complaint·December 5, 2023

Additionally, interviews conducted revealed no further violation of other personal rights. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation: Staff made inappropriate comments towards resident. LPA conducted interviews as stated above. The investigation revealed staff addressed residents appropriately. LPA did not observe staff making inappropriate comments towards a resident or in reference to a resident. Based on interviews conducted, it was revealed that no corroborated statements exist which determine staff making inappropriate comments towards residents. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation: Staff interferes in resident’s financial affairs. LPA conducted interviews and record reviews including admission agreements, plan of operation, surety bond, inventory sheets, and safeguard agreements stating facility may hold debit cards for specific residents who have agreed to this practice. Based on interviews and record reviews, it was revealed that licensee currently holds debit cards for eight (8) residents in care. It was further revealed through record reviews and interviews that all residents and applicable responsible parties have signed and agreed to safeguard agreements allowing licensee to manage debit cards and withdraw funds on behalf of residents for purposes of paying monthly rents. As a result, there is not a preponderance of evidence to conclude that facility staff have engaged in a practice of interfering in residents’ financial affairs, therefore, this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation: Staff threatened residents with eviction. LPA conducted interviews as stated above. Based on interviews conducted, there were no corroborated statements which reveal threats of eviction given by staff towards residents. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that although facility has previously issued eviction notices, such notices contained required regulatory language and components to determine a legitimate reason for evictions, or have been revised accordingly to meet regulation requirements. As a result, there is not a preponderance of evidence to conclude staff have threatened residents with eviction, therefore, this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Lucky Kaur and a copy of this report was provided to Lucky. Appeal rights provided.