Island Health tries to end-run [unnamed person’s] court petition… seeks publication ban

Update May 30, 2022 – A hearing was held today in B.C. Supreme Court of Island Health’s application for an order to seal documents and ban publication of information about their apprehension and detention of Eileen Wicks. Island Health’s lawyer, Melissa Perry, revealed that there was confusion about whether another publication ban order had apparently been granted to Island Health several weeks ago in B.C. Provincial Court, whether it was actually an order or just a “direction,” and that one or both lawyers may not have actually heard the BCPC judge make such an order.

The judge presiding in B.C. Supreme Court on May 30 noted that Island Health had referenced the Provincial Court publication ban order, but not submitted a copy with their court application. Justice Robin Baird asked Island Health’s lawyer if she had a copy for him. She said she did not, admitting that she had not yet filed the order. To date, we have not seen a copy of the Provincial Court publication ban order.

However, an order to seal documents and ban publication of all current and future affidavits and court orders, and certain personal or medical information about Eileen Wicks was granted by Justice Baird in B.C. Supreme Court on May 30, 2022, but the details are to be worked out by the lawyers of the respective parties. Apparently the order is not a “blanket ban.”

Eileen and Trevor Wicks’ 55th wedding anniversary is Friday, June 3, 2022.

Update Saturday, May 28 – To date, we have still not received a copy of any publication ban order with regard to the detention of Eileen Wicks. Therefore, we have restored the previous article that we had temporarily removed on May 24, 2022 and it can now be viewed again here, Island Health tries to end-run Eileen Wicks’ court petition, daughter’s role exposed.

“Sharon Marie” Tomczyk posted this message to the Facebook group,
Qualicum Beach Chat, on May 24, 2022.

Second Opinion QB has been contacted by readers alerting us to rumours being spread around the community regarding the Wicks’ case. Some of the rumours appear to have been sourced and spread on social media by the Wicks’ daughter, Sharon Tomczyk.

Hiding her identity behind the alias “Sharon Marie,” the Wicks’ daughter refers to her parents in the third person, as “the Wicks’ family,” in a post to the Facebook group Qualicum Beach Chat.

In her Facebook post, Ms. Tomczyk (“Sharon Marie”) claims that the information Second Opinion QB has published is “banned due to a court injunction.” That is false. Second Opinion QB has not been served with an injunction, and we have been informed that no court injunction has been ordered.

Update Tuesday, May 24, 2022 0800 – We are reluctantly removing the contents of the article published May 20, 2022, updated May 23, temporarily, out of respect for a request sent by e-mail this past holiday weekend from [unnamed person’s] lawyer, advising that we should err on the side of caution until it can be determined whether Island Health had a publication ban approved last week as they claim, or whether they will be seeking and obtain one this week. Island Health will apparently be in court this morning in an attempt to obtain a publication ban.

Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) has filed an application in B.C. Supreme Court seeking court orders to “prohibit the publication of any information which would tend to identify [unnamed person]” — and to seal all current and future affidavits and evidence, including “all [court] orders.”

We are not aware that there is any such case in Canada where a publication ban has ever been issued regarding a legal matter in which the actions of health authorities to apprehend and detain an elderly person are in question.

This is particularly troubling since [unnamed person] and her legally appointed Representative have made no such request to us for anonymity. All of the information published about [unnamed person] by Second Opinion QB has been provided either from public records and information obtained through interviews and research, or with the consent of [unnamed persons]. All related analysis and opinions are our own.

It is not clear to us who will make the arguments against any publication ban on behalf of the public’s interest, to enable an informed Court decision on Island Health’s request for a blanket publication ban. The judges deserve to be fully informed of the need for transparency. Damage will be done if Island Health is allowed to conceal its actions from the public in what appears to simply be another of their aggressive attempts to avoid accountability and bad publicity.

We remain optimistic that our acceding to the request to temporarily remove this article will somehow serve the interests of justice for the [unnamed person]. Only in hindsight, will we be able to advise if that has been true.