Action No.: IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON ae 0403 18975 BETWEEN: INDERJIT SINGH CHOBAN Plaintiff -and- OTAKAR CADSKY, LARRY OHLHAUSER, CAPITAL HEALTH AUTHORITY, KENNETH GARDENER, GLEN BAKER, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA and KELAY OHLHAUSER Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Inderjit Singh Chohan (hereinafter “Dr. Chohan”), is an individual resident in the City of Edmonton, Alberta, At all material times, Dr. Chohan was a physician registered pursuant to the Medical Profession Act, specializing in psychiatry, and practising in that field in Edmonton, Alberta, for seven yéars. Dr. Chohan received his medical degree from the University of Alberta and his specialists training in psychiatry from the University of Alberta, 2, Atall material times hereto, Dr. Chohan divided his work as a psychiatrist between Forensic Assessment and Community Services (hereinafter “FACS”), a clinic-based and outreach assessment, treatment, consultation and education/research services program, andthe Royal Alexandra Hospital. 3. The Defendant Otakar Cadsky (hereinafter “Dr. Cadsky”)is an individual resident in the City ofEdmonton, Alberta. Atall material times, Dr. Cadsky was a. physician registered pursuant2 to the Medical Profession Act , specializing in psychiatry, and practising in that field in Edmonton, Alberta, tall material times hereto, Dr. Cadsky was the Clinical Coordinator at FACS and was Dr. Chohan’s direct supervisor at PACS. He was reinstated to this position by the Capital Health ‘Authority (hereinafter “Capital Health”) and Dr. Gardener, after having originally been removed from this position because of making racist remarks against a fellow psychiatrist. He had been removed by the Chief Medical Officer for the Alberta Mental Health Board, ‘The Defendant Larry Ohlhauser (hereinafter “Dr, Ohlhauser”) is an individual resident in the City of Edmonton, Alberta. Atall material times, Dr. Ohlhauser was a physician registered pursuant to the Medical Profession Act. Dr, Oblhauser was a general practitioner between 1972 and 1982 prior to pursuing a career in Medical Administration and Healthcare Consulting for Regional Health Authorities, and for the Government of Alberta. ‘At all material times Dr. Ohlhauser was retained by Capital Health to act as an ad hoc consultant and advisor to Capital Health and to Dr. Gardener and, in particular, with reference to the provision of forensic psychiatry in Edmonton, after Capital Health took over the responsibility of Mental Health Services in April, 2003 from the Alberta Mental Health Board. By late August he was formally contracted by Dr. Gardener to work for Capital Health with reference to providing consultative support to the acting Clinical Director of Forensic Psychiatry at the time, Dr. Dempsey, in relation to issues of intimidation, leadership, recruitment issues and racism issues within forensic psychiatry. ‘The Defendant Kenneth Gardener (hereinafter “Dr. Gardener’) is an individual resident in the City of Edmonton, Alberta. At all material times, Dr. Gardener was a physician registered pursuant to the Medical Profession Act. Atall material times hereto, Dr. Gardener was the Vice President of Medical Affairs for the Capital Health Authority, which includes the city of Edmonton, Alberta. Atall material times Dr. Gardener was an employee or agent10. i, 12. 13. 2 “of Capital Health and at all material times he was acting within the scope and course of his employment or agency. ‘The Defendant Glen Baker (hereinafter “Dr. Baker”) is an individual resident in the City of Edmonton, Alberta. Dr. Baker is aneurochemist by training and at all material times hereto he was the Chair and Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. He is not a practising physician. ‘The Defendant University of Alberta is a University located in Edmonton, Alberta. At all material times hereto, Dr. Baker was an employee or agent of the University or. Alberta. “The Defendant Kelay Ohlhauser (hereinafter “Ms. Ohlhauser”) is an individual resident in the City of Edmonton, Alberta. Ms. Oblhauser is the wife of Dr. Oblhauser. Ms, Ohlhauser isapharmaceutical sales representative, servicing physicians in the Edmonton hospitals, with access to the hospitals in Edmonton, including the Royal Alexandra Hospital. ‘Commencing in February of 2003, the Defendants, and each or any of them, commenced a course of action to defame and discredit Dr. Chohan, thereby causing damage to his reputation and exposing him to hatred, ridicule, scom and contempt. Prior to April 1, 2003, Alberta Mental Health Board was responsible for overseeing all mental Health Services delivered at Alberta Hospital Edmonton, and the associated community programs such as PACS. As of April 1, 2003, Capital Health took responsibility for the delivery of such services and at all material times has remained responsible for their delivery. Dr. Gardener as vice-president of Medical Affairs for Capital Health, was ultimately responsible for delivery of the medical services after April 1, 2003.4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 4 Following the transfer of responsibility for mental health services to Capital Health in April 2003, several forensic psychiatrists, including Dr. Chohan, sought a meeting with Dr. Gardenerregarding concerns that had arisen among the departments delivering mental health services, including concems over incidences of racism and intimidation that were occurring That meeting occurred on April 22, 2003 and in attendance was Dr. I. Chohan, Dr. S- Santana, Dr. S. Rai, Dr. C. Woods, Dr. G. King, Dr. Y. Metelitsa and Dr. M. Demas. At the April 22, 2003 meeting, concern was expressed regarding a number of issues including Dr. Cadsky’s reinstatement, leadership of the program that did not respect input and ideas from all psychiatrists and recruitment strategies that favoured recruiting international medical graduates, allegedly in order to more easily control their behaviour. Due to the nature of the concems expressed at the April 22, 2003 meeting, a further meeting was held on May 27, 2003 with all members of the forensic psychiatry department and Dr, Dempsey, Eleanor Grant and Dr. Gardener. At this meeting there was open concem expressed regarding the leadership of the program and that some members felt intimidated by the leadership. The issue of racism as it related to Dr. Cadsky’s reappointment was again raised, this time in the presence of Dr. Gardener and Eleanor Grant. In August of 2003, Dr. Tweddle was appointed as the Acting Clinical Director of Forensic Psychiatry following the resignation of Dr. Brooks who had suffered a myocardial infarction. The forensic medical staff passed a vote of non-confidence in Dr. Tweddle and subsequently Dr. Gardener appointed Dr. Dempsey as the Acting Clinical Director of Forensic Psychiatry. Dr. Ohlhauser was, by this time, involved with Capital Health, providing consultative services in relation to ongoing problems in the forensic psychiatry department. Dr. Chohan was referred to Dr. Ohlhauser in relation to the concerns he had raised regarding the racism and intimidation he was experiencing and Dr. Chohan was advised that Dr. Ohlhauser may be able to assist in dealing with the issues of racism and intimidation that were occurring.19. 20. 22. 5 Dr. Chohan arranged to meet with Dr. Ohlhauser at] his office on June 27, 2003. The meeting Jasted approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes during which Dr. Chohan discussed ‘issues of racism, intimidation and management problem in the forensic service. In response to the concems raised by Dr. Chohan, Dr. Ohlhauser suggested that Dr. Chohan leave the forensic service. By the time Dr. Ohlhauser had met with Dr. Chohan on June 27, 2003, Dr. Ohlhauser had already formed the opinion that Dr. Chohan was paranoid. Dr. Ohlhauser had left a message with the secretary of the head of Outpatient Psychiatry at the Royal Alexandra Hospital advising that there was a “sick doc” (referring to Dr. Chohan) and wondering if Dr. Hibbard ‘would call him, Following the meeting with Dr. Chohan on June 27, 2003, Dr. Ohlhauser left a further message on Dr, Hibbard’s cell phone that Dr. Chohan was paranoid, and wanted to know if Dr. Hibbard would be available to help out. Throughout the period of time from February 2003 through to August 2003, Dr. Chohan made repeated requests for assistance to Capital Health in relation to the issues of racism and intimidation he was facing. Dr. Gardener, Vice President of Medical Affairs for Capital Health did nothing to address the concems raised by Dr. Chohan and in fact made the situation worse by further disseminating and repeating defamatory comments about Dr. Chohan and his mental health, Inspite of repeated requests for assistance and guidance made by Dr. Chohan, Capital Health did nothing to assist Dr. Chohan and Dr. Ohlhauser, as an agent for Capital Health, did nothing to assist Dr. Chohan. Each of them made the situation worse by further disseminating and repeating defamatory comments about Dr. Chohan and his mental health24. As to th 25. 26. 27. 6 ‘The defamatory statements made by the Defendants, and each or any of them, have served to lower the esteem in which Dr, Chohan is held by his peers, by the members of his community and by professional and personal associates. ‘The particulars of the defamatory statements made by the Defendants are as follows: ‘he Defendant Dr. Cadsky On or about February 4, 2003 Dr. Cadsky stated to several colleagues of Dr. Chohan, including Dr. Santoch Rai and Dr. Curtis Woods, that Dr. Chohan was “a paranoid Sikh.” He further stated that it was his intention to force Dr. Chohan to resign from his position with FACS. Between March 2003 and April 2004, Dr. Cadsky continued to advise Dr. Chohan’s colleagues at FACS that Dr. Chohan would be resigning from or otherwise leaving FACS. ‘The said defamatory statements made by Dr. Cadsky were false and were made maliciously or recklessly without regard for the truth. The defamatory statements made by Dr. Cadsky are defamatory in their everyday and ordinary meaning, Altematively, the defamatory statements were meant or understood to ‘mean that: (@) Dr. Chohan was suffering from a mental illness; (®) Dr. Chohan was suffering from delusions of persecution; (c) Dr. Chohan had a tendency towards excessive or irrational suspiciousness or distrustfulness of others; and (4) Dr, Chohan was unfit or unable to continue his medical practise in the field of psychiatry.29. 30. 31. T The negative impact of the false and defamatory statements was aggravated by the fact that Dr. Cadsky’s remarks were racially motivated and that Dr. Cadsky had a history of making racially derogatory remarks including an attack against a Jewish physician which resulted in his earlier removal from a position of authority with the Alberta Mental Health Board years prior to his comments against Dr. Chohan. The negative impact of the false and defamatory statements made by Dr. Cadsky were further aggravated by the fact that he was, at the time he made the statements, in a position of authority over Dr. Chohan and the other physicians at FACS by virtue of his appointment as the Clinical Coordinator at FACS. The false and defamatory statements made by Dr. Cadsky were made more credible and therefore more damaging by virtue ofthe fact that they were made by a practising psychiatrist who was the Clinical Coordinator of FACS. As to the Defendant Dr. Oblhauser 32, 33. 34, On or about June 27, 2003 Dr. Ohlhauser contacted one of Dr. Chohan’s colleagues, Dr. Richard Hibbard, Head of Outpatient Psychiatry at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, and left the following voice mail message, referring to Dr. Chohan: “We have a sick doc here, can you call.” Later on June 27, 2003, Dr. Ohlhauser left a further voice mail message for Dr. Hibbard in which he stated words to the effect that he was concemed Dr. Chohan was paranoid and would Dr. Hibbard be available to assist Dr. Chohan. The said defamatory statements made by Dr. Ohlhauser were false and were made maliciously or recklessly without regard for the truth.35. 36. 37. 8 Further, in early July 2003 Dr. Ohlhauser contacted both Dr. Gardener and Dr. Baker and repeated to each of them his defamatory comments about Dr. Chohan being “sick” or “paranoid” Dr. Oblhauser was instrumental in arranging for Dr. Chohan to be psychiatrically assessed by his immediate supervisor, Dr. Block. Dr. Chohan, himself clinical psychiatrist, had to suffer the humiliation of undergoing such scrutiny by his supervisor, Dr. Block. Dr. Chohan was found to be without any indicia whatsoever of mental disorder. Neither Dr. Ohlhausernor Dr. Gardener, both non-practicing physicians, nor Dr. Baker who is not a physician at all, were qualified to seek or make any kind of psychiatric referral. ‘The defamatory statements made by Dr. Oblhauser are defamatory in their everyday and ordinary meaning. Alternatively, the defamatory statements were meant or understood to mean that: (@ Dr. Chohan was suffering from a mental illness; (©) Dr. Chohan was suffering from delusions of persecution; (© Dr. Chohan had a tendency towards excessive or irrational suspiciousness or distrustfulness of others; () Dr. Chohan required the care of a psychiatrist; and (©) Dr. Chohan was unfit or unable to continue his medical practice in the field of psychiatry. As to the Defendant Dr. Gardener and Capital Health 38. Inearly July 2003 Dr. Gardener contacted Dr. David Block, Chief of Psychiatry at the Royal Alexandra Hospital and Dr. Chohan’s immediate supervisor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital39. 40. 4. 42. 9. and advised Dr. Block that Dr. Chohan was “paranoid”, and was instrumental in arranging for an assessment by his immediate supervisor, Dr. Block ‘The said defamatory statement made by Dr. Gardener was false and was made maliciously or recklessly without regard for the truth. ‘The defamatory statement made by Dr. Gardener is defamatory in its everyday and ordinary meaning. Altematively, the defamatory statement was meant or understood to mean that: (2) Dr. Chohan was suffering from a mental illness; (b) Dr. Chohan was suffering from delusions of persecution; (© Dr. Chohan had a tendency towards excessive or irrational suspiciousness or distrustfulness of others; (@)__ Dr. Choban required the care of a psychiatrist; and (©) Dr. Chohan was unfit or unable to continue his medical practice in the field of psychiatry. The negative impact of the false and defamatory statement made by Dr. Gardener was aggravated by the fact that he was, at the time he made the statements, in a position of authority over Dr. Chohan and Dr. Block by virtue of his position as Vice President of Medical Affairs for the Capital Health Region. As Vice President of Medical Affairs for the Capital Health Region, Dr. Gardener's statements carried additional weight and were more likely to be believed by Dr. Block. ‘Atal material times, Dr. Gardener was an employee or agent of Capital Health and he was acting within the course and scope of his duties as employee or agent when he defamed Dr. Chohan. Accordingly, Capital Health is vicariously liable for the actions of Dr. Gardener.-10- As to the Defendants Dr, Baker and the University of Alberta 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. In early July 2003 Dr. Baker contacted Dr. David Block, Chief of Psychiatry at the Royal ‘Alexandra Hospital and Dr. Chohan’s immediate supervisor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. Dr. Baker advised Dr. Block that he had concerns that Dr. Chohan was paranoid and he asked Dr. Block for his assistance in ascertaining the mental well being of Dr. Chohan. Dr. Baker was instrumental in arranging for an assessment of Dr. Chohan by his immediate supervisor, Dr. Block. On August 4, 2004, Dr. Baker initiated discussions with Dr. Block, during which he again opened up the issue of Dr. Chohan’s mental state. ‘The said defamatory statements made by Dr. Baker were false and were made maliciously or recklessly without regard for the truth. The defamatory statements made by Dr. Baker are defamatory in their everyday and ordinary meaning. Alternatively, the defamatory statements were meant or understood to mean that: (2) Dr. Chohan was suffering from a mental illness; (®) Dr. Chohan was suffering from delusions of persecution; (©) Dr. Chohan had a tendency towards excessive or irrational suspiciousness or distrustfulness of others; (® Dr. Chohan required the care of a psychiatrist; and (©) Dr. Chohan was unfit or unable to continue his medical practise in the field of psychiatry. The negative impact of the false and defamatory statement made by Dr. Baker was aggravated by the fact that he was, at the time he made the statements, in a position of49. 50. ole authority over Dr. Chohan and Dr. Block by virtue of his position as Chair and Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Alberta. ‘As Chair and Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Alberta, Dr. Baker's statements carried additional weight and were more likely to be believed by Dr. Block. Atall material times, Dr. Baker was an employee or agent of the University of Alberta and he was acting within the course and scope of his duties as employee or agent when he defamed Dr. Chohan. Accordingly, the University of Alberta is vicariously liable for the actions of Dr. Baker. As to the Defendant Ms, Ohlhauser 51. 52. On or about September 16, 2003, Ms. Oblhauser, two days before her husband, Dr. ‘Ohlhauser met with Dr. Chohan as partof his investigation, attended at Dr. Chohan’ s offices, purportedly as part of her position as a pharmaceutical sales representative, and uttered threatening remarks and comments that led Dr. Chohan to fear for his career future, and that further led him to believe that Dr. Oblhauser had openly and negatively discussed Dr. Chohan’s mental health and career fiture with her. Onorabout August 4, 2004 , and following Dr. Ohlhauser’s receipt of correspondence from counse] for Dr. Chohan warming of a potential defamation action, Ms. Ohlhauser again attended at Dr. Chohan’s office and followed up her attendance with an e-mail to one of the staff members at the Royal Alexandra, Lona Nielsen referring to Dr. Chohan as follows: Lona: Thanks for your concem today, I appreciated it. I felt bad that you had to be there to hear his “tirade”, although I was very happy to have notbeen alone with him. I felt very uncomfortable when he said “You have threatened me and I have a witness and I will get you, make no mistake about my resolve”. I felt quite unsure of what he might do. When he shook his finger at me he was shaking and he53. 54, 55. 56. “2 seemed extremely agitated. 1 found the whole experience very threatening. It almost seemed surreal. His final comment was “You will know very soon what will happen”, What do you make of that? T do not want to experience a repeat of that encounter and will take the necessary steps to ensure that J am not there when he is. ‘Thanks again for your concem, Regards, Kelay Onor about August 7, 2004 Ms. Ohlhauser sent a further ‘e-mail to Ms. Nielsen in which she stated: “,. .I stand by my statement though. He did threaten to “get me.” Further, in early August, 2004, Ms. Oblhauser contacted Dr. Block, Dr. Chohan's immediate supervisor, to engage in further discussion about Dr. Chohan, such discussion involving ongoing derogatory and defamatory remarks about Dr. Chohan’s character and reputation. ‘Ms. Ohlhauser’s statements regarding Dr. Chohan and his conduct were false and was made maliciously or recklessly without regard for the truth. ‘The defamatory statements made by Ms. Ohlhauser are defamatory in their everyday and ordinary meaning. Alternatively, the defamatory statement was meant or understood tomean that: (2) Dr. Chohan was a threatening and intimidating person; (b) It is was unsafe for a person to be alone with Dr. Chohan; (©) Dr. Chohan was a violent person who was not to be trusted; (4) Dr. Chohan was unable to control his emotions and his anger; (©) Dr. Chohan was suffering from delusions of persecution; (f) Dr. Chohan committed a criminal act by threatening Ms. Ohlhauser; and (© Dr. Chohan was capable of committing criminal acts of violence.57. -13- “The defamatory statements made by Ms. Ohlhauser were aggravated by the fact that she was the wife of Dr. Ohlhauser and therefore her statements would carry more weight and tend to be believed. As to the Defendants collectively 58. 59. 60, 61 ‘The effect of the collective defamatory statements as set out above was to create and perpetuate a pervasive rumour in the psychiatric profession in Edmonton that Dr. Chohan was paranoid, mentally unsound and unable to practice his profession. ‘There was no public or private duty or interest which obligated the Defendants, or any of them, to make the defamatory statements set out above. The defamatory statements were racially motivated and were the result of politicking that was going on in the psychiatric epartments of the Capital Health Authority in Edmonton. The statements were not a result of any genuinely held belief with regard to Dr. Chohan's mental status. In the alternative, if there was some public or private interest which obligated the Defendants, or any of them, to make the defamatory statements set out above, then the statements went beyond what was reasonably required for the discharge of that duty or interest and they continued after confirmation of Dr. Chohan’s excellent mental health. The conduct of the Defendants was made more egregious and outrageous because it continued after Dr. Block assessed Dr. Chohan’s mental health as “excellent.” Dr. Block further advised that Dr. Chohan had the support of the entire department of physicians at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. In spite of the results of Dr. Block’s assessment, the Defendants, or any of them, continued to accused Dr. Chohan of being “paranoid” and continued to spread false and defamatory rumors regarding Dr. Chohan’s mental health.62. 63. a4 Since the commencement of the defamation against Dr. Chohan, and throughout the months of those defamatory statements being repeated and disseminated, Dr. Chohan has suffered and continues to suffer imeparable harm to his personal and professional reputation including, but not limited to, the following: @ ) © @ Dr. Chohan must live and work in a community and among colleagues having been branded paranoid; Dr. Chohan has suffered a loss of respect among professional colleagues and members of the Sikh community; Dr. Chohan’s ability to practice as a psychiatristhas been called into question thereby limiting his career and the career options available to him; Dr. Choham has suffered from a general diminishment of hid reputation in his chosen profession and in the community at large. ‘The Plaintiff proposes that the trial of this action be held at the Law Courts Building in Edmonton, Alberta. In the opinion of the Plaintiff, the trial of this action will take less than 25 days to hear. WHEREFORE the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: @ ) © @ © General damages for defamation of character in the sum of $1,000,000.00 or such other amount as may be proved at the Trial of this Action; ‘Aggravated or punitive damages in the amount of $500,000.00 or such other amount as may be proved at the Trial of this Action; Special damages and cost of future care to be proved at the Trial of this Action; Interest on the above-claimed awards pursuant to The Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.J-1, as amended; Costs of this action on a solicitor/client basis; and15. (® Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate having regard to all of the circumstances; DATED atthe City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, this__day of September, 2004, AND DELIVEREDby May Jensen Shawa Solomon LLP, Barristers, Counsel for the Plaintiffherein whose address for service is in care of the said solicitors at #800, 304 - 8 Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 1C2. ISSUED out of the Office of the Clerk of this Honourable Court this_24/ day of September, Clerk of the CourtNOTIC! TO THE DEFENDANTS: OTAKAR CADSKY LARRY OHLHAUSER. CAPITAL HEALTH AUTHORITY KENNETH GARDENER GLEN BAKER THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA and KELAY OHLBAUSER You have been sued. You are the Defendant. You have only 15 days to file and serve a Statement of Defence or Demand of Notice. You or your lawyer must file your Statement of Defence or Demand of Notice in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta. You or your lawyer must also leave a copy of your Statement of Defence or Demand of Notice atthe address for service for the Plaintiff named in this Statement of Claim.” WARNING: If you do not do both things within 15 days, you may automatically lose the law suit. The Plaintiff may get a Court judgment against you if you do not file, or do not give a copy to the Plaintiff, or do either thing late. This Statement of Claim is issued by May Jensen Shawa Solomon LLP, Counsel for the Plaintiff who resides at Edmonton, Alberta and whose address for service is in the care of the said Counsel at #800, 304 - 8th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, andis addressed to the Defendants whose residences or locations as far as, is known to the Plaintiff are Edmonton, Alberta, No. Acton 0403 18975): IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH | OF ALBERTA, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON BETWEEN: INDERJIT SINGH CHOHAN Plaintiff ~ and - OTAKAR CADSKY, LARRY OHLHAUSER, CAPITAL HEALTH AUTHORITY, KENNETH GARDENER GLEN BAKER, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA and KELAY OHLHAUSER Defendants “SeO \scjcoo STATEMENT OF CLAIM MAY JENSEN SHAWA SOLOMON LLP 800, 304 - 8% Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta ‘TP 1C2 Attention: Virginia M. May, Q.C. Phone: (403) 571-1524 Fax: (403) 571-1528 File: 10188 001 ah OotaladnpimeeteCalmone TOTAL P.1?