Let's look at this realistically.

Mental health matters

You've likely heard of people with mental health problems being advised to "get help", glowing references to our "social safety net" and occasional mentions of someone who "fell through the cracks". In my experience, there's damned little "help", the "safety net" is more like the commercial fishing drift nets that kill so many dolphins and the "cracks" more like chasms many of those seeking help are forced to the edge of by many of those claiming and getting paid to provide "help".

A few years ago, I found myself in need of help. The Canadian Mental Health Association Peel Branch claimed, on their web site, to "help" people with "serious and persistent mental illness". Great, I thought, being nu...sorry, I meant to say: "having a mental health issue" has an upside. Following is the text of the e-mail messages, I've sent and received, which relate to my attempts to "get help" from CMHA Peel.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be adding additional articles relating to organizations, agencies and individuals who claim and are paid to "help" which, in my experience, are worse than useless. Follow @GYFHAS on Twitter for notices of new posts.

Venusia Brazil to ME copy Carol Soule 11 Dec., 2009
I phoned ODSP in Mississauga and they said that they couldn't find you on their data base and they advised me to phone Brampton ODSP.

I asked the lady in Mississauga ODSP to give me a contact in Brampton and so she gave me 905-460-5025, ext. 6203. I called that number and left a message, as well as with the general intake number. I was not able to speak with a live person at Brampton ODSP. I will be out of the office on Monday and Tuesday so, should they call back on Monday, my co-worker will speak with them and see if we can get your drug card faxed to the pharmacy.

If you want to contact someone from our office, you can call Carol Soule at 905-451-2123, ext. 434. She'll contact you by email if she hears anything.
ME to Venusia Brazil copies Carol Soule, Madeleine Meilleur 15 Dec., 2009
Thank you.

When I called ODSP, the end of Nov., I asked the lady, I spoke with, to fax the Nov. drug card and mentioned she may as well fax the Dec. card, also, as I'd be needing it; according to Springdale Pharmacy, they received only the Nov. card.

As I told you, when we spoke, I called ODSP, on Fri., and left a message, asking the Dec. card be faxed to the pharmacy; according to Springdale, they received nothing.

To-day (Mon.), I called ODSP, actually managed to speak with "Rita" (I think), told her I'd been off my meds too long, asked the Dec. card be faxed to the pharmacy, immediately, and was told it would be; according to Springdale, at about 8:30 PM, they'd received nothing.

The stress this is causing isn't doing the, worsening, depression any good; the three block walk, to the pay phone and/or pharmacy, isn't doing the pain in my feet and legs any good; the time and energy spent dealing with this is, further, delaying the test I'm supposed to have, to determine if some of the pain and swelling in my feet and legs is related to the "anomaly" on my last EKG and fluctuating blood pressure...

I was having difficulty functioning, with the medication; without it, in addition to the constant stress I've been under and sitting in a nearly empty apartment, I can't deal with...what's a nice euphemism for "useless assholes"?

I realize you're not in a position to do anything about it but felt the need to "vent". Then, it occurred to me that I may as well "vent" to someone who is so I've copied Madeleine Meilleur. Let's see if she is "meilleur"; God knows she can't be any "pire".

Another thought: if and/or when I get settled, I should apply to ODSP, for a job. I've had considerable experience not answering my phone and ignoring people so I'm sure I could handle it.
Carol Soule to ME 15 Dec., 2009
I have spoken to Michelle at ODSP and also Springdale Pharmacy, your card has been faxed over and your medication is ready for pick up.

Sorry for all the confusion and hopefully you receive your January card on time. Take care Chris.
ME to Carol Soule copies Venusia Brazil, Madeleine Meilleur 16 Dec., 2009
Thanks, very much, for letting me know.

Sorry for the delayed reply but I had an appointment with my shrink, yesterday, and went to the ODSP office, afterward. By the time I got home, I was exhausted and too, unable to think of a better word, "upset" to do much; I really, really need someone to help me deal with these people.

I haven't the time to give you the details and you, likely, haven't the interest in getting them. I will say, though, Sharon, at the ODSP office, was more helpful than I expected and not, totally, useless BUT...

Of nine items, four were resolved, satisfactorily, by her providing what I believe is good information and, in a couple of cases, forms; two were resolved, satisfactorily, with more difficulty than I think was necessary, through discussion; one was, possibly, resolved by her providing direction to where information may be obtained; one was, partially, resolved by her providing what I believe is erroneous information; one is unresolved as the information provided is unrelated and resulted in a new item.

In respect to the item, partially, resolved by her providing what I believe is erroneous information, perhaps you have a suggestion as to how it makes sense or what justification there may be to put someone, with functional impairment and limited income, to the trouble and expense of seeing an optometrist, in order to obtain a prescription, returning the prescription, to the ODSP office, in order to obtain a form, and, then, seeing an optician, in order to obtain glasses rather than providing the form, at the time, seeing the optometrist, then, taking the form and prescription to the optician? In my case, the latter would require one day and cost $5.00; the former would require two days and cost $10.00.

I don't anticipate any problem, receiving, my Jan. card...of course, I didn't anticipate any problem, receiving my Dec. card, so that doesn't mean much.

Anyway, thanks, again. I'm having another coffee and, then, going to see if I can find a bed and recover my "worldly possessions". I realized, the other day, what I've spent on laundry, getting by with one change of clothing, would've paid for a new the "thrift store" and, while the couch my landlord loaned me is quite a bit better than the floor, most mornings, I've caught myself missing the Shakespeare put it: "that way madness lies".
Venusia Brazil to ME 21 Dec., 2009
I spoke (yes...I actually spoke with) to your ODSP worker, Sharon King (905-460-5025, ext. 6341) and asked about the transportation allowance. She said that you have to fill in the form you have and send it to:

Rita Shiwram
370 Main Street N., Unit 2
Brampton, ON
L6V 4A4
She processes the transportation forms

The transportation allowance is only for medical appointments and if it works out to more than $15.00 a month, they send you a cheque to buy a bus pass.

So, once you have your doctor fill out the form and send it in to Rita Shiwram, she'll process it and then you just wait for approval.

If you need more information or have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
ME to Venusia Brazil 22 Dec., 2009
Wow! I'm impressed. I think I mentioned the only way I was able to speak with her was to go to the office and point out, to the receptionist, that I didn't have a number, when she told me to leave it and my worker would call.

I had most of the information but the name of the person who processes the request may be helpful; my shrink may want to call and explain the situation, as he did when I had a problem at Wilkinson.

Speaking of my shrink, he recalled talking with you and your sending him some pamphlets. He thought you were nice and has used the pamphlets.

Transportation costs would be over the $15 per month just to appointments with my shrink and family doctor. If they include the tests I've been supposed to have for the past few months, audiologist, optometrist, optician, denturist, it'd be more like $15 per week. If they include the "social programs", my shrink thinks I should be involved in, it'd be more like $15 per day.

My major concern, so far as this is concerned, is getting to appointments if and/or when I'm unable to take the bus; I really hate calling, an hour before an appointment, to say I can't make it and would feel pretty silly taking an ambulance, to the hospital, just because my feet were too swollen and sore to walk on.

I see my shrink Christmas Eve and will give him the form. He mentioned writing a letter, to send with it, so we'll see what happens.

Anyway, thanks for your help. Have a good Christmas.
Venusia Brazil to ME 22 Dec., 2009
Hi Chris,

No problem at all.....glad to be of help.
ME to Lisa Ali 23 Jul., 2010
I received your message, advising "the team" had decided I don't need your help and had suggested I "continue to access PAR" and "make my needs clear".

You didn't tell me what the criteria are, for determining whether or not you'll assist a person. From my perspective, my psychiatrist says I have a GAF of 50. I'd say 40, due to difficulties with family, but think the GAF rating is, pretty much, subjective. In any case, that's on a "good day", which I haven't had many of, lately.

In practical terms, the day we met, I'd intended to make six telephone calls and send four e-mail messages, from PAR, get a haircut and drop off a letter, at the ODSP office, in addition to meeting with you. I made four of the six telephone calls, sent the four e-mail messages and met with you. By the time I got home, I was too tired to do anything and, three days later, still haven't had the haircut or been to the ODSP office, just as an example. I have a long list of things I should do and few are getting done.

As I told you, I'm taking an amphetamine, in order to function. I need about 70% of the maximum dose, in order to manage anything that requires any effort. So as to delay development of the tolerance, I take about 20%, other days, but, then, am not able to do much. As it is, I've noticed a reduction, in effect and duration, over the past few months. When the maximum dose becomes ineffective, I'm screwed. If I ever manage to see the cardiologist, I expect he'll tell me to discontinue the amphetamine. I, also, expect he won't tell me how I'm supposed to do the things I'm having difficulty with, even taking the amphetamine.

So far as PAR is concerned, the facilities were, greatly, appreciated, while I was at Wilkinson, and the, daily, social interaction seemed to reduce my anxiety level. Now, though, I have an alternative, to the facilities, which is, usually, more convenient and the couple of times, per week, I'm able to attend doesn't seem to be doing anything for my anxiety level, which has been quite high for the past several months. As for practical assistance, PAR offered to assist with transportation of furniture, making specific arrangements, on four occasions; none of which were kept. This wasted my time and subjected me to the stress caused by having to deal with people I'd made commitments to, based on what I'd been told by PAR; not to mention the expense of having to arrange transportation, at the last moment.

I have a note, from a PAR staff member, in respect to several issues, involving ODSP, I'd requested assistance dealing with. I've found contact with ODSP difficult, time consuming, frustrating and stressful...except for one occasion when I was fortunate enough to get Romanella (SP?). In any case, the note is, in part, to the effect I'm "not eligible" for the Community Start Up benefit. I, also, have a deposit advice, for the Community Start Up benefit which I obtained, three or four months later.

In addition to several "mentions in passing", I sat with a PAR staff member, for over an hour, discussing my situation and doubt if my needs, which are pretty simple, could've been clearer.

The second last time, any mention of assistance was made, the PAR staff member was going into a meeting, at about 10:00 AM, told me to wait for him as he'd pick up a piece of furniture, he'd arranged to, twice previously, and take it to my apartment. I waited until 3:00 PM, when I had to leave for a doctor's appointment. The last time, I was feeling very despondent and one of the PAR staff asked what was wrong. I told her the difficulty I was having getting furniture to the apartment and my staff contact, who she related this to, told me: "we'll talk about that next week"; we didn't.

The problem I have, with PAR, is not that they didn't help, as they were under no obligation to. The problem I have is that they offered to help, said they would and didn't; six times. Now, your team suggests I continue, with PAR, and seems to imply the previous failures resulted from my not having made my needs "clear"?

In fairness, I'll mention that the one PAR staff member gave me rides, to view apartments, on two occasions, to the grocery store, on one occasion, and picked up a prescription, for me, on one occasion. These kindnesses were appreciated but, to put them in perspective, I'll mention, as well, that the rides, to view apartments, were given on his way home, took him a mile or two out of his way and he, likely, arrived home earlier than usual, as we left PAR well before closing time. He was going to the grocery store, in any case, and getting to the store isn't as much of a problem, for me, as getting home, with groceries, or the shopping itself. He lives within "spitting distance" of the pharmacy I use and my gratitude, for his picking up the one prescription, is offset by my annoyance at having to spend three hours, picking up another prescription, on the weekend, when the buses operate on reduced schedules, after he'd told me he'd pick it up and didn't.
ME to Lisa Ali 16 Aug., 2010
I received your second telephone message, advising there'd been "further discussion" regarding my "self-referral to (your) case management program", I "currently have really good supports in place", the decision not to assist me had been confirmed "because (I) have supports in place" and, again, suggesting I "continue to access PAR", this time, "for more support". Also, your, confirming, letter, of 3Aug., in which you add: "we have received your appeal", "your current goals are being addressed", "you do not currently meet the criteria for long term case management", "we encourage you to continue to access your community supports at the John Howard Society and the PAR clubhouse", "we wish you well in your continued recovery" and "if, at any time, a crisis situation should arise, please contact the Mobile Crisis of Peel".

As I told you, I was interested in the "ACT" program, since I require practical assistance more than "case management", knew nothing of your case management program and understood the "ACT" program offered case management as well as practical assistance.

The "supports (I have) in place" are a family doctor, a psychiatrist, a John Howard Society Community Services Counselor and a pharmacist. At various times, all have gone "above and beyond" what I understand you people refer to as their "mandates", on my behalf, but some of the support I require is so far outside those "mandates" I wouldn't ask and none have the nature, training or experience to be effective in dealing with such things as ODSP.

For example, my psychiatrist completed the form, for the transportation allowance, including a hand-written letter, and my John Howard Society Counselor, telephoned the ODSP office, yet, I received $24.00 per month. This, while the ACT client I mentioned, to you, who gets around better than I do and has fewer medical issues to deal with, receives $130 something and people, at PAR, some of whom are well able to use the bus and a couple of whom are chauffeured, at times, by relatives, they're living with, use cabs, paid for by ODSP; all arranged, I understand, by CMHA.

I've asked both my psychiatrist and John Howard Society Counselor if they could think of any other supports I have and whether or not they thought I required additional assistance. Neither could think of any other supports and both thought I required additional assistance.

Again, the resources, at PAR, were and still are appreciated but the little, actual, support I've received has been more than offset by the distress, frustration, confusion, wasted time and expense caused by the empty promises of support. My staff contact, at PAR, had suggested, twice, that I obtain glasses through some program he's involved in, with "Lenscrafters". On 28 July, I asked if he'd get caprice, for me, and, two weeks later, am still waiting.

What "appeal" are you referring to?

My "current goals" may be "being addressed" but they are not being met and are unlikely to be, unless there's a significant improvement in both my mental and physical conditions, or I'm able to obtain some practical support, all of which are improbable.

What "continued recovery"? For the past two years, I've been under constant stress, which I don't handle well; my mental and physical conditions deteriorating, more quickly than they had been. For the past year, I've been struggling with worsening depression, which is causing ability and desire to function to decline, while desire to withdraw and isolate increase. At present, I have more problems and fewer resources than ever before. I'm tired, sore, feel like I'm swimming against a current, I know is going to suck me over the falls, and finding those "cracks" in the "social safety net", you hear of people "slipping though", are more like great, gaping holes, a three ring circus could drop through.

Again, as I told you, I called Mobile Crisis of Peel, a few years ago, when I realized I was becoming, actively, suicidal. They refused to come, as I'd been "drinking". I'd had two beer, wasn't belligerent and was, probably, less argumentative than usual. I walked, two or three miles, to the snow. I remember the triage nurse reminded me of my mother...sit there, where I can keep an eye on you, until you don't feel like killing yourself...not, exactly, her words but I'm sure that's what she meant; very practical and effective. I haven't looked into it but imagine alcohol is a factor in a significant percentage of suicides. If that's the case, Mobile Crisis refusing to respond, if a person's been drinking, would make them worse than useless.

What, exactly, are your criteria, for determining whether or not you'll assist a person? On your website, you claim to assist people with "serious and persistent mental illness". From my perspective, as well as the ICD and DSM, depression is a mental illness. It's "serious and persistent" enough to qualify for the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit which requires a disability be "severe and prolonged". It's "serious" enough to have cost me family, home, business as well as a number of less consequential things and "persistent" enough to have caused problems which have become, progressively, worse for about twenty years.

The only alternatives I can see, here, are:
a) you don't assist people with "serious and persistent mental illness"
b) I don't have a "serious and persistent mental illness"
c) you won't assist me, for some reason

I know of some people with "serious and persistent mental illness" you are helping or have helped, so I think we can eliminate "a". With the three or four general practitioners and six or seven psychiatrists, I've seen, over the past two decades, agreeing, unanimously, I've got a "serious and persistent mental illness", I expect you'll want to eliminate "b". Unless you can suggest another, that leaves us with "c". The "you don't need help" and "you have all the help you need", I've heard, so far, can only be described as "feeble excuses"; certainly, not "reasons".

I expect I could force the issue but assistance obtained, in such a manner, is likely to be token and not worth the time and trouble. I do, though, require a, reasonable, explanation, as I've expended a good deal, for me, of time and effort, dealing with this and the feeling I'm being discriminated against and/or treated unfairly and/or unreasonably is causing, considerable, distress.

So there's no misunderstanding, I'm withdrawing my request for assistance, as it's become obvious you have no intention of assisting me and I believe any "assistance" I may receive, as a result of this message and/or further actions, would be perfunctory; minimal and, very likely, ineffective. I am, though, demanding what I consider a satisfactory explanation of your refusal to assist me. I'll withhold further action until 31 August, 2010.
ME to Lynn Oreskovic 22 Sept., 2010
A few days ago, I gave Ron a copy of a letter I'd sent to ODSP and he asked how long it had taken me to compose. As I recall, I answered: "four or five days"; later, I realized it was more like two weeks. Time may fly when you're having fun but it goes into warp when you're not. As Job put it: "My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle...".

Anyway, I've tried, a few times, to write this and keep getting hung up, on the same things:
Your asking if there were anyone, at PAR, I felt "comfortable going to with problems", which I didn't answer. No, I don't like asking for help and am never "comfortable" doing so. Irrelevant, though, as I've spoken with both yourself and Ron, at length, more than once, about my problems.

Your explanation, to the effect, that Intake contacted PAR as there was a "concern" and I was a "mutual client". Given Intake was aware of the problems and my feeling that continuing to seek help, from PAR, would be a further waste of time and cause of more aggravation, for more than a month before contacting PAR, as well as their having done so within a day or two of receiving my: "I'll withhold further action until 31 August, 2010", cause me to think the "concern" may be "damage control".

Your asking what PAR could do to help and comment: "we're not mind readers". The comment's irrelevant as the question's been asked and answered at least twice, I can recall offhand. I haven't the time, energy or inclination to list everything I need or could use help with; especially, when I don't expect it'd accomplish anything, but I'll mention a few things.

On 28 July, Ron said he'd get me a price, from a contact he has, at Lenscrafters, on glasses I'd given him specifications for; that'd be helpful. I applied, to ODSP, for transportation assistance and was given $24.00 per month, even though it was obvious this would be insufficient, and my requests, for an explanation, have been ignored. CMHA manages to obtain twice daily cab rides, for people to attend PAR, from ODSP. Obtaining sufficient transportation assistance would be helpful.

You said Lisa hadn't forwarded my e-mail messages so I've included the text, below. You'll note, in my last message, I told Lisa: "I am, though, demanding what I consider a satisfactory explanation of your refusal to assist me. I'll withhold further action until 31 August, 2010." By "further action", I meant a civil suit, which I intend to file; hopefully, within the next week or two. It'd be helpful if I didn't have to.

I apologize for the e-mail but, Tuesday, I lost the, weekly, bus pass I bought, Monday. It's a six block walk, takes at least half an hour and costs at least fifty cents to use the pay phone.
ME to Aleef Esmail 9 Aug., 2013
Got your message. You "hope (I'm) well"?

Thanks to all the "help" I've received, I'm "living" on the street, with no medication and no actual help; doesn't sound "well", to me.

Yesterday, you stressed that you'd "explained", to me, what "Cyril said" and I felt you were pressuring me to rent a room, for "$479.00 a month", so "ODSP (would) release funds" and I could "get (my) medication, glasses (et cetera)".To-day, you're telling me there's an "investigation" and I should "talk to them" ""for (my) sake".0

If I'd done as you suggested yesterday, I'd be paying around $500.00 in rent, about $200.00 in storage, and approximately $500.00 for drugs; more than my income. This, while living in an empty room, scavenging cigarette butts and snaring squirrels. I'm assuming the funds, medication, glasses et cetera wouldn't have been forthcoming, even had I done as you told me "Cyril said" I needed to, in order to obtain the benefits. What a surprise, eh?

Now, you're telling me ODSP "needs" to talk with me and I should talk with them, "for (my) sake". As I've told you, three or four times, I tried talking with them, for years, about the glasses et cetera, I need, and it's gotten me nothing but frustration and stress; neither of which I needed or could deal with. Is there any rational reason to think ODSP will give me the benefits THIS TIME, when they haven't, after I've given them what they've asked for, several times, in the past? What are they going to do if I tell them to "go fuck themselves"? Jail me? Not a deterrent, when the alternative's living on the street. These (IMO) assholes are a huge part of the reason I'm in this situation, they've made it impossible for me to get out of it and expect me to come running when they "snap their fingers".

Hell, I think an "investigation" is a great idea. Would you like me to copy you on the e-mail I'm sending the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, The Globe and Mail Metro News?
ME to Sheri Kepka 29 Oct., 2013
I hate to dash your hope but all is not well.

Being subjected to constant stress for more than three years, without a "home" for almost a year and "on the street" for three months has taken more out of me than I would've thought I had. Given the situation results from attempting to assert my supposed "rights" and has been exacerbated, considerably, by those who claim to "help" and get paid for doing so, I'm frustrated, depressed and angry. The effort required to get through a day is physically and mentally exhausting. The lack of sleep; even rest, a diet of coffee, cigarettes and "junk food" as well as the continued stress isn't helping, I think.

I'm having to spend $15.00 to $20.00 a day on coffee and "fast food", which I shouldn't be eating and have blown a few hundred dollars replacing items; most of which I have in storage but can't get to.

As expected, my blood pressure and heart rate have increased, considerably. Given my diet, my cholesterol has, likely, increased, considerably, as well. The oedema is, likely, diabetic. There's a possibility of a liver problem and I now have cardiac fibrillation as well as the tachycardia. Neither the "fasting" blood work, necessary to confirm the cholesterol, diabetes and liver status nor the operations on my mouth and eyes are going to happen, in the present circumstances.

The cataracts are larger, in both eyes and vision, in the left, has deteriorated significantly. Possibly, due to the pressure, which has continued to increase, and/or "bleeding" in the eye.

Denise was in, last week, with Julia Chambers who I expect you know. Julia says she's going to get the ODSP reinstated and have "Karl" find a "suitable place". I didn't say so but I doubt there's a "suitable place", in Brampton; the least expensive I could find, last year, was $850.00 per month. I did say that she talked a good game, talk wasn't cheap; it was free and I doubted she'd be able to straighten Cyril out. I can't recall if you know about the "run around" Cyril gave Denise.

If I had to bet, though, I'd bet she'll succeed. She didn't say she'd "look into it", "try" or that there were "no guarantees"; she said "I will". Again, talk ain't cheap but I'm pretty good at differentiating between arrogant boasting, delusion and self-confident commitments. Also, while most of the people, who've attempted to deal with Cyril, have likely never encountered anyone like him, she's been around long enough, in a field where she very well may have. I wouldn't bet the farm on her, because of Cyril's unbeaten track record, but I'd go the back forty.

Anyway, all this may be academic. Even if the ODSP is reinstated and a suitable place found it may be too late...sorry... I understand I should be more positive...make that "WILL be too late" to do any good.

I thought I'd thanked you for arranging the taxi. Re-reading this, I realized I couldn't have. So: "thank you, very much". You may know that I didn't use the taxi (as it wasn't necessary). You should know that I wouldn't have made and/or kept the appointments without having the option available, in case it were necessary.
ME to Frances Kovacs copies Venusia Brazil, Julia Chambers & Sheri Klepka 18 Dec., 2013
Subsequent to our conversation, this past Friday, I re-read Denise's message and, having done so, feel the need to "vent".

Denise has, as I recall, been present at the meetings, where the points she makes have been discussed. I'm, therefore, concerned that she, apparently, hasn't been listening or, for some reason, doesn't understand and isn't likely to be of much "help". Additionally, the message has caused me considerable distress/anxiety, over the past few days; to the point I'm having difficulty focusing on anything else; not "helpful".

To confirm our conversation as well as the discussions which have taken place during the meetings with "Outreach":

Spoke to Julia from Ontario works today. Here is information for a denturist Dr. Gotts 416-239-3236 if client does not have one.
Brian's not a "doctor" and his surname is "Gott"; no "S". I've known him for several years; he did my last two sets of dentures. Perhaps Denise would like his fax and cell numbers as well as his business and personal e-mail addresses?

I want a "Dental Identification card" so I can see a dentist to have the damage, trying to use my ill-fitting dentures has done, to the inside of my mouth assessed and possibly treated. I believe this should be done prior to being fitted for new dentures as the shape of the inside of the mouth and/or gums may change after the damage is repaired or heals.

His new case worker is Charles at X6231 He need to connect with him when he has outstanding issues like not receiving his drug card
Since the office opened, ODSP Brampton employees have withheld, suspended and/or terminated benefits on several occasions without lawful justification and/or reasonable explanation, Cyril has violated my privacy on numerous occasions and according to Denise accused me of "welfare fraud". Four have lied to me and others attempting to assist me, I understand, within the past few weeks, "Johnny"(?) lied to Fran and Cyril lied to Denise. In addition to the physical hardships caused by the stress, loss of income and forced discontinuation of medications, the effect their actions has had on my mental health is of more than a little concern. I can not deal with people who, in my opinion, are lying, unimaginably incompetent or malicious assholes. Julia said she wanted to deal with ODSP, on my behalf. Unless I'm able to find a really good lawyer, who'll handle the case on a contingency basis, that seems to be the only lawful option.

it was issued but at the ODSP office since he does not have a mailing address, until he get a new address he will need to pick it up.
As I told Denise when she said I'd "moved to Hamilton": no, I visited Hamilton looking for a place with the thought of moving there. Everything I own except the clothes I was wearing and a few small items in a backpack was/is in Brampton, my phone number was/is in Brampton and my MAILING ADDRESS was/is in Brampton. I've had the same mailing address for years. ODSP was sending my monthly statement to that address. Except for a few items Cyril sent to Amazon, after ODSP had agreed not to, and a few more, after Mary Kan had apologized for the first few, everything ODSP has sent me has been to that mailing address which is now and has continuously been valid.

No, I don't need to pick it up.

His drug card was fax (SIC) to the pharmacy today
See? If arrangements had been made to accept the prescription or I'd been given more than a few minutes notice that clerical was closed for the afternoon the day the pharmacy tried to deliver, I'd likely have the medications, by now.

He need (SIC) to provide a letter from his eye doctor explaining why his lens cost $700. 00 for him to receive his glasses as the cost exceeds the amout (SIC) ODSP pays which is $300.
I'm curious as to how Denise got the idea my "lens cost $700.00" (SIC). I told her the glasses I have cost me about $375.00 eight years ago and it wouldn't surprise me if they were around $500.00 now. A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned to Fran I'd stopped in at the opticians, around the corner from my optometrist, and was given an estimate of five hundred and eighty something: less than $600.00 for the lenses and frame.

Chris explained to me that he has done this before so he will be aware of what he needs to provide to his ODSP worker.
I explained that I told Mary Kan on 30 December, 2010 I'd learned the extended benefit was available if supported by a letter from an optometrist, she'd replied: "get the letter and you'll get your glasses", I'd delivered the letter to the ODSP office on 5 January, 2011, I and others had followed up several times and I still didn't have the glasses; FOUR YEARS later. I'm curious as to why Denise thinks giving ODSP another letter is necessary and why she thinks the result of giving them a second letter would be different from the result of giving them the first.

Corl will continue to support him with his housing search.
As I recall, it was two or three weeks ago we met Corl and I gave him my criteria for housing; I haven't heard from him since. A year or so ago, Ron had "housing workers" from the region and CMHA, both named "Lindsay"? I think it was "supporting" me. After meeting with them five times, I became fed up and insisted on knowing exactly what they had to offer. The housing worker from the region had market and the housing worker from CMHA had Peace Ranch; waste of time. I think it's unlikely Corl will be able to find suitable housing, which I can manage, in Brampton. Even if he does, in the present circumstances, I'm unable to do anything about it.

I've been "on the street" for five months, unable to see or hear well, in almost constant pain, ill most of that time, sleeping for an hour or two a couple of times a day and unable to accomplish much of anything. If I were in this situation as a result of my own doing, I couldn't complain: I'm not.

Had either ODSP or CMHA given me the "help" they claim to provide which I requested more than three years ago, I wouldn't be in this situation. Had those responsible for upholding the Law done so when I attempted to assert my supposed "rights", I wouldn't be in this situation. Had our elected representatives "listened" and made any real effort to "help" as some claim to, I wouldn't be in this situation. Had the "fourth estate" acted in the "public interest" and reported a "balanced view" as they claim to, I likely wouldn't be in this situation. Had bureaucrats primarily at Legal Aid and Housing Hamilton done as they claim to, I wouldn't be in this situation.

Two of my doctors have given their expert medical opinions that I require "considerable assistance" in respect to finding suitable housing and moving. Two of my doctors have given their expert medical opinions that the actions of Brampton ODSP employees, Cyril in particular, were adversely affecting my physical and mental health. I showed Denise's message to one of my doctors and he assures me my response is reasonable and appropriate. As he's been my psychiatrist for a number of years, I expect his opinion carries some weight.
ME to Venusia Brazil copies Frances Kovacs, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne & Madeleine Meilleur 24 Dec., 2013
Further to our discussions, this past Thursday and Friday, there are a few things which, apparently, require "clarification".

Your statement to the effect obtaining the geared to income apartment, from Housing Hamilton, was my "plan". No; that is only one of several possible outcomes. It is neither the most probable nor most desirable. As I've told you, Fran, Julia, Denise, Sheri and others: the only "real" supports I have are in Brampton and my preference is to remain here.

My "plan" was to avoid the problem. Unfortunately, I was unable to manage that, on my own. I asked CMHA and ODSP for some of the "help" you/they claim to provide. CMHA refused me, claiming I didn't need help and, later, that I had all the help I needed; both untrue. Several requests for an explanation and the criteria used to determine who was helped received no response. ODSP not only didn't help, it appears they; Cyril Honglin in particular, have been actively and maliciously hindering. You have copies of the e-mail exchange with Tanya Di Benedetto and fax to Mary Kan detailing the majority of the "help" I've received from ODSP.

Unable to get help and preoccupied with survival, I've been unable to develop a "plan".

Your statement to the effect that I'm partly responsible for being homeless as I didn't search for alternatives after Housing Hamilton withdrew the offer of an apartment and haven't been searching since I returned to Brampton. No. On Friday, I gave you copies of several letters, from two of my doctors, listing most of my medical problems, stating some were adversely affected by stress and giving their opinions that I'm unable to search for suitable housing without considerable assistance. Given the constant stress I've been subjected to, deteriorating condition and the lack of assistance I've received over the past four years, my "failure" should be excused on medical grounds...but wait, there's more...

I was not in good shape, physically or mentally, when I arrived in Hamilton. "Help" was offered. I "accepted", asking for shelter for a few nights, contacting half a dozen prospective landlords I'd found and, possibly, transportation. What I got was passed around, run around, screwed around and screwed over...for months. The day I viewed the last apartment, I walked more than ten miles in twenty-five to thirty degrees below zero temperatures with twenty-five to thirty kilometer per hour winds. I attended meeting after meeting after meeting, most of which accomplished nothing but to provide plausible justification for those, supposedly, "helping" and waste my time. During this, I became so upset I, actually, wound up in hospital for a day; something not even Cyril's been able to accomplish. Not everyone was worse than useless. Unfortunately, those who were helpful weren't in positions where they were able to do much to resolve the major problem.

Housing Hamilton had no valid grounds for withdrawing their offer. It was reasonable to expect the appeal/review would be successful; not only I but my caseworker and the director of Good Shepherd Center were surprised it wasn't; the appeal/review being decided by the person who signed their letter, refusing service (unlawful) may account for this. In any case, had I taken alternative housing, at more than twice the cost, I'd have been unable to move to the geared to income apartment, in the event the appeal had been successful. Housing Hamilton's appeal/review decision should be overturned if subjected to judicial review and the law applied. Arranging that was my intention.

Unfortunately, ODSP terminating benefits exhausted my resources very quickly and left me unable to deal with much of anything; discontinuing psychoactive drugs, precipitously, often has major negative effects. Co-incidentally...or about this same time, another problem developed, which I may have been partly responsible for in requesting that handrails on the GSC entrance steps be kept clear...seemingly unrelated but I can't help thinking that it was easier to get rid of me than keep a crowd of drug addicts from blocking the steps. Having no viable alternative, I returned to Brampton.

When I arrived in Brampton, I was in worse shape than when I'd arrived in Hamilton. Again, I was offered "help" and, again, I "accepted"'d think I'd learn. Again, I've spent months running around, attending meetings and, again, plausible justification's been provided for those, supposedly, "helping" while, for the most part, it appears my time's been wasted. To be fair, I did have a drug card within a few days, which is greatly appreciated. Other than that, I've seen none of the benefits which ODSP terminated, I understand, unlawfully. This even though I've gone to the time, trouble, effort and expense of reapplying for these, which, I understand, ODSP did not have lawful justification to require. This is especially irksome when ODSP is, I believe unlawfully, paying for daily taxi rides to and from both Partnership Place and Eden Place for many people; some of whom don't require a taxi, in any case. It would be interesting to know how ODSP determines whether their, apparently, disregarding the law will be to a person's benefit or detriment.

Your statement to the effect that the letter from my optometrist was years old. True but irrelevant. The primary condition the extended benefit is required for, being cataracts in both eyes, doesn't improve without surgery. The only reason the letter is "years old" is Cyril didn't process it after I went to the time, trouble, effort and expense of obtaining the letter and delivering it to the ODSP office, a few days after being sliced open and having chunks of metal shoved through my body and into my heart. This in spite of numerous "follow-up's" by myself, two social workers and a mental health nurse, attempting to assist me in dealing with ODSP. Cyril has told several lies, attempting to justify himself, to all of us and, I understand, attempted to lie to Denise, as well.

I've noticed a few things the majority of social service agencies and organizations seem to have in common. Most have a "wide variety of programs". I assume to justify the amount of money they've received or requested as, in my experience, few if any of these programs are likely to do most people, who need help, much if any good. Most "offer referrals". I assume because they receive funding or justify their existence based on "head count", form "partnerships" and pass the poor buggers who need help around so they all get a piece.

Many of those, employed by these agencies and organizations, "blame the victim" and attempt to shift the onus of resolving the problem back on to the person requesting help.


The problem seems to be that some people don't do the jobs they're paid to and aren't held accountable. The problem is, likely, caused by laziness, stupidity, incompetence, sadistic tendencies, malice or a combination of these. The solution to the problem is, probably, to hold those who don't do their jobs accountable.

It's foolish to think that CMHA or anyone else, outside of government, should or could deal with the "Cyrils", in the Provincial public service. It's even more foolish to think that anyone, inside of government, would...without being "motivated" to do so.

An open letter, from CMHA, to Kathleen Wynne and Madeleine Meilleur, asking how they reconcile their published statements (I'll give you copies of the clippings) with their actions or lack thereof, after they've been made aware of Provincial civil servants depriving "vulnerable" people of their supposed "rights", ignoring Provincial legislation and the Federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it suits them, lying to justify themselves, forcing people deeper into poverty, onto the streets and, more than once, into a morgue (I'll give you copies of the e-mail messages) may be effective; especially, with a Provincial election not far off.

When I mentioned Provincial civil servants ignoring the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I was thinking of section 15 (1)... the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law...which I sure as hell haven't received. Always wanting to be fair (unlike the Ontario government), I'll mention, as well, that given the difficulty I've experienced communicating with many of these Provincial civil servants, it's possible even likely that they've confused "amelioration", in section 15 (2), with "elimination".
ME to Frances Kovacs copies Venusia Brazil, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne & Dr. K. Kruger 25 Dec., 2013
In her message, Denise writes:
His new case worker is Charles at X6231 He need to connect with him when he has outstanding issues like not receiving his drug card, it was issued but at the ODSP office since he does not have a mailing address, until he get a new address he will need to pick it up. (SIC)
It's reasonable, I think, to infer that Denise was told I didn't have a mailing address, by someone at the Brampton ODSP office. Yesterday, I received two pieces of correspondence from the Brampton ODSP office. One is what appears to be a computer generated "form letter", the other an unsigned, handwritten note attached to my vision prescription, which you'd faxed to them as I recall. Both are correctly addressed and sent prior to Denise's e-mail message. Apparently, when Denise would've been speaking with them, ODSP had my mailing address in both their "computer system" and whatever "file" a mailing address would be obtained from, for "manual addressing". The only options I can see here are that ODSP lied to Denise or Denise lied to you. You got anything?

For years, I've been asking CMHA and our "elected representatives" for assistance in dealing with ODSP, as I'm unable to tolerate the lies and bullshit much less to obtain the help they claim to provide, which I requested in 2009 in order to avoid the situation I'm now in. Our "elected representatives" claim to "listen" and "help", "protect the vulnerable", "stop bullying" while the Government of Ontario ignores repeated requests for help as "bullies", paid from the "public purse", deprive "the vulnerable" of their supposed rights, their homes and even their lives. The Government of Ontario "protects" these "bullies" while spewing meaningless rhetoric about "accountability" and protecting "the vulnerable", claiming to be "deeply concerned" when the occasional example of the abuse becomes public knowledge and passing the odd piece legislation, which would "protect the vulnerable"...if it were enforced or even not ignored. Perhaps, in fifty years or so, survivors of the Ontario Disability Support Program will receive a nice apology from Premier Howarth or whoever. Perhaps, sooner if we get a class action suit going now.

From Denise's comment: "He need to connect with him when he has outstanding issues..." (SIC), it appears CMHA is sticking with their "justification" for refusing my request for assistance, initially. That being: I "don't need help". Considering this, I've gained a better understanding of the phrase "mind boggling".

In my 23 December message to Venusia, which you were copied on, I mentioned I'd "noticed a few things the majority of social service agencies and organizations seem to have in common", giving "wide variety of programs", "offer referrals", "blame the victim" and "attempt to shift the onus of resolving the problem back on to the person requesting help" as examples. In that same message, I mentioned "another problem developed, which I may have been partly responsible for in requesting that handrails on the GSC entrance steps be kept clear...seemingly unrelated but I can't help thinking that it was easier to get rid of me than keep a crowd of drug addicts from blocking the steps". I may have discovered another commonality.

Yesterday, after asking how the next couple of days were looking for me and suggesting I could spend the evening in a warming station or at a Christmas Eve mass, you and Venusia informed me that I was no longer allowed to do laundry, at CMHA, due to the "issue with laundry", this past Saturday. The "issue" being: I was informed, at about 1:45 PM, that Eden Place, which is normally open 'til 4:00 PM, on Saturdays, was closing at 2:00 PM, after having been advised that they may be closing at 3:00 PM and to get any laundry in immediately. At the time, I had the majority of the clothing, which I have with me, including all of my "winter clothing" in the dryer, with approximately forty minutes remaining on the timer. I asked why and was told that "management" had called and instructed Eden Place to close at 2:00 PM as inclement weather was forecast and they didn't want people walking in it. Just before 2:00 PM, my clothes were still much too damp to wear. I ensured Eden Place staff was aware the inclement weather was forecast for later in the evening; I was still homeless and had nothing to wear but the track pants, t-shirt and windbreaker I had on. Declining an offer of the loan of a sweater, which was not close to my size or heavy enough to be of much use, from Eden Place staff, I left. CMHA, withdrawing permission for me to do laundry forces me to spend considerably more time, energy and money, none of which I have much of, to maintain basic hygiene. This further reduces the likelihood of my being able to get out of my present situation. It seems, to me, an unreasonable; almost non sequitur, response. Obviously, I'm biased so discussed this with my doctor and he formed a similar opinion. Being somewhat cynical, I can't help but wonder if this may not have more to do with my messages to you and Venusia of the 18TH and 23RD than the "issue with laundry".
ME to Frances Kovacs copies Venusia Brazil, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne & Dr. K. Kruger 30 Dec., 2013
Further to our conversation, this past Friday, regarding my e-mail message, addressed to you, dated 25 Dec., 2013.

During the discussion, I, again, made the point that I'm not responsible for my present situation. You asked if I were "responsible for anything", which I believe any reasonable person would take as an implication that I am, at least partly, responsible. I asked how (I was responsible). You replied: not "willing to accept" (help) and/or "co-operating" (Olivia). I pointed out that I had "co-operated" with Julia, spending a significant amount of time and energy obtaining the documentation she said was "necessary", even though ODSP, had all of it and, in some cases, multiple copies. Also, that I was more than willing to "co-operate" with anyone who I believed was actually going to help me. I advised you, as well, that I was "willing to accept" any assistance which I was either owed or entitled to; what I was not "willing to accept" was charity; my doctor offering to pay for my glasses for example, "lies and bullshit"; pretty much anything from Cyril Honglin/ODSP Brampton, for example and/or being run ragged, only to be frustrated by the total lack of benefit to me in doing so and exhausted by the effort, the time I spent in Hamilton for example.

You have my permission to contact Dr. Kruger, who's known me for more than ten years, and Scott Banner, who hasn't known me so long but has, probably, spent as much time with me as Dr. Kruger, and ask what they think of the suggestions that I'm unco-operative (without damned good reason), unwilling to accept help (that's actually helpful) and/or irresponsible (in any sense of the word). I can't see these suggestions as anything other than the "blame the victim" tactic, I've mentioned. Are social workers trained to do this and, if so, what's the purpose?

The suggestion I avoid accepting responsibility is, especially, infuriating; particularly, coming from you. You know how I reacted when that fellow I tried to assist, in September, died. Even though he was alive when the paramedics arrived and still alive when he reached the hospital, it took a paramedic and two medical doctors to convince me I hadn't done anything which could've contributed to his death and had done everything anyone could to prevent it. Even then, I almost called Laurie Hill (Brampton cardiologist and one of the best in Canada), to get his opinion. Even now, it bothers me. If I fuck up, I'll be the first to say so as I find the embarrassment reduces the likelihood of it happening, again.

I won't embarrass you (as an employee of CMHA; not personally) by reminding you of who is responsible for my present situation or even the list of recent "small helps", which have been offered, I'd be pleased to "accept", have "co-operated" in obtaining and either haven't materialized or have been withdrawn.
ME to Frances Kovacs copies Venusia Brazil, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne & Dr. K. Kruger 9 Jan., 2013
Further to our 31 Dec., 2013 conversation, in order to keep everyone informed of the situation and ensure that we're all clear on it.

We agreed that, in spite of what may have been a perception to the contrary, I have been extremely co-operative with anyone making any meaningful effort to assist me and am not only willing to accept help but as close to ecstatic as I've been in decades to get any actual help. We, also, agreed that I am not responsible for getting into my present situation. The only disagreement we seem to have is over your opinion that I'm responsible for getting out of the situation and that I should be taking action based on what ODSP has said and the possibility that CMHA/Outreach will "probably" assist me.

As I pointed out, ODSP Brampton is largely responsible both for my being in the situation and unable to get out of it. They; primarily Cyril Honglin have lied not only to me but to Tanya at JHS, Paulina at CMHA, Aleef at SHIP, Denise at Outreach, Kathy at AHP and Dr. Kruger (that come to mind, immediately). The lies aren't "differences of opinion" or even arguable but demonstrable, provable untrue statements, which they knew or ought to have known were untrue at the time they were made. There aren't one or two lies but numerous. None have been to my benefit so it's unlikely they result from only incompetence and/or stupidity. My privacy has been violated numerous times; many after Mary Kan, manager ODSP Brampton apologized for the first few incidents. I've been falsely accused of a criminal offence, which was likely "vexatious" as the police don't appear to have been involved, I was given no details when I requested them and they're no longer using "fraud" as their "reason" for withholding benefits. They've defamed me, endangered my life and put me in a position where I'm unable to obtain medical treatment or even attend to basic hygiene much less get off the street. To suggest that I should rely on anything ODSP says is, in my opinion and if you'll pardon the expression, "nuts"; particularly, considering the experience Aleef had with them as detailed in the e-mail message I gave you a copy of on 31 December (another attached).

So far as relying on CMHA "probably" assisting me is concerned, I'm reluctant to embarrass you (by "you", I mean CMHA) by going into detail as the use of the computers, photocopier, scanner and shower as well as the bus tickets and arranging the drug card with Julia are, greatly, appreciated. I have to take into consideration, though, that substantial additional assistance was offered and none has been received, after more than five months. That CMHA doesn't seem too terribly concerned that I've been forced on to the street and am kept here, primarily by agencies and organizations, which claim to "help"; in a few cases, disregarding the law and/or acting illegally. That some of the assistance, which I did receive, such as being able to keep my medication in the office, do laundry and sleep for an hour or two without the worry of being mugged, freezing to death or doused with gasoline and set on fire, have been withdrawn. I'm repeating myself but had CMHA given me the help I requested and CMHA claims to provide, a few years ago, rather than telling me I didn't need help, I wouldn't be in this situation.

In the 'Tories bast Wynne for freezing out Ford' article, published on 7 January, 2014 by the Toronto Star, Kathleen Wynne is quoted as saying: "I can say only this: I ran for political office to help people. It is my primary and overwhelming motivation." She's been sent e-mail messages, detailing the situation. As Premier of Ontario, she's wholly responsible for three of the seven "agencies and organizations", I referred to. There's a good possibility she's, also, responsible for three of the remaining four but I'm not certain and haven't had an opportunity to investigate. So, ODSP "helps", CMHA "helps", Premier Wynne "helps" and, with all this "help", I'm on the street, in forty below temperatures, occupying myself by guessing whether I'll slip on the ice and break my neck, die of exposure, have a heart attack or respiratory attack (due to the cold temperatures constricting cardiac and pulmonary arteries) or one of the several other imminent risks I'm subjected to as a result of all the "help" I've received.

Thanks guys
Julia Chambers to ME 9 Jan., 2014
Julia here. Chris.........please tell me if you got your glasses ????? Medication if needed I can help you with that.
ME to Julia Chambers copies Frances Kovacs, Venusia Brazil, Sheri Klepka & Dr. K. Kruger 10 Jan., 2014
I was beginning to think you'd retired.

Nope, haven't gotten glasses...or anything else, from ODSP....except a couple of pieces of correspondence sent to the address they, apparently, told Denise I didn't have, as justification for not having sent drug cards. Obtaining the documentation, which ODSP had on file, again seems to have been as much a waste of my time, energy and money as obtaining the forms for the medical transportation and special diet, which they also had on file, apparently, was. It, probably, wouldn't bother me as much as it does if I were in less pain and/or getting more sleep.

CMHA has informed me that I'm no longer permitted to keep my medications here so getting them creates another problem I can't manage. Add to that CMHA having informed me that I'm no longer permitted to do laundry here and the only places I have left are hospital or jail, either of which would, I think, manage the medications.
Julia Chambers to ME 10 Jan., 2014
Okay. Chris. I am so sorry to hear all this. I will find out with ODSP what the heck is going on. I have a few things I have already committed to for monday am. I will look into this on monday. Let's see if there is something I can help. I will be in touch monday via email.
ME to Julia Chambers copies Frances Kovacs, Venusia Brazil, Sheri Klepka & Dr. K. Kruger 11 Jan., 2014
Thanks for the sympathy but I've gotten lots and none of it's done me any good. What's going on is what's gone on for years; ODSP is screwing me over; constructively denying me benefits, to which I'm entitled. Had they acted as they're mandated to and provided the help I requested, when I requested it, I wouldn't be on the street, wouldn't have been in almost constant pain for the past several years and the majority of the problems I had either wouldn't have gotten worse or wouldn't have gotten as bad as they have. In order to rectify the situation, ODSP needs to be held accountable; firing Cyril Honglin would be a good start and may set an example for others.

Unfortunately, those in a position to rectify the situation indulge in meaningless rhetoric, claiming to "help", while tacitly condoning what, for all intents and purposes, is a "caste system". Us po' folk got no rights and government "bullies" can do whatever they like, without regard to any law and with no fear of being held accountable.

When I was young, I was taught that I lived in a "democracy", which came from two Greek words: "demos", meaning "people" and "kratos", meaning "rule" or rule/government of/by the people. I questioned this as it seemed obvious that the people didn't rule/govern. I was told, rather than an impractical "direct democracy", we had a "representative democracy". That those eligible and wishing to participate, nominated candidates and elected representatives to rule/govern, on their behalf. Having no interest in politics, this explanation satisfied me for some time.

Sadly, my blissful ignorance came to an end when I was reminded that we're legally a monarchy; now, a constitutional monarchy but a monarchy none the less. While our Prime Minister is usually the leader of the party holding the most seats in Parliament, that's by convention/tradition, By law, Her Majesty or the Governor General can appoint, pretty much, whoever they like or act as Prime Minister themselves; the Governor General's actually done so. Anyway, I ramble.

My point is that, based on my experiences, in depth review of relevant media and intensive research in select fields of law/politics, over the past few years, I believe I've gained a very clear and comprehensive understanding of our political system, on both the federal and provincial (so far as Ontario is concerned) levels. I'm convinced our political system ought to be renamed, to reflect the reality. I suggest: "proctocracy", from the Greek: "proktos", meaning "anuses" and "kratos", meaning "rule" or rule/government by assholes. Just my opinion, of course.

Would you mind, when you're speaking with ODSP, asking how much they've paid in taxi fares to and from 7700 Hurontario St., Brampton since 1 January 2009? Broken down, by year, would be nice but an aggregate will serve the purpose.
Frances Kovacs to ME "Automatic reply" 30 Jan., 2014
Thank you for your email. I will be on vacation from January 27, 2014 returning February 3 2014 and I will not be checking my mail. If you need immediate assistance please contact manager Karyn Hand or phone Partnership Place at 905-796-9030 ext.330 and speak to a staff. I will reply to your email once I return.
ME to Fran Kovacs 31 Jan., 2014
Please consider changing "...and speak to a staff" to "....and speak to a staff member". Any singular "staff" is an inanimate object and speaking to it would be pointless...oh, wait...never mind.

Hope you enjoyed your vacation.
ME to Venusia Brazil copies Frances Kovacs, Julia Chambers , Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne & Dr. K. Kruger 19 Feb., 2014
Further to our discussions, over the past couple of weeks, ODSP closing my file again, CMHA's failure to deliver on any of several commitments to help made over the past six months and the recent "issues" outlined below:

As I mentioned, in previous correspondence:
"In July, when I was forced to abandon efforts to obtain housing in Hamilton and return to Brampton, due to ODSP terminating my benefits, I didn't ask CMHA for help as my experience had been doing so was pointless. CMHA offered 'help', both general and specific; the specifics, you're aware of, I believe. Since then, all I've asked for has been permission to keep my medications in the office as three are commonly abused, one's a controlled substance and the only alternative is my storage locker, several miles away." "Help" aside, CMHA has caused some hindrances, which I see no need or reason for and are a source of considerable stress.

- Jose takes my property from the counter
- I slam my hand down on my property, without touching Jose, preventing him
- Jose steps back, screaming: "he push me...he push me"
- I tell Jose that if I'd pushed him, there'd be a hole in the wall
Rob accuses me of making a "threat" and threatens to call the police.

- I place my coffee beside one of the four sinks, in the men's washroom, while I'm using the urinal
- Jose ignores three sinks which don't have a coffee sitting on the counter beside them and reaches toward the faucet of the one which does
- I step between Jose and the sink to prevent him washing his hand over the coffee I'm still drinking
- Jose starts screaming
- I wash my hands, take my coffee and leave
I'm called into the office to listen to excuses for Jose's behavior

This after Jose had, for months, pounded on the washroom door, almost, every time I showered and, once, ordered me to "get out" of.

- I print a page at a computer I'm using and get up to fax it
- when I return to the computer, minutes later, Gnat is sitting at it
- my coat is on the back of the chair, my pack beside it, my netbook, phone, coffee, glasses are on the desk and my e-mail is open on the monitor
- I tell Gnat I'm using the computer
- he responds I'm not sitting there
- I point out my stuff's all over the desk
- he responds my name's not on it
- I tell him to get out of the chair
- he asks what I'll do if he doesn't
- I tell him that he's very close to finding out
- he taunts me with: "you've got muscle...what else have you got...what have you got"
- I tell me that I have "a lot of anger"
- at that point staff intervenes
- subsequently, I find Gnat has been searching for a chocolate chip cookie recipe
Once again, though, I'm expected to listen to excuses for the behavior, which upsets me so much I forgot an appointment I had that day.

Points made to me were: Jose and Gnat had psychiatric issues and they may not have been able to control their behavior. Points I made were that most of us have "psychiatric issues" and are able to control our behavior. I mentioned I have two "psychiatric diagnoses", myself; I'd forgotten the "chronic dysthymic disorder". Also, that I have a number of other problems, which I was fairly sure Jose and Gnat didn't. That if someone was unable to control their behavior to the point it was "provocative", they ought to be "controlled". I was asked how they could be "controlled" and was distracted before I could answer. As I mentioned, Tuesday, progressive suspensions should be effective.

In any case, I don't believe the problem is that they're unable to control their behavior. I've encountered both Jose and Gnat, outside the building, on a few occasions, and have experienced no problem with either. I suspect the problem is that both are aware they'll be "protected" and think there'll be no consequences for their actions, while they're inside. As I was composing this, the clerical unit was closed, for another "meeting". I was fortunate enough to get one of the two computers, in the games room. I placed my coat over the back of the chair, my pack et cetera on the desk beside the computer and went into the cafeteria, for no more than two or three minutes. When I returned, Gnat was sitting in the chair, using the computer.

Being told I could keep my medications in the office and having that accommodation withdrawn. Bad enough but having it withdrawn in the midst of the worst winter in decades makes it almost impossible to find an alternative; one of the three reasons I have no medication.

Having CMHA arrange for my medications to be delivered, without telling me, all of the full-time staff going to a meeting, leaving students "in charge", without telling them and having the delivery refused; another of the three reasons I have no medication..

Being told I could do laundry and having that accommodation withdrawn. Bad enough but having it withdrawn in the midst of the worst winter in decades makes it almost impossible to find an alternative and being given the most ridiculous drivel as reason or justification just "adds insult to injury".

Being told that "this may not be the place for (me)"; perhaps not. If I'd been given the help I asked for, when I asked for it, I'd have some place else to go. Very upsetting as it seems CMHA has decided it's easier, more cost effective or whatever to get rid of me than it is to, actually, help me.

Being ordered about and spoken to as though I were a misbehaving five year old. I pass out, from exhaustion, occasionally. I'm forced to carry, considerably, more with me than I would if I had a home. It takes me longer to do things than I'd like because I'm exhausted, not thinking clearly, can't see well and so on than I'd like. I feel badly about this BUT CMHA could've prevented most of these problems and, in any case, has a "duty to accommodate".

Being put out in sub-zero temperatures with twenty to thirty kilometer per hour winds, to spend the night in a t-shirt, track pants and light, Spring jacket so staff wouldn't be held up ten or fifteen minutes; especially, when this same staff, frequently, leaves ten or fifteen minutes early. In this case, CMHA not only could've prevented the problem; CMHA caused the problem and, again, has a "duty to accommodate".

Being put in the position of having to deal with irrelevant comments such as: "(I) didn't take anyone with (me) to the optician's". What possible point could there be to either the comment or taking anyone with me? The problem was that no optician was there, as I'd been told there would be, it was the fourth time I'd been there, I was there for a procedure that could've been done on any of the previous visits and I received a notice, from ODSP, the following day that my file was closed...again. None of this would've been changed or could've been circumvented by having anyone with me...unless, perhaps, they were a licensed optician.

Being told I didn't "see 'help' (I'd) been given, starting with Olivia arranging Safe Beds for (me)". As, I think, we agreed, Safe Beds was a nice break but really wasn't any "help". I've asked for a "point form" list of the "help' (I've) been given" and was told I thought (or, perhaps, "said") it wasn't possible to help (me). As I said, Tuesday, this is untrue. I know of several people who have received help, through CMHA; most of whom weren't entitled to it. From my perspective, it's not only "possible" but should be "easy" as I'm entitled to the help.

It being suggested my belief "help" has to be "measurable" is unreasonable. I can't think of anything, which isn't "measurable" or doesn't produce a "measurable" result that would be helpful. These would, presumably, be included in the list of help I'd been given, which I don't see.

Being told that the unilateral actions I'm, now, taking aren't "going to get (me) anything"; they are. For years, I've asked for help, from organizations and individuals who claim and/or are paid to help (hereinafter "the assholes"), and, in spite of a couple of claims to the contrary, have "worked with" anyone who gave me any reason to even suspect they'd make any effort to, actually, help me. With very, very, very few exceptions I've either been ignored or fucked over. The actions I'm now taking will result in:
a) sufficient pressure being generated that some or all of "the assholes" will do their job(s)
b) some or all of "the assholes" being subjected to, at least, a small portion of the aggravation they've caused me
c) some or all of "the assholes" being subjected to, at least, a small portion of the embarrassment they've caused me
d) some or all of "the assholes" being subjected to, at least, a small portion of the expense they've caused me
e) sufficient compensation being awarded, for the help I've been denied and resulting damages, that I can hire people to provide the help
f) some of "a" through "e"
f) all of "a" through "e"
Ordinarily, I'd include "none of ‘a' through "e'" as an option but I understand, from Vanna Gotsis, Director, Social Services Portfolio of the Auditor General's office that the Brampton ODSP office will be audited so I'd bet money on, at the very least, "b".

The other day, I was told CMHA had made a "mistake", telling me I didn't need help and, subsequently, that I had all the help I needed. This "mistake" cost me. I'm pretty sure CMHA telling me, now, that "it's up to me" (getting out of this situation) is a "mistake", as well. I'm, also, pretty sure this "mistake" will cost CMHA.

I've attached copies of letters from Drs. Goel and Kruger, dated October 2011, which I've given to CMHA staff, at least, three times. Since these were written, I've been subjected to:
- twenty-eight months of continuous stress due to my previous landlords' and ODSP's actions
- fourteen months of increased stress due to homelessness
- six months of critical stress due to being "on the street"
- six months of sleep deprivation
- two months of being deprived of medication and medical treatment
- more than a month of being subjected to what I understand is referred to as "cold stress"
- more than a month of stress, frustration and confusion resulting from CMHA's "change of face"

Of the several options I considered, for my first initial action, I chose the "taxi issue" because ODSP as well as CMHA are affected and the least amount of damage is done. =======================================================================================================
ME to Frances Kovacs, Venusia Brazil, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne & Dr. K. Kruger 10 Mar., 2014
Further to our conversations, last week, during which you stated that I was not receiving help as I was "putting up barriers".

This will confirm that I requested a point form list of the "barriers" you were referring to and that you gave me no specific examples, at the time. I assume these are the same as the "blocks" Venusia said I was creating, which I have also not received specific examples of.

I'll, again, mention that I'm still waiting for specific examples of the "help" you told me I'd received and "didn't see". As it's been about a month and I've made a number of requests, I'd appreciate it if this could be made a priority.

During the initial conversation, discussing the actions I'm currently taking, I mentioned that I was "pretty good" at resolving problems if I'm able to focus on them, you expressed doubt, I gave the several computer and network problems I've rectified for CMHA and you commented that these were "technical", implying that my problem solving skills are limited to "technical" problems. As I told you, this past Friday, I was quite successful in resolving problems during several years employed in the field of financial accounting and several more during which my former wife and I owned and operated a fishing and hunting camp; I was surprised you weren't aware of this history as it had been given to CMHA years ago. While my claim to being successful resolving problems in these fields is unsupported, it occurred to me, this past Saturday, that you witnessed my handling of the situation when my cell phone was stolen.

I'd suggest that my telling you, a few days in advance, who the thief was, what would happen and when precludes the possibility that the situation resolved as it did either in the normal course of events or through "luck".
ME to Venusia Brazil, Frances Kovacs, Sheri Klepka & Dr. K. Kruger 14 Mar., 2014
You guys are like the Energizer bunny; you just keep going and going and going.

Monday, I returned to the games room, where I'd left my pack, netbook etc. on the table, by the computer I was using when the circuit breaker tripped and they went down. I was away less than five minutes and the computers were still down. With no preamble or explanation, Karen told me that I didn't "own" the computer, if I were away and someone needed to use it, they would. There were four other people using computers, in the room. All had personal articles around the work areas and Karen said nothing similar to any of them. The only situations, relating to my use of the computers are those I've mentioned, previously and one time I asked Mike why he'd chosen to use a computer, which was obviously in use when there were others, which were apparently free; thi,s after he'd finished and left the computer. The only time I've, actually, complained or made an issue of it was the incident of Gnat taking a computer I was using, when I got up to retrieve a page I'd printed and fax it. As I mentioned, at the time, there were several other computers, which were not being used. Whether or not Karen is aware of these, I don't know. In any case, in the absence of any reason for or explanation of Karen's statement and her not having made the same or a similar statement to any of the others, in the room, I view this as harassment and discriminatory.

Thursday morning, I was at the table, in the games room, trimming newspaper articles, I'd "clipped". Kim entered and made what she, later, said was an attempt at humour, alluding to me as "Leonard". As you know, I'm not big on "political correctness" and, unless you're paying or laying me, I likely don't care what you say so "jokes" relating to mental illness don't bother me. In fact, I may have told you one of my favorites. The punch line is: "I'm here because I'm crazy, not because I'm stupid". In any case, I have two problems with Kim's. First, Leonard is, I think, incapable of defending himself in a "battle of wits" so using him for "material" is indefensible. Pick on someone who can fight back; me for instance…I have a great repertoire of "fat", "gay" and "stupid" jokes. Second, while "jokes" relating to mental illness don't bother me, hypocrisy does and I find CMHA staff using this type of "humour" very hypocritical.

Thursday afternoon, I went to the washroom and found the CMHA washroom attendant putting up a "closed" sign. I continued and he began telling me I had to use the "handicap" washroom. I responded with "not now" and used the washroom. When I returned to CMHA, the CMHA washroom attendant was just inside, speaking with Olivia. Olivia "buttonholed" and began berating me. It was very embarrassing having to explain to her; especially, with a half dozen other people present, that I didn't have time to get to the ladies washroom, next door, much less the "handicap" washroom, near the front of the building. After I "explained" that pissing my pants, wasn't an option as I had no clean clothes and wouldn't be able to wash those I was wearing as a result of CMHA withdrawing their offer of doing my laundry here, she "thanked" me for giving her "my side of the story"; I shouldn't have had to. A few thoughts occurred to me, subsequently. If CMHA is closing the "main" washroom, it'd be an idea to post a sign on the door and open the one here. Many years ago, a truck driver was charged, tried and convicted, for urinating on the side of the 401. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled to the effect that "when you gotta go, you gotta go". Should the circumstances arise again, I'll piss in the hall if you like. Also, as I understand it, CMHA is renting the facilities here, which do not include the main washroom. If that's correct, I don't see how Olivia was justified in becoming involved, much less embarrassing me.

This afternoon, Friday, I went out for a smoke. When I returned, Olivia again berated me. This time, for putting my "garbage" in a cupboard; I'd placed a MacDonald's coffee cup, in a cupboard, on my way out. She asked why I hadn't put it in a garbage container. I explained to her that I hadn't put it in a garbage container because it wasn't garbage; I used it as it had a top, which allowed me to have a coffee, while I was working at the computer. She replied that it was empty and asked how it allowed me to have a coffee, while I was working at the computer. I explained that I gave the "Happy Café" fifty cents and they put coffee in it. She told me that was "fine" but not to put the cup in the "sterile" cupboards. Who knew the cupboards were sterile and why haven't I been told this ‘til now; it's not like this was the first time I've stashed my cup in a cupboard? In any case, I asked her three times where I should put a cup if I'm going out for a smoke or whatever. Three times, she replied: "anywhere but a cupboard".

Several months ago, I told Fran it would be best to keep Olivia away from me as I find her attitude and having to explain every little thing, to her, very annoying. =======================================================================================================
Venusia Brazil to ME 10 Apr., 2014
I was informed that there is a new program for long term community support in Peel (through the John Howard Society) and that you qualify. There is currently no wait list but in order for me to make a referral for you, but I need you to sign a consent. The application is one page. Once I make the referral, they will call you and set up an appointment. ( wait

Please contact me so that I can show you some info about the program and if you wish, I can make a referral. They will be able to assist you in the community as opposed to from an office, which will make it easier to get the things you need, including housing.

Please contact me as soon as you can. If you are not interested, please let me know that too.
ME to Venusia Brazil copies Frances Kovacs, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne, Ted McMeekin, Barbara Wiktorowicz, David Smith, Janet Menard, Scott McLeod Shelley White & Dr. K. Kruger 10 Apr., 2014
As I'm sure I've told you, anyone, actually, trying to help me doesn't require my consent. You can consider this my consent to make the referral, pursuant to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.C. 2000, c. 5). Since you were able to complete the OCAN, without my assistance, consent or even knowledge, I expect you'll manage the application, just fine.

Given that I have no way of knowing whether or not the information you suggest showing me is true and, based on my experience with social services agencies and organizations over the past several years, I have no reason to assume that it is, looking at it would be a waste of time and effort.
An agency or organization being "able" to help doesn't mean that they will. Both ODSP and CMHA Peel were "able" to help and look what happened there.

In any case, as Dr. Kruger, Dr. Goel and I have advised CMHA Peel, I need help. Even more now than then, as a result of the abuse I've been subjected to, by the agencies and organizations I've requested help from, over the past several years. Unfortunately, as Fran put it: "there's a trust issue here" but only because I've been, consistently, screwed over, screwed around, lied to and about by these agencies and organizations, which claim to help and receive public funds for helping, over the past several years.

At present, I don't have much time but will make some as I don't want to be accused of "putting up blocks (or barriers)"...oooops...too late...Tanya DiBennedetto really made an effort to help me when she was with John Howard Society, I don't have many options and it'll likely be awhile before I see any tangible benefit from the actions I'm taking. E-mail is preferable to calling.

I'm still working on a response to our last meeting but thought I should get this off to you, now.
ME to Venusia Brazil copies Frances Kovacs, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne, Ted McMeekin, Barbara Wiktorowicz, David Smith, Janet Menard, Scott McLeod Shelley White & Dr. K. Kruger 24 Apr., 2014
To confirm and further to our 2 Apr., 2014 meeting with Karen Hand and Irwin Reid as well as our subsequent discussion.

Prior to the meeting, I asked, specifically, if it was going to be a "get Chris event" and was assured it was not. I believe that it was and that any reasonable person, familiar with the circumstances, would've found it so. As I mentioned, two "professionals" with some, in one case, and detailed, in the other, knowledge of the situation, after hearing the recording of the meeting, agreed that my assessment was not unreasonable.

Karen's apparent concern over the meeting being recorded, her implication of illegality and suggestion I was acting rudely are, I think, worthwhile noting. I continue to wonder why Karen would be concerned over the meeting being recorded. CMHA Peel is aware I'm "hard of hearing", occasionally have difficulty with memory and am in an intolerable situation, I have a problem dealing with. I'd think it obvious I'd be using whatever "assistive devices" are available. I shouldn't have to explain Canada's privacy legislation; especially, given the amount of talk about privacy from CMHA Peel. Considering the treatment I've been subjected to by CMHA Peel; Karen in particular, I'm amazed she'd bring up etiquette. I don't consider recording a conversation rude but I rarely say anything I'd be reluctant to repeat to anyone. When I have time, l'll post a poll, asking how the masses feel about it just as a matter of interest..

The stated purpose of the meeting, being to find out what I needed or as I suggested: wanted and explain CMHA Peel's complaint process are also worth noting, I think.

As I said: I wanted, primarily, the assistance, I asked for, dealing with ODSP, in order to obtain benefits I required and was entitled to. Initially, CMHA Peel refused, claiming I didn't need help and, when that response was questioned, that I had all the help I needed. When that response was questioned, I was ignored. More recently, CMHA Peel offered help. When I began to complain that I seemed to be expending a great deal of time, energy and money with no apparent benefit I was told I'd received help, I didn't see and, subsequently, that I hadn't received help as I put up blocks/barriers. Repeated requests for specifics of the help I've supposedly received and the blocks/barriers I've supposedly put up have gone unanswered.

During the meeting, in response to my statement that I'd requested advocacy, it was claimed this wasn't what I'd said as I'd mentioned needing glasses, dental surgery et cetera. Again I was put in the position of having to explain the obvious: the concepts of general and specific; that these were the same request.

It was also stated that advocacy didn't guarantee success. As I pointed out, that was true but irrelevant as there had been no advocacy.

Karen's professed taking offence at my referring to such comments as "dumbass" and her demand that I stop "swearing" strike me as both confusing and ironic. Confusing in that "dumbass" is not what, I think, most would consider "swearing". I checked a few dictionaries, including the Oxford. The word is described as informal, slang, vernacular, vulgar but nowhere did I find it described as obscene or profane; hence, not "swearing". Ironic in that this was expressed by someone who, apparently, has no problem with putting an elderly, homeless, mentally and physically ill person out, in thirty below temperatures with twenty-five kilometer per hour winds, wearing track pants and T-shirt so as not to delay CMHA Peel staff, leaving two hours early, by fifteen minutes while the person's winter clothes dried. This after the same staff had instructed the person to get the laundry in as soon as possible. Then, withdrawing permission for the person to do laundry, initially, because of this "issue". In my view, that's a whole lot more obscene than using the word "dumbass". Another question for the masses.

When that's questioned, "cost" becomes a factor. It's pointed out that, according to the calculator on the Direct Energy web site, the cost would be less than fifty cents per week. Then, during the meeting, the justification becomes: "the laundry facilities are for program purposes", "the laundry facilities are for instructional purposes" and "permission to use the laundry facilities was temporary". I've, previously, mentioned the one or two loads of dish cloths, dish towels, aprons et cetera that are done two or three times per week and that this didn't appear to have been a problem for anyone. Are there any other "program purposes"? CMHA Peel puts up posters for everything they offer, including lunch, yet I've never seen one referring to laundry instruction. In the several times I used the laundry facilities, the only instruction I've noticed has been me showing staff members how to program the machines. My being homeless wouldn't have happened if I'd been given the help I requested, I wouldn't have been homeless this long if I'd been given the help I was offered, I'd have expected that this would've been mentioned at the time permission was given; not when permission was withdrawn without notice. I'd also have expected some consideration to have been given to the timing rather than withdrawing permission during the worst part of the worst winter in twenty years. Also, I question the duration of the permission as some members had been using the laundry facilities for years; at least, one living in geared to income housing, with laundry facilities, which she'd acquired with the help of CMHA Peel and doing her laundry at CMHA Peel for convenience.

The reason Karen gave for withdrawing permission to keep my medications in the office: the office was not an appropriate place is also confusing. CMHA Peel was aware that the only options I had were considerably less appropriate; carrying the medication with me or leaving it in an unheated storage locker, several miles away. I wonder if the office was inappropriate when the permission was given or if it somehow became inappropriate? I, also, wonder about the timing. Withdrawing permision during the worst part of the worst winter in twenty years, knowing my medical conditions and the increased risk factors I was dealing with due to the frigid temperatures, slippery or uncleared walkways, being deprived of sleep, being subjected to constant stress et cetera seems, to me, negligent on CMHA Peel's part.

The reason Karen gave for withdrawing permission to use the outdoor storage box: being that CMHA Peel required the space is plausible and I have no reason to doubt it...other, of course, than it's consistent with a pattern of actions, which appear intended to make my situation
as difficult and miserable as possible, for which implausible reasons have been given.

A few other points, I don't understand. I mentioned that I'd received ODSP authorization for glasses, dental identification card and a letter informing me that my file had been closed and CMHA Peel's response is to "jump down my throat" with: "not at the same time". While it was, I think, three or four days after I received the authorization for glasses and dental identification card that I received the letter informing me that my file had been closed, I don't see the relevance. My point was ODSP had, according to Denise, accused me of fraud when they couldn't possibly have had any evidence. Billing the glasses and dental work to ODSP, knowing my file was closed, would've been fraud and, based on my experience with ODSP, I wouldn't be surprised if they were attempting to create evidence. CMHA Peel's point was what?

When asked what help I might need or want, assuming the ODSP problem was resolved, all I could think of, offhand, that CMHA Peel hadn't refused, demonstrated they were incapable of providing or withdrawn was: "bus tickets". Karen snapping back: "I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU BUS TICKETS!" was a bit surprising; not the hostility as that's been apparent for some time but that she'd be so blatant about it.

Karen's last comment, to the effect that CMHA Peel's facilities were a place for people with mental health issues to work on their problems; not a drop in for homeless people to hang out during the day makes even less sense than her comment a couple of weeks ago, to the effect that I didn't own the computer I was working on. While there's no legitimate reason for either, I've given CMHA Peel copies of a few letters, from my psychiatrist, referencing my "mental health" issues and, as CMHA Peel well knows, I'm working on a number of problems, including worsening mental as well as physical health, homelessness, ODSP, VERY limited income, inability to obtain medical treatment, lack of proper medications and an almost total lack of help and/or support.

In the years I've been involved with CMHA Peel, I've frequently had reason to question the judgement and competence of some of the staff. During the recent shooting at the Brampton Courthouse, I've had to question their sanity. More than an hour after the shooting, with the Courthouse completely surrounded by hundreds of heavily armed police, CMHA Peel decides to go into "lockdown mode". When I question the reason for this, I'm told it's to keep me safe. There were no police searching outside the perimeter so any threat was confined to the Courthouse. Any threat capable of breaching the police cordon, around the Courthouse, wouldn't likely be slowed down by CMHA Peel's glass doors. CMHA Peel is an unlikely target, in any case. If CMHA Peel were concerned about my safety, it's difficult to imagine how they could either have allowed me to suffer through the past nine months or be subjecting me to the treatment they have over the past few.

A few weeks ago, I was informed I'd be getting a new case manager...can't recall if this'd be the fourth or fifth since July and that she'd be contacting me. I still haven't heard from her.

I note the client satisfaction survey, in CMHA Peel's most recent annual report and have reason to question that, as well, since it is inconsistent with both my own observations and discussions I've had with other members. It would be interesting to know what percentage of those completing the survey weren't delusional and/or heavily medicated, what percentage completed the survey without "assistance" from CMHA Peel staff, whether the results would be different if those requiring assistance obtained it from an unbiased party and whether an independent psychiatric assessment would support those reporting that they felt their mental health had improved.

So far as CMHA Peel's complaint process is concerned, as I said during the meeting, most internal complaint processes are designed and intended to manage the complainant; not resolve the complaint. Karen's response to the effect that I thought all complaint processes were flawed is non sequitur. Do they train ineffectual people to use this "blame the victim" defense or is it a related character defect? In any case, I have no reason to believe CMHA Peel's complaint process would be less a waste of time or source of frustration, stress and anxiety than any of their other processes.

Since CMHA Peel was good enough to explain their complaint process, let me explain mine, which may be more beneficial as it's the one we'll be working with. I advise the offending party once, twice or, as was the case with CMHA Peel, several times that there's a problem. I may or may not warn the offending party that I've had enough of the problem; I see I gave CMHA Peel two written warning and recall, at least, a couple of verbal warnings. I, then, begin "pushing buttons" and continue until a) the problem is remedied, b) the cause of the problem no longer exists or c) I run out of "buttons".

I feel badly that my efforts, to date, have been so feeble. In my own defense, though, I'm physically and emotionally exhausted, suffering the effects of sleep deprivation, using over the counter products and "street drugs" in lieu of my prescribed medications and have no money. The warmer weather should enable me to improve my situation somewhat and do a whole lot better. =======================================================================================================
ME to Venusia Brazil copies Frances Kovacs, Julia Chambers, Sheri Klepka, Kathleen Wynne, Ted McMeekin, Barbara Wiktorowicz, David Smith, Janet Menard, Scott McLeod Shelley White & Dr. K. Kruger 4 May, 2014
In my 22 April message, I wrote:
I mentioned that I'd received ODSP authorization for glasses, dental identification card and a letter informing me that my file had been closed and CMHA Peel's response is to "jump down my throat" with: "not at the same time". While it was, I think, three or four days after I received the authorization for glasses and dental identification card that I received the letter informing me that my file had been closed, I don't see the relevance. My point was ODSP had, according to Denise, accused me of fraud when they couldn't possibly have had any evidence. Billing the glasses and dental work to ODSP, knowing my file was closed, would've been fraud and, based on my experience with ODSP, I wouldn't be surprised if they were attempting to create evidence. CMHA Peel's point was what?

Over the past few days, I've been gathering and organizing documentation, relating to the "help" I've received, over the past few years. In doing so, I noticed the "authorization for glasses" is dated 22 Jan., 2014 and the letter, advising my file had been closed, is dated 20 Jan., 2014.

I've received no response, from CMHA Peel, to my asking what CMHA Peel's point was in "jump(ing) down my throat" with: "not at the same time" and nothing from ODSP since the Dental Identification Card, "authorization for glasses" dated 22 Jan., 2014 and letter, advising my file had been closed, dated 20 Jan., 2014. Just FYI, between 10 May, 2013 and 20 Jan., 2014, ODSP put my file on hold FIVE TIMES and closed it twice. You've told me, in one instance, the "reason" given was: "(I) had no address" and another; the last: "they weren't able to reach (me) by phone". As I pointed out, this is bullshit.

I received two pieces of correspondence, from ODSP Brampton, at the address I supposedly don't have, which I've had for years, the following day. There's been no recent message, from ODSP Brampton, at the telephone number, which I've had for years, and they've been advised that I can't tolerate their lies and bullshit so they were to speak with Julia, if it was necessary. I understood Julia was going to advise ODSP this was the case, when I told her I was unable to deal with them and she replied that I didn't have to; she'd do that for me.

I'd hoped Kathleen Wynne would do something, as she's claimed she's in politics to "help", but, after learning she's letting a twelve year old girl die, to save a few dollars, I gave up that hope.
GYFHAS Hogtown, Ontario, Canada E-mail: