The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has denied a Bedford woman's bid to know the names of staff members involved in an inquiry into a dispute with a seniors nursing home about the care her parents received.
Ellen Rudderham-Gaudet had filed a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPOP) appeal seeking to learn the names that had been redacted from the documents.
Justice M. Heather Robertson heard the case on Nov. 19 and the written decision, available on the Courts of Nova Scotia website, was released on Wednesday.
Rudderham-Gaudet's parents were residents at the St. Vincent’s Guest House from April 2013 to February 2016, the decision points out.
Over-medication, isolation, rough language alleged
Starting from August 15, 2015, Rudderham-Gaudet made five complaints, including that "she found her mother suddenly in a 'zombie' state, having been prescribed what she described as a high dose of hydromorphone (3 mg-dilaudid)," the decision says.
The judge writes that the complaints involved "serious allegations of over medication, isolation, failure to get her mother out of bed, rough language directed toward her parents and finally an allegation of 'being roughed up' or 'rough handling.'"
The Protection of Persons in Care Act inquiry report concluded on Aug. 21, 2015, that her first complaint "does not meet the definition of abuse as per section 3(1)(b) of the PPCA Regs," and it was closed at the inquiry stage. Subsequent complaints also were dismissed at inquiry stage.
"Ms. Rudderham-Gaudet’s real issue is that she believes her complaints made pursuant to the PPCA resulted in only a superficial inquiry into the allegations," Robertson's decision says. "She attributes this primarily to the reporting of various staff members and the Director of Care, Mr. Ken Rehman, in minimizing the seriousness of the events she complained of."
Rudderham-Gaudet also complains of an attack on her credibility in a disclosed FOIPOP review report - from a staff member whose name is redacted - questioning her mental health.
Health department opposed to release
Redacted copies of the PPC Intake Forms and the file notes from the preliminary investigation of Rudderham-Gaudet's four complaints, including the investigators’ notes, were released to her on April 19, 2017.
"Through the FOIPOP process Ms. Rudderham-Gaudet hoped she would learn of the names of St. Vincent’s staff members so she could further advance a complaint with the College of Registered Nurses of Nova Scotia (College of Nurses)," the decision says. "She also sought the name of the physician who had prescribed dilaudid to her mother so she could pursue a complaint to the Medical Society."
The Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness, the respondent in the case, opposed the release of the names, arguing it would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
Robertson writes that the FOIPOP Act provides for oversight but also places reasonable limits on accessibility to information where that would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The Department of Health and Wellness withheld names, initials and pronouns, as the applicant was familiar enough with the employees of St. Vincent to be able to identify individuals by any of these. A description of an alleged incident was also withheld because it includes a brief description of events as well as opinions about third parties, which reveals information about identifiable individuals.
The judge also writes that the information gathered for the inquiry was supplied in confidence and is "contemplated to be held as confidential information. This would of course not have been the case had the preliminary inquiry found evidence of abuse and had concerns of violations of the law, even leading to criminal prosecution."
She cites public interest in maintaining confidentiality of the reporting process to ensure workplace reporting without fear of reprisals. Disclosure of the information might also unfairly damage the reputation of a person referred to in the records, she writes, adding that the inquiry did not find conduct that suggested any violation of law or professional duties.
RELATED:
