101 - 2174 Airport Drive
Canada S7L 6M6
Dr. Joel Yelland was my family physician in Saskatoon for 3½ years. Over time, his mind lost its technical focus. Twice I tried to transfer to a new GP, but Dr. Yelland used misinformation and financial hurdles to yank the case back. In 2001 I finally found a new GP. Dr. Yelland retaliated. He should not have done so at all, but when he did he chose the realm he knew best. Dr. Yelland initiated sexual harassment towards me from others by telling all and sundry that I “liked and enjoyed” ribald behavior.
To this I said NO. I said it on a scale from mild to firm – many times. My voice ranged from frightened to bewildered to outraged. My NO always got turned into “yes”. The mechanism:
Dr. Yelland can't understand or accept the word NO, and that attitude defines a predator. The College of Physicians and Surgeons knew Dr. Yelland's history long before the Saskatoon Star Phoenix published Judge Baynton's landmark decision on the Klassen case. Therefore: Why did the College not caution the public, who knew nothing of Dr. Yelland's obsessive “special interests”? Why did the College not warn us of the smoggy, dark filter entrenched in front of his mind? Why were we not told about Dr. Yelland's systematic destruction?
The parallels with Ontario pathologist Dr. Charles Smith are so many and so distinct that our province of Saskatchewan will have a similar scandal on its hands unless the College challenges Dr. Yelland to: Physician, Heal Thyself.
Bryan Salte, Legal Counsel
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan
500 - 321A - 21st Street East
Saskatoon, Canada S7K 0C1
Dear Mr. Bryan Salte:
I advise the College that on July 3, 2007 I filed Statement of Claim Q.B. #835/07 in the Queen's Bench Judicial Centre of Saskatoon. The defendants in the action are ex-Sgt. James Bracken and Dr. Joel Yelland.
I request access to any and all material under my name or my health-card number existing in the offices or the archives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. Regarding documents I myself sent: Include those only if they contain notes, stamps, or other markings placed thereon by the College. Otherwise you may exclude my own material since I kept a copy.
One exception: In 1994 I reported to the College an experience with allergist Dr. Larry Hardy. My report was in letter form; it was not a formal complaint. His conduct shook me and I clearly recall the topic, but cannot locate my own copy of the letters. Would you ensure I receive a copy from your files. The material has legal significance and is required for the record. Be assured I do not contemplate further action against Dr. Hardy. He maltreated the Worker's Compensation Board as well, and was sufficiently penalized. Note in 1994-95 I learned from the media that the altered personality of this previously dignified doctor was likely caused by his cancer diagnosis. Doctors want to feel invulnerable so perhaps his grief reaction was strong; or perhaps cancer can produce toxins which cross the blood-brain barrier. That does not excuse malice, but at least his motive could be comprehended.
The motives of Dr. Joel Yelland are not comprehensible. Would the College explain why you did not warn the public in the 1990s about the “special interests” of this physician, in reference to his Social Services child-abuse referrals. Dr. Yelland attained professional isolation in that field – something no other physician would accept, in any specialty. Whether from the start, or whether it evolved gradually over years, the “special interests” of this doctor have become an obsession.
Dr. Yelland also worked as a regular family doctor in an ordinary medical clinic. He appeared to be just like any other GP in the city. That was my only knowledge of him. From 1998 to 2001 I consulted Dr. Yelland for continuing care of my auto-immune diseases – only. In August 2000 and again in March 2001, I tried to terminate the doctor-patient contract for medical reasons, as I observed that his mind was losing focus.
But when I sought a new GP, Dr. Yelland became enraged. He could not withstand losing control of a patient. He used misinformation and financial hurdles to yank the case back. This was disgraceful. I finally succeeded in finding a new GP in June 2001. Dr. Yelland retaliated. He should not have done so at all, but when he did he chose the realm he knew best. Dr. Yelland initiated sexual harassment towards me from others by telling all and sundry that I “liked and enjoyed” ribald behavior.
To this I said NO. I said it on a scale from mildly to firmly, many times. My NO always got turned into ‘yes’. Dr. Yelland propagates the attitude that when a person declines this type of contact it is a sign they are ‘being coy’; they are ‘playing hard to get’; they ‘just don't know their own mind’; they ‘really want it but don't know it yet’. Dr. Yelland can't understand or accept the word NO, and that attitude defines a predator.
As you are aware, in the landmark Klassen malicious-prosecution suit of 2003, Judge Baynton impeached Dr. Yelland for “clouded judgment” and “irrational thinking.” This arose because Dr. Yelland testified he “absolutely believed” the Ross children were guilty of satanic rituals including “eating eyeballs and drinking blood.” The College knew this history of Dr. Yelland long before that judicial decision was published.
Therefore: Why did the College not caution the public, who knew nothing of Dr. Yelland's obsessive “special interests”? Why did you not warn us of the smoggy, dark filter entrenched in front of his mind? Why did you not warn us of Dr. Yelland's systematic destructive intentions? Have you determined the cause of his truly sociopathic level of hate and rage?
The parallels with Ontario pathologist Dr. Charles Smith are so many and so distinct that our province will have a similar scandal on its hands unless the College challenges Dr. Yelland to: Physician, Heal Thyself.
Georgena Sil, M.Sc., Canadian Association of Physicists
Recently in the US, Washington state modernized the stalking law to include harassment through third parties (see Washington State v. Becklin below). The legal term is stalking by proxy. In Canada, the RCMP also acknowledges two types of stalking: direct and indirect. Due to its nature, indirect stalking is the more insidious of the two.
Direct stalking is unwanted, repeated contact in person, by telephone, via leaving messages, or by sending unwanted gifts or correspondence.
Indirect stalking is when the perpetrator contacts people you know to send messages through them, to probe for details about your life, or to engineer a decline in your other relationships.
People with disabilities are often more vulnerable because circumstances may offer the stalker access to a wealth of information about the victim. Further, the limited nature of disability support services, and transportation options, makes it easier for stalkers to trace the victim's daily routine and whereabouts.
Stalking laws require repeated contact. Repeated means more than one time. It need not be an extended period of time: the incidents may have occurred during the same day. Motives of perpetrators include: (1) revenge against someone who rejected them or who threatens their security; (2) convincing the target to reconcile or to resume the relationship (whether it is a personal, business, or caregiver relationship); (3) placing the target in the role of forgiver or rescuer; (4) need for an excuse for personal behaviour; or (5) to attract attention and sympathy.
Will a given stalker obey, or defy, a protection order? In predicting this, the court will examine whether the stalker knew the victim felt harassed, and whether the stalker was reckless regarding the impact on the victim. Evidence that carries weight:
During deliberations, the jury posed a question to the judge: Can you stalk a person through a third party? Yes, replied the Superior Court Judge. The stalking law may not explicitly refer to harassment through third parties, but it's broad enough to include that. Stalking encompasses the act of directing others to harass a victim.
Events of the case: When Mary McGee left boyfriend Andre Becklin, he stalked her and forced his way into her home. McGee got a protection order. According to police, Becklin then recruited his friends to stalk her, while he maintained an outward appearance of staying at arm's length. Still, Becklin was arrested for violating the restraining order.
Testimony at Trial: McGee described how Becklin's friends drove his car past her house, circling the block repeatedly. One friend trailed her when she went out of her home. Two witnesses confirmed that they filled out written reports for Becklin recounting their sightings of McGee around town.
Argument from Counsel: The defence lawyer contended: “Becklin never personally stalked McGee.” The prosecutor said: “Assistance. Aiding and abetting, that's what this case is about. Enlisting others to do your own dirty work, and that's what Mr. Becklin did.”
Decision: The crime of stalking can be accomplished through a third person. If you recruit a third party to intimidate someone, it's still stalking. The legal term is stalking by proxy. Becklin was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail; he paid $40,000 in legal costs and lost his right to vote.
Steve Ewanchuk thought NO meant ‘maybe later’ or ‘maybe yes’ – an invitation to further and better persuasion. To him, NO meant anything but ‘no.’ This landed him in jail. The Supreme Court ruled: A sex act becomes a criminal act the moment someone objects to it. The law affords each person the peace of mind of knowing their bodily integrity and autonomy will be respected regarding when and whether they participate in intimate activity.
Canadian law allows a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent if the accused “acted innocently based on a flawed perception of the facts.” Where such a defence is raised, consent is examined from the perspective of the accused:
An honest but mistaken belief is never based on a victim's silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct (which is often spawned by fear, fraud or the exercise of authority). One cannot turn the victim's lack of agreement to sexual touching into an invitation for escalated contact. Whenever honest belief is claimed, the court will sternly probe the honesty of that belief. An honest belief cannot be reckless, willfully blind, or tainted by an awareness of any factor enumerated in the Canadian Criminal Code sections 265 and 273.
A court will reach one of two conclusions: the victim either consented or not. There is no third option. Although the doctrine of implied consent is recognized in common law jurisprudence in several contexts, this does not apply to the realm of sexual assault. Moreover: consent must be freely given to be legally effective. Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dube wrote bluntly:
The concept of implicit consent does not derive from any findings of fact, but from mythical assumptions that when a woman says NO she is really saying ‘yes’, ‘try again’, or ‘persuade me’. This myth denies women's sexual autonomy and implies that women are “walking around this country in a state of constant consent to sexual activity.”
[For the word ‘women’ substitute ‘disabled women’ and you confront the precise attitude of predator Dr. Joel Yelland of Saskatoon.]
Canadian Criminal Code
CCC s 265. (1) – A person commits an assault when:
CCC s 265. (2) – This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
CCC s 265. (3) – For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of:
CCC s 265. (4) – Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.
Canadian Criminal Code
CCC s 271. – Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of:
CCC s 272. (1) – Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,
CCC s 273.1 (1) – Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), ‘consent’ means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.
CCC s 273.1 (2) – No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where:
CCC s 273.2 – It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where:
[ CCC s. 272(1)(d) acknowledges sexual assault by or involving a third party. That section makes it a crime to commit assault by acting ‘as a party to the offence with any other person.’ In Canada, stalking by proxy is therefore a crime, at least when third-party involvement culminates in assault. The instigator who aids and abets shares the guilt and the consequences. ]
Tuum Est - It Is Up To You
Late fallen himself from
Heaven, is plotting now
The fall of others from
like state of bliss.
By violence? no, for that
shall be withstood;
But by deceit and lies.
The Saskatoon Police note a bitter business dispute between Dr. Joel Yelland and Dr. Andrew Lacny. The dispute involved fraud at the 8th-Street MediClinic. The clinic is owned by Lacny, and Yelland was one of several GPs on staff.
Dispute details: Yelland hid money from the MediClinic owner. Yelland had his MCIC cheques sent to a private outside address, to keep the funds to himself, instead of adding these income-cheques into the clinic pool.
In March 2001 Dr. Yelland abruptly left the MediClinic, finding refuge with his former medical-school chum Dr. Chernoff at Pacific Avenue Medical Building. The pattern repeated: In 2006 Yelland left this new clinic, once again under abrupt circumstances.
One of Yelland’s many clinic ‘hops’
Family Physician Walk-In Clinic
101 - 3301 8th Street East
Canada S7H 5K5
Dates: To February 2001
Drs. Chernoff, Parker, Kusch & Yelland
Suite 101 - 149 Pacific Avenue North
Canada S7K 1N8
Dates: March 2001 to Sept 2006
Dr. Yelland, Administrative Position
110 Gropper Crescent
Canada S7M 5N9
Dates: Sept 2006 to Present
Dr. Joel Yelland
Box 26119 Lawson Heights
Canada S7K 8C1
Fully half of the doctors found guilty of sexual misconduct keep their license to practice medicine. Since 1989, the College of Physicians and Surgeons investigated 126 doctors in Ontario for sexual impropriety. Of those, only 64 had their license revoked.
Four other MDs were allowed to resign, and three who had their license revoked were later reinstated. This raises questions about the severity of punishments handed out to doctors who abuse patients.
The job of the College is to regulate doctors and protect the public. Its job is not protection of physicians. The College fails its duty. “Over and over again, the needs of the professionals trump all other needs,” said the Chief of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.
The law reads correctly. Implementing it is the problem. The College is far too lenient when responding to complaints, and fails to nail the perpetrators, many of whom are serial.
Copyright © 2008-2018 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.