|
Perjury is a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceedings, to a person who swears wilfully, absolutely, and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question.29
Dr. Grenier, the Initial Villain
Dr. Jacques Grenier, a psychiatrist at the Hotel-Dieu Hospital in Quebec City and head of the Psychiatric Service, is chronologically the first, and from a legal and medical point of view, the person most responsible for my internment.
According to the Commitment Certificate he had apparently "known" me, and even wrote and sent my records (histoire) to St Michel Archange Hospital which formed the grounds for my internment, although I did not have chance to know him.
On the second page of the Commitment Certificate30 of November 12th, 1971, it is clearly written by Dr. Jacques Dufour: "Dr. Delev, a non-cooperative schizoparanoid, known to Dr. Grenier, who already sent medical records to S.M.A. ... (initials of St. Michel Archange Hospital ...)." (Le Dr. Delev, un schizoparanoïde non coopératif, connu du Dr. Grenier qui a déjà fait envoyer l'histoire à S.M.A.).
Strangely, Dr. Grenier even dared to write in his "Specific Plea" of January 15, 1975 that he had "tried to interview" me and even wrote the exact date and place of the alleged "interview".31
There is no doubt that Dr. Grenier's actions, especially his "writing" of the medical records, contributed towards my internment.
During one telephone conversation I had with Dr. Grenier, he rudely and repeatedly threatened me with deportation if I did not refrain from "incriminations". He did admit however that he had never seen me. This admission clearly contradicted what Dr. Grenier had written in my medical records and stated in his plea (Cf. Exhibit No. 26) -- that he had examined me in his office. Furthermore, on the day the doctor was supposed to have examined me, I had been attending an English course in Hamilton, Ontario.
Dr. Grenier even admitted during his examination for discovery on August 23, 1974 that he did not have a chance to meet me.
Yet he admitted writing the medical records. This record, coded in my court file as Exhibit G-1, was requested by my attorney, but instead he received the Information (Renseignement) written by a nurse. In fact, my lawyer received a piece of paper with typewritten notes and without any signature or other means of identification, therefore, without legal value. (Cf. Appendix: Exhibit No. 2.)
Dr. Grenier also stated during the discovery that he had "contacted" Dr. J. Dufour and "discussed" with him my record allegedly based on information given by my wife, and that he had afterwards sent the same record to Dr. Louis Roy, Superintendent of St. Michel Archange Hospital, before my hospitalization, without having examined or even met me.
It was incredible that during the trial, Dr. Grenier again contradicted himself. He disavowed his testimony of August 23rd, 1974 (that he had contacted Dr. Dufour before my hospitalization) and his plea (that he had seen me)32.
The trial judge Pierre Boudreault deliberately overlooked the evidence with respect to Dr. Grenier's malicious actions and his many contradictory statements and talked of Dr. Grenier's "credibility being put to the test" (qu'il met sa crédibilité au crible).
Further, my former lawyer, Mr. Goulston, on being pressed, testified in court that Dr. Grenier privately admitted to him "that this internment should never have happened: the recommendation was made by his nurse, based on hearsay evidence of violence."
Dr. Grenier's testimony which was given in the Superior Court of Quebec, on October 22, 1979 is quoted below. Mr. Justice Boudreault did not act as a judge ought to have.
The following is from the direct examination of Dr. Grenier by Mr. L. Lacoursiere, attorney for Dr. Grenier:
Question: Dr. Grenier, did you sign any papers recommending the internment of Dr. Delev?
Answer: I did not sign any paper recommending the internment of Dr. Delev.
Q Did you have anything to do with the internment of Dr. Delev?
A I had nothing to do with the internment of Dr. Delev, except where it had to do with the transmission of information, for consultation.
Q To Dr. Roy?
A And the information appertaining to Mrs. Delev, which was furnished by Mrs. Delev.
Q Did, I am going to refer, Doctor, to the examination for discovery, did you talk about Mr. Delev's case with Dr. Dufour before November 12, 1971?
A I did not talk about Dr. Delev's case with Dr. Dufour before November 12, 1971.
Q Are you sure about this?
A I am sure about this.
Q If I refer you, Dr. Grenier, to the examination for discovery during Defense, of August 23, 1974, your interrogation during Defense, on page 6, there is one question which was posed to you at that time by Mr. Goulston, "Did you discuss with him", we are talking about Dr. Dufour, "about this particular case"; and response was "yes, certainly". Question: "Even before the hospitalization of the plaintiff?" Response: "Before, Dr. Dufour knew that I was contacted."
A Well, I am saying that I have discussed, if you ask me this, I answer that I did this previously, before Dr. Dufour knew I had been contacted, but this does not absolutely mean that I have discussed with Dr. Dufour (sic!).
Q And you remember very clearly, in effect not having discussed with Dr. Dufour?
Mr. Wolofsky (my attorney):
Well, with all due respect, your Honour, this is putting words in the mouth of the witness.
THE JUDGE:
This is very, very suggestive.
Mr. Lacoursiere:
Q Well, I repeat ...
A I did not ...
THE JUDGE:
Maintained.
Mr. Lacoursiere:
Q I understand, your Honour, the question has already been posed33.
A Previously Dr. Dufour knew -- this is according to me, as I understand -- that Dr. Dufour, when Dr. Delev came to meet him, at that time, Dr. Dufour knew that I had seen him (Dr. Delev)34. It is in this sense that I say that previously Dr. Dufour knew that I had been contacted, but my answer does not absolutely mean that I have discussed or, this is not what I wanted to say, I have not discussed with Dr. Dufour.
Mr. Wolofsky:
With all due respect, Your Honour, the answers speak for themselves, to this attempt to change the clear words of a psychiatrist who wishes to use a psychiatric nuance35, I object, Your Honour, he did clearly testify, August 23, 1974, when he was under oath and to try to interpret what he wanted to say, which is what he wants to say now, diverting from what he had done, I object to the answer.
THE JUDGE:
I am not sure that I understand your objection, sir.36 Is it not an element which permits me to determine the credibility of the witness, is it not of the proof, is (it) inadmissible, is it not an element which will permit me to accept or not to accept what the physician said? Really I do not believe that the proof is not admissible. One does not ask him to interpret a valid document,37 but ...
Mr. Wolofsky:
No, he is asked to interpret his own testimony, which was three years ago.
THE JUDGE:
And then, I will judge about this. I think that the Doctor already put his credibility to the test (sic), by acting the way he did, after all we will see. And if you make an objection there, I think that I have to dismiss it.
Mr. Lacoursiere:
Your Honour, for recording purposes, and what my colleague had said to maintain his objection will appear in the records. I think, first that the witness is bound only by questions which are posed to him ...
THE JUDGE:
I dismissed the objection, sir. When you win your point, it is not necessary to convince me again.
Mr. Lacoursiere
Q Thank you, Your Honour.
In my view, this excerpt has a very serious judicial implications. Dr. Grenier's lawyer took it upon himself to deceive and abuse the court by assisting his client on how to lie. And the judge, instead of intervening appropriately, praises Dr. Grenier and his lawyer for actions for which they should have been punished severely. Gerald L. Gall wrote in his book The Canadian Legal System:
It is grounds for discipline, and such discipline is usually in the nature of disbarment, for a lawyer in dealing with a court to do any one of the following matters, as set out in Orkin's treatise on Legal Ethics:
1) Deliberately deceiving or misleading the court; 3) Abuse of the judicial process; 5) Perjury; 9) Permitting client to swear a false affidavit.38
My case will be useful "jurisprudence" for lawyers who teach their clients to lie in the front of the judge. Mr. Justice Boudreault seems to be aiding and abetting unscrupulous lawyers and their crooked clients in their fraudulent actions.39
Section 120 of the Criminal Code of Canada says if a witness in a judicial proceeding gives false evidence with the intent to mislead, all the while knowing that the evidence is false, he has committed perjury.40
A brief recapitulation of the deceits of this doctor are as follows:
1. He was the initial medical authority involved in my internment (He wrote the false "history" which was the basis for my internment, although he had never seen me).
2. He wrote a false plea under oath.
3. According to his fraudulent plea and the medical certificate,41 I was in his office, he performed a psychiatric examination, and then wrote the records and sent them to St. Michel Archange Hospital.
4. He admitted that I should not be committed, according to the testimony of Mr. Goulston.
5. In his discovery examination under oath he stated a) that he wrote the medical records; b) that he took it on himself to produce the records (as exhibit G-1), which he never did; c) that he "discussed" my case with Dr. Dufour; d) that Dr. Dufour "knew" that he was "contacted" before my internment; d) that he himself was "contacted" by some individuals regarding my hospitalization (my ex-wife, Dr. Dionne and his wife, Mrs. Castonguay).
6. In the court he dared under oath to say that he "had nothing to do with the internment of Dr. Delev."
The judge said that the man merited praise as being trustworthy!
Dr. Jacques Dufour, a psychiatrist at the H�tel-Dieu Hospital of Quebec, was the only signatory of the Commitment Certificate, although on the original certificate on the day of my internment I heard from Dr. A. Beaudoin that there were three signatures: those of Dr. Grenier, Dr.Dufour and Dr. L. Dionne.
Dr. Dufour's intention in court was to prove that as an ex-member of a "trouble-shooting clinic" he was able to detect on the spot whether someone is mentally ill or not, or whether someone is dangerous or not. Thus, he wrote in a faulty "medical certificate"42 that I was "an noncooperative schizo-paranoid known to Dr. Grenier ...". Yet, from the examination for discovery of Dr. Grenier, it is clear that I was not at all known to Dr. Grenier.
Dr. Dufour's diagnosis of "schizo-paranoid" lacks the psychiatric descriptions supporting the diagnosis. Furthermore, it is not only inadequate as written, but it also was contradicted by all the psychiatrists involved during my internment and in court by the experts, and even himself, when he stated:
I had all the elements to support my diagnosis of a psychotic paranoid state.
The question is, which is the correct diagnosis or rather the one which he supported: "schizo-paranoid" or "psychotic paranoid state". If we look into the Index of International Classification of Diseases, Adapted (ICDA-8) or the French version Classification internationale des maladies, adaptée (CIMA-8), we see that neither diagnosis exists. It is impossible for an experienced "trouble-shooting expert" to make such a flagrant error.
Dr. Dufour spoke in court for over two hours about examinations. This was an event that took no longer than five to ten minutes, but which according to his own testimony lasted half an hour. Dr. Dufour was trying to convince the court that he had performed a psychiatric examination par excellence and had made the correct conclusion that I needed "urgent psychiatric treatment".
In over two hours of court testimony, he described the "observation" in so much detail and in such terms that the event seemed to have happened just before he spoke. I could not believe that a physician could lie so blatantly.
As an eye-witness of all the events pertaining to the present case and as a physician myself, I was in a better position than the judge to evaluate Dr. Dufour's role in my hospitalization. All that Dr. Dufour did was ask me to stay in the hospital while I was waiting for an X-ray of my ulcer. As my "colleague", he tried to assure me that he "would take good care of my ulcer". Since I did not have any other problems, I found his proposition senseless. Out of curiosity I asked him what kind of physician he was. He answered, "neuropsychiatrist". "But I do not need neuropsychiatrists", I replied. At that moment Dr. Dufour left without telling me anything more. And that was all.
Dr. Dufour's testimony in court was full of contradictions, and was at odds with that of Dr. Grenier, my ex-wife, and his nurse, R. Lord. According to his own words, Dr. Dufour spent 30 minutes examining me, to establish the diagnosis of "schizo-paranoid", supported by "symptoms" in the certificate. This is pure poppycock. Dr. Dufour talked about his "objective examination" of myself and my many "symptoms", which it would take days if not months to discover and indeed establish them.
Dr. Dufour pretended that because of some "special" events on the day of my examination, he could supposedly reproduce the details as vividly as a video tape. On the other hand, when asked by my attorney as to whether he recalled events that took place in court five days before his testimony, he could not remember them.
It is evident that Dr. Dufour acted in a dishonest and unintelligent manner because he did not properly examine me or verify the allegations of Dr. Grenier, Dr. Dionne and my ex-wife.
Dr. Grenier did not write a report. Mr. Justice Boudreault excused him by stating that, "The psychiatrist in the Emergency Department may be so very busy that he hardly has time to write long notes in the records".
I disagree with the judge. First, it is well-known that psychiatrists do not often deal with "urgent" cases. Secondly, Dr. Dufour himself did not even try to prove that he was so "very busy" that he could not write medical records. And, thirdly, according to Dr. Grenier's testimony, Dr. Dufour already knew about my family or "interpersonal" problems at least two weeks before he signed the medical certificate.
Therefore, Dr. Dufour was in a position, and he had more than enough time, to examine and verify all the allegations: 1) by asking the police about the supposed assault "with an axe" on my ex-wife; 2) by questioning the children as to the nature of the incident; 3) by investigating my attitude in the milieu in which I was in fact living for the last three months (in school and with my acquaintances in Hamilton, Ontario); and 4) if necessary, to contact my own and my ex-wife's families in Europe.
Finally, from a professional, ethical and legal standpoint, there is no excuse, even in urgent cases, not to write medical records. Especially in a case which the psychiatrists pretended was "very serious".
Moreover, as a physician I was taught, and common sense dictates, that especially in urgent and very serious cases it is a must to write records, chiefly for the physician's own protection in the event of an undesirable outcome resulting from the intervention. Certainly, when a physician deals with an urgent case, he cannot write records if this means leaving the patient to die or suffer. But after finishing the necessary intervention, the physicians have to write down the nature of the patient's problems which forced him to ask for medical help, the kind of examination, diagnosis and intervention that was done, and eventually the instruction and direction for further treatment of the patient. In short, a wise, conscious and competent physician would always write a proper record.
By failing to write the record or by concealing or destroying it, Dr. Dufour infringed the Medical Code of Ethics43. Thus, he acted in an unprofessional and unethical manner.
Mr. Justice Boudreault failed to properly appreciate the abundant evidence produced at trial regarding Dr. Dufour. The evidence, contrary to the Judgment, did not show that Dr. Dufour was too busy to make entries in the hospital medical records, or that there had been an emergency or a "dangerosity". There is no doubt that he did not even try to perform any examination.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R), revised and published in 1987, "a diagnosis of schizophrenia should be made only when the following criteria have been fulfilled:
1. Symptoms of illness have been present for at least six months.
2. There has been some deterioration of functioning from previous level in such areas as work skills, social relations, and self-care.
3. The disease symptoms do not suggest organic mental disorders or mental retardation.
4. The disease symptoms do not suggest manic-depressive illness.
5. Either a), b), or c) must be present:
a) Two of the following:
i. delusions
ii. prominent auditory hallucinations
iii. incoherence or marked loosening of associations
iv. catatonic behaviour
v. flat or grossly inappropriate affect, or
b) Bizarre delusions which other people in the individual's subculture regard as totally implausible, i.e the belief that your thoughts are being taken out of you head and broadcast over the radio, or
c) Prominent auditory hallucinations consisting of voices keeping up a running commentary on the person's behaviour, or two or more voices conversing with each other. The content of the voices should not be explainable by the person's depression or elation.
... If these criteria are not met, the diagnosis of schizophrenia should not be made."44
Dr. Dufour did not report any of the symptoms outlined above. The medical certificate indicates that the doctor did not perform an examination whatsoever. He noted merely that I was "known to Dr. Grenier as a schizoparanoid ...". It was proven later that on the very same day of my hospitalization Dr. Dufour's diagnosis was repudiated by a novice in psychiatry, the extern Dr. Boucher45. Dr. Dorion and Dr. Juretic disagreed with this diagnosis as well.
Dr. Jacques Dufour testified in court that he had not known me at all, prior to meeting me in the hospital on November 12, 1972. Yet in Dr. Grenier's examination for discovery, and also in my ex-wife's court testimony, we read that he had been "informed" about Dr. Dionne's manoeuvres regarding me. In particular, one finds Dr. Grenier quite explicit that he had "discussed" my case with Dr. Dufour before the hospitalization. Therefore, Dr. Jacques Dufour was familiar with me and committed a perjury in court.
Contrary to what we might think of Dr. Dufour when we glance at his jovial "report", he was quite a different person in court. He displayed the attitude and posture of a man with extremely high tension; his voice was loud and his speech was like a staccato outburst, full of senseless and incoherent words. The term used in psychiatry for this kind of speech is confabulation. I prefer the common term, diarrhoea of words.
In psychiatry, one would consider that a person who conducted himself like Dr. Dufour did in court suffers from paramnesia or falsification of memory, and his distortions serve as protection against an intolerable anxiety.
In the form known as confabulation, the patient fills the gaps in his memory by fabrications without any basis in fact, although when relating them he accepts them as actual occurrences46.
I believe, to use the Freudian term, that Dr. Dufour was subconsciously feeling guilty for my hospitalization, perhaps also for other cases, and was thus under constant emotional tension which eventually caused the heart failure from which he died.
Fear and anxiety are common to all patients with angina pectoris and coronary heart and are complicated as well by pain in those with acute coronary occlusion. In those with personality defects, adaptation to the illness is difficult and various neurotic defenses are mobilized.47
To illustrate Dr. Dufour's paramnesia, or evident falsehoods, I have cited his recollection of our first meeting, and I will now touch upon a few other samples of his speech. All his allegations are of the same kind.
For instance, his lawyer, Mr. Lacoursiere, asked Dr. Dufour:
Had you heard about Mr. Delev before (November 12, 1971) you went down in emergency ...?
Answer:
No. I did not know of the existence of Mr. Delev, I've never heard any talk either from the nurses nor from Dr. Grenier ....
Yet, during preliminary examination of Dr. Grenier, on the question:
Did you discuss this case (of Dr. Delev) with him (Dr. Dufour) particularly?
Answer is explicit:
Yes, of course. Before Dr. Dufour knew that I was contacted.
Furthermore, Dr. Grenier testified:
It was the same physician, in fact Dr. Dionne who contacted me, who also on Saturday or the day before the hospitalization had contacted Dr. Dufour, it was the same physician Dr. Dionne who had in fact served as an intermediator. I would not say a physician but rather a neighbour. (Dr. Dionne had never been my neighbour).
Moreover, my ex-wife, also testified in court that "he (Dr. Dufour) knew all about the declaration ..." (Il était au courant de la déclaration ...), given two weeks before my hospitalization.
Dr. Dufour described the meeting with my ex-wife in such detail, as if it had just occurred before he entered to testify. He stated that during the meeting the nurse, R. Lord, was present, but the nurse, R. Lord, testified:
It is not our practice to stay with the practitioner, a psychiatrist, during an interview with a lady, with the parents or with the patient.
Therefore, she contradicted Dr. Dufour.
Contrary to the Judgment, Dr. Dufour's testimony is packed with contradictions and evident lies. He violated almost the entire Chapter Seven of the Code of Medical Ethics concerning his obligations towards me, particularly Section 52a, Art. 35(i). He ignored the evidence that I had been legally fit to sign legal documents such as the documents regarding my hospitalization. He also violated my right to choose my physician and hospital. The Law (Art. 10, 14 Geo. VI, Ch. 31) had also been violated. Finally, it is clear that the Mental Patients Institutions Act, 1964, S.R.Q., Ch. 166, had also been infringed by Dr. Dufour. Contrary to the Judgment, Dr. Dufour had not completed the Commitment Certificate (the first page is completely blank), nor did he "obtain from any judge ... an Order for conveyance of the latter (of myself) to a hospital" (Section 12).
|