr. Youssef does not trust any internal complaint examination procedures at Douglas Hospital. It is
obvious to everyone how the Hospital staff function, read Dr. Youssef 10 points complaint with the
detail account in the attachment (Nightmare 2004).
According to the Complaint Examination Procedures By-Law 2003 (page 20), the Review Committee,
the Medical Examiner, and the Ombudsman must submit Annual Reports to Douglas Hospital Board of
Directors, including all the complaints submitted, and the reports should be available to the public, as
well as my complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital.
Dr. Youssef has nothing to hide, how about the Douglas Hospital staff!
I have to clear my reputation, restore, and defend my rights.
Dr. Youssef can challenge Douglas Hospital in Public Inquiry.
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., Eng.
Cold Regions Engineering
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
cc: To whom it may concern
THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM
Islam means ‘Submission to the will of God.’ In its ethical sense Islam signifies ‘Striving after the ideal.’
A Muslim is one who submits to the will of God. ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ derive from the same word as the
Arabic for ‘Peace’. The traditional Muslim greeting is ’Peace upon you.’
Islam offers hope for salvation to the righteous and God- fearing of all religions. Muslims believe in the
Divine Revelations of many prophets including: Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (Peace be
upon them), but they do not believe that God assumed human form.
The Holy Quran, Muslims believe, is God’s Word and Final Revelation to The Prophet Muhammad,
Revealed over a period of twenty- three years. The Holy Quran was compiled and distributed to
distant lands within twenty- five years of The Prophet’s death in 632 A.D. This is the only Holy Quran
recognized by Muslims.
Comprising laws, moral precepts, and narratives. The Quran’s timeless text remains an inspiration
and guide for more than one fifth of humanity. Together with The Quran, The epitome of Classical
Arabic, Muslims lives are guided by the examples and sayings of The Prophet. Thousands of sayings
have been attributed to The Prophet. Some are accepted as authentic; some traced to The Prophet’s
companions, some are the subject of debate. Some examples:
EXAMPLES AND SAYINGS OF THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD
***** ‘The first thing created by God was intellect.’
***** ‘The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self.’
***** ‘The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr.’
***** ‘One learned man is harder on the devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers.’
***** ‘Riches are not from an abundance of worldly goods, but from a contented mind.’
***** ‘Reflect upon God’s creation but not upon His nature or else you will perish.’
***** ‘He who wishes to inter Paradise at the best door must please his mother and
father.’
***** ‘No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that which he desires
for himself.’
***** ‘When the bier of anyone passes by you, whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim, rise
to your feet.’
***** ‘The thing which is lawful but disliked by God, is divorce.’
***** ‘Heaven lies at the feet of mothers.’
***** ‘Women are the twin- halves of men.’
***** ‘Actions will be judged according to intentions.’
***** ‘that which is lawful is clear, and that which is unlawful likewise, but there are
certain
doubtful things between the two from which it is well to abstain.'
***** ‘The proof of a Muslim sincerity is that he pays no attention to that which is not his business.’
***** ‘That person nearest to God, who pardons…him who would have injured him.’
***** ‘Yield obedience to my successor, although he may be an Abyssinian slave.’
***** ‘Assist any person oppressed, whether Muslim or non Muslim.’
***** ‘The creation is like God’s family…the most beloved into God is the person who does
good to God’s Family.’
***** ‘Modesty and chastity are parts of the Faith.’
Islamic Law is based upon the Holy Quran, examples and sayings of The Prophet, consensus among
the learned, analogical deduction, and individual reasoning. Islamic society comes closer than any
other society to the ideal democracy. All persons are equal before God; goodness is the only criterion
of worth. There is no priesthood in Islam, even a child, with greater knowledge of The Holy Quran than
his elders, may lead them in prayers. To become a Muslim, one need only profess:
‘There is no God but God, Muhammad is the Messenger of God’
www.twf.org
In The Name of God the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
ISLAM AT A GLANCE
In minutes and for lifetime
www.isna.net
The Islamic Society of North America, USA.
www.NAIT.net
ISNA- Islamic Book Services- USA.
www.isnacanada.com
The Islamic Society of North America- Canada
www.IQRA.org
IQRA- The International Education Foundation, USA.
www.IQRABOOKCENTER.org
IQRA’s Book Center, USA.
www.ISLAM.org/IIS
Islamic Information Services, CA, USA.
www.ProjectMaps.com
The Center for Muslim- Christian understanding
CMCU- George Town University- Washington, USA.
www.ipci-iv.co.uk
Islamic Vision, Birmingham, England
www.Ahmad-DEEDAT.co.za
IPCI- Durban- RSA
www.JDCI.org
The Jeddah Dawa (Invitation) Center Int., Saudi Arabia.
Islamic Encyclopedia
www.alazhr.com/Mosques
www.dar-alafta.org/
www.montrealmuslims.ca
Montreal-Canada Muslims News
www.cicnow.com
Canadian Islamic Congress- Waterloo-Ontario-Canada
www.caircan.ca
Council on American-Islamic Relations CANADA
www.icqmontreal.com
The Islamic Center of Quebec-Canada
www.ssmu.McGill.ca/MSA
McGill University- Muslim Students Association-Canada
www.islam-online.net
www.islamtoday.net
Islamic Web Site- Quran Recitation (Arabic with English- French Translation).
www.Albayan-Magazine.com
Islamic Magazine- London, England
www.weekly.ahram.org.eg
http://www.ahram.org.eg
English Language-Arabic Magazine-Egypt
The above are the teachings of the holy Prophets: Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad
(peace be upon them).
‘Allah is Adam’s God … our God’
* Prepared for The University of Quebec at Montreal-Canada (UQAM- INRS) June 2003 Conference: ‘
Muslim- Christian - Jews Understanding’ drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
Biography
Dr. Youssef graduated from Alexandria University- Egypt in 1972, and appointed to join the teaching
staff of The Department of Civil Engineering. Due to the large number of undergraduate students, Dr.
Youssef had the chance to participate in teaching several civil engineering courses to over 2000
undergraduate students. Simultaneously with the teachning duties, Dr. Youssef carried out research
work in Hydraulics and obtained M.Sc. degree in 1975, with specialization in Hydro- Technical
Engineering from Alexandria University. In addition to the academic duties at Alexandria University,
Dr. Youssef carried out design work in civil engineering projects at Prof. A. Shukry (F. ASCE)
Consultant Office and during his stay at Firma Stampfli and FIDES of Switzerland, where he
accumulated experiences in Computer Applications in Civil Engineering Projects.
In July 1975, Dr. Youssef traveled to Canada to join The Department of Civil Engineering of
Concordia University- Montreal, and advanced his interests in computer applications (Analog/Hybrid
and Digital Simulation techniques.) In 1976, Dr. Youssef joined The University of Calgary and his
research interests concentrated in theoretical soil dynamics and experimental research to study the
mechanical behaviour and dynamic properties of ice and frozen soils. In 1978 Dr. Youssef granted the
Canadian Citizenship in Calgary- Alberta- Canada. Dr. Youssef obtained M.Sc. degree from the
University of Calgary in 1979 with specialization in Geotechnical Engineering.
Following the completetion of the research project at the University of Calgary, Dr. Youssef joined The
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Montreal, and conducted experimental research
to investigate the intergranular stresses in frozen soils. Dr. Youssef obtained Ph.D. degree [with GPA
4/4] in 1984, from The University of Montreal- Canada. During the stay at The University of Montreal,
Dr. Youssef was awarded research grants from the University of Montreal [Ecole Polytechnique- FDP]
and The Government of Quebec [FCAC] for excellence in research.
The US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory- USA CRREL awarded Dr. Youssef
research grants for experimental research concerning the mechanical behaviour of frozen soils. Dr.
Youssef’s independent research work resulted in extensive experimental results on Triaxial
Compression, Triaxial Stress- Relaxation and Compressibility of Frozen Sands, in addition to the
developments of laboratory testing equipment and technique, as well as data reduction and graphics
computer programs for analysis of the experimental results.
Dr. Youssef joined The Department of Civil Engineering, Ruhr University Bochum- Germany where he
modified and implemented the design work for Youssef’s Triaxial Cell with Self- Cooling System
[TCWSCS] for testing ice and frozen soils in the normal geotechnical laboratory.
Dr. Youssef’s Triaxial Cell with Self Cooling System, for Testing Ice and Frozen Soils [TCWSCS] as
well as Dr. Youssef’s Testing Technique for Automatic Measurements of Volume Change of Frozen
Soils [AMVC-FS] are published by ASTM- The American Society for Testing and Materials-
Geotechnical Testing Journal. The independent research output permitted Dr. Youssef to discover
the mechanisms controlling the volume change behaviour of frozen soils during deformations under
triaxial stresses, the discovery is published by ASCE- The American Society of Civil Engineers-
Journal of Cold Regions Engineering Dr. Youssef participated in several National and International
Conferences- and contributed extensively to the ice and frozen soils mechanics and dynamic scientific
publications in International Conferences and Journals.
Geohydro2002@yahoo.com
Montreal GeoHydro Technical Simulation Research Institute
Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., Civil Engineer
Geohydro2002@yahoo.com
drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
groundfreezing@yahoo.ca
MEMBERSHIPS
ASCE, CSCE, OEQ, ISSMFE, ASTM
ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock
ASTM Committee E-31 on Computerized Systems
ASTM Committee E-20 on Temperature Measurements
ASTM Committee D-4 on Road and Paving Materials
Ambassador Club, Palais de Congres de Montréal- Québec- Canada
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE
Ph.D. Geotechnical Engineering [GPA 4/4]
University of Montreal- Quebec- Canada
Post-Doctor Fellow
Ruhr-University, Bochum- Germany
1975-87 Research Associate
Concordia University, Montreal- Canada
M.Sc. Geotechnical Engineering
University of Calgary, Alberta- Canada
1972-1975 M.Sc. B.Sc. Civil Engineering
University of Alexandria- Egypt
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1. US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory-USA CRREL
Hanover, New Hampshire- USA
Presenting Seminar on Dynamic and Static Testing of Ice and Frozen Soils.
Completed CRREL research contracts on Geotechnical Engineering for Cold Regions.
2. Ruhr-University, Bochum- West Germany
Developing of Triaxial Cell with Self-Cooling and Insulating Systems for Testing Ice and Frozen Soils in
the Normal Geotechnical Laboratory [TCWSCS-l].
3. University of Montreal, Quebec- Canada
Developing of Triaxial Cell with Self Cooling System [TCWSCS] and a new testing technique for
automatic measurement of volume change of frozen soils [AMVC-FS].
Development of the computer programs FROZENSOIL.l and EFFECTIVE for data reduction, analysis
and graphics of frozen soils experimental results.
Extensive experimental research on the triaxial behaviour of frozen soils and providing quantitative
results of intergranular stresses of frozen sands.
Providing first-time results on compressibility and triaxial stress-relaxation of frozen sands.
4. University of Calgary, Alberta- Canada
Participation in development of a new apparatus for dynamic and static creep testing of frozen ground
utilizing Drenvich's Resonant Column Device, and the computer program RESCOL4 fore data
reduction and analysis of the dynamic properties of Polycrystalline Ice.
Developing analytical and numerical [Program PILEDYNS] solutions for vertical vibration of piles
supporting machine foundation.
5. Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec- Canada
Research work on the mechanical behaviour of unfrozen sand. Analog/Digital and Hybrid simulation of
wave motions [water-earth dam interaction].
Solving non-linear differential equations utilizing [US Air Force] MIMIC [Digital/ Analog] program.
Design and implementation of electrical power system load prediction [Hydro Quebec data] utilizing
Analog/ Digital and Hybrid simulation.
6. University of Alexandria, Egypt
Three years of full time undergraduate teaching to Civil Engineering students.
Experimental and theoretical determination of pressure and velocity distributions in non-symmetrical
curved conduits for design of Hydro Electrical Stations.
Organizing and participation in teaching of intensive course for applications of computer programming
in Civil Engineering.
Design of constructions at Professor A. Shukry [F, ASCE] and Firma Stämpfli and FIDES- Switzerland
consulting offices.
7. Participation in National and International Conferences
Publications
I. COLD REGIONS:
1. Youssef, H. [1987]. "Cold Regions Engineering a Century of Canadian Research and
Development." Proc. The Canadian Society for Civil engineering Centennial Conference, ISBN
921303-06-8, pp. 305-327. The Canadian Engineering Centennial Convention, 18- 22 May 1987.
Palais de Congres de Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Theme: Canadian Engineering -The Next Hundred
Years. Invited Speakers: The Prime Minister and the Governor General of Canada
II. PERMAFROST- ICE and FROZEN SOILS
2. Youssef, H. [2003].”Dynamic Testing of Polycrystalline Ice”. Proc. The 17th International
Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, POAC03, Trondheim, Norway,
16- 19 June 2003.
3. Youssef, H. [2003]. “Static Testing of Polycrystalline Ice”. Proc. The 17th International
Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, POAC03, Trondheim, Norway,
16- 19 June 2003.
4. Youssef, H. [2003]. “Triaxial Rheology and Shear Behavior of Ground Ice”. Proc. The 17th
International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, POAC03,
Trondheim, Norway, 16- 19 June 2003.
5. Youssef, H. [2003]. “Permafrost Geotechnical Testing- New Information and Current
Research”. Proc. The 8th International Conference on Permafrost, Zurich- Switzerland, 21- 25 July
2003.
6. Youssef, H. [2003]. “Laboratory Testing and Data Processing of Frozen Soils” Book- Testing
Manual, Accepted for Publications, Swets & Zeitlinger/ A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The
Netherlands, 2003.
7. Youssef, H. [1988]. "Classification and Laboratory Testing of Artificially Frozen Ground." The
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, Discussion on Paper
By: F.H. Sayles, H.W. Baker, F. Gallavers, H.L. Jessberger, S.Kinosita, A. Sadiviskiy, D. Sego and S.
Vyalov. Paper No. 21318, Vol. 1, No.1, 1987,ASCE, JCRE, USA.
8. Youssef, H. [1988]. "Volume Change Behavior of Frozen Sands." The American Society of
Civil Engineers, Journal of Cold Regions Engineering - JCRE, Paper No.22484 - Vol. 2, No.2, June
1988, ASCE, USA.
9. Youssef, H., Hanna A.M. [1988]. "Behavior of Frozen and Unfrozen Sands in Triaxial Testing."
Transportation Research Record Journal- Issue 1190- ISBN: 0- 309- 04758- 7, Transportation
Research Board- National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington D.C. 20418,
USA.
10. Youssef, H. [1988] "Octahedral Shear and Normal Stresses in Frozen Soils." Proc. The Fifth
International Conference on Permafrost, Trondheim- Norway, 2- 5 August 1988. The Norwegian
Institute of Technology, N-7034, NTH, Norway.
11. Youssef, H. [1988]. "Acoustic Emission and Volume Change Techniques for Determination of
Fractures of Frozen Soils." The Fifth International Conference on Permafrost, Trondheim- Norway, 2-
5 August 1988. The Norwegian Institute of Technology, N-7034, NTH, Norway.
12. Youssef, H. [1987]. "Correlations Between Creep and Stress- Relaxation of Frozen Soils." Proc.
The 9th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, POAC '87,
Fairbanks, Alaska- USA.
13. Youssef, H. [1987]. "Compressibility of Sand- Ice System." Proc. The 9th International
Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, POAC '87. The University of
Alaska- Fairbanks, 17- 21 August 1987, USA.
14. Youssef, H. [1986]. "Repeated Load Triaxial Testing of Frozen Soils." Discussion on Paper by: D.
M. Cole, G. Durrell, and E. Chamberlain, Geotechnica1 Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 9, No.4,
December 1986, pp. 221-225. ASTM- The American Society for Testing and Materials - USA.
15. Youssef, H. (1986]. "Mechanical and Dynamic Properties of Polycrystalline Ice." Proc. The
International Offshore and Navigation Conference, POLARTECH '86, Helsinki, 27-30 October 1986.
Publisher: Technical Research Center of Finland (VTT Symp. 70), pp. 283-298, ISBN 951-38-2714-3,
Sponsor Publ: Penn Well Publishing Company, USA.
16. Youssef, H. [1986]. "Mechanical and Dynamic Properties and Behavior of Frozen Soils." Proc.
The International Offshore and Navigation Conference, POLARTECH '86, October 27-30,1986,
Publisher: Technical Research Center of Finland [VTT Symp. 70], pp. 299-322, ISBN 951-38-2714-3.
Helsinki- Finland.
17. Youssef, H, [1986]. "Determination of Pore Ice Stresses in Frozen Soils." Proc. The International
Offshore and Navigation Conference, POLARTECH '86, 27-30 October 1986. Publisher: Technical
Research Center of Finland [VTT Symp. 70], pp. 262-282, ISBN 951-38-2714-3. Helsinki- Finland.
18. Youssef, H. [1984]. "Indirect Determination of Intergranular Stresses in Frozen Soils." Ph.D.
Thesis, The University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. National Library of Canada, 1-17947, ISBN: 0-
315-122225-0. Ottawa- Canada.
19. Silvestri, V., Youssef, H., Tan, P. and Favre, M. [1983]. "Triaxial and Stress Relaxation of Frozen
Sands." Proc. The 7th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic
Conditions, POAC '83, 5- 9 Apri1 1983,. Publisher: Technical Research Center of Finland [VTT Symp.
28], pp. 720-732, ISBN: 951-38-1703-2. Helsinki- Finland
20. Soulie, M., Tinawi, R., Silvestri, V., and Youssef, H. [1983]. "Stress Relaxation of Frozen Sands."
Proc. The 7th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions,
POAC '83, 5-9 April 1983, Publisher: Technical Research Center of Finland [VTT Symp. 28], pp. 733-
745, ISBN 951-38-1703-2.2. Helsinki- Finland.
21. Youssef, H., Kuhlemeyer, R., and French, R. [1982]. "Development of an Apparatus for Static
and Dynamic Creep Testing of Ice and Frozen Soils." Proc. The Fourth Canadian Permafrost
Conference, Calgary, Alberta- Canada, 2-6 March 1981, pp. 419-432. Roger Brown Memorial
Volume- H.M. French, Editor. Publisher: The National Research Council- Canada, DSS NR: 15-
16,1982, ISBN: 0660-5141-3 NRCC 20124, Canada.
22. Youssef, H. [1981]. "Mechanical Properties of Low Density Ice Under Cyclic Axial Loading."
Invited Discussion by President of POAC '81, on Lecturer Paper by: T. Vinson. Proc. The Sixth
International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, POAC'81.
University Laval- Quebec, Publisher: Division des Publications, University Laval, RPDP-82-99, pp.
1475-80, Quebec- Canada.
23. Youssef, H., and Kuhlemeyer, R. [1981]. "Dynamic and Static Creep Testing of Ice and Frozen
Soils." Proc. POAC '81, Publisher: Division des Publications RPDP- 82-99, pp. 727- 737, Universite
Laval, Quebec- Canada.
24. Youssef, H. and Kuhlemeyer, R. [1981], "Authors Reply On: Dynamic and Static Creep Testing of
Ice and Frozen Soils" on Discussion by: D.V. Reddy of Memorial University of Newfoundland. Proc.
POAC '81. Publisher: University Laval, Quebec- Canada.
25. Youssef, H. Kuhlemeyer, R., and French, R. [1981]. "A Technique for Measuring Creep
Deformation of Frozen Specimens." Proc. The Eighth Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics,
CANCAM '81. Publisher: The University of Moncton, New Brunswick- Canada.
26. Youssef, H. [1979]. "Development of a Testing Apparatus for Static and Dynamic Creep Testing
of Ice and Frozen Soils." M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Calgary,
Alberta- Canada. Publication of The Center for Information and Numerical Data Analysis and
Synthesis [CINDAS], Vol. 24, pp. 85, W.H. Shafer, Editor, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana-
USA.
III. GROUND FREEZING:
27. Youssef, H. and Hanna, A.M. [1987]. "Ground Freezing Technique for Construction under
Difficult Soil Conditions." Proc. International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering of Soft Soils
(Mexico 1987). Mexican Society for Soil Mechanics- Mexico.
28. Youssef, H. [1988]. "Triaxial Cell with Self Cooling and Insulating System." Proc. The Fifth
International Symposium on Ground Freezing, ISGF '88, 26-28 July 1988. Nottingham- England.
Publisher: A.A. Balkema, The Netherlands.
29. Youssef, H. [1985]. "Development of New Triaxial Cell with Self Cooling System [TCWSCS] for
Testing Ice and Frozen Soils". Proc. Fourth International Symposium on Ground Freezing, ISGF’85, 5-
7 August 1985. Vol. 2, pp. 247-252. Publisher: Hokkaido University Press, Kita 8, Nishi 8, Sapporo
060, Siti Kinosita and Masami Fukuda, Editors, Japan.
IV. UNFROZEN SOILS:
30. Youssef, H. [1987]. "A New Automatic Volume Change Monitoring Device." Discussion on Paper
by: N.S. Rad and G. W. Clough. Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 10, No.1, March 1987.
The American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19103- USA.
31. Hanna, A.M., and Youssef, H. [1987]. "Evaluation of Dilatancy Theory of Granular Materials."
Proc. International Symposium on Prediction and Performance in Geotechnical Engineering. The
University of Calgary, Alberta- Canada. Publisher: A.A. Balkema, The Netherlands.
32. Hanna, A.M., Massoud, N., and Youssef, H. [1987]. "Prediction of Plan Strain Angles of Shearing
Resistance from Triaxial Test Results." Proc. The International Symposium on prediction and
Performance in Geotechnical Engineering. The University of Calgary, Alberta- Canada. Publisher: A.
A. Balkema Publishing Company, The Netherlands.
33. Hanna, A.M., Massoud, N. and Youssef, H. [1987]. "Prediction of Plane Strain Angles of Shearing
Resistance from Direct Shear Test Results." Proc. The 11th Canadian Congress of Applied
Mechanics, CANCAM '87, The University of Edmonton, Alberta- Canada.
V. SOIL DYNAMICS:
34. Youssef, H. [1981]. "Pile Response to Vertical Vibration." Proc. of The International Conference
on Numerical Methods for Coupled Problems, 7 –11 September 1981, University College of Swansea,
U .K. Publisher: Pine Ridge Press Ltd. [Numerical Methods for Coupled Problems, Editors: E. Hinton,
P. Betts, and R. W. Lewis, pp. 655-664, ISBN 0-906674-13-1], West Cross Lane 91, Swansea-
England.
35. Youssef, H. [1987]. "Vertical Vibration of Pile Foundation- Computer Program Documentation."
Proc. The Eighth National Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, The
Federation of Polish Engineering Association, Polish Committee on Geotechnique, October 1987. The
Institute of Geotechnics of Wroclaw Technical University, Warsaw- Poland.
36. Youssef, H. [1987]. " Analytical Solution for Dynamically Loaded Pile." Proc. The International
Conference on Foundations and Tunnels, March 24-26, 1987. The University of London, Goldsmith
College, New Cross, London- England.
37. Youssef, H. [1988]. "Dynamically Loaded Pile in over consolidated Clay." Discussion on Paper
By: G.L. Muster II, and M. W. O'Neill, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 11, No.3,
September 1988. The American Society for Testing and Materials- ASTM, 1916 Race St.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103- USA
VI. ANALOG/DIGITAL AND HYBRID COMPUTER SIMULATION:
38. Youssef, H. [1987]. "Analog/Hybrid and Digital Simulation in Civil Engineering." Proc. The
Second International Conference on Advances in Numerical Methods in Engineering Theory and
Applications- NUMETA '87, 6-10 July 1987, University College Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea- U. .
K.
VII. HYDROTECHNICAL ENGINEERING:
39. Youssef, H. [1975]. "Pressure and Velocity Distribution in Closed Curved Conduits." M.Sc. Thesis,
The Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Alexandria, Egypt.
40. Youssef, H., and El Ansary, A. [1981]. "Pressure and Velocity Distribution in Closed Curved
Conduits." Proc. The Eighth Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics, CANCAM '81, Universite de
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.
41. Youssef, H. [1987]. "Dynamic Pressure Distribution in Closed Curved Conduits." Proc. The 20th
Midwestern Mechanics Conference, Purdue University, Indiana- USA.
Montreal 1988-2004
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D.
MONTREAL-QUEBEC-Canada
Canada Faces a Professor Shortage
Louis Maheu,
Dean of graduate studies
The University of Montreal
And President:
the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies
Meeting the education needs of a knowledge-based economy is one of the most fundamental
challenges that Canada is facing.
According to a recent study for the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies, there will be a serious
shortage of people educated at the master’s and doctoral levels in Canada. Combined with the efforts
of the brain drain to the United States, the situation is serious and calls for immediate action.
In order to avoid a shortage, we must take drastic measures to provide more support to universities,
for research and to those students who wish to pursue higher education.
University enrolment in Canada is expected to climb in coming years. Conservative estimates forecast
that enrolment will increase from 575,000 to 700,000 students in 10 years. At the same time, only a
small percentage of university students will pursue master’s or doctoral-level studies. The number of
doctoral students in Canada has stagnated. Only 0.4 per cent of the Canadian population undertakes
graduate studies, significantly lower than the 0.6 per cent in the United States and 0.7 per cent in
Britain. The gap is enormous.
Since 1992, we have lost 3,500 fulltime professors due in large to universities, inability, because of
budget cuts, to replace retiring faculty.
A large number of professors are now nearing the retirement age. Combined with an increase in
student numbers these retirements are creating hiring needs of between 2,500 and 3,000 new faculty
a year. By 2010, that adds up to 30,000 new hires.
At current graduation rates, Canadian universities can supply only half of the new faculty needed.
About 100,000 graduate students are currently enrolled in Canadian Universities. Of the 25,000 who
will graduate each year, about 4,000 will graduate with a Ph.D. of those doctoral-level graduates; only
1,5000 will pursue careers in universities.
We cannot count in immigration, as the vast majority of the 2,500 Ph.D. level immigrants who enter
Canada each year seek work in private industry.
Canada will suffer if the situation is not addressed quickly.
Prof. Louis Maheu
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com> Yahoo! DomainKeys has
confirmed that this message was sent
Subject: Dossier CAI 05 15 00: Dr. Hamdy Youssef _ Demandeur
To: dominique.baron@cai.gouv.qc.ca
CC: "Hamdy Hassan Youssef" <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Dear Me. Baron
Reference to our telephone communications last week, I appreciate receiving the English copy of your
letter dated 2006-07-07, (File No.: CAI 05 15 00).
Thanks
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., P.Eng.
35- 9361 Rue Francoeur, LaSalle
Montreal, QC, H8R 2G5
Tel: (514) 680- 7862
(510) 379- 7145
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:23:42 -0400
From: "Dominique Baron" <Dominique.Baron@cai.gouv.qc.ca> View Contact Details
To: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Subject: Rép. : Dossier CAI 05 15 00: Dr. Hamdy Youssef _ Demandeur
Bonjour,
Veuillez prendre note que je serai en vacances du 24 juillet au 4 août
2006. Il me fera plaisir
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Subject: Dossier CAI 05 15 00: Dr. Hamdy Youssef _ Demandeur
To: dominique.baron@cai.gouv.qc.ca
CC: drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com
Dear Me. Baron
Reference is made to the Commission d'accés a l'information du Québec letter dated 2006-08-29
(signed by the Secrétriat général: Guylaine Filion).
Dr. Youssef request receiving his complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital by MAIL.
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., P.Eng.
N.B. The Tribunal administrative du Québec (TAQ) had mailed to me my complete and entire files at
the (TAQ), no question asked, and Douglas Hospital should do the same long time ago and should do
that now. I have to point out here that The Access to Information Act is a timed LAW (21 days LAW)
and should be respected. It is my Rights to have my complete and entire files at Douglas Hospital, and
I trust you will act accordingly.
Dr. Youssef
"Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dr. Hamdy Youssef,Eng." <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Subject: Dossier CAI 05 15 00: Dr. Hamdy Youssef _ Demandeur
To: dominique.baron@cai.gouv.qc.ca
CC: Hamdy Hassan Youssef <drhamdyyoussef@yahoo.com>
Dear Me. Baron
Reference to our telphone communications last week, I appreciate receiving the English copy of your
letter dated 2006-07-07, (File No.: CAI 05 15 00).
Thanks
Dr. Hamdy Youssef, Ph.D., P.Eng.
35- 9361 Rue Francoeur, LaSalle
Montreal, QC, H8R 2G5
Tel: (514) 680- 7862
(510) 379- 7145
Attachments
Files:
Dr._Youssef_Academic_Qualifications_2004.doc (71k) [Preview]
Dr._Youssef_Contribution_POAC03_Trondheim_Norway.pdf (1.1MB)
RH_Paul_Martin_Letter_2006_04_03.doc (273k) [Preview]
Photos:
Alexandria_University_Egypt.jpg (383k) [View]
Dr._Youssef.jpg (285k) [View]
Photo_315.jpg (420k) [View]
Save All to Yahoo! Photos
The Access To Information Commission:
My Request Date: 2005-08-15
Their Letter of Response date: 2006-08-07
In the letter they set a date for a meeting at their Montreal office with representative from Douglass
Hospital:
The Set Meeting Dates: 2006-09-06
Their letter of cancellation of the meeting upon Douglass Hospital demand dated 2006-08-09,
I received the Cancellation letter from the commission dated: 2006-08-29
I also received (home delivery) from Douglass Hospital, the letter for request of cancellation dated:
2006-08-17
It is of interest to review the above dates:
THEY PLAY WITH THE TIME.
This is non professional
Dr. Youssef