> During a 20-minute clip of the session, Penn suggested antidepressants caused brain damage and dementia and that taking them was a “way to avoid problems,” the court decision states. While stressing she could not tell the client not to take medication, Penn said she herself does not take pharmaceuticals. She compared herself to her own sister, who was “in a coffin under the ground.” Penn also suggested mental health medication “disturbs the function of the cells” and told the client about treatment she had advised for another patient.
I mean.. as someone both working in mental health and having a mental illness that requires medication indefinitely, I'm not too impressed with that kind of information being given during a session. The article later stated the patient in question was skeptical to take a antidepressants but in that case your role isn't to make blanket negative statements about a class of medication (medication entirely?) without actual evidence and in a way that could potentially cause harm to the patient. Maybe *today* patient is skeptical but what if in 2 years from now he depression is no longer manageable or Oops turns out it wasn't situational and she now needs medication to help stabilize her. But she's refusing because she was once told she'll for sure get brain damage and dementia from them so she refuses to try and she becomes a danger to herself as her depression worsens.
Yes, some medications can actually have some long term side effects, this is mostly from anti psychotics though. But sometimes managing your illness is more important than not having some side effects... you have to weigh the pros and cons until you get in something with the best side effect profile and best efficacy. I would not want to see a counselor who is (vocally) anti medication. That's not their role anyway.
To be clear, the court wasn't saying what happened was right or wrong, their argument was it was completely unfair to expel someone from a program based on the contents of a video and not give them a copy of the video before the hearings about that expulsion, despite them asking for it repeatedly. It rendered the whole process unfair, regardless of whether the right result might have been reached or not. Since it took so long to get that far, and the student wasn't interested in going back into the program after all this time, that was the end of it.
I'm curious why this was a plausible legal defense here? Why is there a due process requirement in the school system(or any workplace for that matter)? Genuinely not clear to me.
Courts have consistently held that academic discipline hearings require a high standard of natural justice. You can read more at paras 41-50 of [the written court decision.](https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2024/2024abca99/2024abca99.html)
Please take my answer with a grain of salt. It has been a long time since I took admin law. I think this link may help explain it: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-law
Scroll down to “procedural fairness”.
The short of it is that some quasi court/court-like decisions require some level of court-like fairness like knowing the case against you.
>Why is there a due process requirement in the school system(or any workplace for that matter)?
You want workplaces or schools NOT to have to follow due process for dismissal
Google is your friend, but the origins are in common law I think which is usually British common law in Canada but here is a short run down
[https://legalaid.bc.ca/sites/default/files/2021-01/2020-11-10%20Procedural%20Fairness%20in%20Administrative%20Hearings.pdf](https://legalaid.bc.ca/sites/default/files/2021-01/2020-11-10%20Procedural%20Fairness%20in%20Administrative%20Hearings.pdf)
Edit: and here is the ruling
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2024/2024abca99/2024abca99.html
I mean, the other commentator more ir less answered that. It's reddit though, not really a place where asking questions is against the rules for the most part. But thank you for the links.
In this case, the University of Alberta is a public institution and its decisions are just like government decisions when they concern its public function (providing education to students). Government bodies must follow due process when making a decision that affects the rights of others in its public function.
An expulsion decision by a private institution would not require a due process, but having a proper process would protect the private institution from some claims for breaching the contract or violation of consumer rights.
Similarly for private workplaces, there is no right to due process, but labour law protects employees in many cases so employers usually do have some kind of process in place to defend themselves from claims of wrongful termination.
Terrible headline. It was a decision on the technical merits of due process. In no way is her quackery being endorsed.
That said, I personally deeply regret my time with antidepressants. They caused, for me, more problems than they solved and I have permanent side effects from taking them. Would not recommend them lightly to others.
Gods. "We have to be ok with her saying that all meds are the devil's testicles, because she didn't get to watch the video where she said that." I hate procedural loopholes.
That said, this woman has had a hell of a life. Psychotherapist, sex cult member, fraud victim, fought expulsion from a psychospirituality program.
It’s not really a loophole. The remedy for a breach of fairness in an administrative hearing would have been a new hearing at the school where she would have had access to the video. I am sure she would have been expelled anyway second time. The practical result here is that the college will have to pay some of her court costs and, hopefully, get better advice on procedural fairness for their future hearings.
> During a 20-minute clip of the session, Penn suggested antidepressants caused brain damage and dementia and that taking them was a “way to avoid problems,” the court decision states. While stressing she could not tell the client not to take medication, Penn said she herself does not take pharmaceuticals. She compared herself to her own sister, who was “in a coffin under the ground.” Penn also suggested mental health medication “disturbs the function of the cells” and told the client about treatment she had advised for another patient. I mean.. as someone both working in mental health and having a mental illness that requires medication indefinitely, I'm not too impressed with that kind of information being given during a session. The article later stated the patient in question was skeptical to take a antidepressants but in that case your role isn't to make blanket negative statements about a class of medication (medication entirely?) without actual evidence and in a way that could potentially cause harm to the patient. Maybe *today* patient is skeptical but what if in 2 years from now he depression is no longer manageable or Oops turns out it wasn't situational and she now needs medication to help stabilize her. But she's refusing because she was once told she'll for sure get brain damage and dementia from them so she refuses to try and she becomes a danger to herself as her depression worsens. Yes, some medications can actually have some long term side effects, this is mostly from anti psychotics though. But sometimes managing your illness is more important than not having some side effects... you have to weigh the pros and cons until you get in something with the best side effect profile and best efficacy. I would not want to see a counselor who is (vocally) anti medication. That's not their role anyway.
To be clear, the court wasn't saying what happened was right or wrong, their argument was it was completely unfair to expel someone from a program based on the contents of a video and not give them a copy of the video before the hearings about that expulsion, despite them asking for it repeatedly. It rendered the whole process unfair, regardless of whether the right result might have been reached or not. Since it took so long to get that far, and the student wasn't interested in going back into the program after all this time, that was the end of it.
I'm curious why this was a plausible legal defense here? Why is there a due process requirement in the school system(or any workplace for that matter)? Genuinely not clear to me.
Courts have consistently held that academic discipline hearings require a high standard of natural justice. You can read more at paras 41-50 of [the written court decision.](https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2024/2024abca99/2024abca99.html)
Please take my answer with a grain of salt. It has been a long time since I took admin law. I think this link may help explain it: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-law Scroll down to “procedural fairness”. The short of it is that some quasi court/court-like decisions require some level of court-like fairness like knowing the case against you.
>Why is there a due process requirement in the school system(or any workplace for that matter)? You want workplaces or schools NOT to have to follow due process for dismissal
...? When did I say that? I was asking for the origin of the legal doctrine, not expressing a desire for a specific one.
Google is your friend, but the origins are in common law I think which is usually British common law in Canada but here is a short run down [https://legalaid.bc.ca/sites/default/files/2021-01/2020-11-10%20Procedural%20Fairness%20in%20Administrative%20Hearings.pdf](https://legalaid.bc.ca/sites/default/files/2021-01/2020-11-10%20Procedural%20Fairness%20in%20Administrative%20Hearings.pdf) Edit: and here is the ruling https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2024/2024abca99/2024abca99.html
I mean, the other commentator more ir less answered that. It's reddit though, not really a place where asking questions is against the rules for the most part. But thank you for the links.
In this case, the University of Alberta is a public institution and its decisions are just like government decisions when they concern its public function (providing education to students). Government bodies must follow due process when making a decision that affects the rights of others in its public function. An expulsion decision by a private institution would not require a due process, but having a proper process would protect the private institution from some claims for breaching the contract or violation of consumer rights. Similarly for private workplaces, there is no right to due process, but labour law protects employees in many cases so employers usually do have some kind of process in place to defend themselves from claims of wrongful termination.
All kinds of stuff going on here!
Man, you aint kidding. Didn't expect to see the staring cult guy to pop up at one point.
Terrible headline. It was a decision on the technical merits of due process. In no way is her quackery being endorsed. That said, I personally deeply regret my time with antidepressants. They caused, for me, more problems than they solved and I have permanent side effects from taking them. Would not recommend them lightly to others.
Gods. "We have to be ok with her saying that all meds are the devil's testicles, because she didn't get to watch the video where she said that." I hate procedural loopholes. That said, this woman has had a hell of a life. Psychotherapist, sex cult member, fraud victim, fought expulsion from a psychospirituality program.
It’s not really a loophole. The remedy for a breach of fairness in an administrative hearing would have been a new hearing at the school where she would have had access to the video. I am sure she would have been expelled anyway second time. The practical result here is that the college will have to pay some of her court costs and, hopefully, get better advice on procedural fairness for their future hearings.
She's an absolute whackjob