NOBODY OWNS IT | NOVEMBER 3 CAMPAIGN UPDATE Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026 Reviewed summaries of the supplied recap. Individual email dates are not available for every entry. The historic 407 / 189 / 53 tally remains dated November 2, 2026. R12 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office | Ontario Ministry of Health · policy inquiry response No single role named in the instruments described. The campaign recap attributes this answer to the PPAO: “no Ontario statute, regulation, or Ministry directive names a single role accountable.” Context: The office also said it does not set discharge or referral policy and directed the question to the Ministry, Ontario Health, hospital psychiatry leadership and the Patient Ombudsman. This is the office’s answer as reported in the supplied recap, not an independent legal finding that no professional duties or local care arrangements exist. The recap does not give the individual reply’s exact date. R13 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window CAMH | Patient and Family Experience Office Bridging described. The pilot was shared with leadership. The recap says CAMH described sending ER recommendations to the primary care team, temporary Bridging Clinic support and internal sharing of the pilot proposal. Context: The answer described bridging as typically lasting up to 3 months and acknowledged that it does not address every concern. The recap records no named continuing owner when bridging is absent or ends, no answer on declined referrals or failed contact, and no confirmation that the quality improvement data is published. A leader, decision date and pilot commitment remain unconfirmed. The original inquiry was October 11; the reply is reported in the November 1 to 3 recap. R14 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window UHN | Patient Relations · policy inquiry The hospital pointed to the PPAO. The policy inquiry was directed to the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, according to the recap. Context: The PPAO, in turn, included hospital psychiatry leadership among the routes it suggested. Neither reply as described in the recap names a continuing transition owner. Only the policy redirect is summarized here; no personal healthcare correspondence is included. R15 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Vitalité Health Network | Information desk A communications route followed the information desk. The recap records two information desk replies directing the handoff and treatment wait questions to communications because front line staff did not oversee them. Context: The recap also describes incomplete link text in those replies. Those template defects do not establish the quality of clinical care. The substantive questions about responsibility and treatment wait reporting remained unanswered in the recap. See R16 for the communications acknowledgement. R16 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Vitalité Health Network | Communications acknowledgement An automatic reply followed the redirect. After contacting the suggested communications route, the campaign received an automatic reply with an employee information heading. Context: The recap records an acknowledgement, not a substantive response to the ownership or treatment wait questions. No conclusion about the existence of wait data can be drawn from the automatic reply. R17 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Horizon Health Network | Inquiry acknowledgement Receipt acknowledged. A substantive answer was still pending. The handoff and treatment wait questions were sent November 1. The recap records an automatic reply and no substantive answer by its November 3 cutoff. Context: This is a time bounded correspondence status. It is not recorded as no contact at all and does not establish whether the health network has a local pathway or published data. R18 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services | Social Assistance Program Policy Branch Routine care support was described. Acquisition funding was not. The recap says the branch described the Guide Dog Benefit as $84 per month for routine care and said ODSP does not provide special funding to acquire a service dog. Context: The branch suggested the Lions Foundation of Canada Dog Guides. The recap records no answer to the campaign’s question about a benefit redesign after Robinson Cooke. The dollar amount and funding description are attributed to this dated reply; they are not a complete eligibility guide. See R19 for the charity’s answer. R19 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Lions Foundation of Canada Dog Guides | Program eligibility response The suggested charity does not serve psychiatric needs. The recap quotes the foundation’s answer: “our organization does not provide dogs for psychiatric needs.” It pointed to the Assistance Dogs International directory. Context: This explains why that particular referral did not answer the campaign’s psychiatric service dog question. A directory referral is not a confirmed placement, funding award or finding that no other program exists. R20 | November 3, 2026 Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario | Market Conduct follow up An internal follow up was requested. The recap says FSRA requested a follow up on November 3 after referring the October 15 medication coverage inquiry to Market Conduct on October 20. Context: The inquiry concerned FSRA’s role and data on pre existing condition rules in individual insurance plans. The recap records an October 29 request for a reference number, with neither a substantive answer nor a reference number supplied by the cutoff. This is a pending regulatory inquiry, not a finding about insurers or coverage law. R21 | November 3, 2026 · resend Accessibility Standards Canada | Correspondence response The guidance request was resent. The recap says the office reported not receiving the October 14 inquiry, and Adam resent it November 3. The request sought plain language distinctions between service animals, psychiatric service dogs and emotional support animals. Context: The recap describes a reply quoting the October 28 follow up and containing alternate draft text. This is a correspondence quality issue, not evidence about how the reply was produced. A response to the resent request remains pending. The recap reports an automatic acknowledgement referring to 3 business days; no independently confirmed deadline is assigned here. R22 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Canadian Institute for Health Information | Institutional response The questions were described as outside CIHI’s role. The recap says CIHI answered that the ownership and treatment wait publication questions fell outside its role and mandate. Context: A mandate response does not establish that the underlying data does not exist. The recap did not resolve which institution holds the requested information or who owns the transition. R23 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Canadian Nurses Association | Policy response Recommendations shared. No endorsement or pilot commitment. The recap says the association described care standards as provincial, would share the recommendations with its policy team and could not commit to endorsing the measures or pursuing a pilot at that time. Context: Internal policy sharing and a decision not to commit are both retained in the record. The reply did not identify a responsible transition role. It is not evidence of a position on any individual’s care. R24 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Office of the Auditor General of Nova Scotia | Audit planning response Future planning remained open. The 2026 plan was committed. The recap says the office could not comment on policy, described its remaining 2026 audit plan as fully committed and would consider the issue in future planning. Context: Future consideration is not a scheduled audit or a finding that the issue is outside every oversight route. No audit commitment or next decision date was identified in the recap. R25 | November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap window Federal Minister of Health | Constituency office acknowledgement The constituency route pointed to the ministerial office. The recap records an automatic acknowledgement directing follow up on the October 11 letter to the ministerial address. Context: The campaign’s next step is to use the suggested ministerial route. A reference number, substantive answer and response date remained unconfirmed in the recap. This entry describes correspondence routing, not a ministerial decision. R26 | October 29 letter · November 3 follow up Saskatchewan | Ministerial correspondence A funding response left the ownership question open. The recap describes an October 29 ministerial letter citing mental health spending and internal sharing with Ministry of Health officials. Adam followed up November 3. Context: No responsible transition role or next decision date was identified in the recap, and no answer to the November 3 follow up was recorded at its cutoff. A spending announcement alone does not answer who coordinates a particular transition. PLANNED NEXT ACTIONS 1. Request the Ontario policy decision. Put the PPAO answer to the Ministry of Health and Ontario Health. Ask which office can assign the role, identify the policy instrument and give a decision date. 2. Seek systemic transition oversight. Ask the Patient Ombudsman about a systemic hospital transition review, as the PPAO suggested. The recap records this as a next step, not a filed or accepted investigation. 3. Name the CAMH pilot lead. Ask which leader received the proposal, who coordinates the gap without an active Bridging Clinic pathway, and what happens when a referral is declined or contact fails. 4. Get the FSRA reference and reply date. Ask Market Conduct to identify the reference number and the date for a substantive response on medication coverage rules and data. 5. Track the resent accessibility question. Seek a substantive reply to the November 3 resend. Confirm any response date rather than treating an automatic acknowledgement as a decision. 6. Follow the New Brunswick data route. Put the treatment wait reporting questions to the New Brunswick Health Council, identified in the Vitalité correspondence as a reporting route. A new answer is not yet recorded. 7. Use the federal ministerial route. Send the existing health policy inquiry to the ministerial address requested by the constituency office and ask for a reference and response date. 8. Ask MCCSS for the benefit redesign status. Request a direct answer on the Guide Dog Benefit redesign question and on a workable psychiatric service dog acquisition and training route. ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UPS PENDING AT RECAP CUTOFF NS Health Central Zone Nova Scotia Minister of Health New Brunswick Minister of Health Healthcare Excellence Canada Mood Disorders Society of Canada Schizophrenia Society of Canada Canadian Psychological Association Children’s Mental Health Ontario CADDAC Federal Minister of Jobs and Families An MP’s office An Ontario government branch on the support animal question Source classification: 5 fully or partly answered; 8 redirected or mandate responses; 2 without a substantive answer, plus 12 follow ups; 2 template issues. Categories overlap. No responsible transition role identified in the recap. This is not a national audit or an independent legal finding.