Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

A likely conversation between MHRC and Government of Manitoba would probably have gone on something like this:

"The complainant says she had been overworked at OSD; and underappreciated even after filling in for chronic staff shortages of 3 vacant positions over lengthy periods of time. She believes that she has been totally ignored due to an 'invisible disability'; And it has been going on for so long that she feels she is invisible. She's waiting at the door for your response. What should I tell her? 

Government: too busy to respond, likely distracted by more important matters tells MHRC:

"Tell her I can't see her," and then sends in for Rob Olson.

I questioned the inappropriateness of Government, thinking so little of my HRC complaint ,that it would just 'farm out' that responsibility to private lawyer, Robert Olson. But MHRC just brushed me off stating "any government authority could sign the Reply on Government's behalf." Well, if Olson did (at the time) have government signing authority, then he cannot claim third party privilege as stated in Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman. GABS

Olson acted without any credible basis for a defence on the backs of Manitoba taxpayers: on the basis of his expertise in these issues, he would have known there was no defence. What could have been cleared up at no cost, instead some legal 'expert' gave some really bad advice: Let's play hard ball.

Evidence would show that Olson used hearsay and primarily fabricated evidence to delay, demoralize, annoy, injure, and harass a person known to have a protected disability under the Human Rights Code. Common sense will tell you that these intentional delays work quite well in compounding legal fees and disbursements.

Why go for a quickie resolution when you can be Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, creator of a Seinfeld case where top level execs make a lot of money protracting a complaint based on a defence of nothing--now held over for its 8th season. GABS

I  was personally responsible for preparation of all documentation, unlike the Government who has access to, and made full use of all its resources: Civil Legal Service has 32 permanent full time on-staff lawyers); Treasury Board Secretariat has permanent on-staff lawyers;  CSC has two to four permanent lawyers as senior executive management; countless Human Resource personnel; .even the union (MGEU) not only has permanent legal counsel on staff, but they too spend union dues on hiring private lawyers (as in the case of Elliott Leven).

This gives us all a whole new perspective on the "Out to Lunch" phenomenon; whenever there’s a free lunch, there will always be herds of people that will show up. As to the issue of double dipping (into taxpayers' pockets), Government should be well advised that dipping more than once is not an acceptable practice to the norm. 

From a Government's perspective, particularly at the onset of the complaint, I could not have been viewed as much of a threat. I was out of work; had no legal representation, and any mental acuity I had going into employment with OSD in 2007 was pretty much fried at the point of termination by summer 2008. And yet Government still called out for "More Cowbell" and rounded up one of  Winnipeg's largest firms, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to join in and, clearly, made 'no bones' about it. GABS

I guess it is true, you can never, ever, have too much Cowbell.