Deceitful Advocate: Unmasking Peterborough Public Health's Lawyer's Betrayal of Trust and Public Welfare- How her perjury and lies stole patient' DNA.

Belleville Lawyer Suzanne Hunt- Win at all costs, including her licence to practice. Will the Law Society do something and make this right, or will they rally around the offender?

"The Erosion of Truth and Justice: Perjury, Legal Ethics, and Their Profound Impact on Society" By Dental Advocate- Andy Curnew MBA ICD LLM

Suzanne Hunt, a Public Health lawyer, has overstepped all known boundaries and will likely have her licence to practice stripped for her acts of misconduct related to her endless pursuit to harm the public. She took documents with deemed undertakings without prejudice and used them in other proceedings as an abuse of process- it does not stop there. Shes proven to have circulated it to adversarial people against the person shes in court against and encouraged them to make complaints to regulatory bodies, all to conceal her propensity for perjury in the following cases.

Within a clandestine network of public health officials, including the nurse Janet Pearson Macdonald, who was not only a trusted confidante but also an employee of medical officers Dr. Lynn Noseworthy, Dr. Robert Kyle, and Dr. Rosanna Salveterra, a complex tale began to unravel. This narrative painted a picture of these individuals collectively standing on the precipice of losing their substantial annual incomes, each one benefiting from a staggering $500,000.00. In Janet Pearson Macdonald's case, her livelihood was also in jeopardy as she would lose her licence for her involvement in the theft of patients' confidential information and their blood through a lie about an imminent health hazard that she cooked up.

Behind this intricate facade, a concealed web of connections came to light. It was revealed that Durham's Medical Health Officer was bound in a sexual relationship with Port Hope's MHO, creating an additional layer of intrigue. Simultaneously, the enigmatic Dr. Salveterra, renowned for her name change from Dr. Pelazarri amid a cloud of controversy, played a pivotal role in this intricate tapestry of support and secrecy.

Further complicating matters was their association with and accolades bestowed upon RCDSO President Dr. Harinder Sandhu. Dr. Sandhu came under scrutiny for hand-picking complaints directed at the RCDSO from this network, adding another layer of complexity to this intricate narrative.

As the pieces of this intricate puzzle fell into place, it became apparent that these individuals were bound by more than just professional courtesy; they were united in their mutual support, even extending their camaraderie to the likes of Dr. Albert D., a sex offender from Northern Alberta. Notably, Dr. Salveterra's trajectory took her from Peterborough to Alberta, where she assumed a position before ultimately being asked to leave amid allegations of serious misconduct. However, What remained concealed was her ongoing litigation and failure to disclose this critical information to the province of Alberta, a testament to her pattern of deception.

In the words of Victor Hugo, "Even the darkest night will end, and the sun will rise." In this convoluted tale, the truth is a beacon of hope, illuminating the shadows cast by these intertwined destinies.

Complaints lodged with public health units in Peterborough, or any jurisdiction for that matter, must originate from legitimate and credible sources to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of public health oversight. These complaints must be about plausible genetic links to viruses and not merely that I saw something I dont like. These three MHOs and nurse were architecting schemes to illegally enter dental practices of the very Political Contact dentist advesary they needed to silence. Acting on complaints from individuals with ulterior motives such as former employees or a history of dismissed grievances, such as Public health nurse Janet Pearson MacDonald, who was neither a patient nor a public member, poses serious risks to the charter of rights which should never be violated unless its to save lives- in this case the end game was to destroy lives. These individuals may harbour personal vendettas, engage in harassment campaigns, or use complaints to settle scores rather than genuinely address public health concerns. Relying on such tainted sources not only squanders valuable resources but also undermines the trust and credibility of public health institutions. Stringent verification processes and a discerning approach to complaints are essential to ensure that the public health system remains responsive and focused on genuine concerns.

Concealing these critical considerations from the public and resorting to media-driven fear-mongering propaganda that falsely suggests patients may be exposed to HIV can have severe consequences. In a society built on transparency and trust, accurate information must be provided to the public. Misleading narratives perpetuate unnecessary fear and panic and erode the very foundation of faith upon which healthcare systems rely. When armed with accurate information about the legitimacy of complaints and the stringent processes to protect public health, patients can make informed decisions and contribute to a more responsible and equitable healthcare environment. The power of knowledge can transform baseless fear into informed choices, promoting better health outcomes and fostering a sense of trust between healthcare providers, regulatory bodies, and the public they serve.

The actions described here undeniably constitute a series of grave transgressions, including criminal misconduct, fraud, and theft, all of which warrant severe punitive measures under the law. Let us dissect this matter with precision and clarity.

Firstly, the admission of illegal entry into the dental practice without proper identification or due process raises a red flag of flagrant disregard for the law. Public health officials are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the law, and any breach of that trust is a matter of great concern. This alone constitutes a potential criminal offence. Entering the practice based on statements that you received a complaint from a patient, falsely asserting your public health nurse was a patient, then a member of the public is a fraud and a lie that should amount to all of them having their licences stripped.

Secondly, the mishandling of the inspection process and the absence of the dentist's signature on the inspection report point to a disturbing lack of professionalism and adherence to protocol. Such negligence not only taints the credibility of the inspection but also raises questions about the motives behind these actions.

Furthermore, the acknowledgment of sexist posts by the inspector is deeply troubling, as it hints at a biased and prejudiced approach to their duties. This undermines the integrity of the inspection and showcases a clear breach of ethical standards. At the time of illegal inspection, there was a hydrim washer used, something that 99 percent of dental offices dont use due to the costs, however, this practice did, and it used ultraviolet light, incubation of dental instruments, and copious amounts of bleach. The likelihood of transmission was not low it was implausible. Endodontists use disposable instruments and rubber dams.

The core issue here lies in the deliberate misrepresentation of facts to patients propped up by people who are never supposed to lie. Providing false information from a medical health officer, an officer of the court, and an inspection officer about the risk of bloodborne virus transmission in a dental office setting, especially when the practice maintains stringent sterilization and disinfection protocols, is a calculated act of deception. It is an affront to the principles of honesty, transparency, and informed consent that are fundamental to medical ethics.

The gravity of this deception cannot be overstated. Patients have a right to make informed decisions about their healthcare, and any manipulation of information to coerce them into unnecessary medical procedures is nothing short of fraud. Taking blood from patients under false pretenses is theft, both of their trust and potentially of their bodily fluids.

These actions represent a serious breach of trust, ethical misconduct, and a betrayal of professional responsibilities. Punishment for such actions should serve as a deterrent and a statement that our society values the highest ethical standards in healthcare. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. aptly stated, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." In this case, the uplifted knife is the deliberate deceit that has put patients' health and trust on the line. It is imperative that those responsible for these actions face the full consequences of their misconduct under the law.

In medicine, trust is the bedrock upon which patient care is built. Patients rely on healthcare professionals not only for their expertise but also for their unwavering commitment to ethics and honesty. However, when trust is betrayed and ethical violations occur, the consequences can be far-reaching, affecting individuals and the entire medical community. The case of Dr. Robert Kyle RK v RK and the Public Health Nurse connected to his wife, making a complaint on the anniversary of the dismissal of RK v RK, serves as a stark reminder of why ethical breaches must be met with consequences. Should the Law Society Of Upper Canada be held responsible for the damages its inaction caused to the patients of Peterborough?

Dr. Robert Kyle's RK v. RK story highlights the lengths some individuals may go to in panic and desperation. Faced with the terrifying prospect of losing his wife, Dr. Lynn Noseworthy, due to a medical crisis, Dr. Kyle found himself teetering on the precipice of ethical compromise. The neglect and the presence of pre-existing bacteria in Dr. Noseworthy's mouth had placed her life in jeopardy. Desperate to shield his career from the fallout, Dr. Kyle embarked on a path that would prove to be ethically questionable and legally untenable.

He framed a dental specialist, falsely accusing them of using unclean instruments. Fortunately, the legal system saw through this charade, with the case ruling in favor of the innocent dentist, a decision upheld on appeal. But the story did not end there. Dr. Kyle's audacious attempt to intimidate the Health Appeal Board, insisting that his expertise should trump all others, further underscored the gravity of his ethical missteps.

Dr. Michael Muller of St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto made a crucial observation in this troubling case. He pointed out that the medical health officers (MHOs) involved should have known that the bacteria responsible for Dr. Noseworthy's condition were pre-existing, a result of her own inadequate oral hygiene. This revelation, while significant, raises an even more profound question: Why did Dr. Kyle choose to disregard this critical piece of information in his pursuit to protect his reputation?

In the wake of this unsettling episode, it becomes imperative to reflect on the broader implications of such ethical lapses within the medical community. Trust, once shattered, is not easily rebuilt. Patients rely on healthcare professionals to be their advocates, guardians of truth, and paragons of ethical conduct. When a medical health officer, entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding public health, manipulates the truth, it erodes the very foundation of trust upon which the healthcare system rests.

Punishment in such cases is not a matter of vengeance; it is a matter of safeguarding the principles that underpin the medical profession. A profound quote by Robert G. Ingersoll reminds us of this:

"In ethics, there is a paramount principle: honesty. A failure to uphold this principle not only jeopardizes individual careers but also undermines the credibility of an entire profession. It is through the punishment of ethical violations that we reinforce the enduring importance of honesty in medicine."

In the intricate world of healthcare legislation and ethics, the actions of individuals can have far-reaching consequences, often transcending the boundaries of professional conduct. The case involving Dr. Robert Kyle, his wife Dr. Lynn Noseworthy, and Dr. Salveterra underscores the critical importance of adhering to legal standards, especially when it concerns public health enforcement.

Central to this case is the assertion that Dr. Suzanne Hunt, a lawyer deeply entwined in the narrative, provided misinformation that led to a twisting of legislation. Her claims revolved around the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA), suggesting that public health authorities possessed unfettered authority to conduct searches without reasonable and probable grounds. Furthermore, it was argued that these authorities could issue closure orders without due process, followed by patient notifications. However, a deeper examination reveals a different truth.

Understanding Legal Search Laws: In any society governed by the rule of law, including Canada, there are well-established legal principles governing searches and seizures. Public health authorities are not exempt from these principles. They must, like law enforcement agencies, adhere to standards that ensure the protection of individual rights. Searches conducted without reasonable and probable grounds violate these rights and undermine the very foundations of justice.

Due Process in Public Health Enforcement: Due process is an essential tenet of any legal system. It ensures that individuals are afforded fair treatment under the law, including the right to be heard and defend themselves against any allegations. Dr. Salveterra's assertion that closure orders can be issued without due process runs counter to this fundamental principle. Such actions can have severe consequences, affecting not only the rights of the accused but also the well-being of patients who rely on these healthcare facilities.

Patient Notification: The duty to inform patients of potential health risks, such as HIV exposure, is an ethical and legal obligation that healthcare providers must uphold. Misrepresenting or misinterpreting the criteria for such notifications can have dire consequences for patients. Inaccurate information can lead to undue panic or, conversely, to a lack of awareness of serious health risks.

The case involving Dr. Kyle and his associates serves as a poignant reminder of the responsibility that professionals, including lawyers, bear in ensuring accurate legal interpretations. Lawyers, in particular, play a pivotal role in guiding their clients within the bounds of the law and ethics. Misinformation or a deliberate twisting of legislation can have disastrous consequences for individuals and the broader healthcare system.

In a society built on the principles of justice and accountability, it is imperative that legal and ethical standards be upheld, especially within the realm of public health enforcement. Lawyers must be acutely aware of the laws surrounding searches, due process, and patient notifications. The consequences of failing to do so can be profound, affecting individuals' rights, public trust, and ultimately, the health and well-being of communities. The case of Peterborough Public Health, its new MHO and his associates reminds us that the pursuit of public health should always be guided by integrity, truth, and a deep respect for the law.

The case of Dr. Kyle serves as a stark reminder that no one, regardless of their position or circumstance, should be above the principles of ethics and honesty. Punishment in such cases is not just about accountability; it is about preserving the integrity of the medical profession and ensuring that patients can always trust in the care they receive.

When professionals in these fields prioritize truthfulness, they contribute to a just and transparent society where individuals can make informed choices about their health and legal matters.

The Supreme Court of Canada has a famous position that "litigation is not a tea party." This statement underscores the seriousness and often contentious nature of legal proceedings. Let's compare this statement to the whimsical world of "Alice in Wonderland" and explore how perjury and harm can be related to this idea.

In "Alice in Wonderland," Lewis Carroll's classic tale, Alice enters a fantastical world filled with bizarre characters and absurd situations. The story is marked by its illogical and unpredictable nature, where things often don't make sense. Alice encounters strange creatures, like the Cheshire Cat, who can disappear at will, and the Mad Hatter, who throws a never-ending tea party. Suzanne Hunt plays the role in this saga of Lewis Carroll and inextricable authors, a fairy tale converting her adversary into a mad hatter and her MHO friends into the disappearing cat. And when the cats away the Rat hunt did play, a nasty game of whos on first to confuse the Healths Appeal and review board and ministry of health.

Now, let's draw a parallel to the world of litigation. When the Supreme Court of Canada states that "litigation is not a tea party," it's emphasizing that legal proceedings are far from a lighthearted, whimsical affair. Instead, they are serious and often intense endeavors that can profoundly impact individuals and society as a whole.

Perjury, which involves deliberately lying while under oath in a legal proceeding, is a severe breach of the justice system. It's like injecting a dose of absurdity and chaos into the courtroom, akin to the strange occurrences in Wonderland. In Alice's world, characters often say things that don't align with reality, leading to confusion and frustration. Similarly, perjury disrupts the pursuit of truth in legal proceedings and can have far-reaching consequences.

The harm caused by perjury extends beyond the courtroom. It can erode trust in the legal system, damage reputations, and unjustly affect innocent parties. In Wonderland, Alice frequently finds herself in bewildering and perilous situations because of the whimsical and irrational behavior of its inhabitants. In the legal context, harm caused by perjury can be just as bewildering and unjust, impacting the lives of those involved.

In both scenarios, there is a stark contrast between the fantastical, unpredictable world of Wonderland and the seriousness and consequences of litigation. The Supreme Court's assertion that "litigation is not a tea party" reminds us that, unlike the fantastical tea parties in Wonderland, legal proceedings are bound by rules, ethics, and the pursuit of justice. When perjury and harm enter this world, they disrupt the pursuit of truth and justice, However, unlike the peculiar happenings in Alice's Wonderland, patients privacy and their right to truth is paramount.

"In the end, it is a matter of integrity, of truthfulness. If we are not truthful, it is our own minds that will suffer the consequences. This is not to say that we should be blunt and tactless, but we should not deceive."

• Dalai Lama

In the realm of law and justice, truth is not just a lofty ideal; it is the foundation upon which the entire legal edifice rests. The principles of honesty, ethical conduct, and respect for the rule of law are sacrosanct within the legal profession. Yet, recent events have exposed a deeply troubling situation that involves perjury, unethical behavior among lawyers, and their profound impact on society.

Legal Facts and Principles:

1. The Oath of Truth: Lawyers, upon being admitted to the bar, take an oath that underscores their commitment to uphold the truth and seek justice. This solemn oath binds them to act with integrity and honesty.
2. The Role of Lawyers: Lawyers are often referred to as officers of the court, and their primary duty is to the administration of justice. Their role is not merely that of an advocate for their clients but also as stewards of the legal system itself.
3. Perjury as a Crime: Perjury, the willful act of lying under oath, is a crime that strikes at the very heart of the legal system. It undermines the pursuit of truth and justice and can lead to severe consequences, including imprisonment.
4. Legal Ethics: The legal profession is governed by a code of ethics that places a premium on honesty, fairness, and professional conduct. Lawyers are expected to adhere to these ethical principles in all aspects of their practice.

The Impact on Society:

"Perjury, like all crimes, brings about a ripple effect. Its repercussions extend beyond the courtroom, affecting society as a whole. When lawyers are accused of suborning perjury and engaging in unethical conduct, the consequences reverberate far and wide."

1. Erosion of Trust in the Legal System: The legal system depends on public trust. When lawyers are accused of perjury or unethical behavior, it erodes the faith of the public in the very institution meant to deliver justice.
2. Social Injustice: Perjury and unethical behavior can lead to wrongful convictions, imprisoning innocent individuals and allowing the guilty to go free. This miscarriage of justice has devastating consequences for society, perpetuating social injustice. In this case, Suzanne Hunt with malice and criminal intent allowed over 60,000 patients to believe they had been exposed to HIV and or Hep C, and then allowed these same patients to believe the dentist and the representatives were lying about their theory that the complainant was not a patient but rather someone connected to the dismissal of the case RK v Rk. Indeed its now proven that Suzanne Hunt lead false testimony and as a result, did injure patients.
3. Deterrence of Truth-Seeking: The fear of facing perjury or unethical practices in court can deter witnesses from coming forward and sharing critical information. This chills the truth-seeking process and hampers the pursuit of justice.
4. Crisis of Legal Ethics: Allegations of lawyers suborning perjury and engaging in unethical conduct strike at the heart of legal ethics. It prompts questions about the profession's commitment to its own ethical standards.

The Troubling Case:

"To shed light on these pressing issues, we turn our attention to a recent case that exemplifies the challenges posed by perjury and unethical behavior within the legal profession. This case involves allegations of coordinated efforts to manipulate public perception, intimidate a plaintiff, and subvert the pursuit of justice."

1. The Plaintiff's Allegations: In this case, the plaintiff alleges a concerted effort by multiple defendants, including public health officials and regulatory bodies, to discredit their expertise and contributions to the dental community. The defendants are accused of spreading false information, distorting facts, and engaging in a campaign of harassment.
2. Role of a Belleville Lawyer: A Belleville lawyer, Suzanne Hunt, stands accused of playing a central role in orchestrating and executing this campaign. As a lawyer, Ms. Hunt is alleged to have manipulated legal proceedings, circulated privileged documents, and suborned perjury to further the defendants' agenda.
3. Legal and Ethical Violations: Ms. Hunt's actions, if proven true, constitute serious legal and ethical violations. These allegations include the selective sharing of privileged information, presentation of misleading evidence, and fabrication of facts.
4. Harassment and Defamation: Beyond legal violations, Ms. Hunt is accused of actively participating in a persistent campaign of harassment and defamation against the plaintiff. Her actions allegedly include soliciting false complaints and manipulating personal relationships to cause harm.

Legal Accountability:

"In light of these grave allegations, it is crucial to consider the legal accountability of lawyers and the measures that can be taken to uphold the integrity of the legal profession."

1. Investigation and Disciplinary Action: When lawyers are accused of perjury or unethical conduct, it is imperative that regulatory bodies conduct thorough investigations. If found guilty, lawyers should face disciplinary actions, including potential disbarment.
2. Public Scrutiny: Cases like this one emphasize the need for greater transparency within the legal profession. Public scrutiny of disciplinary processes can help maintain public trust.
3. Education and Training: Continuous education and training on legal ethics are essential to ensure that lawyers understand and adhere to the highest ethical standards.
4. The Role of Legal Associations: Legal associations should actively promote ethical conduct and accountability within the profession.

Conclusion:

The primary role and duty of the Medical Health Officers and their legal counsel in Ontario is not to seek convictions but to uphold the principles of justice by presenting a balanced, meticulously and impartially investigated case. Their responsibility lies in safeguarding public health, ensuring due process, and promoting the fair application of the law, aiming to protect the well-being of the community they serve.

"The legal profession is, at its core, a noble one, dedicated to upholding the principles of truth, justice, and ethical conduct. When lawyers are accused of perjury and unethical behaviour, it sends shockwaves through the profession and society at large."

The case in question underscores the urgent need to address allegations of perjury and unethical conduct within the legal profession. It also serves as a reminder that lawyers bear a significant responsibility in ensuring that the pursuit of justice is never compromised. Upholding the principles of honesty, fairness, and the rule of law is not just a matter of professional duty but a fundamental obligation to society itself.

From the author Andy Curnew MBA ICD LLM: The author speaks for himself and not for any member of the RCDSO, and if you make a complaint against a member of the RCDSO because I authored this article, that is not advisable. As a Venture Capitalist, board advisor, and Management Consultant, I am deeply committed to catalyzing positive transformation within Entertainment, regulation, and Social Responsibility. My life began in government housing, where I faced the challenges of temporary blindness due to an OCD disorder and scrubbing my eyes with shampoo called Body On Tap- made with Budweiser beer. I lived amid poverty. However, I emerged from these hardships with a profound determination to overcome adversity and effect meaningful change through social justice advocacy.

My educational journey has been instrumental in equipping me for this mission. I hold a Master of Laws (LLM) degree in Business and concurrent certification in Entertainment law, from Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. This specialization in International Strategy and Global Sustainability (MBA), which I pursued at the prestigious Ivey Business School at Western University, has broadened my horizons and sharpened my focus on sustainability in a global context. Furthermore, I have complemented my academic pursuits with an MBA, which has provided me with a holistic perspective on the intricate intersections of business and society.

My dedication to expertise extends beyond academics. I have earned numerous certifications in Regulatory Compliance, Boards, and Tribunals, enhancing my ability to navigate and contribute to the complex regulatory landscape. As a legal author of op-eds for publication, I draw upon this extensive knowledge and experience to advocate for informed, equitable, and responsible decision-making in the public sphere. We can shape a more just and sustainable future for all through our collective effort and conscientious action.

The author encourages you to share this article and invites you to review the public cases before doing so to prove how outrageous this misconduct was—the consequences to patients that follow as a result.