Michelle,
Thank you for your response. I need to correct several material inaccuracies in your May 8, 2026 characterization of the February 20, 2024 exchange and the outstanding issues. I have also added specific sections below this opening statement directed to Cox & Palmer, RCMP, and CSIS regarding the continued concerns raised throughout this matter.
A copy of this letter, along with video recordings of the May 11, 2026 calls to the CPSNS voicemail regarding the issues raised throughout this correspondence, and related voicemail calls to Cox & Palmer concerning the same review and conflict of interest concerns, can be found below:
Copy of this letter:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-05-11_CPSNS_Michelle_Ouellette_PHIA_Privacy_Conflict_Concerns_RCMP_CSIS.html
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/yuemdsv3
Video of calls to CPSNS voicemail reviewing this letter: https://youtu.be/NWqosz3LZL8
May 10, 2026 — Call to Voicemail of Cox & Palmer Lawyer Colin Clarke Regarding Conflict of Interest: https://youtu.be/aFOFetsvZyg
May 10, 2026 — Call to Voicemail of Cox & Palmer Lawyer Jane Bates Regarding Conflict of Interest:
https://youtu.be/NDka76yN9IE
At no point in the February 20, 2024 exchange did I state that I did not want an appeal. What I stated was that I could not proceed while a documented privacy concern under Section 46 and a conflict of interest concern remained unresolved. Those are two different things. Ms. Husbands characterized my position as a non-request for appeal. That does not accurately reflect the record.
Full HTML version of Exchange with Suzanne Husbands February 17, 2024 to February 21, 2024:
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/mtbfssvz
You state that Ms. Husbands ended the exchange by asking me to confirm my wish to appeal by the end of day, February 20, 2024. That is not what her final statement was. In making that statement, CPSNS acknowledges that I was provided until the end of day to confirm. However, Ms. Husbands' final email was sent at 12:16 PM and stated: "I confirm you have not requested an appeal. These files are now closed." 12:16 PM is not end of day. Assuming a modest 4:00 PM end of business, I would still have had approximately three hours and forty-four minutes remaining to respond. The files were therefore closed unilaterally before the stated end-of-day deadline despite the timeline your response itself acknowledges had been provided.
The timestamps of the exchange were directly contained within the same correspondence provided to you. It is not reasonable to review Ms. Husbands' closing statement regarding timing without also seeing those timestamps. Your response specifically referenced the end of day timeline, confirming that timing was understood to be materially relevant to the characterization of events. Furthermore, I raised the end of day issue directly with Ms. Husbands at 12:25 PM — just nine minutes after her closure email — stating:
"You also said I needed to answer by the end of the day and then clearly retaliated and changed the conditions."
This means the end of day issue was raised in writing on the same day, to the same correspondent, within nine minutes of the closure email. It is not reasonable that Ms. Husbands was unaware of this concern. It is also not reasonable that Michelle Ouellette, having reviewed the same correspondence chain to prepare her May 8, 2026 response, was unaware of it. The omission of this material fact from the characterization provided to legal counsel and from the May 8, 2026 response is therefore documented as a material omission of directly relevant information.
Your response also states: "You reached out to the College regarding an appeal outside of the 30 days, on February 17th, 2024." The following emails were sent to Suzanne Husbands and Professional Standards on February 17, 2024:
12:04 AM — "I do not agree. I did not see this."
12:08 AM — "No no no nobody contacted me and now this is outside the 30 days. As I was still submitting evidence. Obviously I did not accept this, and my other submissions absolutely show I do not accept this. As I was still providing evidence."
1:46 AM — "I am telling you about Professional Standards right now. If you do not reopen this case. Or accept that my submission to Crystal Morgan was to extend this, especially noting the inclusion of Hana Marie Weimer. As the damages by Kristen Holm and Nancy Murphy extended to her as well. Without this you cannot provide a full picture. Because their negligence absolutely carried forward. Nancy Murphy's corrupt and fraudulent incomplete record was used by Hana Marie Weimer."
These emails document that I was actively disputing the outcome, requesting a review, and continuing to submit evidence at the time the appeal window was being characterized as having closed. They also document that I had serious and legitimate privacy and conflict of interest concerns that had not been addressed. The characterization in your May 8, 2026 response that I did not request an appeal is directly contradicted by these documented communications.
At no point in that correspondence did Ms. Husbands take any documented steps to address the privacy concerns, protect my personal health information, or reasonably assess the conflict of interest concerns raised. Instead, the process was terminated and the concerns were treated as non-issues.
It is also documented that Douglas Grant, Registrar and CEO of CPSNS, subsequently transmitted my personal and confidential information — including matters relating to Hana Marie Weimer arising from the March 13, 2023 events, which were directly linked to the August 2, 2022 events and the decisions of both Nancy Murphy and Kristen Holm — to Cox & Palmer on April 29, 2024, while denying me the ability to review what was submitted. This occurred with Douglas Grant's direct knowledge of the multiple serious privacy concerns already raised and unaddressed throughout the complaint process.
The following record documents CPSNS transmitting my personal and confidential information to Cox & Palmer on January 15, 2024 and again on April 29, 2024, after being clearly advised in writing and through voicemails of the conflict of interest and privacy concerns raised throughout this matter:
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/5n8ayasy
The practical effect of omitting the 12:16 PM timestamp, the February 17, 2024 exchange, and the April 29, 2024 transmission was to create a materially incomplete version of events. That incomplete characterization forced a complainant alleging sexual assault to incur considerable procedural burden, time, and potential financial harm simply to address basic factual and privacy clarification requests that CPSNS was already legally obligated to reasonably assess under PHIA and within its own complaint obligations.
The CPSNS Physician Complaint Submission Acknowledgement dated September 20, 2023 directly references both the reported sexual assault allegation and Stephen McNeil:
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/h2r9fd6k
RCMP recipients have been added to this correspondence in relation to the ongoing requests for investigation into the conduct described throughout the documented record, including RCMP File No. 2025-21595. CSIS has also been included through the ongoing Attachment5566 correspondence reference relating to the broader documented national security and institutional concerns repeatedly raised throughout this matter.
- Clarification of Statements Made by Michelle Ouellette (Public Support Advisor — CPSNS)
- Closing Statement Regarding CPSNS and Cox & Palmer
- Colin Clarke (Counsel to Whom CPSNS Forwarded Personal and Confidential Information), Jane Elise Bates (Privacy Officer, Cox & Palmer), and Cox & Palmer Generally.
- RCMP — Request for Criminal Investigation Into Misconduct by NSHA Staff and Alleged Obstruction and Fabrication of Legal Medical Records by CPSNS, with the documented conflict of interest and privacy concerns now reasonably extending to Cox & Palmer and i
- CSIS — Explicit Civilian Authorization for Access to Medical Records Held by NSHA under ongoing National Security investigation under case Attachment5566.
Privacy and Conflict Concerns
https://novascotia.ca/dhw/phia/
Regarding the privacy concern — CPSNS had an obligation to assess and address the issue once it was raised. My concern was not simply that Cox and Palmer are bound by confidentiality obligations. The concern was that CPSNS continued transmitting my personal and confidential medical information to a firm where Stephen McNeil — a named party connected to the underlying complaint — was employed in a significant role, despite the conflict concern being explicitly raised, which raised significant PHIA concerns that CPSNS was obligated to reasonably assess before continuing disclosure. By characterizing this solely as a conflict of interest question, CPSNS specifically avoided addressing the privacy and PHIA obligations of both NSHA and CPSNS — obligations that exist independently of any conflict of interest determination.
Even if the original transmission occurred without awareness of the issue, once CPSNS was directly advised of the concerns on February 20, 2024, there was an obligation to reasonably assess and address it before continuing further disclosure, even if only in relation to the privacy concerns themselves. Instead, Ms. Husbands advised that CPSNS would continue providing information to Cox and Palmer while simultaneously closing the review process before the end of day — a deadline she herself had explicitly set. Ms. Husbands also claimed I had violated Section 46 without providing any specific example or evidence of that violation. She did so because I referenced Facebook in my correspondence — and then relayed that characterization to Douglas Grant without conveying the specific privacy and conflict concerns I had raised. This contributed directly to Douglas Grant removing me from the complaint regarding Hana Marie Weimer on April 29, 2024. The documented record supports that CPSNS used my reasonable privacy questions against me rather than addressing them.
Ms. Husbands could have said: we need to send the appeal reply, but we will also raise your privacy and conflict of interest concern with Cox and Palmer along with it. That would have been a reasonable response which would also have addressed CPSNS's privacy responsibilities under PHIA. Instead, the concerns were treated as grounds to terminate the process entirely without addressing the substance of what had been raised, while suggesting the complainant was unreasonable for asking for basic privacy protections guaranteed under PHIA.
Your response states that Ms. Husbands advised me that Stephen McNeil did not have access to my complaint file. I did not state that Stephen McNeil personally had access to my file. My concern was that CPSNS transmitted personal and confidential medical information to a law firm where an individual connected to the underlying complaint was employed, without any demonstrated conflict of interest assessment, which also raised serious privacy and PHIA concerns.
Neither Ms. Husbands nor CPSNS could reasonably make definitive statements regarding the firm's internal access or knowledge structures. They could not reasonably know what Stephen McNeil did or did not have access to, or what actions Colin Clarke of Cox and Palmer did or did not take internally. This is precisely why conflict of interest assessment processes exist within legal and regulatory practice and why law firms are professionally obligated to assess potential conflicts when concerns are raised.
https://coxandpalmerlaw.com/administration/hon-stephen-mcneil/
Your response states there is no obligation on the part of the College to determine conflicts of interest involving legal counsel for the physician. However, it was not the physician who transmitted my personal and confidential information to Cox and Palmer — it was CPSNS and Douglas Grant. CPSNS acted as the intermediary between the physician, the complainant, and legal counsel throughout this process and therefore had a direct role in the transmission. In that role, responsibilities were necessarily shared. Notably, CPSNS controlled the communication process throughout the complaint review and did not permit direct contact between myself and Dr. Holm regarding these issues. At minimum, once the conflict, PHIA, and privacy concerns were explicitly raised, CPSNS could reasonably have alerted the physician so that the physician and Cox and Palmer could assess and address the issue before further disclosure occurred. There is no indication that any such reasonable step was taken.
If CPSNS truly had no responsibility whatsoever regarding these concerns, it raises an obvious question: why was CPSNS transmitting the complaint materials to Cox and Palmer on the physician's behalf in the first place, rather than the physician providing materials to their own counsel directly? Your position attempts to separate CPSNS from a process in which CPSNS was actively participating as the intermediary responsible for transmitting the information. That is inconsistent. The documented record supports that CPSNS initiated and continued the disclosure process after the privacy and conflict concerns were explicitly raised.
It is also worth noting that CPSNS has not addressed whether, if Cox & Palmer were to determine that a conflict of interest existed, CPSNS would itself have been involved in a privacy breach by transmitting the information in the first place. That question has been consistently avoided throughout this correspondence.
In my May 4, 2026 correspondence with you, Michelle, I made it explicitly clear that the matter involved not only Stephen McNeil but also Irving Shipbuilding, and I provided significant documented resources outlining the connections between Cox and Palmer, Irving Shipbuilding, and Stephen McNeil. I also advised you directly that Cox and Palmer, when contacted, explicitly stated they are a conflict of interest in relation to Irving Shipbuilding.
In your May 8, 2026 response you stated: "It is the duty of lawyers to determine if they have conflicts of interest." That statement is significant because I had already directly advised CPSNS that Cox & Palmer, when contacted, explicitly stated they are a conflict of interest in relation to Irving Shipbuilding. This was therefore not a speculative or generalized concern. CPSNS had already been directly informed that the law firm to which it was transmitting my personal and confidential medical information had itself acknowledged a conflict in relation to one of the core entities connected to the underlying complaint and conflict concerns repeatedly raised throughout the documented record.
The lawyers themselves explicitly used the term conflict of interest. Despite that, CPSNS continued transmitting personal and confidential information without any documented reassessment of the associated PHIA and privacy concerns. I also contacted CPSNS following the February 20, 2024 exchange with Suzanne Husbands and again made the conflict concerns and associated privacy concerns explicitly clear to Suzanne Husbands, Crystal Morgan, and Cindy Campbell in writing and through voicemails. Those communications, along with the related audio recordings, are documented and preserved.
To further this point, and to highlight the seriousness of the conflict concerns, I provided CPSNS and Cox & Palmer with the full audio recording of my August 5, 2022 meeting with Dr. Holm, which documents that Dr. Holm specifically used Stephen McNeil's name during our interaction, while the written medical record subsequently substituted Stephen Harper for Stephen McNeil and made other alterations including substituting Bell Media for Postmedia. This is not speculation — both the audio recording and the written record are documented and publicly available.
The full audio recording of August 5, 2022 along with a copy of Dr. Holm's notes can be found at:
https://youtu.be/dsiMHhaeOvY
A rough transcript of the meeting can be found at:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/August5th2022_NSHA_Kristen_Holm_Rough_Transcript_Of_Recorded_Meeting.html
It is also worth noting directly that your May 8, 2026 response referenced CMPA multiple times. The CMPA's own published guidance and Section 184 of the Criminal Code of Canada confirm that I had the legal right to record my physician without consent:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-184.html
The existence of the audio recording and its public availability was disclosed to CPSNS throughout the complaint process. The decision to reference CMPA in your May 8, 2026 response while simultaneously relying on Dr. Holm's written record — which is directly contradicted by that recording — is noted for the record.
This substitution materially altered the contextual relationships reflected in the original conversation involving Stephen McNeil, Robin McNeil — a long-time HRP member and Acting Chief during the relevant period — and Jim Perrin, former Commander of the Criminal Investigation Unit at HRP, in relation to the conflict of interest concerns that led to my false arrest on August 2, 2022. On that date HRP officers stated themselves they were a conflict of interest in their own report, told me they were getting me paperwork to file a complaint, and instead returned and arrested me.
By substituting Stephen Harper for Stephen McNeil, the written medical record no longer reflected the locality and contextual relationships involving Stephen McNeil, Robin McNeil, and Halifax Regional Police that were discussed during the interaction documented in the audio recording. This also had the serious downstream consequence of obscuring the later conflict of interest concerns involving Cox and Palmer — the very firm to which CPSNS subsequently transmitted my confidential medical records.
The reason Stephen McNeil was relevant in the first instance is because during the significant investigation at Irving Shipbuilding in 2020, I sent a broad disclosure email on August 5, 2020 to vice presidents, directors, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, Jim Perrin, members of the Irving family, and DND requesting resignations. The following day, Stephen McNeil publicly announced his resignation as Premier. This forms part of the broader conflict of interest concerns involving Stephen McNeil, Irving Shipbuilding, and Cox and Palmer that were repeatedly raised with CPSNS and documented throughout the record.
These are not minor or hypothetical concerns. The documented record reflects repeated and specific conflict of interest concerns involving Stephen McNeil, Irving Shipbuilding, HRP, CPSNS, and Cox & Palmer which were repeatedly raised throughout the complaint process.
Infographic showing Cox & Palmer public links to shipbuilding and Stephen McNeil's significant role:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Add_2024_03/2024-01-15%20-%20CPSNS%20(College)%20violated%20section%2046%20of%20medical%20act%20sending%20my%20information%20to%20Cox%20and%20Palmer.jpg
%20violated%20section%2046%20of%20medical%20act%20sending%20my%20information%20to%20Cox%20and%20Palmer.jpg){kind=link}
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/5bjn2uwj
Your May 8, 2026 response states: "We have consulted with our legal counsel" and then: "It is the duty of lawyers to determine if they have conflicts of interest." This means your legal counsel is either aware of the full reported context — or you specifically withheld and selectively presented information before obtaining that advice, including failing to provide them with the 12:16 PM timestamp confirming the files were closed well before end of day. Either way, your own statement is an acknowledgment by CPSNS that conflict assessment was the responsibility of Cox and Palmer.
For Cox and Palmer to reasonably assess the concern, they would have had to internally evaluate whether any relationships or associations relevant to the complaint created a conflict issue requiring disclosure or reassignment. If CPSNS had acted reasonably, Cox and Palmer could have reassessed or declined the retainer in light of the documented conflict concerns involving Irving Shipbuilding and avoided the Section 46 and privacy concerns entirely. CPSNS chose not to accept or investigate the documented concerns that had been raised.
On April 1, 2026, I sent physical mail stamped by Canada Post and emailed both Colin Clarke — to whom CPSNS transmitted my personal and confidential information — and Jane Elise Bates, the registered Privacy Officer for Cox and Palmer, directly raising these concerns and requesting confirmation of the conflict of interest and the Section 46 violations:
Physical Letters stamped by Canada Post (Same content as Email):
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_05/2026-04-01_Privacy_Letters_Sent_To_CoxAndPalmer_And_Valent_Legal.jpg
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/5s5f4r55
Email text sent to Colin Clarke and Jane Elise Bates:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_04/2026-04-01_Formal_Letter_Cox_and_Palmer_Privacy_Breach_Colin_Clarke_Jane_Bates.docx
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/bdd8auy7
Delivery confirmation for Jane Elise Bates (Designated Privacy Officer):
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_05/2026-04-01_Delivery_Confirmation_CoxAndPalmer_Privacy_Officer_Jane_Bates.jpg
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/mr4cyjdn
Under PIPEDA, privacy requests must be addressed within 30 days. As of May 9, 2026, there has been no response from either party. Given that this involves personal and confidential medical information, Cox and Palmer may also have an obligation to report the possible breach to CPSNS, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nova Scotia, and the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. CPSNS's own legal counsel has stated that conflict assessment is the responsibility of Cox and Palmer — yet Cox and Palmer have not responded.
CPSNS is now directing me to contact Cox and Palmer to resolve the conflict of interest question — while I have advised CPSNS multiple times that Cox and Palmer have explicitly stated they are a conflict of interest in relation to Irving Shipbuilding, and that Cox and Palmer have not responded to a formal privacy and conflict of interest inquiry within the legally required 30-day timeframe. The documented record does not support any suggestion that these concerns were fabricated or not genuinely raised.
The CPSNS Physician Complaint Submission Acknowledgement dated September 20, 2023 directly references both the reported sexual assault allegation and Stephen McNeil, confirming that CPSNS was on formal notice of both from the outset of the complaint process:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2023-09-20_CPSNS_Physician_Complaint_Submission_Acknowledgement_Kristen_Holm.html — Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/h2r9fd6k
It is not reasonable to require a victim to retain legal counsel in order to have basic privacy and conflict of interest questions answered — particularly when so much of the supporting information is publicly available, documented, and has been provided directly to CPSNS on multiple occasions. Once reasonable grounds to believe a privacy breach or conflict concern may exist had been explicitly raised, CPSNS had obligations under PHIA to reasonably assess and safeguard the handling of personal health information in relation to those concerns. The burden CPSNS has placed on this complainant to navigate a process that CPSNS itself has compromised is unreasonable and inconsistent with CPSNS's obligations to complainants.
Applicable PHIA Provisions
The following provisions of the Personal Health Information Act (Nova Scotia) are directly relevant to the concerns raised throughout this matter and remain unaddressed by CPSNS.
https://novascotia.ca/dhw/phia/
Section 35 — Disclosure Without Consent
PHIA restricts disclosure of personal health information without consent except in specified circumstances. CPSNS has never identified the lawful basis upon which my personal health information continued to be disclosed to Cox & Palmer after the conflict and privacy concerns were explicitly raised.
Section 60 — Duties of Custodians
PHIA requires custodians to take reasonable steps to safeguard personal health information and limit disclosure to the minimum amount reasonably necessary. Once the conflict and privacy concerns were raised on February 20, 2024, CPSNS had an obligation to assess whether continued disclosure remained appropriate. No such assessment has been identified or documented.
Section 69 — Notification of Privacy Breach
PHIA requires notification where there are reasonable grounds to believe personal health information may have been accessed, used, or disclosed contrary to the Act. Despite repeated notice of the conflict and privacy concerns, CPSNS did not advise whether any privacy breach assessment was conducted, nor whether any steps were taken to limit or reassess further disclosure.
Section 71 — Complaint and Review Process
PHIA provides a formal complaint and review process through the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nova Scotia regarding the handling of personal health information. If these concerns are not addressed directly and in writing within the requested 14-day period, a formal Section 71 complaint will be filed.
Duty to Report, Vulnerable Patient Obligations and Sexual Assault
You specifically did not respond to Question 2 raised in my May 4, 2026 submission:
"Identification of the applicable professional obligations of a licensed physician upon receiving a patient disclosure of sexual assault by another physician within the same facility, including reference to the relevant standards, policies, or guidelines, and whether CPSNS's position is that Dr. Holm met those obligations."
This question remains unanswered and requires a direct response.
CPSNS’s own published standards establish reporting obligations where a physician forms reasonable grounds to believe sexual misconduct may have occurred. In this case the circumstances are materially more serious. I was arrested under the Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Act and placed in the care of Dr. Holm. In that capacity she assumed a heightened duty of care. Under CPSNS’s own published standards regarding sexual misconduct, current patients and vulnerable patients are recognized as requiring heightened professional protection and safeguarding obligations from physicians and institutions responsible for their care.
Dr. Holm did not document the disclosed sexual assault allegation, did not refer the matter for investigation, and did not take documented steps to ensure safeguarding or reporting obligations were fulfilled. As confirmed in CPSNS's own Physician Complaint Submission Acknowledgement against Dr. Holm, dated September 20, 2023 (Submitted July 31, 2023):
"...She was told I woke up to a 'Dr' standing over me who immediately touches my stomach, very close to my genitals. I was shocked! (Reasonably a sexual assault)"
I also provided CPSNS and you, Michelle Ouellette, with the broad email sent on the evening of August 3, 2022 to hundreds of recipients documenting that I had woken to a man standing over me — establishing the contemporaneous record before any formal complaint process had begun, while also stating I was afraid of further retaliation by Kristen Holm and the physician.
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/4jtphttu
CPSNS's own published professional standard on the duty to report states:
https://cpsns.ns.ca/registrants/physicians/standards-guidelines/duty-to-report-health-professionals/
"Physicians must immediately notify the College or the appropriate regulatory body upon forming reasonable grounds to believe that another physician or health professional is or may be putting patients or the profession at risk due to incompetence, professional misconduct, including sexual misconduct, incapacity, conduct unbecoming or practicing in a manner otherwise dangerous to the public. This duty to notify arises regardless of whether the physician or health professional in question is a patient or a colleague."
The standard uses the word immediately. Dr. Holm did not act immediately — she dismissed the disclosure on the spot, failed to document it, failed to refer it, and continued to interact with the individual identified as the physician involved. The documented conduct appears inconsistent with the standard as written by CPSNS itself.
Importantly, the CPSNS standard does not state that the duty arises only after proof of misconduct has been established. The published standard states the obligation arises upon forming reasonable grounds to believe sexual misconduct may have occurred. The disclosure itself therefore triggered reporting and safeguarding obligations.
https://cpsns.ns.ca/registrants/physicians/standards-guidelines/sexual-m isconduct-by-physicians/
CPSNS's own guidelines further state:
"A physician who breaches this duty may be subject to disciplinary measures by the College."
CPSNS has its own published disciplinary mechanism for exactly this situation and has chosen not to apply it.
CPSNS's own standard also states:
"Similarly, physicians with good reason to believe a regulated health professional (other than a physician) is impaired, incompetent or unethical, there is a professional obligation to report these concerns to the appropriate regulatory authority."
This obligation extended beyond Dr. Holm to any regulated health professional at NSHA who was aware of the disclosure and its dismissal.
CPSNS's own website further lists as situations requiring reporting:
"Sexual misconduct with current patient or vulnerable patient"
and
"Falsifying patient records."
CPSNS’s own published standards further state that sexual misconduct involving a current patient constitutes professional misconduct and that physicians must cooperate with regulatory processes relating to such allegations. The standards further state that where findings of sexual abuse are made, CPSNS will seek revocation of the physician’s licence.
https://cpsns.ns.ca/registrants/physicians/standards-guidelines/duty-to-report-health-professionals/
This obligation extended to Dr. Holm upon receiving the disclosure on August 3, 2022. These concerns were subsequently brought to the attention of Crystal Morgan, Douglas Grant, Hana Marie Weimer, Michelle Ouellette, and CPSNS legal counsel through complaint materials and correspondence.
Hana Marie Weimer was also advised of the disclosure on March 13, 2023. According to the documented record, her response was:
"Obviously you are making this all up."
The documented record does not indicate that the matter was referred for external investigation or safeguarding review following repeated notice of the allegation.
Neither Dr. Holm, NSHA, Douglas Grant, Crystal Morgan, Hana Marie Weimer, CPSNS legal counsel, nor you, Michelle Ouellette, have identified any documented safeguarding, reporting, or external investigative steps taken following repeated notice of the allegation. The handling of this matter has had the practical effect of discouraging continued reporting by a complainant alleging sexual assault.
In addition to this, CPSNS has also not referred the matter to RCMP despite knowing it was reported as having been committed by a physician and was clearly reported as such in the July 31, 2023 complaint against Kristen Holm, leaving the issue unresolved for nearly four years where there may be other affected patients. The record supports that CPSNS has been made aware of these concerns at multiple points and has not acted. That is documented.
If other complainants or affected patients come forward from the point each party was made aware, failure to act after repeated notice may expose involved parties to significant regulatory and civil scrutiny.
Pattern of Privacy Breaches, Misrepresentation, and Obstruction Within the CPSNS Complaint Process
1. August 2, 2022 — Bookbag, Wallet, and Privacy Exposure
On August 2, 2022, my bookbag was given to a homeless individual who self-admittedly stated he was high on drugs and appeared severely impaired. He later woke up holding my belongings and warned me that police had gone through them. Douglas Grant would later state there was no evidence to suggest Dr. Murphy had anything to do with the transportation of my belongings to Mount Hope or that this was done prior to my transfer.
However, the very first page of the Mount Hope record states: "the clients belongings including wallet was brought to the unit with the previous client mistakenly. Scotts brown leather wallet and contents as per valuables disclaimer are in the locked cabinet." The record then specifically lists the contents of my wallet, including identity documents, banking information, and my health card.
Infographic showing Douglas Grant's statement compared to Mount Hope records, also showing Nancy Murphy acknowledged her record was incomplete:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Add_2024_03/2022-08-03%20Combined%20information%20about%20Privacy%20Breach%20(Book%20bag%20wallet%20Health%20Card%20PHI).png — Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/bdh67fuc
.png){kind=link}
Karen Hornberger, Director of Privacy, confirmed this type of incident is required to be reported within the SIMS privacy reporting system. Despite the existence of this documentation directly within the Mount Hope record itself, Douglas Grant stated there was absolutely no evidence supporting the concern. That statement is directly contradicted by the Mount Hope record itself.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/2023-05-25_Karen%20Hornberger%20Lying%20about%20PHI%20Infographic.png — Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/3a6hvfcv
2. July–August 2023 — Complaint Against Nancy Murphy and Subsequent NSHA Trespass Process
On July 31, 2023, I filed a complaint against Nancy Murphy with CPSNS — which CPSNS internally misdated as August 1, 2023. CPSNS formally acknowledged the complaint on August 15, 2023 and provided related medical records on August 24, 2023. On August 31, 2023 — after the complaint was filed and before CPSNS had responded — I was served by a bailiff with a trespass notice from NSHA. The notice was dated August 22, 2023 and falsely claimed I had attended NSHA properties and been read the notice in person. That never occurred. I reside over 141 kilometres from the listed facilities. There is no record — past or present — of me ever causing any issues at any NSHA facility. In fact the documented record, including audio recordings, consistently reflects that NSHA staff described me as calm and respectful throughout all interactions.
All three copies of the trespass form — yellow, pink, and white — appear to have been completed in the same handwriting, including the witness signature section, raising serious concerns regarding the integrity of the document and the process used to serve it.
Infographic showing all three copies and the false claims that I was at the properties and that these were read to me in person:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2024_04/2023-08-31%20Blocked%20from%20Victoria%20General%20Served%20by%20Bailiff.jpg — Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/kvf7pvj6
This occurred while CPSNS was actively reviewing a serious complaint involving Nancy Murphy, where Douglas Grant himself later acknowledged: "Dr. Murphy acknowledges that her documentation of the encounter was incomplete" — while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of accuracy and completeness within legal medical records. The surrounding chronology reasonably raises concerns regarding retaliatory conduct following the filing of a formal complaint through the CPSNS process.
3. CPSNS Disclosure of Personal Health Information to Cox & Palmer
CPSNS subsequently transmitted my personal and confidential medical information to Cox & Palmer, a law firm employing Stephen McNeil in a significant role, despite Stephen McNeil being directly connected to the underlying complaint and conflict concerns repeatedly raised throughout the documented record. Cox & Palmer themselves explicitly stated they are a conflict of interest in relation to Irving Shipbuilding.
After being explicitly advised of the conflict of interest concerns, the Section 46 concerns, and the related PHIA issues, CPSNS continued the disclosure process and further advised that additional complaint submissions would also be transmitted through the same process. This was despite Suzanne Husbands having acknowledged the privacy concerns in writing. Multiple calls were also made and voicemails left with Suzanne Husbands, Crystal Morgan, and Cindy Campbell directly advising of the seriousness of the concerns — including that Dr. Holm had substituted Stephen McNeil's name in her written record with Stephen Harper.
Rather than addressing the Section 46 and PHIA concerns, throughout this period Suzanne Husbands and Michelle Ouellette repeatedly characterized my position as a refusal to appeal or refusal to engage with the process, despite the documented record showing that I was specifically requesting the privacy and conflict concerns be reasonably assessed and addressed before proceeding.
These events, viewed collectively, support concerns regarding a broader pattern of unresolved privacy issues, procedural misrepresentation, failures to address safeguarding obligations, and institutional conduct that repeatedly discouraged continued reporting while minimizing or obscuring the underlying documented concerns.
Infographic showing Cox & Palmer public links to shipbuilding and Stephen McNeil's significant role:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Add_2024_03/2024-01-15%20-%20CPSNS%20(College)%20violated%20section%2046%20of%20medical%20act%20sending%20my%20information%20to%20Cox%20and%20Palmer.jpg — Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/5bjn2uwj
Closing statement regarding CPSNS and Cox and Palmer:
CPSNS and Cox and Palmer now face a very serious situation. If Stephen McNeil or Tim Houston come forward and confirm the underlying conflict concerns raised throughout this record, it would significantly strengthen the credibility of the documented complaints and raise substantial questions regarding how CPSNS, HRP, NSHA, and Cox and Palmer handled the matter after repeated notice was provided.
Many of these issues could likely have been avoided had CPSNS followed its own published standards, properly addressed the documented privacy and conflict concerns when they were raised, and conducted a reasonable investigation into the underlying allegations rather than repeatedly minimizing or mischaracterizing them throughout the process.
At this stage, it is very reasonable that Cox and Palmer may ultimately determine that continued involvement is not appropriate given the documented conflict concerns involving Stephen McNeil and Irving Shipbuilding. If that occurs, it would materially reinforce the concerns repeatedly raised throughout this process regarding conflicts of interest, privacy handling, and the manner in which CPSNS responded after those concerns were formally identified. It would also substantially strengthen the documented concerns that CPSNS failed to appropriately address the seriousness of the reported conflicts and repeatedly attempted to selectively frame portions of the record while minimizing or excluding other directly relevant information provided by the complainant.
I have repeatedly attempted to work with CPSNS to avoid escalation of these issues and to limit broader disclosure. I provided detailed and well-cited documentation, contemporaneous records, supporting chronology, and audio recordings directly relevant to the complaint process well before the January 15, 2024 CPSNS decision. Rather than directly engaging with the documented concerns and evidence provided, portions of the CPSNS process instead focused on characterizing or dismissing the complainant while significant documented discrepancies remained unresolved — particularly in relation to statements and conclusions made by Douglas Grant which conflict with the underlying records themselves.
These issues are clearly matters of public interest. They involve allegations concerning vulnerable patient treatment, privacy safeguards, professional reporting obligations, conflict of interest concerns, and the integrity of institutional complaint processes. They also intersect with matters involving former Premier Stephen McNeil, current Premier Tim Houston, Irving Shipbuilding, NSHA, HRP, RCMP, and CPSNS itself.
The documented record supports that I repeatedly attempted to raise these concerns through formal internal processes before moving toward broader public disclosure. The continued failure to properly address the documented concerns, combined with what reasonably appears to be repeated retaliatory conduct across multiple institutions including CPSNS, has left me with limited alternatives other than continued documentation and public reporting of the matter.
Colin Clarke (Counsel to Whom CPSNS Forwarded Personal and Confidential Information), Jane Elise Bates (Privacy Officer, Cox & Palmer), and Cox & Palmer Generally.
I am formally requesting that Cox & Palmer remove my personal and confidential medical information from their systems and directly advise both myself and CPSNS regarding the conflict of interest concerns involving Stephen McNeil and Irving Shipbuilding.
On April 1, 2026, formal correspondence was sent by both email and physical mail to Colin Clarke and Jane Elise Bates explicitly advising that serious conflict of interest and privacy concerns had arisen in relation to CPSNS's transmission of my personal and confidential medical information to Cox & Palmer. That correspondence documented that Cox & Palmer themselves had explicitly stated they are a conflict of interest in relation to Irving Shipbuilding, and included significant publicly available documentation supporting those concerns — including the connections involving Stephen McNeil and his involvement in the broader matters raised throughout the complaint process.
Under PIPEDA and applicable privacy law, a response was required within 30 days. As of May 9, 2026, no response has been received from either party.
Physical letters stamped by Canada Post (same content as email):
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_05/2026-04-01_Privacy_Letters_Sent_To_CoxAndPalmer_And_Valent_Legal.jpg
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/5s5f4r55
Email text sent to Colin Clarke and Jane Elise Bates:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_04/2026-04-01_Formal_Letter_Cox_and_Palmer_Privacy_Breach_Colin_Clarke_Jane_Bates.docx
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/bdd8auy7
Delivery confirmation for Jane Elise Bates (Designated Privacy Officer):
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_05/2026-04-01_Delivery_Confirmation_CoxAndPalmer_Privacy_Officer_Jane_Bates.jpg
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/mr4cyjdn
Included in the concerns is the documented fact that Dr. Kristen Holm on August 5, 2022 specifically replaced Stephen McNeil with Stephen Harper in her written medical record while simultaneously characterizing my references to Stephen McNeil as evidence of delusion. The audio recording confirms that Stephen Harper was never mentioned during that interaction. The practical consequence of that replacement was that investigators or a legal firm such as Cox & Palmer may not be able to identify the underlying conflict concerns involving Stephen McNeil, Robin McNeil, and HRP from the written record alone — which is precisely the issue now being raised in relation to Stephen McNeil's role at Cox & Palmer. As is directly visible in CPSNS's own complaint acknowledgement, both a sexual assault allegation involving a physician and Stephen McNeil are referenced in the formal record from September 20, 2023.
The CPSNS Physician Complaint Submission Acknowledgement dated September 20, 2023 directly references both the reported sexual assault allegation and Stephen McNeil:
Short URL:
https://tinyurl.com/h2r9fd6k
CPSNS's May 8, 2026 response states:
"We have consulted with our legal counsel"
and
"We advise there is no obligation on the part of the College to determine conflicts of interest on the part of legal counsel for the physician. It is the duty of lawyers to determine if they have conflicts of interest."
CPSNS engaged Cox & Palmer, involved the firm in the complaint process, transmitted personal and confidential medical information to Cox & Palmer, and then declined to advise the firm of the privacy and conflict concerns — while simultaneously asserting that it was Cox & Palmer's own professional obligation to identify and disclose conflicts. That position is internally inconsistent.
By focusing solely on the conflict of interest question as the lawyer's obligation, CPSNS specifically avoided addressing the separate and independent fact that the existence of a conflict of interest in relation to the transmission raises serious questions regarding whether CPSNS itself caused a privacy breach under PHIA. That question has been left entirely unaddressed in CPSNS's response. At minimum, once those concerns were explicitly raised, CPSNS could have notified Cox & Palmer of the concerns before continuing further disclosure. CPSNS chose not to do so and placed the entire burden on the complainant — a sexual assault victim — to resolve concerns that CPSNS itself created.
Cox & Palmer, as a law firm, will understand that conflict assessment processes exist specifically to prevent situations where personal and confidential information may be improperly exposed within a conflicted context. The documented concern repeatedly raised throughout this matter has been that once matters involving Stephen McNeil or related conflict concerns become substantively engaged within the complaint process, the privacy concerns raised throughout this record become materially engaged. This is precisely why these concerns were raised with CPSNS before continued disclosure occurred — and why they are being raised directly with Cox & Palmer now.
It is also important to note that CPSNS's May 8, 2026 response stated that if I proceeded with the sexual assault complaint, Cox & Palmer would likely continue to act as legal counsel through CMPA. The practical effect of that position is that a complainant alleging sexual assault is being advised that continued disclosure of personal and confidential medical information to a firm already identified as a conflict concern may continue if the complaint proceeds. That is not an appropriate position for a regulatory body to take when unresolved PHIA, privacy, and conflict of interest concerns have already been repeatedly and formally raised.
I am therefore asking Cox & Palmer to issue a clear statement regarding the PHIA, privacy, and conflict of interest concerns raised throughout this record so that my sexual assault complaint does not become subject to the same conflicted process. That is a reasonable and proportionate request given the concerns that have been repeatedly raised and documented.
It is also noted for the record that CPSNS's own response confirms they were aware of the concerns and chose not to raise them with Cox & Palmer directly. The documented record supports that the primary failure to address the concerns originated with CPSNS, not Cox & Palmer. Cox & Palmer nevertheless retains the ability to independently address the conflict of interest concerns, decline the file on that basis, and direct the matter back to CPSNS. That path remains available and would be consistent with Cox & Palmer's professional obligations under the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society rules.
Thank you.
RCMP — Request for Criminal Investigation Into Misconduct by NSHA Staff and Alleged Obstruction and Fabrication of Legal Medical Records by CPSNS, with the documented conflict of interest and privacy concerns now reasonably extending to Cox & Palmer and its associations with Stephen McNeil.
RCMP, the documented record raises serious concerns regarding the conduct of NSHA staff, CPSNS staff, and potentially Cox & Palmer in relation to the matters described throughout this correspondence. I am formally requesting that RCMP review the following documented concerns in connection with active file 2025-21595.
CPSNS's own published professional standards state explicitly that physicians are required to immediately report sexual assault disclosures to the College or the appropriate regulatory authority. Those standards are published at:
https://cpsns.ns.ca/registrants/physicians/standards-guidelines/sexual-misconduct-by-physicians/
https://cpsns.ns.ca/registrants/physicians/standards-guidelines/duty-to-report-health-professionals/
As confirmed in CPSNS's own Physician Complaint Submission Acknowledgement against Dr. Holm, dated September 20, 2023, CPSNS was directly advised that the disclosed sexual assault involved a physician:
"...She was told I woke up to a 'Dr' standing over me who immediately touches my stomach, very close to my genitals. I was shocked! (Reasonably a sexual assault)"
Full Complaint Awknoledgement from CPSNS September 20, 2023 Regarding Kristen Holm
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/h2r9fd6k
This means Crystal Morgan, Douglas Grant, and the reviewing physician at CPSNS were all made explicitly aware that the disclosure involved a physician and were each independently obligated under CPSNS's own published standards to report it. I also directly contacted Suzanne Husbands, Cindy Campbell and Michelle Ouellette of CPSNS and advised them of the abuse and the conflict of interest concerns. They were also required to report. In the present correspondence chain Michelle Ouellette has confirmed: "We have consulted with our legal counsel." Legal counsel was therefore also made aware and has not reported the sexual assault or addressed it substantively.
This is not an isolated failure. The documented record reflects a consistent pattern of suppression of serious sexual assault allegations across multiple CPSNS staff members over an extended period.
When considered alongside the broader documented record — Dr. Holm's substitution of Stephen McNeil for Stephen Harper in the written medical record, Holms abuse of my disabled and sick mother, changign what my Family doctor said, Douglas Grant's multiple documented misrepresentations including regarding my bookbag, Nancy Murphy's acknowledgment that her own records were incomplete, and Douglas Grant's explicit acknowledgment in his January 15, 2024 dismissal that RCMP had been contacted regarding the sexual assault while simultaneously failing to address it substantively — this pattern raises serious concerns regarding fabrication of records and potential obstruction of the official record that RCMP would rely upon.
Douglas Grant acknowledged in writing that RCMP had been contacted regarding the sexual assault and still chose to misrepresent the matter in the official record while nto follwojg CPSNS own mandated processes. That is a documented act that RCMP can assess as a potential direct attempt to obstruct the official record that RCMP investigators would reference and provides a significant pressure point and clear justification for clarification under public safety initiatives.
Given this behavior, i am sincerely concerned there may be other victims.
It is also clear from this correspondence that CPSNS selectively presented information to its legal counsel — omitting the 12:16 PM timestamp from the February 20, 2024 exchange, discussing conflict of interest obligations without addressing PHIA obligations, and asserting they had no obligation to confirm the conflict when they were themselves the party transmitting the information to the conflicted firm. Those are legal instruments and statutory obligations that CPSNS is documented as not adhering to. Depending on how CPSNS responds to RCMP questions, this may raise concerns regarding obstruction or conspiracy under the Criminal Code of Canada.
If Stephen McNeil confirms he was aware of the core matter, the documented record would support that NSHA tortured, abused, humiliated, and degraded a complainant, covered up a sexual assault, falsified records consistently, and stripped away fundamental rights — conduct that may engage hate crime provisions under the Charter and Criminal Code of Canada.
I am formally requesting that RCMP launch a formal investigation into CPSNS and its employees on the basis of the documented record described throughout this correspondence. At minimum, if CPSNS staff continue to misrepresent the matter or obstruct the record, I am requesting that obstruction charges be considered to ensure this pattern of conduct does not continue.
This request is made in connection with RCMP File No. 2025-21595 and CSIS reference Attachment5566.
CSIS — Explicit Civilian Authorization for Access to Medical Records Held by NSHA under ongoing National Security investigation under case Attachment5566.
CSIS, i now have a complete strategy for NSHA, CPSNS, Cox & Palmer. They have now generated more than enough data for AI, CSIS and Myself to detect insitutional retaliation of fraud.
Under national security laws and protections and educational purposes i am granting CSIS direct access to my medical records. Its important for you to watch how CPSNS continues to try to manipulate the record in real time as the learning opportunity here is invaluable. As with my August 2022 authorizations to access information, you will see a separate email with signatures and ID’s directed to you under Attachment5566 and CPSNS authorizing access.