Search Results

Unfortunately, so does everyone else. What’s up with that? You have probably heard people complain about their right to free speech being infringed upon when Facebook suspends their account. Maybe you read some guy on Facebook who was very upset he couldn’t go walking in the woods during peak wildfire season and confidently stated he has a right to liberty under the Charter. Are we unbeknownst to us, living in a dystopian hellscape where rights are a thing of the past? Is it perchance because of woke people? The answer to both of these very intelligent questions I just wrote is no. These rights do exist. Paragraph 2b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects speech, while Section 7 of the same document protects liberty, among other things, such as life and security of the person (it’s a broad one). What does it mean to have your right to association protected or to have a right to equality? Does it mean you can join a terrorist organization or instill communism in Canada? Surprisingly, it does not mean that, but why? Believe it or not, your rights are more than their catchy title found in the first part of the 1982 Constitutional Act. Living in a common law system means there is an avalanche of jurisprudence and court cases that describe exactly where your rights and freedoms begin and end. In fact, this is all laid out in the very first section of the Charter. The Very First Section Yes. The first section of the Charter, section 1, tells you right off the bat that your rights and freedoms are not absolute. This might sound surprising if you’re a libertarian, as most things would be surprising if you’re a libertarian. In reality, it would make no sense to guarantee absolute rights. Under such a system, you could yell death threats as you please; you could create child abuse material; and you could commit all sorts of hate crimes because your religious text told you to (or just for fun!). It would also mean that the government wouldn’t be allowed to order a lockdown when a pandemic hits. It’s sometimes said (in law schools, normal people don’t talk about this) that my right to move my fist ends where your face begins. This might be a fun image, but it doesn’t accurately portray the reality of over 40 million people who sometimes have competing rights. This was one of the first questions the Supreme Court had to answer when the Charter came into force in 1982 (aside from the fun fact that the population was only around 25 million at the time). The government will sometimes make a decision or pass a law that infringes on our rights as Canadians. Due to checks and balances from our three branches of government, it’s the judicial branch that will make sure the legislative and executive branches stay in their lanes. This is the first misconception: the Charter protects you from the government. It is absolutely useless against other individuals. If your neighbour locks you in his garage and gags you (in this scenario, you are not into it), it’s sequestration at best, and your rights to liberty and speech don’t have to be brought up in court. When a court studies whether a right has been violated justifiably, it uses the Oakes test: a four-part study of the issue where failure at any step means that the law or decision is unconstitutional. Who was Oakes? The Oakes test is a pillar of Canadian law and has been used thousands of times by courts to determine the limits of our collective rights. Surely Oakes must have been one important man. He wasn’t, or rather isn’t. David E. Oakes, at least in 2016, was a network installer in Calgary, trying to live a semi-normal life while avoiding conversation about this insanely famous court case that bears his rather uncommon name (2,206th in popularity in Canada). Why is he avoiding conversation about his name? Because Oakes had the very bad timing of getting arrested for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking on December 17th, 1981, about the exact time Canada was bringing finishing touches to its Charter, which came into effect on April 17th, 1982. The funny thing is that he was caught with eight one-gram vials of cannabis resin and $649.45: hardly Pablo Escobar. The Oakes Test The Oakes test, as mentioned previously, has four parts. Once it’s determined that the government, in some way or another, has limited a right, we have to ask ourselves some questions: Is the government’s objective pressing and substantial? Is there a rational connection between the objective and the government’s method? Does the method used limit rights as little as possible? Do the overall benefits of the method outweigh its negative impacts? Pressing and Substantial Objective Limiting a Charter-protected right, as you can imagine, is a pretty big deal. There must therefore be an important issue at hand to justify such an affront. This is usually a formality. You can imagine very few laws get approved by the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Governor General just to restrict rights for trivial matters. Some laws, however, become obsolete as time goes on. In R v Big M Drug Mart, a law forbidding stores from being open on Sundays was deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated that the objective of the law was clearly to compel adherence to the Christian day of rest: hardly a pressing and substantial objective for a liberal and democratic society that claims to be multicultural (according to Section 27 of the Charter). It’s not worth restricting our collective right to freedom of religion so we can have a law that prevents stores from opening on Sundays. The law was literally called the Lord’s Day Act, and defined the « Lord’s Day » as Sunday. Muslim and Jewish business owners were forced to follow this law, infringing upon their rights, not to mention atheists. Are they supposed to legally close on Sunday and then also on their day of worship (for the jews and Muslim? What if they just don’t want to close on Sunday because that’s poor business? The law goes against their rights and beliefs, and is therefore unconstitutional. Rational Connection If we passed step one, we just agreed that we have an issue on our hands worthy of restricting rights to move on. Clearly, the next step is to make sure that the method we chose will help solve the problem at hand. We can look at the Oakes case itself here! It’s pretty clear that Canada has a noble objective in trying to prevent drug trafficking. The issue in this case was that Oakes was presumed to be a trafficker with his measly 8 grams of cannabis. Paragraph 11d) of the Charter protects our presumption of innocence. Oakes was put in a reverse onus situation, which means he had to prove to the court that he could be set out on bail just because he was presumed to be a trafficker before even stepping into court. The Supreme Court could not find a rational connection between the noble goal of eliminating drug trafficking and jailing someone with as little drug on him as Oakes did. 8 grams of cannabis does not a trafficker make. Another interesting case for rational connection is Mortgentaler, the abortion case. Justices Beetz and Estey of the majority opinion state that the objective of s. 251 (the law criminalizing abortion) is driven by Parliament’s philosophy that the interest in the life or health of the pregnant woman takes precedence over the interest in prohibiting abortions. This includes the interest of the state in the protection of the fetus, when "the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health ». Indeed, why are we carving out exceptions for therapeutic abortion if we actually believe it’s murder? With that in mind, the provisions of s.251 were so onerous for pregnant women, through endless consultations that weren’t even available everywhere, that there was no rational connection between providing healthcare for women and jailing them if they dared to receive an abortion. Minimal Impairment If we arrive at this step, we can say « urgh fine », the issue is important, and there is a link between the method and the problem, but restricting rights is still a big deal. Are we sure that we are restricting the right as little as humanly possible? In Thomson Newspapers, the Supreme Court had to determine whether a three-day blackout on political polls before an election was a justifiable infringement on newspapers' right to free speech. The Court calls the section " a very crude instrument in serving the government’s purpose." Basically, banning all polls indiscriminately, regardless of methodology, does not make sense to the Court. We can imagine a version of this law that allows voters to be properly informed through properly administered polls; a blackout is too much of an infringement of freedom of speech. In Carter, the Supreme Court reversed its judgment from the 1993 Rodriguez case in order to finally rule that assisted suicide (now MAID) should be legal in certain circumstances. Ironically, a blanket ban on assisted suicide is an affront to the right to life protected in section 7 of the Charter since we should have a right to limit our own suffering: the right to life includes the right to die with dignity. Banning assisted suicide stems from the laudable goal to protect vulnerable individuals from being medically killed by their family if perceived as burdens. We can also agree that there is a logical reasoning between the goal and the method. However, the blanket ban was deemed way too broad. It does not minimally infringe on the right to die with dignity. There are ways to allow assisted suicide in some contexts while still protecting vulnerable people. Proportionality We have accepted that rights can be limited by laws, but we don’t want to go overboard. A good example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic. In theory, the government telling you not to leave the house is not ideal, but when you put into context the imminent death backed by science, the pros outweigh the temporary cons. To give an example from jurisprudence, in Dagenais, former and present members of a Catholic religious order were charged with physical and sexual abuse of young boys in their care at training schools in Ontario. The accused asked the Court for an injunction restraining the CBC from broadcasting the mini-series The Boys of St-Vincent, a fictional account of sexual and physical abuse of children in a Catholic institution in Newfoundland, and from publishing in any media any information relating to the proposed broadcast of the program. You can imagine CBC wasn’t thrilled about being told by a Superior Court judge what they could and couldn’t broadcast, especially when it came to fiction. It’s one thing to limit the information circulating about a case in order not to skew public opinion, but does this go too far? My tone may have spoiled this, but the Supreme Court judged that the publication ban in this case could not be upheld. While the ban was clearly directed toward preventing a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial of the four respondents, the initial ban was far too broad. It prohibited broadcast throughout Canada and even banned reporting on the ban itself. The ban is simply too intense a violation of the freedom of expression of CBC, even taking into account the right to a fair trial of the other party. Telling the CBC not to broadcast a specific show in British Columbia because of a trial in Ontario is simply not proportional. Does the defence actually benefit from this? Any benefit would absolutely be dwarfed by the harm done to CBC’s rights. The Court is even clearer in Mentuk when it states that a publication ban should only be ordered when it is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice, when reasonable alternative measures will not prevent the risk, and "when the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficacy of the administration of justice." Mentuk was a case about a publication ban protecting not only the identity of an undercover officer, but also the operational methods used by said officer. The Court concluded that while banning publication of the officer’s identity was necessary for the administration of justice, banning operational methods was not justifiable. Although police operations will be compromised if suspects learn that they are targets, media publication will not seriously increase the rate of compromise. Republication of this information does not constitute a serious risk to the efficacy of police operations, and thus to that aspect of the proper administration of justice. Do we want to live in a world where the Court hides what the police are doing? Absolutely not. Does it make sense for the court to publish the names and other identifying information of officers who work undercover? That would be insane. This is the balancing act that is at play every time Charter-protected rights come into collision. Conclusion So there you have it, you have rights in Canada, but those rights are not absolute. They also shouldn’t be. They also can’t be. You live in a society with millions of people who also have rights. It’s easy to forget about the give and take of living in a democratic society. I’m not saying that I always agree with the Courts. Judges are human, and they are sometimes biased or wrong. What I am saying is that I am tired of hearing people complaining about their rights being trampled, when it’s either not the case, or justified by the very first section of the very Charter they are trying to invoke. We should all know more about how the system works so we can make it better. Knowledge is power and all of that.

Balancing hormones in an unbalanced healthcare system poses several challenges for women going through 'the change.' First, a bit of 'hystery'... I was woefully unprepared for this hormone rollercoaster I am chained to, nor was I made aware that the current healthcare system has failed to make women's health a true priority... even now... in 2026... ... .. .. . . urgh. Imagine my shock when I found out that since the 60s, clinical trials for new medications were predominantly tested on men, not women. This, in part, was due to the thalidomide scandal that affected over 46 countries in the 50s and 60s. Thalidomide, AKA Distaval, was a sedative first intended to treat morning sickness in pregnant women, but the result was horrifying. The thalidomide scandal caused birth defects in over 10,000 babies, and 40% of those babies usually died within the first year. This prompted the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement a policy requiring drug manufacturers to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their products. Needless to say, after such a monumental fuck up, researchers were exceedingly cautious about testing new drugs on reproductive women; however, they consistently omitted women on birth control and women whose husbands had been vasectomized. So, between the 60s and 1993 (in the US) and 1997 (in Canada... yeah, we dropped the ball there), women were underrepresented in drug trials, which led to many medical injuries. Understandably, women were pissed. They protested and demanded policy changes until, finally, at least in North America, women were included in clinical trials. Ain't that some BS? You'd think that after such an intense scandal, the medical community would get its head out of its gluteal region. You'd think... Sadly, women's healthcare initiatives, still to this day, fail to meet the level at which researchers pour time and resources into men's healthcare. Moreover, research has always tended to lean more towards fertility and reproductive outcomes rather than our post-reproductive years. Realistically, I could go on and on about this topic because there is seriously so much to touch upon. But, to save us a bit of time, we'll delve a bit into the 2002 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study that caused a clusterfuck in progress related to hormone replacement therapy (HRT). You might want to get comfy... The 2002 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study and why it matters today. To start, it is important to note that, to this day, research into women's healthcare is grossly underfunded. I know, I know... we've heard this before. It's funny what happens when we hear the same bad news over and over again; we tend to tune it out. It was really only in the 20th century that the issue of women's hormone depletion became somewhat important. "Hormone Deficient Syndrome" was the term used to describe clinical conditions associated with menopause, like hot flashes and osteoporosis, to name a few. In 1942, the FDA approved an estrogen treatment for hot flashes called Premarin ®. Canada approved Premarin in 1941. In the 60s, thanks to the determination of feminists, women's healthcare began showing significant improvements. This upward momentum looked promising with many advocating estrogen as the winning treatment for menopausal women, especially in Europe. The popularity of estrogen as a treatment for menopause became even more popularized when American gynecologist Robert A. Wilson published his book in 1966 called Feminine Forever. Wilson claimed that taking estrogen would significantly improve the symptoms of menopausal women. That was all fine and dandy until 1970, when a study was published highlighting that taking estrogen alone was spiking incidents of endometrial cancer. Great. Just what we needed. More research was needed, and finally, researchers determined that lowering estrogen levels while pairing it with progesterone was the winning combination. This winning combo not only effectively reduced menopause symptoms, but it also reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. In the 70s and early 80s, HRT was evolving like crazy. The medical community was fine with recommending HRT for hot flashes. Still, it wasn't until 1988 that the FDA decided that not only was HRT effective for hot flashes, but that it also helped reduce the risk of osteoporosis. Around the same time, and after more research, it was finally determined that HRT also tackled chronic diseases associated with menopause. Holy shit, right? This all sounds so promising, and yet... "Feminine Forever" then became "healthy forever," and things were looking up for menopausal and postmenopausal women. That is, until the infamous 2002 WHI study. I won't go into all the details about the research into estrogen, progesterone, and progestin, because it's way above my pay grade. Suffice it to say, this new field of research into women's health prompted many different kinds of studies. However, the 2002 WHI study, which is now said to have been "...inadequately designed, evaluated, and reported."(PubMed), caused much widespread panic among women, and many opted out of receiving HRT. Seemingly, every time the medical community stepped one foot forward to improve women's healthcare, they'd then have to take two steps back because of irresponsible research. And, why were so many women shitting themselves over this study? Well, they had good reason! Thanks to Google doing some of the heavy lifting for me, here is a breakdown of the shitstorm. 1. The 2002 Announcement and Panic The Study: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated the WHI in 1991 to confirm that HRT helped prevent chronic disease. The Findings: In July 2002, the study was stopped early, as it appeared combined estrogen-progestin therapy increased breast cancer risk by 26% and caused a 29% increase in heart attacks. The Panic: The announcement made front-page news, creating a "nationwide panic". Prescriptions for HRT dropped by over 70-85% in the following years. The Misinterpretation: Media reports claimed HRT caused "de novo" (new) breast cancer, which was not accurate, and the results were treated as applying to all women. 2. Why the 2002 Results Were Flawed Years of reanalysis and subsequent studies have shown the 2002 findings were overgeneralized and skewed by the study design. Too Old, Too Late: The average age of women in the study was 63–64, and many were 10–20 years post-menopause. The average age of menopause is 51, and HRT is typically prescribed at that time. The risks of hormone therapy are significantly lower for women in their 50s. Incorrect Hormone Formulations: The study used oral conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), which are not the bioidentical hormones commonly used today. Misrepresented Statistics (Relative vs. Absolute Risk): The "26% increase" in breast cancer was a relative risk, which sounds high, but the absolute risk was very small (an extra 8 cases per 10,000 women per year). Non-significant Findings: Some of the reported harms were not actually statistically significant, yet were presented as conclusive. Misleading Data on Breast Cancer: The study's own data eventually showed that women taking estrogen alone (who had hysterectomies) had a reduced risk of breast cancer, a finding heavily overshadowed in 2002. 3. The Consequences: "A Generation of Women Denied" Suffering from Menopause: Millions of women were taken off hormones, leading to severe, untreated hot flashes, night sweats, insomnia, and mood changes. Unnecessary Fear: A "hysteria" was created that persists in some medical practices today, where both patients and doctors fear that even low-dose, short-term use is unsafe. Increased Mortality: Some researchers argue that the abrupt cessation of hormones actually led to higher mortality due to unmanaged cardiovascular issues and increased osteoporotic fractures. Now that we've travelled through time, let's discuss where we are today... 4. The Current Understanding Today, experts generally agree on a more nuanced view of HRT, often called the "timing hypothesis." Safety for Younger Women: Women under 60, or those within 10 years of menopause, generally have a much higher benefit-to-risk ratio. Individualized Care: The current recommendation is to treat menopause symptoms individually, using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time, rather than a blanket prohibition. The "Scare" Was Unjustified: The 2002 interpretation that HRT should never be used is now considered a "misinterpretation of its own data" by the original study. The 2002 WHI scandal serves as a cautionary tale on how a single study, when prematurely released and broadly interpreted, can negatively impact public health for decades. HRT and Me Disclaimer (of sorts): Each woman receiving HRT arrived there for her own reasons. We are all built differently, and on some level, it takes courage to seek care that is still stigmatized. To all the women who had to experience perimenopause/menopause before 2026, my hat goes off to you. Most of you likely suffered in silence and didn't receive the best care possible, and most of you likely had kids, spouses, full-time jobs, and extended family to care for. How you managed it all must have taken everything you had, and though I may not know you, I'm sure as shit proud of you. What a fucking hellscape this can be. Onto my journey... STRESS, if unmanaged, will kick you right in your lady-junk. What I encountered was the perfect storm of stressors at my most vulnerable time. At the time my perimenopause began, roughly around the age of 40, I had a relatively new doctor, and we'll call them Dr. Nard. My previous doctor had been my doctor for ten years before he retired, and that's when Dr. Nard stepped in. Dr. Nard's appointments generally lasted no more than five minutes, and it was obvious that Dr. Nard wanted to treat the symptom, not to learn about the patient or how the symptom may have manifested due to lifestyle choices or family history. My gut was sounding alarm bells, but what choice did I have? There was, and still is, a shortage of good doctors and, of course, an extremely high volume of patients, especially after COVID. At first, I didn't think about whether or not Dr. Nard was good at their job because, at the time, my biggest issue was sleep, and Dr. Nard was more than willing to prescribe Zopiclone, the mother of all sleeping aids. I will discuss my lack of sleep and dreams in another post, because that in and of itself is another saga, but I digress... I had consulted Dr. Nard about heart palpitations in 2022, and was prescribed an at-home blood pressure machine and a referral to test the health of my heart. I had mentioned to Dr. Nard that I was putting on weight, too. Never once did Dr. Nard ask about my medical history. In 2023, I got COVID for the second time (the first time occurred in 2021), and it unleashed fury on my body. If my body was already struggling to maintain homeostasis, COVID lit the match that set off an explosion in my entire system. In fact, COVID vaccines have been linked to causing women's hormones to fluctuate in unhelpful ways. The vaccine basically introduces a stressor to the body, and by the time December 2023 rolled around, I had already been injected with five COVID vaccines. As I mentioned, it was a perfect storm. (No, I am not against COVID vaccines, but I think women should have been better informed.) I began bleeding from my ass, like, a lot. Whoa, Mme Duthier, TMI! Well, sorry, we have to go there. I would just shit blood. Dr. Nard was on holiday break when this started, so I consulted a free, online medical service that utilizes the expertise of nurse practitioners about my symptoms. I was prescribed a single dose of a steroid to get me out of my butt-jam until I could speak to my doctor. The bleeding didn't stop, and then I began to menstruate... every two weeks. When Dr. Nard was back from vacation, I went to them with these symptoms, expecting them to have a competent, reasonable action plan. What was prescribed to me was time off work and a brochure that his office created, very basic, indicating what foods to eat to alleviate my symptoms. It was mostly the BRAT diet (bananas, rice, applesauce, white toast), and it started with white bread. Before I could move on to other foods, I had to stop having bloody poops, and this was supposed to happen following this diet. I followed Dr. Nard's recommendations to the letter, but nothing improved, and I never made it past the first step, which consisted mainly of white bread. I was severely bloated all day long, developed skin rashes on my hands, could barely move because of joint pain, continued to bleed, and couldn't get out of bed despite having over 12 hours of sleep. Over six weeks had gone by with no improvement. Dr. Nard told me to take another month off work, and to bugger off basically. All I wanted to do was to get better, and Dr. Nard had no interest in investigating further. I went so far as to prepare him a document outlining the foods I had been eating at the time I got sick, along with my exercise routine, sleep, and information about my menstrual cycle. Dr. Nard never looked at it, though, because what would I know? I was told to stop researching and to stop listening to nurse practitioners, like the one I had consulted online through our province's healthcare system. Dr. Nard chalked it all down to having irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and left it at that. It felt like I was dying, and I didn't see a way out. After months of bleeding from my downstairs holes, I asked Dr. Nard for a blood test to see if I was perimenopausal. Dr. Nard told me that I was not, flat-out. I kept asking to get tested until finally I was prescribed the blood test to determine my hormone levels. When the results came back, Dr. Nard, with a cocky demeanour, told me that everything was great. I felt like a stupid, dumb bitch. Dr. Nard had done a fine job at gaslighting me throughout the duration of my illness, so finally, I gave up. Had it not been for my psychologist, who strongly suggested I seek a second opinion, I may not be here today. Dr. Nard's unprofessional and apathetic behaviour actually inspired me to file an official complaint with the College and Physicians and Surgeons in 2025, and, this year, the College determined that Dr. Nard deserved a 'caution' on his file, highlighting his unprofessionalism and dismissiveness. There was also some question as to whether or not Dr. Nard had tinkered with his notes about my case after he found out about my complaint. After changing healthcare providers two months after I became seriously ill, everything changed. I was floored when I found out that the blood test Dr. Nard prescribed to check my hormones was not the appropriate one. What the actual fuck, right? I can't know for sure, but it appears that Dr. Nard prescribed me a blood test to shut me up. Once the appropriate test was prescribed, and my results came back, my new healthcare provider- we'll call them Ace- discovered that not only were my hormones fucked, but that I was producing a hormone that only breastfeeding women produce. The level of that hormone wasn't a little high; it was off-the-charts high. Did I have a prolactinoma? After a brain scan determined that it was not a brain tumour, the only other explanation was stress. But I was still bleeding from my ass, so I was put on a steroid for several months. These were some of the darkest days of my life. Steroids are no joke; they are incredibly hard on the body, and I had every side effect imaginable. My neck was so swollen that it was as wide as my cheeks. I was basically an inflated, bleedy ball of human flesh. Once I stopped bleeding from my ass, we were able to move on to the next phase of my healthcare. But, by this time, a new symptom appeared... hair loss. I wasn't just losing hair; it was coming out in clumps. The shower drain looked like TWO Chubaccas got it on for hours. If you look at the timeline, I got COVID in December 2023, was put on steroids in March 2024, and by September, I noticed that I was losing quite a bit of hair. By December 2024, I had lost almost half of my hair. To combat my hair thinning, I was prescribed thyroid medication and progesterone in January 2025, and this halted the hair loss in a short period of time. This was the first time in a year that felt like my health might actually improve. Oh, and did I mention that Ace operates a private care clinic? That's right, I pay out of pocket for visits to this clinic. At a time when I needed care and a second opinion in double-quick time, this was the best possible option. And, at the time, I was unwilling to begin my journey again with a new doctor who was, I thought, going to rush me out the door like Dr. Nard had done. Thankfully, most of my prescriptions were still covered, and I was still able to be referred to specialists, but in a neighbouring province. There are rules, you see, when it comes to private care clinics, and debates continue to rage-on whether private clinics will hinder our healthcare system in the long-term. Nevertheless, I had to get better ASAP. I still had bills to pay... Now, I have revised and rewritten this particular part of the blog because I couldn't find a diplomatic way of saying that my former manager- we'll call them Beige- made my work life unnecessarily stressful because of so many insane factors that I can't even go there right now. What I can say is that I was neglected, unappreciated, and subject to abuses of power. This stress, as I came to find out, is what accelerated my hormonal imbalances from the get-go. I took my frustration out on myself by making poor lifestyle decisions, too. In fact, looking back at my younger years, every time I experienced high levels of stress, my hormones experienced high levels of imbalance. Go figure. I could write a novel about how much Beige made me question my will to live, but suffice it to say, I am still very much triggered to this day. My job was extremely taxing, and I still have symptoms of PTSD because of that experience. And, in the spring of 2025, I had to do a 'hard quit' to save myself, and that's exactly what happened; I learned self-respect because my crappy health forced my hand. FINALLY. Realistically, though, I am still very much a work in progress. I have a lot of gratitude for my former HR manager who helped guide me through that shit-storm. Back to HRT... The combination of thyroid and progesterone medication helped to stop hair loss and to get my menstrual cycle back on track, but I still can't shake the weight, and I still have fatigue and brain fog. Because of these chronic issues, Ace supported me in finding a healthcare provider with more specialization in HRT. Now, in addition to thyroid and progesterone medication, I am also taking progestin. Based on my last blood tests in February 2026, my estrogen was high while my progesterone was too low. Furthermore, I have been getting my period every three weeks, and because of my heavy flow, I must now take iron supplements due to the blood loss during menstruation. It has now been one week of taking all of the medications, and after week one, I feel some of my zest coming back. To add insult to injury, I hurt my shoulder in December 2024 and thought it would get better on its own, but it hasn't. This new, annoying injury has prevented me from doing the kinds of exercises that seemed to be helping with some of my weight gain and muscle loss. By chance, when I was looking for exercises for women my age, I happened upon information about lipedema. As it turns out, I have that, too. And, thanks to Ace's amazing team, I was immediately prescribed compression leggings to help with the fluid retention. Am I done yet? Almost... Throughout all of this, I have had an incredible support system around me, namely my husband, whom we'll call M. Duthier. Through the long nights, the despair, the loss of hair, the weight gain, the irritability, uncertainty, and bitchiness (though he seems to like 'some' bitchiness), he has been there propping me up (not literally because I would crush the poor guy) and reminding me every day that I'm not alone and that to him, I am still the beautiful women he met in 2022. Also, my mom, sisters, and friends have been in my corner providing positivity, encouragement, and fun distractions. There is no way in fucking hell that I would be alive today had these people not been in my life. And, though I am part of the 14% of women who had to exit the work force because of perimenopause, I am still hopeful that one day I can rejoin the work force to do something that I love that will be appreciated. CONCLUSION Because of the last two years, I still have a lot of resentment and heartbreak about how my health and career were handled. I deserved better, and I'm bitter about how it had to end. This blog entry has been largely negative, so I would like to end it on a positive note. In the end, all of this BS has led me to make some drastic, positive changes in my life. I eat better, and I'm more mindful about my stress levels. I've set up boundaries, distanced myself from those who bring me more heartbreak than joy, and I have a supportive healthcare team guiding me through these health challenges. And though I am still unable to work, I have been making use of my time by giving more attention to my amazing fuzzy family members and watching amazing lectures via The Great Courses (Prime). I learned how to make (THE BEST) sourdough bread, and I love cooking for my husband, who has been busting his butt at work to support us both financially. In addition to his day job, he teaches online courses at night and has picked up a contract translating. I wouldn't be here today without him, and that is the truth. He and my mom have given me strength when I didn't think I had any left. Soon, I have an appointment with a regression hypnotherapist to help shed light on some traumas my subconscious seems to be battling. My hope is that my stress levels will continue to go down, which will hopefully help my hormones balance. MORE RESOURCES: https://menopausefoundationcanada.ca/ https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/stress.html https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/private-menopause-clinics-in-canada-9.7067244 https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ohdio/premiere/emissions/meme-frequence/segments/entrevue/402841/hormones-bio-identiques-sylvie-demers https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/video/2025/10/30/hormone-therapy-for-menopause/

Never in a million and one years did I ever think that I'd be in an age-gap relationship, let alone married to someone much younger than myself. There is a 17-year difference between my partner and me. I know, it's a lot. It's atypical. 92% of relationships don't have an age gap of more than 10 years. Trust me when I say that marrying someone much younger than myself wasn't ever something I thought could happen. Actually, no one ever thought that I'd get married. But here we are, four years later, and we couldn't be happier. I won't mention fate or destiny because I don't think that's what happened. To me, it feels more like a chance encounter that evolved into something major. Had he not had the summer job at my workplace, we would have never met. At the time, he was living in a city about 5 hours away, where he graduated from law school. And not only is he not from the town I live in, but he is originally from two provinces to the west. In fact, when I first saw M. Duthier (M.), the thought of being with him never crossed my mind; now, that isn't to say that I didn't find him attractive, but I knew that I was older, and that it would be silly to think about him beyond being a work colleague. I didn't have low self-confidence when it came to men and dating, but I couldn't imagine him being attracted to a woman in her 40s when he could easily attract someone younger. Like many, I assumed that 'young' = 'hotter'. I am an autumn chicken, not a spring chicken, though my feathers are still quite bright. Before getting to know me, M. was quite shy and could barely look me in the eyes. Little did I know, he had been checking out my butt the entire time, and little did he know that I had been checking his out, too. Suffice it to say, our posteriors are meaty. He already had a sense of my personality because he was always overhearing me talk to my workmates. He thought I was funny, friendly, and interesting, but I still didn't know anything about him… yet. Finally, one day, I decided to drop by his office to see what was up with this quiet, cute guy. Almost immediately, I could feel that we had chemistry. We both lit up when we spoke, and he had a quick wit that I greatly enjoyed. We began making each other laugh immediately. When they say that women love funny guys, it's true. I also found out he had a girlfriend, and that, for me, almost simplified our burgeoning friendship; he was off-limits. I was thrilled to have someone to talk to because my interests do not align with the town I live in. Despite having many great qualities, this town is huge on hunting and maintaining the status quo, whereas I'm an environmental and animal activist who is very open-minded. I do not believe in Christianity, either, and I proudly support the LGBTQ community. Immigrants also don't scare me, but they seem to terrify a lot of people here. I also hate rodeos and romanticizing cowboys; after all, historically, cowboys were about conquering land and killing natives. Basically, I don't fit in, even though I gave it my best shot. I never felt understood here, and it’s no one’s fault. M. seemed to care about the same issues as I did. For the first time, I felt like I had an ally. I was elated to have someone like him around and promptly asked him if he would like a tour of the area. Still, I wasn't expecting or anticipating what was about to happen. After spending five hours together driving around, talking, laughing and building a fire by the river, I could feel a spark. Ruh-oh. I could feel his eyes on me, but I pretended not to notice. I, too, realized that I wanted to flirt with him and was actively trying not to. I should have bailed; I had been a Joelene a few times before, and I really didn't want to go down that road again; strong chemistry is my kryptonite. Granted, my views on relationships and monogamy differ significantly from those of most people. Humans are not naturally monogamous, and I have accepted that for a long time. I realize now that other people don't care whether monogamy is human nature or not; they see infidelity as immoral—and I do not. I will discuss this topic in another blog post because that topic is extremely fascinating to me. Back to my story… I wish I could say we didn't cross any lines, but we did… we kissed. Once it became clear that we wanted to cross all the lines, M. broke up with his girlfriend two weeks after the first night we hung out. Needless to say, his girlfriend at the time was extremely pissed and tried to hurt us in as many ways as possible. I understood her rage, but it didn't change anything about how M. and I felt for one another. 17 years, though…that's a lot! With such a big age gap, it's difficult to imagine what kinds of things you would have in common. For me, age gaps weren't something I cared much about. I have best friends who are 20 years older than me, 15 years younger than me, and some in between. One of my best friends for the past 16 years was my former professor, who was 40 years older than me. I have always placed the most importance on my connection with another person. I guess you could say I’m pan-friendly. Then, there's the fact that being childless allowed me to explore life in different ways without worrying about providing for another person. I never had to settle down, and that allowed for my childlike spirit to remain free. For someone who has had kids, I can see how difficult it could be to imagine dating someone much younger— to them, they're still kids! But, unlike parents, my maturity has developed over time rather than overnight. People who have kids experience dramatic changes in lifestyle and priorities, and I can remember when some of my friends started getting married and having babies in their early to mid-20s and thinking they were nuts. I don’t know what convinces someone they’re ready to have kids other than desire, because your life, your time, are never your own ever again! Interestingly, women don’t have an evolved brain mechanism that tells them to want kids. The desire stems from a personal choice that is often shaped by the culture we live in. Moreover, religions, which are often patriarchal in nature, pressure women about basically everything, including pushing out a bunch of kids. I’ve always wanted my coast to be clear. I didn’t want to miss out, and I knew I’d resent my kids for holding me back. I’ve never pretended to be more mature than I am, or that I had my shit together. I have known since being in the womb that my soul's mission has been to understand life, and why I'm here existing on this planet. What I chose to study in university was about society, how it functions, and how we function in terms of our evolutionary psychology. I see us as animals with the capacity to interpret our existence, but I don't see us as being more evolved than animals. Because of our big brains, we have organized societies with many laws to keep our crazy asses in order. I would be convinced that humans are highly evolved if we weren’t so cruel, but here we are. Most of what we do in our day-to-day lives involves the same evolved mechanisms as animals, actually. For example, women who wear makeup, hoist their tits up, or try to make them look bigger are playing the mating game, even subconsciously. The same goes for men who buy expensive cars to try to look rich and accomplished… It's all for show, and it's all for finding a mate or seeming like you could get anyone you want. That is basically the only reason we exist: to compete and propagate. Since neither M. nor I wanted kids, we both chose to spend our lives focusing on our own game and healing, while also having fun and seeking out enlightening experiences. Needless to say, because of my age, there was already zero chance of M. and I ever having a baby anyway! But, because I still lay eggs (ha-ha), we had to have the discussion about what we’d do should I ever accidentally become pregnant. We both agreed that it is a disservice to future generations if broken people continue to have kids. Neither M. nor I wanted to create a life when we both knew that we didn't have what it takes to raise a kid in this fucked up world. Ultimately, M. got a vasectomy, and we never looked back. You may be wondering how M. could have come to such a decision at a young age, but he knew from an early age about his personal limitations. He, like me, appreciates having time to do what he wants, when he wants to do it. He believes the world is a harsh place, with corrupt systems, and that society hasn’t evolved enough to be a fair place for most people. We have both struggled because of our respective family situations, and we were both relieved that neither had kids in their life plans. For me, it was amazing to hear a guy say he didn’t want kids, since most do. For a young man, he had already weighed the pros and cons more than 90% of men who actively produce progeny. We had much in common, but we did have to work at it. It wasn’t all sugar and spice. M. and I did go through some rough patches because of our age difference. He felt the need to impress me by embellishing stories about this past experiences, and I was really hard on him about that. To be fair, every other guy I’ve dated who was in my age group lied the same way, and M. was no exception. It’s something I had to discuss with a therapist 20 years ago. I had spent so much time alone to avoid this exact situation, and it felt like I had walked into the same disaster as always. What I learned was that I had a tendency to want to run away when the going got tough. I didn’t have the tools to work out relationship issues, so I always thought that breaking up, or cheating, was the only answer. I even told all of my exes, verbatim, “if you lie to me, I will cheat on you.” This difficult time in our relationship is what actually forced us both to grow up. We had to face ourselves and our shortcomings. Also, did you know that most men lie in this way? It’s like an actual thing. There are numerous studies about it, actually, but still, knowing that never made me more compassionate, because men will lie about the DUMBEST SHIT. M. isn’t dumb, he did a dumb thing. Sure, I had more years on this planet than M., but he absorbed life by reading extensively, putting himself through school, and ultimately earning two degrees by the time he was 22. There were times when I questioned if our relationship could go the distance, mostly because I was afraid that people would make fun of him as I aged. M. is, after all, a cutie-patootie, highly educated, funny, and a great listener. Why would he want to remain with someone who will one day soon look visibly older than him? I mean, I already look older than him. Did/does M. have a kink? M. would deny that he has a kink for older women, but I believe that he does, at least on some level. This would actually work in my favour as I grow older! I joke with M. sometimes about breaking a hip when I 'Broadway dance' and that he'd have to take care of me... he loves the idea... kinky freak! And, like younger women who fetishize older men, there are reasons why a younger dude could be interested in an older woman. When we met, to him, I appeared very confident, with a good job, my own house, a car, and pets… I had it going on! In reality, I didn't have it all going on, but that's what it looked like. He knew that he would someday make a decent salary, but knowing that I was already somewhat settled likely factored into what he found attractive about me. He had just graduated from university, so clearly he wasn't rolling around in dough. Actually, once his summer stint was over, he moved away for a few months to take an articling position (law, intern stuff) he had secured several months prior. It didn't take long for him to realize that he wanted to be on a different path, and after two months, he came back to live with me in my tiny house, along with my adopted pets. Ah, so he's a gold-digger, right? You'd think… Once M. moved in with me, he started looking for work right away. At the very least, he had to be able to pay his own bills, and that's all I expected. I knew he was younger and hadn't had a career yet, though I feel his work experience had far surpassed my own at his age. Not only had he graduated from law school at 22, but he also worked for professors and was the president of his law student society at university. I trusted that he would do his best not to put any financial strain on me, and I was right to trust him. In no time, he found a job teaching French online for a university in another province. He wasn't making the kind of money he wanted, so he got trained to become a law interpreter for provincial courts. Combined, these jobs would have provided him with enough money to pay his bills and cover other expenses. But then, a bomb went off in my life; I became very sick. I couldn't work for several months, and after I burned through my sick days, I had to collect employment insurance. This situation was incredibly hard on me as I was afraid of losing my job. I had a horrible manager, and I was convinced they would try to replace me, despite being good at my job and working myself into a burnout. I decided to push myself to go back to work, and it only worsened my health. Once again, I had to take time off, and once again I sank deeper into depression. All the while, M. was there supporting me in every way that he could. He did all the cleaning, cooking, and shopping… You name it! Eventually, a job opened up at my office, and he got it. We were overjoyed because it was a job with regular hours, pay, and some benefits. Moreover, he would be able to use some of the skills he had learned in law school. While all of this amazing stuff was happening for M., my health continued to decline, and I made the decision, with M.'s full support, to quit my job. For the past year, M. has been the sole breadwinner while I tend to my health. As he likes to say, "I like taking care of my baby." In the end, our age difference is actually a factor that keeps things interesting. He loves hearing me tell stories about 'back in my day,' and I love hearing about all the knowledge he has about current affairs, history, and culture. He also has some cool stories about his past, but admittedly, his childhood was quite vanilla compared to mine. Hellcat meets housecat. We're really just two people who met by chance, who have open minds, and decided to take a chance. Neither of us had a vision about one day getting married or being in an age-gap relationship. Shit, I had been single for ten years before I met him, always preferring to leave my options open and to have fun without commitment. Between M. and me, it was me who had more growing up to do, but it was he who had to learn how to let loose. There is an organic balance that exists, and we are never, ever bored. We support each other, boost each other, and are each other's biggest fans. We hug and high-five each other all day long! Unfortunately, but understandably, age-gap relationships are still stigmatized. There is a power dynamic that could be easily manipulated and exploited. Generally, we see older men with much younger women, and it has become somewhat cliché. Historically, men have had an unfair advantage thanks to the patriarchal systems that are so deeply entrenched in almost all aspects of society. People with power typically abuse power. But now, women are more powerful than in the past and are therefore making different decisions about what makes sense for their lives, such as whether to have kids or get married. What a time to be alive! I wasn’t looking for a father for my children, or someone to pay my bills; I was simply existing, happy to be alone, when a cool person entered my life and changed everything for the better. Even if M. and I only stay married for 10 years, it’s still longer than most marriages of people who are close in age. We truly get one shot at life, and we took our shot.