R28 / November 10, 2026 · 11:47 AMForwarded
The constituency office forwarded the inquiry to the Ministry of Health.
The office wrote: “Your inquiry has been forwarded to the Ministry of Health for follow-up. We will keep you updated as soon as we receive a response.”
Thornhill MPP constituency officeConstituency response
Read the context ＋
The November 4 request cited Ministry reference 361-2026-6680 and asked when a role would be named. At 1:33 PM on November 10 the campaign asked for the forwarding date, a reference number and whether the Member would put the question to the Minister directly. Those confirmations remained open at the audit cutoff.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R29 / November 9 to 10, 2026Alternative offered
The office offered to email a ministry liaison.
On November 10 at 11:15 AM the office wrote: “Unfortunately, we do not have capacity to put this question forward in question period or order paper at this time. If you would like, I would be happy to put the question to our ministry liaison by email.”
Ontario NDP MPP officeConstituency response
Read the context ＋
The November 9 reply had cited capacity for local constituents. The campaign clarified the systemic request, accepted the liaison offer on November 10 at 1:33 PM and asked for the sent date and any answer. The liaison email remained unconfirmed at the audit cutoff.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R13 / November 9, 2026 · 3:13 PMPolicy gap
CAMH described who is notified when a referral is declined.
The office wrote: “There is no specific role at CAMH that is responsible for ensuring referrals made in the ED are followed-up on.”
CAMHPatient and Family Experience Office
Read the context ＋
When a referral is declined, CAMH said the referring provider is notified and is responsible for informing the patient. If that is not possible, information may go to the primary care provider, who may notify the patient. Outcomes, contact attempts and primary care communication are documented in the health record. Patients may receive service contact information and can ask Central Intake Ontario’s Toronto Mental Health and Addictions Hub about CAMH referrals. The pilot was shared with the Clinical Director for General Outpatient and Integrated Mental Health. The pilot decision and a written notification policy or timeline for the fallback route remain open. On November 3 at 2:36 PM the office had described primary care communication, referral tracking and temporary Bridging Clinic support.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R10 / November 6, 2026 · 10:04 AMFOI closed
Southlake released one policy record.
Southlake closed general records file SH-26-17 after a November 5 decision granted full access to one record, “Emergent Mental Health Assessment Unit (EMHAU) - Operation of.”
Southlake HealthInformation Access and Privacy
Read the context ＋
The request was received October 19 and asked for written policies for adults discharged home after psychiatric emergency care, including responsibility, confirmation of receipt and acceptance, and what happens when a referral is declined or contact fails. The policy text awaits review.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R20 / November 6, 2026 · 1:38 PMMandate limit
Market Conduct answered the psychiatric medication coverage inquiry.
FSRA said it has no specific guidance, published data or dedicated mandate for continuity of psychiatric medication coverage under individual health insurance plans.
Financial Services Regulatory Authority of OntarioMarket Conduct Division
Read the context ＋
The division described its oversight of individual accident and sickness insurance products and said insurers generally determine plan design, exclusions and limits subject to the Insurance Act. The campaign asked which body owns the question. A further answer was not recorded by the audit cutoff.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R21 / November 5, 2026 · 3:48 PMMandate limit
The resent service animal guidance inquiry received a substantive answer.
The office acknowledged the missed October 14 email and said its work covers federal accessibility standards and research. It said it would share the comments with project leads.
Accessibility Standards CanadaInstitutional response
Read the context ＋
The office described social programs, benefits and legal or policy direction on these matters as outside its responsibilities. The requested plain language guidance remains open.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R27 / November 4, 2026 · 10:35 AMSource identified
The office identified the hospital to home quality standard.
The office wrote, “We believe this is the quality standard that you are asking about,” and sent Ontario Health’s Transitions Between Hospital and Home standard.
Psychiatric Patient Advocate OfficeMinistry of Health · source pointer
Read the context ＋
The standard covers transitions home after hospital admission. Its scope section says it does not address the specifics of transitions from the emergency department to home or from inpatient mental health settings to home. See the linked standard in Sources and Methodology.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R30 / November 4, 2026Future consideration
Nova Scotia acknowledged the inquiry for policy development.
The office said it would consider the input in policy development and oversight of the mental health and addictions system.
Nova Scotia Office of Addictions and Mental HealthReply on behalf of the Minister of Health and Wellness
Read the context ＋
The letter answered the prior ministerial follow up. It provided no named responsible role, referral acceptance process or decision date.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R31 / November 4, 2026 · 9:16 AMMandate confirmation
The office confirmed this type of systemic information falls within its mandate.
The office said the information may help identify audit risks or programs that could benefit from a future audit. It said it does not report back to individuals on how submissions were used, to protect anonymity.
Office of the Auditor General of Newfoundland and LabradorAudit intake response
Read the context ＋
A campaign follow up asked whether an intake form is required. An audit decision and an answer to that follow up were not documented at the audit cutoff.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R12 / November 3, 2026 · 4:03 PMPolicy gap
The office identified no single accountable role in the instruments it described.
The office wrote: “To our knowledge, no Ontario statute, regulation, or Ministry directive names a single role accountable for a patient between discharge from a psychiatric emergency visit and a receiving service accepting the referral.”
Psychiatric Patient Advocate OfficeMinistry of Health · policy inquiry
Read the context ＋
The office described hospital and attending physician discharge obligations, CPSO continuity and referral expectations, and Ontario Health guidance on discharge planning and points of contact. It said it does not set discharge or referral policy and directed the campaign to the Ministry, Ontario Health, hospital psychiatry or patient safety, and the Patient Ombudsman. The statement reflects the office’s knowledge and scope.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R32 / October 23, 2026Forwarded
The Ministry shared the campaign letter with policy staff.
In correspondence 361-2026-6680, the Ministry said it had provided a copy of the letter to staff so they would be aware of the concerns while developing future policy.
Ontario Ministry of HealthCorrespondence and Corporate Support
Read the context ＋
This is the direct Ministry acknowledgement later cited in the November 10 letters. R03 summarizes a separate response relayed through a constituency office.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence audit, November 10, 2026. Times shown are Toronto time. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R14 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowRedirected
The hospital pointed to the PPAO.
The policy inquiry was directed to the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, according to the recap.
UHNPatient Relations · policy inquiry
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R15 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowRedirected
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.
Vitalité Health NetworkInformation desk
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R16 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowAuto acknowledgement
An automatic reply followed the redirect.
After contacting the suggested communications route, the campaign received an automatic reply with an employee information heading.
Vitalité Health NetworkCommunications acknowledgement
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R17 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowAuto 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.
Horizon Health NetworkInquiry acknowledgement
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R18 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowPartial answer
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.
Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social ServicesSocial Assistance Program Policy Branch
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R19 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowService scope
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.
Lions Foundation of Canada Dog GuidesProgram eligibility response
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R22 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowMandate limit
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.
Canadian Institute for Health InformationInstitutional response
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R23 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowNo commitment
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.
Canadian Nurses AssociationPolicy response
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R24 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowFuture consideration
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.
Office of the Auditor General of Nova ScotiaAudit planning response
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R25 / November 1 to 3, 2026 · recap windowRedirected
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.
Federal Minister of HealthConstituency office acknowledgement
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R26 / October 29 letter · November 3 follow upAwaiting substantive answer
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.
SaskatchewanMinisterial correspondence
Read the 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.
Download this campaign summary ↓Campaign correspondence recap, November 1 to 3, 2026. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R01 / October 15, 2026Policy gap
No specific transition policy identified.
The reply said no specific policy assigns a specialist or service responsibility between psychiatric emergency discharge and referral acceptance.
SunnybrookOffice of the Patient Experience
Read the context ＋
The same reply said existing primary care providers and outpatient specialists remain the point of contact until the patient is accepted and seen. This is not a statement that physicians have no duties.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R02 / October 15, 2026Policy gap
No ConnexOntario standard naming one owner.
The reply said it was not aware of a ConnexOntario standard, agreement or indicator that identifies a single responsible role or organization for this window.
ConnexOntarioSystem Navigation & Information
Read the context ＋
It also said follow up generally depends on the individual discharge plan and the arrangements of the organizations and providers involved. Its answer is about ConnexOntario standards, not every policy in Ontario.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R03 / October 23, 2026Responsibility varies
No single provincial transition owner assigned.
The Ministry said it does not assign a single provincial person or organization to oversee every transition from psychiatric emergency care to community care.
Ontario Ministry of HealthMinistry response relayed by a constituency office
Read the context ＋
The Ministry described hospital discharge planning responsibilities and the roles of multiple providers. It said arrangements vary by community and setting. This is not evidence that all existing duties disappear.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R04 / October 30, 2026 · 10:10 AMRedirected
The first response pointed to the Ministry.
The team initially said the inquiry fell outside its scope and directed Adam to the Ministry of Health.
Ontario HealthMental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence
Read the context ＋
At 12:18 PM the same day, it added the Quality Standards team to the thread and linked the major depression standard. That follow up is part of the record. No continuing transition role was identified in the campaign snapshot.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R05 / October 30, 2026 · 12:56 PMRedirected
The Ministry pointed back to Ontario Health.
The response identified Ontario Health as best positioned to comment on the collection, reporting or publication of specific mental health and addictions indicators.
Ontario Ministry of HealthMinistry response relayed by a constituency office
Read the context ＋
The response addressed Adam’s follow up questions about measurement and public reporting. It was not a refusal of clinical care. Read it with Ontario Health’s 12:18 PM follow up, rather than treating two isolated lines as the entire exchange.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R06 / October 15, 2026Mandate limit
Outside its mandate and advocacy role.
The Commission said the request tended to fall outside its mandate and non advocacy role.
Mental Health Commission of CanadaMental Health Advancement
Read the context ＋
It also said it would share the request with its policy team for awareness. Awareness is not acceptance of transition responsibility.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R07 / October 30, 2026Redirected
Administrative fairness, with a referral onward.
The office explained its review and recommendation role, then suggested contacting Horizon and Vitalité health networks for the systemic question.
Ombud New BrunswickEarly Resolution
Read the context ＋
The reply distinguished reviewing administrative fairness from acting as an advocate or directing outcomes. It did not identify a continuing transition owner.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R08 / October 28, 2026Forwarded internally
Sent to relevant teams for consideration.
Recovery Alberta acknowledged the research and suggestion, and said it had forwarded them to relevant teams.
Recovery AlbertaOrganizational response
Read the context ＋
The reply did not identify a transition role, a pilot decision or a decision date. It is recorded as an internal forward, not as a rejection.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R09 / October 15, 2026Process described
Triage described. Metrics directed to FOI.
The hospital described electronic referral, clinical triage, notification to referring and primary care providers if a referral is not accepted, and scheduling after acceptance.
Mackenzie HealthPatient Relations, relaying outpatient program information
Read the context ＋
Statistical and program metrics requests were directed to the records and FOI process. The reply describes an operating pathway. The campaign’s question about a continuing transition owner remained unresolved.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
R11 / October 19, 2026FOI route
Institutional information directed to FOI.
Patient Relations said the policy and records question should go through the hospital’s Freedom of Information process.
St. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonPatient Relations
Read the context ＋
A signed request is included in the campaign pack. A receipt confirming completion, payment and a statutory response date has not been established here.
Download this campaign summary ↓Dated correspondence supplied by the campaign, November 2 snapshot. Summary, not a full email or independently authenticated public record. Personal details omitted. Source notes ↗
No records match. Try another organization or response type.
