He who pays the piper calls the tunes.
By Dr. Bob Uttl
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are presumed to be objective, impartial assessments conducted by neutral experts. However, lifting the hood on Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s fitness for duty (FFD) IME of Ms. T reveals something entirely different.
Documentary evidence and under-oath testimony before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal—in a litigation process spanning over 10 years—have pulled back the curtain. The record reveals that from the very start,Dr. John Braxton Suffield aligned himself closely with the hiring party, Ms. T’s employer, School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay (SD5).
Let’s dive directly into the most damning revelations from the disclosed documents and under oath testimony.
Part 1: Dr. Suffield Explains His General FFD IME Methodology
“I Don’t Always Write a Report”
On direct examination, Dr. John Braxton Suffield volunteered a striking admission about how he handles unfavorable preliminary findings:
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: I didn’t always write a report. Depending on the referral source, I might call the referral source and say… ‘the person who asked me to see your plaintiff failed multiple measures of effort…’ And they would say, thank you very much, Dr. Suffield. I think we’re done. And I would not write a report.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield
During cross-examination, this filtering practice was examined more closely:
QUESTION: Once you assess someone, you talk to the party that retains you, and if they do not like what you have to say, they may thank you and don’t ask you to write a report, correct?
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: That’s happened on a few occasions… I say to the defense counsel, this person… [is] really badly impaired. And the defense counsel says, thanks very much, Dr. Suffield, We really don’t need a report documenting that. And that’s the end of that.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield
When pressed, Dr. Suffield openly confirmed the reality: the retaining party receives preliminary verbal feedback before any permanent report is written, allowing them to suppress findings that damage their case.
“Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune”
Dr. John Braxton Suffield went on to acknowledge the systemic financial pressures inherent to the medicolegal industry, explicitly citing the academic literature on forensic bias:
QUESTION: In any case, you are under pressure to provide what the retaining party wants, especially since the stream of referrals is critical to your financial well-being, correct?
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: Oh, now you’re referring to the adage, “Hey, who pays the piper calls the tune.” That’s a well-understood source of affiliation bias in my practice and other medical-legal practices. Yeah, that is a real issue, well documented in the literature… It’s called a pull to affiliate [emphasis added]
Dr. John Braxton Suffield
The “Hired Gun” Style IME
Under this model, the hiring party exercises absolute gatekeeping power over medical science. If they like the doctor’s initial verbal impressions, they commission a formal written report. If the truth contradicts their legal strategy, the assessment is buried, the doctor is thanked, and no permanent record ever sees the light of day.
In these circumstances, the “piper” must play the exact tune the hiring party wants to hear if they expect to secure future lucrative referrals. The examiner is no longer an impartial, objective clinician—they are a hired gun.
Part 2: SD5’s “Search” for an Independent Neuropsychologist
On May 10, 2010, SD5 unilaterally placed Ms. T on forced “sick leave” without her request or any medical consultation. Ms. T was walked out of the classroom on May 10, 2010. SD5 never explicitly explained what presumed sickness or medical condition necessitated her immediate removal.
By January 2011, Ms. T had been assessed by three different psychologists: Dr. Todd Kettner, Dr. Mary Westcott (from Mandel & Associates Ltd.), and Dr. MK. In the process:
- Ms. Cynthia Stuart, HR Director, held numerous secret communications with Dr. Todd Kettner, feeding him internal “Investigation Reports” prepared by Mr. Glenn Dobie, Director of Learning, while denying the existence of those same reports to the Union.
- Subsequently, SD5 had undocumented communications with Dr. Allan Mandel (President and owner of Mandel & Associates Ltd.), who passed the information to his employee, Dr. Mary Westcott. No records exist of what SD5 told Dr. Mandel, or what Dr. Mandel told Dr. Westcott.
- Next, seeking an untainted opinion, Ms. T personally paid for an independent de novo assessment by Dr. MK. Dr. MK concluded that Ms. T was a woman of average intelligence and cognitive skills relative to the Canadian population, finding zero clinical reason why she could not perform her regular teaching duties.
This left SD5 with a massive legal problem: Dr. MK’s clean report directly contradicted Dr. Mary Westcott’s conclusion that Ms. T was “an individual with disabilities” and unable to teach.
Brokering the Referral to “Independent” Neuropsychologist
On February 4, 2011, Cynthia Stuart wrote an ex parte email to Dr. Mary Westcott openly admitting their strategic panic:
We know being in front of a class is not right [for Ms. T] but she has now presented us this third medical assessment that states she is able to return to teaching and we have some serious concerns over this.
Ms. Cynthia Stuart, Email dated February 4, 2011
Dr. Allan Mandel responded on Dr. Mary Westcott‘s behalf (as she was on maternity leave), explicitly volunteering to help undermine the favorable report and expressing his opinion about Ms. T’s motivation without ever talking to her:
I think you should get Ms. T’s permission to send me a copy of MK report, which I can review and, if appropriate, critique… There is obvious concern here that Ms. T is ‘shopping around’ for an opinion she likes.
Dr. Allan Mandel, Email dated February 4, 2011
Dr. Mandel then asked Ms. Stuart to call his personal line to discuss the matter further off the record. Neither kept notes of that conversation. However, discovered within Dr. Mandel’s clinical file was his own handwritten note on that email string. It listed three names of potential psychologists to handle the independent review.
The first name on the list was his own former practicum student, trainee, and recruit: Dr. John Braxton Suffield.
Rather than seeking a truly neutral third opinion, SD5 turned to the very firm whose report was being challenged to find a solution. Dr. Mandel recommended his own protege to “independent” tie-breaker status, without disclosing their extensive professional relationship.
Part 3: The Paper Trail of Bias
April 2011: Early, Undocumented Contact
Dr. John Braxton Suffield admitted under cross-examination that there “may have been a prior phone call” with SD5 before receiving his formal referral letter on April 27, 2011. Neither Dr. Suffield nor SD5 maintained any notes or records of this initial contact. There is zero documentary evidence of what expectations or desired outcomes were discussed before the retainer officially began.
The Key Admissions: No Criteria, No Standards, No Framework
A decade later, senior SD5 officials—including HR Directors Cynthia Stuart and Brent Reimer—made remarkable admissions under oath. They testified that SD5 possessed no minimum IQ standards, no benchmark performance metrics for teachers on psychological tests, and did not even possess Ms. T’s job description. They admitted they had no understanding of how the psychologists arrived at their conclusions and simply “trusted them completely.”
Dr. Suffield’s testimony was perfectly symmetrical. He confirmed he was never provided with:
- Any minimum IQ or cognitive standards required for teaching.
- Any minimum scores or benchmarks on psychological tests.
- A job description defining Ms. T’s actual duties.
- Any defined criteria of what he was supposed to assess and against what standards.
Dr. Suffield conducted a high-stakes fitness-for-duty assessment in a complete vacuum, operating entirely on subjective whim in a context where SD5 had already explicitly signaled that they wanted Ms. T out of the classroom.
June 8, 2011: “Happy with My Interpretation”
On June 8, 2011, Dr. John Braxton Suffield held a conference call with senior SD5 officials: Ms. Cynthia Stuart, Mr. Glenn Dobie, and Mr. William (Bill) Gook. In his own clinical notes, Dr. Suffield recorded:
Happy with my interpretation, as above.
Plan: JBS will write the above up… JBS will need to meet Ms. T for at least an interview… in order to prepare a fitness for work report.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield, June 8, 2011 Notes
When cross-examined on what occurred to make them “happy,” Dr. Suffield claimed total amnesia:
QUESTION: And so when you said here “happy with my interpretation as above” would you say they were somewhat happy, very happy, or extremely happy?
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: I’m not going to speculate on that.
QUESTION: Did you have some kind of feeling about how happy they were?
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: Uh, no, not that I can recall here we are 15 years later.
Cross-Examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield
August 15, 2011: SD5 Dictates the Outcome
On August 15, 2011, HR Director Cynthia Stuart sent an email directly instructing Dr. Suffield on the required outcome:
“The union is very concerned that we are keeping this person out of the classroom. We feel she needs to go on disability… Your report will be most helpful in many ways.”
Instead of defending his scientific independence, Dr. Suffield spent his cross-examination attempting to downplay this blatant employer direction, claiming it was merely identifying “possible outcomes.”
August 26, 2011: Pre-Judging the Case
On August 26, 2011, Cynthia Stuart notified the Union that Dr. Suffield had called her that morning and advised SD5 to immediately proceed with a temporary posting to replace Ms. T “based on his preliminary findings.”
At the exact moment Dr. Suffield gave this career-destroying recommendation:
- He had not yet received the data from Dr. MK’s conflicting assessment.
- He had never met, spoken to, or interviewed Ms. T.
- He had not completed his own assessment.
When cross-examined on why he recommended replacing a teacher without completing his file or meeting the patient, Dr. Suffield fell back on a complete lack of memory and an absence of personal notes.
Part 4: The In Absentia Assessment and the Panic Button
October 19, 2011: The Report Issued In Absentia
On October 19, 2011, Dr. Suffield signed and delivered his formal, final fitness-for-duty report to SD5. He did so without ever meeting or interviewing Ms. T.
In the report, Dr. Suffield explicitly conceded that the independent report was correct:
Dr. MK’s summary … that Ms. T’s overall cognitive skills are average compared to similarly-aged Canadians, is correct.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield, October 19, 2011 Report
Yet, despite agreeing that Ms. T’s intelligence and cognitive skills were completely average, he reached an internally contradictory conclusion that perfectly mirrored SD5’s August demand:
“In my opinion, Ms. T is [emphasis in original] prevented from performing her regular teaching duties, through a combination of the cognitive deficits… and her pre-existing personality traits…”
Dr. John Braxton Suffield, October 19, 2011 Report
Notably, Dr. John Braxton Suffield did not diagnose Ms. T with any recognized personality disorder, mental illness, or clinical condition. He stripped a woman of her profession in absentia based on his apparent belief that having average number of IQ points amounts to having deficits and based on unquantified “personality traits.”
October 26, 2011: Dr. Suffield’s “Epiphany”
Exactly one week after delivering the adverse report, Dr. John Braxton Suffield realized he had committed a massive, reviewable ethical breach. He called and sent an “Urgent” email to HR Director Cynthia Stuart, suddenly citing the regulatory standards of the College of Alberta Psychologists:
“I reminded myself of the following: 8.2 Psychologists rendering a professional opinion… shall not do so without a direct and substantial professional contact… In June, I indicated I would need to see Ms. T before giving a formal opinion… I would like to exercise that option now.”
Dr. John Braxton Suffield, Email to Ms. Cythia Stuart, dated October 26, 2011
Significantly, Dr. Suffield did not retract the legally and ethically invalid October 19 report. He left the unscientific, in absentia report active in SD5’s hands to justify keeping her out of the classroom, using the “urgent” interview purely as a retrospective damage-control tactic to protect his license from his own regulatory body.
Part 5: The Post-Hoc Justification and Final Analysis
November–December 2011: The Final Report
Dr. John Braxton Suffield finally met with Ms. T for the first time on November 30, 2011. The very next day, he placed two phone calls to SD5 administration to discuss his assessment of Ms. T and to debrief them on the meeting.
On December 30, 2011, he issued a brand-new formal report that closely tracked — mostly verbatim — his invalid October 19 version.
In this final report, Dr. Suffield attempted to erase his previous ethical violation with a single sentence:
Though I had reviewed this background information, I was not able to form an opinion as to Ms. T’s cognitive, interpersonal, and occupational functioning without having direct and substantial professional contact with her…
Dr. John Braxton Suffield, December 30, 2011 Report
This statement is a demonstrable falsehood. The October 19, 2011 report is an immutable historical fact—as are the definitive, career-stripping opinions Dr. Suffield signed and delivered within it. His claim that he was “not able to form an opinion” without an interview is completely irreconcilable with the reality that he had already delivered that exact opinion to the employer weeks prior.
The November interview and testing was not an assessment; it was a post-hoc justification designed to cover a regulatory breach.
Conclusion
Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s evaluation of Ms. T provides a chilling case study of how an “Independent” Medical Examination can be systematically hollowed out from the inside. The evidence reveals a process completely captured by the employer from its earliest stages:
- Pre-Judged Outcomes: Opinions were formed, conclusions delivered, and employee replacement recommended before the expert ever met the subject or reviewed the complete data.
- A Strategy of Alignment: Active feedback loops allowed the employer to signal their “happiness” with preliminary interpretations, culminating in an explicit directive of their desired outcome (“We feel she needs to go on disability”).
- An Absence of Objective Standards: The medical examination proceeded without any minimum performance standards or even a basic job description. Dr. Suffield was given a blank check to define impairments however he saw fit to deliver the tune he was retained to play. In the process, he cherry-picked from thousands of scores and weaponized demographic adjustments—setting different minimum standards for fitness for duty for examinees of different ages, sexes, races/ethnicity and education using Pearson Advanced Clinical Solutions—to manufacture his stunning opinion that a Canadian woman of average intelligence and cognitive skills does not have enough IQ points to perform duties of elementary school teacher.
When experts operate in a system where the paying party can suppress unfavorable outcomes, where preliminary views are calibrated in secret, and where the piper only gets paid if they play the required tune, the pretense of “independence” entirely evaporates.
This case highlights a profound systemic vulnerability in the medicolegal industry. It illustrates exactly why rigid transparency, mandatory record-keeping, and aggressive ethical safeguards are required to protect individuals from the weaponization of forensic psychology.
Unfortunately, when these flagrant violations were brought to light, the College of Alberta Psychologists — including Dr. Troy Janzen, Deputy Registrar and Complaints Director and the Complaints Review Committee (including Dr. Lorraine Breault and Dr. Ali Al-Asadi) — deemed most of Dr. Suffield’s practices detailed above to be “minimally acceptable conduct.” In doing so, the regulator effectively abandoned its legislated duty to protect the public. Instead, the College of Alberta Psychologists behaves like a medieval guild or a modern cartel—prioritizing the protection and self-preservation of its members over professional ethics, integrity, and public safety.
Stay tuned for forthcoming: Under the Hood: Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s Masterclass In Being An “Independent, Impartial and Objective” Expert to The Court including Dr. Suffield’s June 19, 2026 stunning admission that he had not been paid a cent for his litigation assistance to SD5 and for his expert witness services for over 11 years “on this file”.