Saskatoon Rheumatologist Dr. Kenneth Blocka botched a referral to the Mayo Clinic. When his negligence was held to account, he embarked on a prolonged malicious backlash which in modern legal terms is called stalking by proxy.
My GP saw my grief and explained the dynamics to me. My GP also told me his side, that he “felt he had to serve two masters,” providing good medical care to me while simultaneously following instructions from the medical community to “keep Georgena Sil so upset she won't be able to organize a legal action against Dr. Blocka.” In these precise words, my GP Dr. Roy Chernoff told me:
|GEORGENA SARAH SIL|||||PLAINTIFF|
|– and –|
|DR. KENNETH BLOCKA|||||DEFENDANT|
I, GEORGENA SIL, of the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, a scientist by profession, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
THAT I am the Plaintiff in the within action and as such have personal knowledge of the facts and matters herein deposed to except where stated to be based on information and belief and whereso stated I do verily believe the same to be true.
THAT the Defendant in this action is Dr. Kenneth Blocka, a Rheumatology Specialist at University Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to whom I was referred for ongoing treatment by my family doctor, Dr. K.V. O’Reilly, beginning in July 1985. The within action arises out of my referral by Dr. Blocka to the Mayo Clinic for diagnostic investigations related to a severe bone inflammatory condition which I suffer and which was early given the ‘working diagnosis’ Osteitis Pubis, as well as recommendations for treatment thereof.
The within action further arises out of Dr. Blocka's refusal to provide follow-up treatment upon my return from the Mayo Clinic, though general anti-inflammatory measures comprise both the core of his specialty and the mainstay of my treatment requirements. The within action is further necessitated by a number of Dr. Blocka's subsequent actions hereinafter referred to.
THAT the Statement of Claim herein was issued February 10, 1987 and was personally served upon the Defendant June 23, 1987. By Notice of Withdrawal of Solicitor dated July 20, 1987 my previous solicitors Halyk Brent Dovell withdrew their services in the within action.
Although I was employed as a Physicist, I have been unable to work since mid-1984 when I was forced to resign as a direct result of the gradually worsening pain I was experiencing as a chronic auto-immune bladder disease was developing.
In October 1984, during instrumentations required for treatment of this bladder disease, known as Interstitial Cystitis, I am advised the complication Osteitis Pubis developed in the bone. I was left with severe and overlapping pain from two physical conditions, and while my bladder later achieved relatively long remission, the bone disease is ongoing and prospects for return to the workforce delayed. I therefore have extremely limited financial means, and could not afford the legal fees association with pursuing this legal action.
THAT it was only upon receiving a letter and Affidavit sworn by the Defendant on or about November 2, 1988 that I learned that the Defendant had served a Statement of Defence on my former solicitors July 27, 1987 following service of their Notice of Withdrawal. I have not to date received from any source a copy or reviewed said Statement of Defence, nor, since I did not know of its existence before November 2, 1988, have I had an opportunity to respond to Dr. Blocka's Statement of Defence.
THAT shortly following the Defendant's refusal to provide me with follow-up care and particularly treatment for the grinding bone pain associated with my condition with ‘working diagnosis’ Osteitis Pubis, the general practitioner who had been my family doctor for approximately one year, namely Dr. K.V. O’Reilly, terminated his services in or about March 1986. He told me at the time and I verily believe the same to be true that he was terminating our relationship primarily because of exertations and pressure he had been subjected to by the Defendant with respect to his continued involvement with me.
He led me to believe and I verily believe the same to be true that Dr. Blocka's exertations were a result of my having written the Defendant, on February 17, 1986, a necessary technical letter addressing serious medical misinformation the Defendant had submitted in his Mayo Clinic referral letter. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A to this my Affidavit is a true copy of my letter to Dr. Blocka.
THAT despite my having seriously sought references for the name of another suitable general practitioner, my having discussed expectations in straightforward manner from the outset, and my having thereby retained the services of Dr. G.N. Rebalkin, this said physician withdrew his services after approximately three weeks. That on June 27, 1986 Dr. Rebalkin stated to me and I verily believe the same to be true that “he had received a lot of anger and rather vicious accusations from a doctor at University Hospital” and that as a result he wished to terminate our association. That I shortly thereafter received a letter from Dr. Rebalkin dated June 30, 1986 confirming said decision.
THAT Dr. Rebalkin further advised me, and this is borne out by records, that his immediate source of said accusations towards myself had been a long conversation in late June 1986 between himself and Dr. G. Wyant of the Pain Clinic at University Hospital. That I later learned and I verily believe the same to be true that the original source of said accusations was clearly the Defendant.
I had previously attended with Dr. Wyant at the Pain Clinic at University Hospital in or about January and February 1985 with respect to a transsacral nerve block applied for my bladder condition Interstitial Cystitis, and felt at the time, and this is to the best of my judgement, that the relationship between myself and Dr. Wyant proceeded in a spirit of cooperation and trust. When my bone inflammation Osteitis Pubis had been diagnosed, and recognizing the severity of Osteitis Pubis, Dr. Wyant had generously placed my name at the top of a waiting list for a particular pain treatment machine of which the Pain Clinic had a limited supply.
Not able therefore to account for Dr. Wyant's abrupt enmity in mid-1986 (which was a year after our last consult), I arranged to speak with Dr. Wyant following Dr. Rebalkin's termination of his care of me. Dr. Wyant at that time informed me and I verily believe the same to be true, that the Defendant had come to speak with him earlier in the spring of 1986 in the wake of intervention by the University Hospital Administration on my behalf with respect to obtaining a letter from Dr. Blocka stating simply the period of time during which I had been under his care.
Dr. Wyant informed me vigorously and I verily believe the same to be true that the Defendant had expressed to Dr. Wyant numerous hostile accusations and distortions of the truth regarding my character and medical condition.
Tuum Est - It Is Up To You
Yellow Dwarf Star Eating a Planet
We always hate those we have wronged. Hate is a more pleasant emotion than guilt.
That's how it works. You swindle a man and then grab even the sense of injury for yourself. A devouring man devours all there is.
When writing an Affidavit, you swear to the truth of the whole document in a final section called the Jurat which bears your signature plus the date, city, and Commissioner's stamp.
Why, then, is the phrase ‘Verily, I believe this to be true’ found in the body of the Affidavit? The rationale is set out in the Queen's Bench Rules of Court. Each province enacts its own version of the Q.B. Rules. The citation below is from Saskatchewan.
Affidavit to be on Knowledge or Belief
13-30 (1) Subject to subrule (2), an affidavit must be confined to facts that are within the personal knowledge of the person swearing or affirming the affidavit.
13-30 (2) In an interlocutory application, the Court may admit an affidavit that is sworn or affirmed on the basis of information known to the person swearing or affirming the affidavit and that person’s belief.
13-30 (3) If an affidavit is sworn or affirmed on the basis of information and belief in accordance with subrule (2), the source (grounds) of the information must be disclosed in the affidavit.
Definition of ‘Fact’ — In law this means a statement based on firsthand personal knowledge.
Definition of ‘Information and Belief’ — This is a standard phrase used in legal pleadings which are sworn under oath (such as Affidavits). It qualifies a statement thus: The writer does not hold firsthand knowledge of the specific point, but does firmly believe its truth.
Example — If Andy threatens you directly, then you report his words as fact. But if Tim (sounding genuine) warns you that Andy made threats against you, then you report the conversation under the umbrella of information and belief.
This option is essential during interlocutory (intermediate) motions since a Chambers session is not geared to hear witnesses. But during trial, the court expects statements of belief to be replaced by testimony from witnesses who do hold direct knowledge.
The Court imposes a rigorous structure on this option, to elevate it above hearsay.
Legal wording aims for precision, to leave no loopholes. Best advice: When reading an Affidavit, skim past the formal phrases and land your eye on the events that unfold.
Copyright © 2008-2019 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.