By Dr. Bob Uttl<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a spectacular cross-examination exchanges at recent tribunal hearings, the gap between administrative accountability and rubber-stamped “expert opinions” was laid bare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr. Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources for School District No. 5 (Southeast Kootenay), was cross-examined about Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s 2011 Report on Ms. T (Dr. Suffield is registered clinical psychologists with the College of Alberta Psychologist). Mr. Reimer was asked a simple question: Did it ring any alarm bells that a Canadian woman with perfectly average cognitive skills was being deemed completely unfit to perform duties of an elementary school teacher?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The answer was stunningly candid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nQUESTION:<\/strong> Now, in 3.5, Dr. Suffield comments, gives his opinion on Dr. K**’s summary. And he says, Dr. K**’s summary, page 9, that Ms. T’s overall cognitive skills are average compared to similarly aged Canadians is correct. Did you understand this to mean that Ms. T was an average Canadian woman in terms of intellect and cognitive skills relative to the same-aged Canadians?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> I didn’t give it much thought, honestly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Well, it’s Dr. Suffield’s opinion. You didn’t give it any thought that she was the average Canadian woman of average cognitive skills?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER<\/strong><\/strong> I’m going to try, I’ll try again. I was very interested in the doctor’s opinion on whether she was fit to teach or not. That mattered to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> And it did not ring any bell in your mind? That this Canadian woman of average cognitive skills was somehow unfit to teach?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> No, I never gave it a second thought, honestly.<\/p>\nCross Examination of Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources, School District No. 5, April 9, 2025<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Apparently, it did not occur to Mr. Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources, that his duties included an active, critical assessment of the medical data used to end a teacher’s career. Mr. Reimer accepted two completely contradictory conclusions without batting an eye:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Ms. T\u2019s intellect and cognitive capacities were perfectly normal, average.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- A Canadian woman with a normal, average IQ is somehow prevented from performing the duties of an elementary school teacher.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
\nQUESTION:<\/strong> Did it strike you as strange that a woman of average cognitive abilities is unable or is prevented from performing her regular teaching duties?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER<\/strong>:<\/strong> No… No, I didn’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> It didn’t strike you at all?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> I just said it didn’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION: <\/strong>Okay. And you testified before that you didn’t have no standards as to minimum number of IQ points teachers have to have to perform their teaching duties, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> Yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION: <\/strong>And so you let Dr. Suffield to decide whether she is or is not prevented from performing her teaching duties? And you had no understanding how he came to that conclusion, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER: <\/strong>I trusted the professional.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION: <\/strong>You trusted the professional, but you yourself had no understanding how he came to that conclusion, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER: <\/strong>He has a different skill set than me, and I trusted his skill set.<\/p>\nCross Examination of Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources, School District No. 5, April 9, 2025<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Mr. Reimer\u2019s defense perfectly captures his tunnel vision: “I wanted to know if she was fit to teach. That’s what we paid him to figure out. Is she or isn’t she?”<\/em> Mr. Reimer wasn’t looking at clinical reality, testing data, or evidence of cognitive health. He had no understanding how the professionals came to their conclusions. Mr. Reimer trusted them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When “Average” Means “Disabled”<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administrative blind faith was on full display when Mr. Brent Reimer was questioned about an opinion from another practitioner, Dr. Mary Westcott, who recommended that Ms. T explore “financial supports available to individuals with disabilities.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nQUESTION:<\/strong> Would you understand the term “individuals with disabilities” to mean?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> Yes, that she was unfit to teach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> And what does disability have to do with being unfit to teach?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> I don’t know what you’re asking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION<\/strong>: Well, individuals with disabilities. So, Ms. T, according to this, is an individual with disability, correct? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER<\/strong>: Okay. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Do you agree? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> It says she has disabilities, and she is expressing that she should search for long-term support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION: <\/strong>All right. And it says, Ms. T. Explore financial supports available to individuals with disabilities. Did you understand that to mean that Dr. Westcott thought that she was an individual with disability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER<\/strong>:<\/strong> I would say yes, and that she wasn’t fit to teach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION: <\/strong>Okay. So, you also thought that Ms. T had a disability, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER<\/strong>: <\/strong>That’s what this says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Okay. And did it strike you that a Canadian woman with average cognitive abilities was a woman with a disability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> Again, I trust the medical experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> And it did not ring any bells in your mind that there is this Canadian woman of average intelligence and cognitive abilities, and that that person with average cognitive abilities and average number of IQ points is considered a woman with disability, according to Dr. Westcott?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> I trusted the experts. I didn’t get much thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION<\/strong>:<\/strong> Is it your opinion that more than half of the Canadians are disabled mentally?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BRENT REIMER:<\/strong> I don’t know what you’re asking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION<\/strong>:<\/strong> Well, the average, when we have cognitive abilities, and we look at the average, that’s in the middle of the distribution. So, if the woman, a Canadian woman, of average cognitive abilities is disabled, that would put about half of Canadians as being disabled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> You’re over my head, doctor.<\/p>\nCross-Examination of Mr. Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources, School District No. 5, April 9, 2025<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The Expert Admission: Ms. T’s Intellect and Her Memory Is “Average”<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
To be absolutely clear, Dr. John Braxton Suffield himself confirmed during his own cross-examination that Ms. T’s cognitive metrics were completely unexceptional and normal. First, WAIS-IV US (2008) Computerized Report generated by Dr. John Braxton Suffield himself for Ms. T was placed in front of him:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI):<\/strong> 100 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI):<\/strong> 92 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Working Memory Index (WMI):<\/strong> 92 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Processing Speed Index (PSI):<\/strong> 105 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Full Scale IQ (FSIQ):<\/strong> 96 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- General Ability Index (GAI):<\/strong> 96 (Average)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\nQUESTION:<\/strong> And qualitative description for that point score here is average, average, average, average, average, average, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD:<\/strong> Correct. I’ve never said that Ms. T was not average compared to similarly-aged persons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> So you, in fact, agree that she was average relative to Canadian persons of the same age, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD:<\/strong> Absolutely. I’ve never said otherwise.<\/p>\nCross Examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield, R. Psych., June 18, 2026<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Second, WMS-IV (2008) Computerized Report generated by Dr. John Braxton Suffield himself for Ms. T was placed in front of him:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Auditory Memory (AM):<\/strong> 105 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Visual Memory (VM):<\/strong> 100 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Immediate Memory (IM):<\/strong> 103 (Average)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Delayed Memory (DMI):<\/strong> 104 (Average)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nQUESTION:<\/strong> … And qualitative description for that point score, observed score, is average, average, average, average, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD:<\/strong> Her memory is average.<\/p>\nCross Examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield. R. Psych., June 18, 2026<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The House of Cards Collapses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Mr. Brent Reimer sat through all 42 days of the hearing, including his own multi day examination and cross-examination, and he watched the final days of Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s cross-examination unfold like a slow-motion wreck. Mr. Reimer listened as his chosen expert, the expert he trusted completely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Disavowed<\/strong> test score comparisons across different tests, different countries, and different historical eras decades apart as “bewildering” and “inappropriate.” For example, to the question: “So if I hear you correctly, it is inappropriate to compare how people in the 1960s scored on USES GATB to these Canadian norms or Canadian values important for success, correct?<\/em>“, Dr. John Braxton Suffield answered: “Correct.<\/em>” (see Using outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant test data to make disparaging statements about a client’s IQ…<\/a>)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Launched a full-frontal scorched earth attack on his own methodology<\/strong>, admitting flat out that, contrary to Dr. Mary Westcott’s false claims, no one had actually tested any real workers to arrive at the Career Handbook aptitude level data he himself and Dr. Mary Westcott used to make disparaging opinions about Ms. T, that he misrepresented Ms. T’s GATB CDN performance by failing to accurately graph it, that he improperly compared Ms. T’s GATB CDN performance to the mean scores of “elementary school teachers” — the mean scores Dr. Suffield manufactured\/invented out of the Career Handbook five aptitude levels score ranges, and that, as he testified, he was not “a giant fan of the GATB” in any case (see There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and graphs<\/a>)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Retracted his under-oath false claims<\/strong> that Ms. T\u2019s WAIS-IV profile was “wildly” different from normal controls, admitting he had plugged Ms. T’s scores (e.g., the WAIS-IV scores above) into a wildly incorrect spreadsheet created by Dr. Crockett without any checking whatsoever and without any understanding on his part what the spreadsheet actually did. Stunningly, Dr. Suffield testified he did it in “good faith”. Apparently, in Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s mind, an expert witness can parrot the “opinions” of an Excel spreadsheet, present it as his own sworn scientific testimony, and then plead ignorance when the math turns out to be a complete work of fiction and stunning junk science<\/strong> (see A Lethal Mix: An Erroneous Spreadsheet, Stunning Incompentence, and Money…<\/a>)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Admitted<\/strong> his prior under oath testimony that Dr. Mary Westcott was “unable to get” Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Computerized Report, that Ms. T’s “defensiveness … rendered her protocol uninterpretable”, etc., was false (see Dr. John Braxton Suffield Lied About Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile…<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Ultimately, whether or not Dr. Suffield learned about it before the final two days of his cross-examination on June 18 and 19, 2026, the Tribunal issued March 2026 decisions, ruling that Dr. Mary Westcott\u2019s and Dr. John Braxton Suffield\u2019s interpretations of Ms. T\u2019s test scores were NOT relevant<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The entire expert foundation the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay paid for and relied upon completely evaporated. One has to wonder: now that the “experts” have been thoroughly discredited by their own testimonies and that the Tribunal ruled that their interpretations of Ms. T’s test scores were not relevant in any case, will Mr. Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources, give it some thought? Or is the truth still an unwanted guest in his head and in the School District No. 5 Human Resources Department?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When a public official \u2014 Mr. Brent Reimer, a directing client of Harris & Company Ltd. lawyers \u2014 spends years and millions of taxpayer dollars clinging to a stack of age-, sex-, race\/ethnicity-, and education-based IQ “fitness-for-duty” standards invented by SD5’s expert psychologists, shadow-expert broken Excel spreadsheets<\/strong> substituting impossible zero scores for missing data, obsolete 1940s and 1950s and 1960s norms, and more, a collapse this absolute leaves nowhere left to hide. The house of cards hasn’t just fallen; it has been completely pulverized by the very hands that built it. We will wait to see if Mr. Reimer finally chooses administrative integrity over blind institutional entrenchment, or if the “magical incantations” of thoroughly debunked experts will continue to guide his department’s actions and moral compass. Stay tuned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Buy me a coffee<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n