Skip to content

Affidavit (p 1)

Dr. Joel Yelland Falsified Consultation Dates

Attempting an End-Run Around Abuse Complaint

Affidavit:  Corroboration from the Court Exhibits

A court Affidavit typically has exhibits attached to corroborate and expand upon the points. When the Affidavit is published online, the full set of exhibits cannot be replicated, as some are lengthy.

That applies to the Affidavit printed here. Thus to aid clarity, some paragraphs have been amplified beyond the original by adding verbatim quotes from the exhibits. Main areas:

¶ 5Dr. Yelland's falsification of the end-date of doctor-patient contract. Complicit with his lawyer Hirschfeld, Yelland attempted an end-run around abuse complaint.

¶ 17DNA analysis from the RCMP Laboratory: the Y-chromosomes prove author of lifestyle letters was male.

¶ 28Dr. Yelland's chart: Breach of HIPA, and breach of the Medical Profession Bylaws. These actions, done with illogical haste, are evidence of mala fide agenda.

AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGENA SIL
RE:  TERMINATION DATE of DR. YELLAND

I, GEORGENA SARAH SIL, of the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, Physicist by Profession, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the within action and, as such, have personal knowledge of the facts and matters herein deposed to in this my Affidavit, except where stated to be based on information and belief, and whereso stated I verily believe the same to be true.

2. Dr. Joel Yelland is a Defendant in this action. Dr. Yelland was a family physician licensed to practice medicine in the Province of Saskatchewan.

3. I met Dr. Yelland for the first time on February 1, 1998. That day I attended the Mediclinic because of a flare of my Presyncope condition, and I was randomly assigned to the doctor who had the walk-in duties on that shift. I had no previous knowledge of Dr. Yelland, and I knew nothing about his side interest in child-abuse referrals. The Mediclinic is a group of regular family physicians who practice at #101-3301 8th Street, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7H 5K5. The purpose of my first visit, and all my subsequent visits, with Dr. Yelland was care of my complex physical autoimmune diseases only.

4. Dr. Yelland continued as my family physician until June 6, 2001. That was the date of my final appointment with him. At that point, his practice location had changed to the Pacific Avenue Medical Building, #100-149 Pacific Avenue N, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7K 1N8.

5. In his reply to my Statement of Claim, Dr. Yelland attempts to shorten the time span of our doctor-patient contract. He provides no proof of said time span, but hopes through sheer repetition to convince the court that our contract ended months sooner than it actually did. Dr. Yelland willfully falsified the date of my final appointment with him in the following documents:

Statement of Defence of Defendant Dr. Joel Yelland

Dr. Yelland signed a Statement of Defence and swore it under oath before a court official.  Yet it contains many exemplars of deception, including the two paragraphs which mention the termination date which say:

  • Dr. Yelland attended the Plaintiff Sil from February 1998 to February 2001, at which time the doctor-patient relationship was terminated. Dr. Yelland did not attend on the Plaintiff after February 2001.
  • Dr. Yelland last rendered professional services to the Plaintiff Sil in February 2001.

Affidavit of Attorney Collin Hirschfeld

Collin Hirschfeld, defence attorney for Dr. Yelland, attested in an Affidavit that the Statement of Defence was in complete and final form. Hirschfeld wrote: Attached hereto is a true copy of the Statement of Defence which we intend to file in this matter if the application to strike the claim as against Dr. Yelland is dismissed. Hirschfeld added: The facts deposed to herein are uncontroverted and/or matters of record. The Statement of Defence and the Affidavit of Collin Hirschfeld are attached hereto as my Exhibit A.

Affidavit of Dr. Joel Yelland

Dr. Yelland compounded his lie when he swore his own Affidavit saying: I personally continued to treat the Plaintiff Sil until February 2001. [Court file]

6. This, my own Affidavit, will fully substantiate that I had regular medical appointments with Dr. Yelland at his office up until June 6, 2001. This was the date that our doctor-patient contract terminated. The ending date is significant because all of the sexual harassment which Dr. Yelland directed at me occurred after February 2001.

7. The documents which verify the termination date lead naturally to other topics, to wit:

  • On March 1, 2001 Dr. Yelland had an acrimonious business dispute with the Mediclinic head Dr. Andrew Lacny, after which Dr. Yelland abruptly moved his practice location.
  • Dr. Yelland named a long series of suspects for the lifestyle-letters, including Dr. Andrew Lacny.
  • During the first nine months that the letters circulated, my name as author did not even remotely occur to Dr. Yelland. Then suddenly, he named me as prime suspect on the very day (April 17, 2002) that my plans to move out of province came to fruition.

8. In the past, Dr. Yelland acknowledged the correct termination date of our doctor-patient contract. He did so before I filed my Statement of Claim – at a stage of the proceedings when the termination date carried no legal consequences. Consider his testimony at the Preliminary Inquiry for Information #44909738, held before Judge Barry Singer in Saskatoon Provincial Court. The court transcripts show:

  • On February 23, 2005 Dr. Yelland brought my medical chart into court and reviewed it on the witness stand, then he testified: I have notes on her file with me at this time till June 6th of 2001. (Exhibit B, page 404).
  • On May 10, 2005 on the witness stand, Dr. Yelland testified thus: We already have mentioned the last termination or the last visit that I had, and I think it was June the 6th (of 2001). That's already been mentioned in testimony. The last clinical note that I have is June 6th, 2001, of me having attended or cared for her. (Exhibit C, page 522).

9. The termination date is independently proved in documentary evidence from the year 2001, including billing records from Saskatchewan Health, plus my personal health records from the chart of Dr. Yelland. I attest that each health record that is attached is correct and complete in all respects, unless otherwise stated in this my Affidavit. The records were created before the legal case began, and were not notarized or sworn since there was no reason to do so at that time. As a legal alternative, I tender the records to the court now pursuant to the Saskatchewan Evidence Act (Exhibit D) which states:

22(1) Evidence of Professionals  With leave of the court, a professional report signed by a physician authorized pursuant to a statute to practice in any part of Canada is admissible in evidence in any proceeding without proof of the person's signature, qualifications, or authority to practice.

10. The attached Medical Services Report - Statement of Physician Services (Exhibit E) lists all of the medical services billed under my name, from any physician, during the year 2001. This Billing Statement makes it plain that Dr. Yelland continued to act as my physician until June 6, 2001. During the months in question – March, April, May, and June of 2001 – Dr. Yelland billed for nine appointments with me on the following dates:

Yelland continued to act as my GP until June 6
2001 March 22 Office Visit
2001 March 22 Fraudulent Billing
2001 April 6 Office Visit
2001 April 19 Office Visit
2001 May 10 Office Visit
2001 May 11 Office Visit
2001 May 18 Office Visit
2001 May 24 Office Visit
2001 June 6 Office Visit Final Appointment

Dr. Yelland billed for two visits on March 22, 2001. However: I visited him just once that day and my appointment was the regular length of time. Dr. Yelland unlawfully billed twice on the same day. Apart from that deceit, the remainder of the Billing Statement is correct.

11. That Billing Statement is corroborated by the Clinical Chart of Dr. Yelland. The phrase Clinical Chart refers to the handwritten notes made by a physician at each patient visit. My Clinical Chart pages from March to June of 2001 are attached (Exhibit F). These pages, in Dr. Yelland's own handwriting, contain entries that match each billed date listed above. Each entry provides a contemporaneous account of the medical issues discussed during an appointment. The final entry in Dr. Yelland's Clinical Chart was written on June 6, 2001.

12. Various reports and correspondence confirm that Dr. Yelland's care of me extended up to June 2001. The documents include:

  • An Ultrasound report (Exhibit G).
  • Laboratory records for a test of my immune system (Exhibit H).
  • A letter sent by Dr. Yelland to the finance branch of Social Services (Exhibit I). The first draft of his letter contained hostile phrasing. I verily believe this reflected Dr. Yelland's true feelings toward the topic of the letter, namely my move out of province. Dr. Yelland was required to revise the letter. His final draft of May 11, 2001 was sent to the Social Services office and the original remains there, as verified by an Assistant Supervisor (see point #1 of Exhibit J). Note: DCRE is the new name for Social Services.
  • As well: Until June 2001 Dr. Yelland continued to be my only prescriber. My Rx receipts from the Pacific Avenue Pharmacy are available.

13. Regarding the change in practice location: On March 1, 2001 Dr. Yelland abruptly quit his employ at the Mediclinic, and moved downtown to Pacific Avenue Medical Building to join the practice of Drs. Kusch, Chernoff, and Parker. Dr. Yelland announced his move in the Star Phoenix (Exhibit K). Evidence that the move had no advance planning:

  • On March 6, I attended the Mediclinic for an appointment with Dr. Yelland. He was absent. Instead, I witnessed frantic packing still underway a week after his move, with all charts belonging to Dr. Yelland being stored in red-colored folders to keep them separate, so the charts could be sent to Pacific Avenue. The Mediclinic nurses and staff were so shocked by this hasty, unexplained move that they spoke frankly to patients.
  • Later when I attended at Pacific Avenue, the staff there openly told patients that their clinic took Dr. Yelland in because he went to medical school with Dr. Chernoff.

Canada Evidence Act

Documentary Evidence

Business Records to be Admitted in Evidence

CCC s 30. (1)  –  Where oral evidence in respect of a matter would be admissible in a legal proceeding, a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business that contains information in respect of that matter is admissible in evidence under this section in the legal proceeding on production of the record.

Court May Examine Record and Hear Evidence

CCC s 30. (6)  –  For the purpose of determining whether any provision of this section applies, or for the purpose of determining the probative value, if any, to be given to information contained in any record admitted in evidence under this section, the court may, on production of any record, examine the record, admit any evidence in respect thereof given orally or by affidavit including evidence as to the circumstances in which the information contained in the record was written, recorded, stored or reproduced, and draw any reasonable inference from the form or content of the record.

[Health records prepared in the ordinary course of business by a physician or other healthcare professional are treated as business records under the Canada Evidence Act.]

Saskatchewan:  The Evidence Act

Evidence of Professionals

CCC s 22. (1)  –  Evidence of professionals 22(1) With leave of the court, a professional report purporting to be signed by a physician, chiropractor, dentist, psychologist, physical therapist or occupational therapist authorized pursuant to a statute to practise in any part of Canada is admissible in evidence in any proceeding without proof of the person’s signature, qualifications or authority to practise.

CCC s 22. (2)  –  If a member of a profession mentioned in subsection (1) has been required to give evidence orally in a proceeding and the court is of the opinion that the evidence could have been produced as effectively by a professional report in writing, the court may order the party that required the attendance of the professional practitioner to pay costs in any amount that the court considers appropriate.

Georgena S. Sil
Saskatoon, Canada
Physicist & Technical Writer
Alumnus: University of British Columbia
TuumEstContact@protonmail.com

Copyright © 2008-2018 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.