Thursday, March 9, 2017

let us rise up as she has done----------TRESPASS TO PREMISES ACT 3 (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is deemed to have had notice not to trespass when signs are displayed in accordance with subsection (2)(b). 1997 cT-8.5 s2 Offences and penalties 3 A trespasser, whether or not any damage is caused by the trespass, is guilty of an offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $2000, and (b) for a 2nd or subsequent offence in relation to the same premises, to a fine not exceeding $5000. ------

and start with yourself
then reach out to survive

it always begins with one
and then the group expands    as others come

this is to say
that change begins  with one

and that others waiting for the one
coalesce around that one    to begin the work that is required

and so start the movement
that is prized

like Ruth Adria
don't wait for the government of Alberta

that fails at the work
instead simply ignore everyone

become the target of bullies
who use the Trespass to Premises legislation

to humiliate and exclude 
let us be determined

we have one
Ruth Adria is how it begins

so many of us have tried
but only one has survived

let us rise up 
as she has done

let us be afraid but unwilling to see the others fall
let us speak    let us continue while others refuse these challenges

let us see the hired hands in government
protect their turfs and believe in the dust

we don't need government
we can begin   by ourselves

the work that is required
let us rise up      as she has done

Image may contain: 5 people, people standing and indoor

"Come Alive (Dry Bones)" featuring Lauren Daigle - Live from the CentricWorship Retreat


TRESPASS TO PREMISES ACT 3 (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is deemed to have had notice not to trespass when signs are displayed in accordance with subsection (2)(b). 1997 cT-8.5 s2 Offences and penalties 3 A trespasser, whether or not any damage is caused by the trespass, is guilty of an offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $2000, and (b) for a 2nd or subsequent offence in relation to the same premises, to a fine not exceeding $5000.

Alberta Health Services directed to create policy for banned visitors


More from Mariam Ibrahim

Published on: November 17, 2015 | Last Updated: November 17, 2015 9:12 PM MST




Alberta Health Minister Sarah Hoffman says she has directed Alberta Health Services to create a province-wide policy and appeal process for people banned from visiting their family members in care facilities. Video by Mariam Ibrahim


Albertans who have been banned from visiting their family members at provincial care facilities will soon have recourse, the province’s health minister says.

Health Minister Sarah Hoffman said Tuesday she has directed Alberta Health Services to create a provincewide policy outlining when people can be banned from facilities. She said the policy will include an appeal process and is expected to be in place by the end of March 2016.

“My expectation is that we develop a policy to ensure consistent practice throughout AHS facilities that really focuses on making sure that patients are safe,” Hoffman said.

The policy would apply to any operators contracted by the provincial health authority to provide care, including Covenant Health.

Hoffman said she was motivated by stories of Albertans who have been prevented from visiting family. Over the past few years, Albertans across the province have spoken out about what they say is fear of retribution from some facilities after advocating for better care.

Currently, anyone who feels they were unjustly barred from a loved one’s facility faces years of complicated appeals through Alberta Health Services Patient Relations, a process that, at best, ends with a provincial Ombudsman recommendation. But the final decision to grant access rests with the facility manager.

“Our intention is to make sure that patients are safe, staff are treated with respect and that family members have opportunities to support their family,” Hoffman said.

She said she wants to ensure transparency about why decisions are made whenever possible.

David O’Brien, vice-president of seniors health for Alberta Health Services, said he agrees a consistent policy is needed.

“I think what we have now is a fair degree of legacy policies that had been in place from previous regional health authorities, and while each one of them might be good on its own, AHS is a single organization provincially and we need to have consistency in the way our policies and processes are implemented,” he said.

Shauna McHarg, who last year cast a spotlight on the issue after she was banned by Covenant Health from visiting her parents at the Edmonton General Continuing Care Centre, was introduced in the legislature chamber by Liberal interim leader David Swann on Monday and later had the chance to speak to the health minister about her concerns.

“I think it’s wonderful that she is starting the process,” McHarg said. “She’s taking these wrongdoings very seriously and I believe she is going to ensure correction.”

Jerry Macdonald
Remember, though, that AHS, Covenant, and the art we agencies are also Employers, and have an obligation under the OH&S Code to maintain a safe workplace. However, in cases where family members are barred from facilities for legitimate reasons, privacy laws prevent them from disclosing those reasons; and yet,those who are barred are free to run to the media and give one-sided accounts.
LikeReply3Nov 18, 2015 6:50am
Julie Ali ·
Our stories are not one sided. But of course most citizens will never know our stories with the retribution faced by families up to and including lawsuits.
LikeReplyJust now
Patsy Roselle
if a facility tries to prevent me from seeing a loved one who is in a long term care facility, that loved one will be moved out. Facilities don't usually ban family members unless that family member has displayed very bad behavior.
However, if the family member is complaining about care, that's another whole new ball game.
LikeReply1Nov 18, 2015 10:12am
Damaris Spindler ·
hmm. I wonder just how badly theses people behaved to be barred from a facility? Complaints about care, or abusive and disruptive behaviors?
LikeReply1Nov 18, 2015 6:24am
Nancy A Van Valkenburgh ·
what Alberta! You are seriously hurting your patients! THEY NEED THIER LOVED who made this absurd day it could happen to you!
Marla Creelman Kopkie ·
Alberta and all its rules...... seriously.
LikeReply1Nov 17, 2015 10:44pm

Province investigating care bans



Ruth AdriaRuth Adria, founder of the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, looks over stacks of boxed filled with case files documenting allegations of abuse, neglect and maltreatment of Alberta's seniors in Edmonton on Aug. 10, 2015. Claire Theobald/Edmonton Sun



Report an error

Related Stories


Some private long-term care operators are shutting out family members who aggressively advocate for their loved ones and now the Elder Advocates of Alberta is advocating for them.

Ruth Adria, chairwoman of the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, said over the past two decades, she has dealt with a number of family members who have been banned from local facilities.

"If you do not leave immediately, you will get a ticket which is $287," Adria said, adding visitors are charged under the Trespass to Premises Act.

Julie and Sue Ali say their family member in care was evicted from her Mill Woods home after Julie wrote about problems with care in a blog. Then she was then sued for defamation.

"I don't know how many people have gone through this hell, but it's not pleasant," Julie Ali said.

The family member in that case had lived at the Mill Woods home since 2010 and Julie was banned on Feb. 9 2014. The family member was evicted later that year.

Alberta Health on Wednesday issued a statement in response to the concerns, saying it is "definitely looking into this issue and will be looking at the systemic issues facing families who have been banned from care facilities.

"We are aware of the concerns of the Ali Family and exploring options to address their particular situation, along with those of others who have been banned from facilities."

Alberta Health Services, meanwhile, issued a statement saying it cannot comment on individual cases.

"Unfortunately, on very rare occasions, we have to take steps to protect the patient, and that may mean preventing a visitor from visiting a health care site," the statement reads.

"In all cases, we do our best to work with the visitor, to address any issues."



1472676475 fb

1472676478 twitter

1472676481 instagram

Families of seniors banned under Trespass to Premises Act


Published: 12 April 2015


Friends and families of senior citizens are dealing with trespass issues in long-term care facilities

thumbBeverley-and-Shauna-1Last year, activists criticized the government's response to the problems within the health care system, noticing the mistreatment of seniors in long-term care facilities.

Spokesman Steve Buick for the Alberta Health Minister admits there are errors in the system.

"The reality is that a couple of per cent of all patients who go through our health system or really any health system in Canada...will have a preventable error in their care," Buick said. "And people just don't appreciate that errors and bad outcomes are part of the business, to an extent."

"People just don't understand that it is not realistic to expect a health system to function without problems happening, sometimes serious problems," said Buick.

Apart from addressing complaints about the care of the elderly in long-term care facilities, there seems to be a trend toward family members and friends being issued bans based on the Trespass to Premises Act.

The Trespass to Premises Act, broader than the Petty Trespass Act, outlaws trespassing to whoever was given notice not to trespass on a premises.

Loved ones are banned

Shauna McHarg was banned from visiting her friend Beverley Munroe. Dennis Dupuis was banned from visiting his mother Annie Dupuis.

"It's the people who care, it's the family members who are, or friends, or advocates, who attend the facility and are aware of what's happening – they're not going to ban the person who attends Sunday afternoon for half an hour. It's the person who cares and is there," said Ruth Adria, the chair of the Elder Advocates of Alberta.

Both McHarg and Dupuis did not understand why they were banned or couldn't believe the reasons for their removal.

"It's on the statement here, I was being aggressive and verbally abusive with staff," said Dupuis. According to the statement, Dupuis was standing too close to staff.

Dupuis said, "They gave me all these ridiculous restrictions they applied towards me about visiting my mother and everything else. And what are they trying to prove? What are they doing?"

"And, you know, it's unfortunate this, and you don't see it at the time. Because it is a problem you're trying to get corrected, and what they're accusing you of makes it even more ridiculous," said Dupuis.

McHarg said she didn't understand why she was restricted from seeing her friend Beverley Munro.

"I was still allowed to visit other people, just not Beverley. And it would imply Beverley didn't want me visiting her. And she was outspoken that this was unfair."

The reason, according to McHarg, for the restrictions and later the ban from visiting Munro was due to Munro's complaints about the care facility which was introduced at the Alberta Legislature.

"And so Beverley and her husband and I, we all wrote to the president of Covenant Health, sayingBenthanySundanceOnTheGreen-2Sundance on the Green is a 55 plus life lease care facility located in the S.E. of Calgary. “I’m not aware, at least at Bethany, of there ever being a situation where we’ve had a stranger trespassing,” said Kristen Lawson of Bethany Care Society.

Photo provided by Bethany Care this is unfair. There's, you know invoking the Trespass to Premise Act would imply that I'm trespassing."

Later, Munro was moved to the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton due to poor health.

"Beverley went to the Royal Alex because she was ill and I was her contact person with the (hospital), with Beverley's permission because she was her own decision maker," said McHarg.

"If Beverley clearly said, 'I want Shauna,' and the Royal Alex honoured that.... I mean, they were grateful to have an involved person because her husband is an older person and has health problems and he just couldn't do everything and come to all the meetings and everything. So I was her contact person and if a hospital can honour her wishes, why can't Covenant Health."

"She since passed away, unfortunately. And after she passed away, then I got a response from Covenant Health saying, 'As this matter's no longer relevant, we'll close the file,'" said McHarg. But they never answered Beverley's complaints.

Dupuis was upset by the result of his ban. "The damage is done. I can't get that time back that I lost with my mother, she's passed away since then," said Dupuis. "She was ten days short of her 102 birthday when she passed away."

"This is what hurts. All that time that I could have been with her, I couldn't. They had me on a restricted visit. I could only go in a certain area. I had to have somebody bring her out and we could visit there," said Dupuis.

"I'd like to get this cleared up. But who will do it?"

Still not being heard

According to the Health Quality Council of Alberta's report from April 2014, Covenant Health is a main link to the Official Administrator and "has a role in providing and/or monitoring continuing care services".

But Rayne Kuntz, the senior advisor of media relations at Covenant Health did not know what the Trespass to Premises Act was, nor was initially aware of trespassing issues within long-term care facilities.

Kuntz said there's a difference between restrictions and trespassing, but later wrote in an email "The damage is done. I can't get that time back that I lost with my mother, she's passed away since then."

- Dennis Dupuis, banned from seeing his mother Annie Dupuis  interview, "The language we use is restrictions. Restrictions usually are not indefinite. A date for review is usually part of the restriction. We remain open to working with individuals to come to a resolution that is best for the resident or patient."

Kuntz said it's rare to restrict family members from visiting, "except in cases where there are threats to a patient, resident or staff member's safety. Another example may be if the health of a resident or patient is being compromised. The situations can be very complex, the restricted person may be family, but they are not the agent or guardian of the patient or resident."

When asked what happens when a person ignores restrictions, Kuntz said, "Well then they're in breech and they're asked to please not come at that time. Then they have to have a discussion."

On the government side, the hope was that the issues of trespass and proper care would be addressed with the implementation of the Alberta Health Advocates Office in April, 2014.

This office was put in place to request inspections and investigations based on the concerns of seniors and their loved ones and "refer seniors concerns and complaints to the appropriate place or places". Buick said the advocates should have a larger role, but nothing is being done to make this a reality.

"We'd like to see the advocates have more of a role in addressing individual's concerns rather than just giving them information. That's just a change that we've talked about but haven't implemented yet."

Multiple phone calls requesting an interview with the current Senior's Advocate, Deborah Prowse were not returned.

The Trespass to Premise Act needs limits

The Trespass to Premises Act states, "A trespasser is guilty of an offence whether or not damage was caused."

"Nothing in this Act extends to a case where the trespasser acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that the trespasser had a right to do the act complained of."

However, the Trespass to Premises Act is being questioned because friends and family visiting seniors in long-term care facilities are being handed Notices Not to Trespass.

Each notice is up to the individual premises.

"If a person returns to the location where they were notified with trespassing, then the police will become involved," said Corwin Odland, from the media relations unit of the Calgary Police Department.

Bethany HarvestHills-2Bethany Harvest Hills Care Centre is situated in the N.E. of Calgary. Kristen Lawson, the director of communications and government relations at Bethany Care Society said, “ Our staff are amazing. They’re some of the most amazing people that I’ve had the privilege of ever knowing.”

Photo provided by Bethany CareIf it seems as though that initial Trespassing Ban is unfair or unconstitutional, there is not much that can be done. The review of bans is not effective, said Adria who was also banned.

"Essentially, once you've been banned, there is no appeal. There's nothing. So, I have documents here showing all the conversation and, you know, what was done with me, but so what? It doesn't help me," said Adria.

As a result, Public Interest Alberta executive director Bill Moore-Kilgannon said, "They could be banned for a day, they could be banned for a year, they could be banned forever."

In the case of Dennis Dupuis, he has been banned from all Alberta Health Service's facilities across the province.

"Alberta Health Services has the discretionary power to enact the Trespass to Premise Act, based on specific grounds related to unacceptable uses of their property. It is an abuse of Alberta Health"They could be banned for a day, they could be banned for a year, they could be banned forever."

- Bill Moore-Kilgannon, Public Interest Alberta executive director Services' discretionary power to permanently prohibit me from all of their facilities across Alberta based on the enactment of the Trespass to Premise Act as I did nothing wrong but advocate that my Mom's wishes are honoured," wrote Dupuis in a letter.

Dupuis is still banned from health care facilities in Alberta despite his mother dying in 2012.

"It's hard to believe that it's unfounded. You'd think there'd have to be something. These little examples are proof that it's unfounded. And that it's still a problem is proof that (they) don't know what to do to fix it. Unfounded (allegations have) taken on a life of (their) own to the detriment of everyone involved," said McHarg.

Buick said there's no plan to make any changes to the issue of banning visitors because, "there's no general problem with it that we're aware of. There certainly are instances where visitors have been banned from an individual facility and those instances are very few and far between and as far as we can tell they generally have been...the visitors have been banned for good reason."

'Long-term care visitation ban ‘astonishing’: Towle

Wildrose MLA Kerry Towle says her party will continue to fight for Albertans who are banned from visiting family members in continuing care facilities.

Wildrose MLA Kerry Towle says her party will continue to fight for Albertans who are banned from visiting family members in continuing care facilities.

That includes a woman who has been banned for two years from seeing her father at a Covenant Health facility in Edmonton. Covenant Health won’t tell her why despite Alberta’s Ombudsman saying it was unfair and the privacy commissioner saying the woman deserved to know why.

Towle said there are 10 to 15 families in the province who face similar bans but are terrified of coming forward because they fear further repercussions.

“We hear this all across Alberta. We have a situation no different than this in Red Deer. That family does not want to come forward,” said the MLA for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake on Thursday.

Towle said health-care officials tried to intimidate her on many occasions when she advocated for her brother, who was in long-term care.

He was diagnosed with Huntington’s disease in 2008 at age 32 and died in 2011.

“It happens all the time.”

She believed the health-care system is so broken and staff are so demoralized that they just can’t always deal with all the situations they face on the job.

“So when things get difficult, the go-to mechanism is to ban (family).”

She said family members are being banned from continuing care and long-term care facilities whether they are publicly or privately operated.

So far, the Conservative government refuses to help them, she said.

“Quite frankly, even if there was a reason to ban any of these families, there has to be a process to either appeal that ban or work through a mediation process to find agreeable outcomes.

“How do we not have a solution in place to figure this out?”

Towle said Alberta’s new health-care advocates put in place by the Tories can’t help because it’s not part of their mandate. They can only help Albertans navigate the health-care system.

She said Albertans would be outraged if parents were being banned from seeing their hospitalized children, but because it’s happening to seniors, it doesn’t seem to matter.

“It’s astonishing to me that we would ever let this happen. It’s astonishing to me that a lady has to go two years without seeing her father. How is that good patient care? If you want quality of life, that involves your family.”

Visitors banned from long-term care facilities have little recourse

Blog | February 20, 2014

By Karen Kleiss, Edmonton Journal

FEBRUARY 20, 2014

EDMONTON - Shauna McHarg hasn’t seen her father in nearly two years because she is banned from his floor at the continuing care home where he lives. She is only allowed to visit her mother there one hour each day. She missed their 50th wedding anniversary.

Hugette Hebert wanted to see her husband’s diaper change so she could assess his condition, but doctors said no. When she refused to leave the room she was banned for a day, and the security guard who escorted her from the building told her that if she continued to cause trouble she could be banned forever and might never see her husband again.James Tucker hid a video camera in his disabled wife’s room and alleges he captured abuse on tape. When he angrily expressed his concerns, he says he was banned from the facility for a month.

Albertans who believe they have been unjustly barred from visiting loved ones at care facilities can face years of appeals that end with a toothless recommendation from Alberta’s Ombudsman.Ultimately, only facility managers have the power to let them back in. “I just want to see my parents, and let my family heal from this horrible, horrible experience,” McHarg said. She believes she was banned because she complained about the treatment her mother received in Covenant Health’s Edmonton General Continuing Care Centre, but the facility won’t tell her precisely why.In a process that took nearly three years, she challenged the ban through Alberta Health Services Patient Relations right up to the provincial Ombudsman, who ruled she was not treated fairly.

She took her case to Alberta’s Information Commissioner, who also ruled in her favour and said Covenant Health should give her the documents that explain why she can’t see her father. Covenant appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, and McHarg will plead her case there Thursday. “No one in Covenant Health is accountable. … There is no transparency,” McHarg said. “It shouldn’t be a legal battle to know why these restrictions are imposed.”Covenant Health spokeswoman Charlene Morrison said she can’t comment on a case before the courts but generally, decisions are made in the best interests of patients. Concerns are addressed first by the care team, and escalate to patient relations and then to Clinical Ethics Services, a neutral third party inside Covenant Health.

Hugette Herbert’s late husband, Jack Rudichuk, also lived at a Covenant Health facility, Villa Caritas. A former university professor, Hebert never contested the one-day ban, but after that day she feared raising concerns with staff.“When you’re in that situation, many families are fearful that if they say too much, their loved ones…will suffer the consequences,” Hebert said.“I felt completely disempowered, abused, and afraid to do anything because I was afraid that I would be banned for longer, and that’s what the security guard said.  He said ‘If you don’t comply, you could be banned forever, and you’ll never see your husband again.’ Bill Moore-Kilgannon of Public Interest Alberta says the existing system is "absolutely unacceptable."

"The families have next to no power in these situations,” he said. “The formal channels that exist are so weak and cumbersome they just don’t know what to do.”The solution is to make Alberta’s new Senior’s Advocate independent and to establish family care councils in law, he said, giving them the authority to swiftly resolve disputes and complaints. A spokesman for Health Minister Fred Horne declined to comment. Alberta Health Services spokesman Kerry Williamson said “in most cases, visitors who are negatively affecting patient or client care can sign a behaviour agreement, which would then allow visits to proceed provided they adhere to that agreement.

“Our Patient Relations department is also available if family members or visitors have concerns. And, a concern can be raised with the Ombudsman. “We must also ensure that we protect our staff from abuse,” Williamson said. Ombudsman spokesman Paul Michna said that while recommendations are not binding, they are delivered to the highest levels of Alberta Health Services and are usually implemented. James Tucker has been banned twice from the Points West Living facility in Grande Prairie, where his wife lives with a degenerative disability. The facility won’t comment on his case, but general manager Ronda Hartegen said in a statement that “the only situations where we consider limiting access to our sites is when the safety or well-being of our employees or residents is in jeopardy.”

“Of the 650 residents Points West Living cares for daily, we only have one situation where a visitor has been restricted access.” Tucker, a miner and valve technician, said he was never a rabble-rouser until his wife went into care. When he was banned, he worried himself sick. “I have power of attorney for my wife, I am supposed to be there, I am her voice,” he said. Now he visits her every day, sometimes more than once. He fears raising his concerns with the facility, but continues nonetheless. “You feel like you’re some kind of criminal for trying to protect your wife,” he said. “But I have to do something; I have to help my wife.”

Unprovoked banning of visitor at Caritas Hospitals

Home > Abuse & Neglect Studies > Unprovoked banning of visitor at Caritas Hospitals
We have sent the attached along so that you may understand how determined the system is to frighten, discourage and get rid of me.
I was sitting quietly with a dying man, Konstanty (Ken) Stankiewicz on the evening of the 24th of October (He died on the 26th). His 93 year old wife went home to sleep, she was exhausted. I was sitting in a chair beside the dying man, in a dimly lit room. Staff were kind to me and even gave me a heated blanket – though I did not have conversation with them or discuss the care øf the dying man.
At 2:00 AM I became aware of two large uniformed persons standing in the darkened doorway, who asked me to step into the hallway.
The male constable demanded my license. He then read me my rights, cautioned me, told me to call a lawyer if I wished and said anything I said could be used against me. I was frightened (AND VERY TIRED) and said I did not wish to cause a problem but that I had been there that day/afternoon and often before, The male constable, who was the only one who addressed me, said that I should stop saying that because he would have to give me additional tickets for that. He filled out the attached.
He informed me that there was a restraining Order against me signed by a judge in the Misericordia Security office. I have never been served any documents, Restraining Order in this regard or was aware of what he was claiming.
I had been removed from the Misericordia Hospital on February 19, 2004 – note “Case Study” in .
They walked me past the nursing station, out of the nursing home, to my car. Once outside, the male constable thanked me a number of times that I had been cooperative.
Ruth Maria Adria
Konstanty 4
Konstanty 2
Konstanty 1
Konstanty 3

Trespass Notices & Restriction of Visitors

Home > Abuse & Neglect Studies > Trespass Notices & Restriction of Visitors
When Irene S. guardian and trustee of her mother, attended at the nursing home to visit her mother, the police were called. Two policemen arrived and asked her to leave. She had previously complained about the care her mother was receiving and was not aware that a “trespass notice” had been sent to her. Her mother was dying of cancer.
Jim S., who is guardian and is named on his 99 year old mother’s Personal Directive has also been barred. His mother is a resident in a facility in a neighboring city. He lives in central Alberta.
If persons complain, there will be consequences. When persons become too vocal concerning the care of their loved ones, they may be restricted and sometimes barred from the facility where their family member resides. The public meeting will focus on this matter. A number of persons from Edmonton and elsewhere who have been barred or restricted will speak to the issue. Some are very angry. There is no appeal mechanism in place for these people. In one instance the Capital Health Authority informed a young woman that the ‘trespass order’ would be lifted and she would be allowed to visit her family member, however the facility continues to deny her access. They have called the police on two occasions.
This is a widespread problem as noted in the Toronto Star October 31/04 – Nursing Home Bars Family – “Woman can’t see her 92 year old mother . Complaints bring “trespass notice”.
Source: Elder Advocates of Alberta Press Conference Notice, June 16, 2005 – 11:00 AM.

No comments:

Post a Comment