Shannon Hancock

Former RN, Advocate, Target Ally, Certified Psychological Safety & Health Advisor. Dedicated to ending NDAs and workplace violence in all its forms

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Excellent - just as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

@Mitchell_AB Healthcare in Manitoba is in chaos.

[Fundamental Justice @RuleofLawCanada]

In the States Judges get prosecuted for altering records. In Canada, not so much.
All complaints are dismissed, the citizens just don't understand the process, is the response, in defence of complaints about the abusive system.

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

@ChrisDca take a good look at who the lawyers are for their regulator - insurance lawyers affiliated with government - municipal and provincial - and the Law Society of Manitoba.

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

interesting - but not for the first time.

In January 2019, CUPE lawyers threatened me - in writing - during proceedings at the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba in which CUPE was directly involved as counsel to CUPE at grievance arbitration between Klinic and CUPE in 2016.

The author of the threat was Gavin Leeb, a Law Society of Ontario registrant employed with CUPE in Ontario.

The CUPE executive behind the threat was Gord Delbridge, a self-proclaimed "very dear friend" of my husband, a loyal CUPE member for over 30 years.

I know that because Gord's image appears in the background of the photo accompanying Leeb's threat. Apparently Delbridge didn't know how to take a screenshot.

Not content with the damage our family had already suffered, in 2022, CUPE lawyers Kristine Barr (spouse of a sitting Provincial Court judge) and Gavin Leeb filed a similar action in Ottawa.

In their pleadings they accused me of being the administrator behind a Facebook page they found offensive.

They filed the action in Ottawa to avoid scrutiny in Manitoba and even after they were granted the extraordinary remedy of a Norwich Order (December 2022) wherein they learned they falsely accused me and proceeded against someone else, they STILL failed to notify me or withdraw the allegations.

I found out by complete accident in 2023.

It's 2026.

Zero accountability from CUPE, their lawyers, regulators, and affiliates at the orincix court.

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

sure - now maybe they'll replace Elections Commissioner Bill Bowles who was repeatedly hired by the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba to defend officers, directors and committee members - including CRNM and Law Sociery of Manitoba registrants - while advising the CRNM's Disciplinary Committee - now known as the Inquiry Committee - against other less advantaged CRNM registrants -

like me.

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

@LawTimes Members also include Aimee Craft University of Ottawa faculty and Manitoba Council of Administrative Tribunals member who previously served on the Federal Judical Advisory Committee for Manitoba.

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

I wasn't aware until recently that Bea Bruske was with UFCW Local 832, or that UFCW Local 832 has a collective agreement with Manitoba Nurses Union staff members.

I wasn't aware that you served on MNU's "Discipline Committee" - or that MNU even had such a thing - as have Kevin Rebeck Manitoba Federation of Labour and Gina MacKay President CUPE Manitoba President.

Bea Bruske -

Please identify the legation, regulation, statute etc. that empowered you, Kevin Rebeck and Gina MacKay - labour leaders with UFCW Local 832, CUPE and MFL - to "discipline" regulated health professionals at the Manitoba Nurses Union?

Answer?

None

Instead of acting as cheerleaders for the NDP and Premier Kinew, here's a thought:

How about acknowledging, apologizing for and resolving the abuse and denial of the rights of workers in your own backyard?

#regulatorycapture
#abuseofdominance
#unfairtradepractice
#employerdominatedunions
#gaslighting

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

@timekeeper1999 the worst mistake I ever made was asking MNU for help in 2012.

I was an experienced RN of decades with no history of complaints or regulatory proceedings.

The reprisals that began after I reached out to MNU began immediately and have never ended.

[Dr Donald J Netolitzky KC @DNetolitzky]

I'm usually coy about my political opinions. Here's an exception. I think lawyers operating as a self-regulating, self-administering monopoly in Canada is a bad thing.

Thankfully, the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court doesn't entirely disagree with me.

A couple weeks ago Chief Justice Skolrood ruled that the British Columbia government did not act unconstitutionally when it passed legislation that created a new administrative entity that would regulate professions who engage in law stuff, like lawyers, notaries, and any other new category of worker like paralegals or other types of legal representatives and so on.

Here’s how the court described the change: “A central element of Bill 21 is the elimination of self-governance and self-regulation of lawyers by a board comprised of a majority of elected lawyers.”

So, for those who didn’t know:

(1) In most of Canada lawyers are regulated by a “law society”.

(2) The only people who are members of a law society are lawyers.

(3) Lawyers elect the lawyers who will govern and set rules for lawyers, usually called “benchers”. This makes the institution “democratic”. *peals of fiendish shrieking*

(4) The law society makes up the rules on what lawyers can and cannot do.

(5) If a lawyer does a bad thingie as defined by the law society (could be law, might be something else), then the law society runs disciplinary tribunals that decide what happens to the lawyer. These operations are very court-like, highly formal. Lawyers judge the lawyers.

(6) Lawyers collectively contribute money to operate insurance schemes. When a lawyer does a bad lawyering thingie then the injured individual gets paid an award. For example, if a lawyer stole your payment for a house purchase, the insurance fund would cover that. Lawyers as a whole insure the public against bad lawyering. That also means in a sense that lawyers get punished collectively when one of them does bad lawyering stuff.

Lawyers explain all this works fine because lawyers, via their law societies, act “in the public interest”. I leave it up to the reader whether they agree.

Back in the old-old days in England it was courts who decided who is a lawyer, and who disciplined lawyers. In theory that authority still exists in Canada, because courts still have an inherent jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a suitable in-court representative or not. That authority is practically never used to kick a lawyer out of a courtroom, however. The exclusion power is functionally for layperson representatives. Similarly, there are rules that allow a court to fine a lawyer for antics, however those rules are basically a fiction, since the usual practice is courts refer bad lawyering to the local law society for discipline.

Which in my opinion is rather peculiar. Law societies are operated by lawyers. Why would they care about the function of courts?

Anyways, in Canada nobody seems to argue that it’s an unwritten part of the Constitution (Charter s 7, that wellspring of so much stuff) that there is an “independent bar”. What does that mean? Basically, it’s that lawyers can argue whatever they want and even though that might annoy or dismay governments and other authorities, tough. Hands off when it comes to lawyers. They’re special, and must somehow be shielded and allowed to engage in whatever they like, so that there’s a lawyer to stand beside you when you stick it to The Man.

Now the trend in Canada is that law societies are pushing to be entirely outside government control. “Independent” then would mean only lawyers can ever set rules, discipline, admit or deny lawyer, etc. The argument is that should be a constitutional principle, that lawyers must be self-governing and self-regulating. In effect, lawyers would become a separate branch of government, in a way on equal status as legislatures, executive, and courts.

I’m not going to go espouse at great length. I think the idea of a for-profit trade that holds a monopoly on legal services and appearing in courts, that has its own rules and courts for discipline and control, its own requirements on education and qualification ... I don’t think that’s in the public’s interest. Not saying lawyers are terrible people. But they are not a publicly operated for-cost service. This is not a socialized legal apparatus, parallel to socialized medicine. Lawyers are engaged in a business activity. One that can lead to lots and lots of money.

In any case, the Law Society of British Columbia reacted very negatively when the BC government decided to shift administration of lawyers into a different context where lawyers aren’t solely in charge of their own affairs. Being lawyers, they sued, claiming lawyers have a constitutional right to be “self-governing and self-regulating”, because that is what “an independent bar” means.

Which raises all kinds of neat questions about at what point the provinces lost their section 92 Constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law, and how lawyers took over that role as a separate branch of government?

In any case, Chief Justice Skolrood ruled that “independence” does not necessarily mean self-governance and self-regulation. A monopoly is the less polite term. That word not present in the judgment. Lawyers can be independent and zealous in other administrative structures. Which is no surprise, because as I understand it, Canada is the weird country in the Commonwealth where lawyers have gone the furthest in walling themselves off into an island institution and population all their own. In fact, a couple years ago I had quite a time explaining to academics from several other Commonwealth countries just how far things had gone in Canada. They were "startled".

As you guessed, I’m pleased with the BCSC ruling. But the outcome is most definitely going to be appealed up the Supreme Court of Canada, and what happens there? Who knows.

I'm surprised but not surprised that this question hasn't drawn more attention from the public.

But most of us at some point will interact with lawyers. And the idea of them occupying a proverbial fortress of solitude I think sits badly with most Canadians. I can only speak for myself, but I am skeptical the legal profession truly serves “the public interest”. Law is a business. And potentially a very profitable one.

Go on. Try and find a pro bono lawyer.

The full judgment is here: Law Society of British Columbia v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2026 BCSC 779 - https://t.co/48vbIf8c1w

It's not short.

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

The Municipal Board should be investigated for conflicts including but not limited to:

- Manitoba Labour Board
- Law Society of Manitoba
- Department of Justice Crown Law Division Legal Services Branch, the "law firm for government"
- Court of Appeal judges

https://t.co/4MEGNOvdD8

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, alleged victims and advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed in Ontario today - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us

[Shannon Hancock @NurseInterruptd]

Appeal dismissed - as it should be.

Now maybe someone could please explain how exactly it is that Nygard was able to hire not just one but two Law Society of Manitoba

"life benchers"
recent past Presidents
Discipline, and
Audit & Risk Committees members
(supported by Society CEO Leah Kosokowsky?)

What exactly have retaliatory strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs") by a convicted sex offender against government, law enforcement, law enforcement, alleged victims and their advocates have to do with the Law Society of Manitoba's one and only job:

Protection of the Public

Us