SPECULATIVE CONSPIRACY THEORY

Inevitably, there is one burning question that must be answered so as to make sense of this whole matter.  That torturous question undoubtedly has been on the mind of most of you as you have laboriously dissected each episode.

WHY?  Why would the College of Nurses of Ontario relentlessly pursue Ms Munro with two complaints that held absolutely no substance?

Could it be simply because they felt she did not fear them as their prosecuting lawyer, Mr. Nick Coleman, suggested (trusting Mr. Zvaigzne's ears were not deceived) during the penalty hearing phase of the Terrick complaint?  Or, could Mr. Coleman's reference to, and we are taking the liberty of paraphrasing, "the need for all nurses to fear the College" have meant something else?

Incompetence, a "catch-all" excuse, supposedly, may become a desperate explanation.  But the questions here would have to be: "How much harm and how many wrongs can be dismissed or sloughed off with pleadings for sympathy due to incompetence?"  What imaginative excuse might the College of Nurses of Ontario give for not addressing even the simplest and clearest of discrepancies - the employer/employee relationship between themselves and their "expert witness" and the failure of this relationship being presented by both them, the prosecuting College, and their "expert witness" during either of the hearings against Ms Munro.  Surely they, the College of Nurses of Ontario, would not now hide under the excuse of incompetence or casually brush it off suggesting irrelevance.

If we dismiss incompetence and the intent to impose fear as the primary reasons, we are still left pondering the "WHY?"  For a possible answer, it may be wise to not only look at the College of Nurses but also beyond this powerful governing body.

We know, as does and did the College of Nurses know, that Mr. George Kennedy's complaint came well after Ms Munro's company, Elite Specialty Nursing Services Inc., terminated its services to the Kennedys.  No hint of a complaint was even suggested by Mr. Kennedy upon that termination or months thereafter.  No whisper of misconduct was directed to Ms Munro or the College by Mr. George Kennedy until he was served with papers demanding him to release the almost $40,000.00 his insurance company had entrusted him with so as to reimburse Elite Specialty Nursing Services Inc. for the home nursing they, Elite, had provided prior to the termination of services.  Immediately, within a day or two, Mr. Kennedy drafted and submitted a lengthy complaint to the College of Nurses of Ontario against Ms Marilyn Munro.  Regardless of how suspect this sequence of events appears, we would not and most certainly do not entertain the thought that Mr. Kennedy could have influenced a governing body as powerful as the College of Nurses of Ontario for his personal financial benefit.

Similarly we must dismiss Ms Cathy Terrick's influence over the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The College of Nurses in their Decision and Reasons [EXHIBIT C-7], beginning page 12, last paragraph and ending 1^st line page 13:

The witness described Ms Terrick as entirely dysfunctional, hysterical in behaviour and would act out her aggressions both to those close to her and those in her way. He further described her as out of control and would react to anything contrary to her wishes with great anger and aggression. When asked to consider the issue of Ms Terrick’s vulnerability, he described her as forceful, aggressive, angry, vindictive. He certainly would not describe her as vulnerable. In cross-examination, he confirm that Ms Terrick was a very ill person.

and the College's agreement of that assessment ( the last sentence under their heading CREDIBILITY [EXHIBIT C-7] ):

The panel agreed with the witness’s assessment of Ms Terrick.

clearly indicates their thought with respect to Ms Terrick.

When this is combined with Ms Cathy Terrick's expressed demands of us in her e-mail:

[QUESTION 003 C-0001 CHAPTER 002]

Please be informed that as of today's date, April 4, 2002, I direct you and anyone else involved in this site or any other similar sites to delete any and all information regarding my family - and in particular exhibit C-7.

I forbid any future use of any information regarding my family and/or any cases with regards to litigation past, present or future.

it is unavoidably apparent that she had no influence on the College of Nurses of Ontario.

So if neither Mr. George Kennedy nor Cathy Terrick had the influential power to induce the College of Nurses to act in this questionable manner against Ms Marilyn Munro, we are forced to query further.  Exactly what was Marilyn Munro and her company, Elite Specialty Nursing Services Inc., noted for and doing at the time.

Ms Munro was in the forefront in successfully advocating doctor ordered health care services for her clients.  She, Ms Munro, did not shy away from the challenges or road-blocks presented by her clients' health care insurance company or the Government of Ontario's Home Care Program.  She hacked through the red-tape and jumped every hurdle.  If her clients had a health care need and their doctor ordered a course of action and that course of action was covered by the insurer or the Government's Home Care Service, Ms Munro relentlessly pursued the prescribed remedy.  Did she make enemies?  Undoubtedly.  Did she annoy individuals?  Unquestionably.  Did some, besides her competitors, want her stopped?  Let's see.

The Sudbury and District's Home Care Program management had, back in 1993, terminated "without cause" the Home Care contract with Elite Specialty Nursing Services Inc., Ms Munro's company.  Ms Munro, thus, took legal action against them (the court's decision can be found in [EXHIBIT C-59] July 26, 2002 - Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Reasons for Judgment).

Although some of you may be curious enough to struggle through this entire document, we, at this time, would like to highlight one specific paragraph in  Michael R. Meehan's, Superior Court Justice, writing.  In [EXHIBIT C-59] on page 21, item [101] under the heading CONCLUSION, he writes (keep in mind that in this case, Elite Specialty Nursing Services Inc., Ms Marilyn Munro's company, is the Plaintiff):

Upon the evidence, it is found that there was a concerted effort to provide as few cases as possible to the Plaintiff.  There was ample evidence of harassment and interference with the Plaintiff's employees' efforts to assist the patients.  Under the contract, the Plaintiff had to provide qualified personnel at short notice, provide management and, as well, a substantial public liability policy.  The Defendant and its servants or agents were, in my view, required to provide a reasonable number of patients.  The evidence was that there was an ample number of patients, the Defendant, its servants and agents refused to allot them for improper motives.

If you are able, and again we apologize for the poor quality of our scanned material, we would recommend that you read this entire document [EXHIBIT C-59].  We believe you will find it most enlightening with respect to some elements within the health care industry.  For now, we will refrain from additional comment.  We believe that Superior Court Justice, Michael R. Meehan, has been more than clear in this one paragraph we have quoted.  This is poignantly unavoidable with the commentary we have highlighted in red.  Lest there be any confusion let us repeat:

There was ample evidence of harassment and interference with the Plaintiff's employees' efforts to assist the patients.

and

...the Defendant, its servants and agents refused to allot them for improper motives.

But even the Sudbury and District Health Unit, though it is funded by the Ontario Government, would not be powerful enough to lure the Colleges of Nurses of Ontario into prosecuting or persecuting Ms Munro wrongfully.  We state this even while keeping in mind the written comments of Superior Court Justice, Michael R. Meehan; and we repeat:

There was ample evidence of harassment and interference with the Plaintiff's employees' efforts to assist the patients.

and

...the Defendant, its servants and agents refused to allot them for improper motives.

So that we are not remiss in our duty, we do point out that the above decision is being appealed by the Health Unit etc. See [EXHIBIT C-60].

Additionally, we have included the following;

[EXHIBIT C-74] On or about Aug. 28, 2002 - Mr. Aivars Zvaigzne's News Release to a variety of news outlets in Ontario

and a resulting local news story that we happened by chance to come across:

[EXHIBIT C-61] Aug. 31, 2002 - Sudbury Star story as written by Bob Vaillancourt re: Sudbury & District Health Unit loses suit to Elite (Marilyn Munro)

Even with this all being said, we strongly suggest that there is even more to this dark brooding question.  Take a suspicious look at the following exhibits (we have copied, for your reading convenience, specific portions of each exhibit just below each page of the scanned, written text);