A Human Rights Complaint alleging violations of discrimination was first initiated June 2008 based on racial (Métis), religious (Christian), disability (bipolar disorder), and refusal of access to the Civil Service Commission's Employee Assistance Program. The Government's Reply was allegedly filed December 8, 2008.
After several attempts to obtain a copy of the December 2008 Reply went ignored, I was then forced to escalate my concerns to MHRC Executive Director Dianna Scarth. Letter dated February 19, 2009 stated that my right to obtain a copy of the Government's Reply was being ignored: contrary to law, and against rules and procedures of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other is pulling up. -
Booker T. Washington
Scarth never responded to my letter, but would seem that she directed MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft to courier a copy of the Reply to me but without any attachments. There was no cover letter to explain why only part of the document was being provided. Also contrary to procedures, and law, the Government's Reply was signed by "Robert W. Olson". He did not identify himself as 'legal counsel' nor did he identify he was acting as a representative of his firm, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. Olson was then a third party with no direct knowledge that the statements he had deposed to were true. Olson had received a substantial fee for his services and that speaks to a credibility issue. Any $250 an hour 'pro' is known to do just about anything to get their client off--right?
These concerns were immediately addressed to MHRC in writing and Flintoft opted to respond by phone that she "… hadn't noticed." When I reiterated my objections, Flintoft stated that "anyone could sign on behalf of the Government, and it's normal for different people in government to sign." But Olson was not Government, and it is not true that anyone can sign on Government's behalf. Specific people are designated to sign specific documents such as cheques: Olson had no such signing authority.
"As legal counsel to Government…” Flintoft then stated in exasperation “…Olson could sign." Even less credible given she knew Olson had not signed as legal counsel.
Olson (and his firm TDS), are identified as counsel of record regarding the complaints under the Labour Relations Act (unfair labour practices and unfair union exclusion). Olson would then have had first-hand and thorough knowledge of the evidence its client submitted to the Labour Board: statements made prior to Government being served with the MHRC complaint. Documented evidence now on record that support my allegations against it that the Government of Manitoba, as an employer, violated the Human Rights Code in acting in a criminal manner. Olson would also then have known that in complying with Government's instruction to provide false testimony in the quasi-judicial process--personally signing the MHRC Reply--he would have known the legal ramifications and consequences of doing so, and yet, did it anyway.
There were no further discussions or clarification on the issue of a lawyer testifying as a witness and, although there were many promises, the attachments to the Government’s Reply were never provided to me. What does the law say?
THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE
The Lawyer as Witness -
The lawyer who appears as an advocate should not submit the lawyer's own affidavit to or testify before a tribunal save as permitted by local rule or practice, or as to purely formal or uncontroverted matters... generally speaking, they should not testify in such proceedings except as to merely formal matters. The lawyer should not express personal opinions or beliefs, or assert as fact anything that is properly subject to legal proof, cross-examination or challenge. The lawyer must not in effect become an unsworn witness or put the lawyer's own credibility in issue. The lawyer who is a necessary witness should testify and entrust the conduct of the case to someone else.
See Related Posts:
- A Bullish Government: Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell -- questioning the inappropriateness of Government, thinking so little of a HRC complaint that it would just 'farm out' that responsibility to Olson. But MHRC just brushed me off stating "any government authority could sign ...
- A Bullish Government: Is MB Gov't #WINNING? --instead of dealing with a situation in accordance with its own stated policies on accommodating employees with disabilities, Government opted to dodge the bullet and hired Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to ...
- A Bullish Government: Electronic signatures, rubber stamping ... -- a hearing was clearly needed to cross-examine the evidence and witnesses, including but not limited to deponent, Olson, who personally signed off on the MHRC Reply in the complaint against the Government but NOT as ...
- A Bullish Government: "YES WE CAN" says Manitoba Government -- my blog, A Bullish Government has shed light on a number of instances where provincial government authorities and its defence counsel, Rob Olson of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, have broken the law. Small fish, by global ...
- A Bullish Government: A Biased MLB Decision, Contrary to Facts ... -- Government made full use of all its legal resources including that of Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, specializing in labour law to launch an attack that can only be described as ''mobbing'. The Labour Board...
- A Bullish Government: ABCs of MOBBING brought 2U by CSC, OSD ... -- By way of FIPPA request in 2011 CSC acknowledged in a letter that "there was no workplace reorganization of any kind at any time" but rather a fabrication by counsel, Rob Olson of TDS, to baffle the issues with bullshit.
How are Today's Lawyers Perceived?
The following quote speaks volumes: Jordan. Furlong is a lawyer and legal journalist specializing in law practice innovation, legal business trends, and the changing landscape of the legal profession; formerly Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Bar Association’s magazine National and blogs on the profession’s rapid evolution at http://law21.ca.
Justice Abella is correct to express concerns that if lawyers are seen to be motivated first and foremost by self-interest, then we will lose respect, business, and support for our independent governance. I submit, however, that that ship has already sailed. That is exactly how lawyers are now perceived – acting in our own interests first, in clients’ interests second, and in the interests of the public, the justice system, and doing the right thing much farther down the list, if at all. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that we have lost much of the public’s respect, we are losing their business to non-lawyer legal service providers, and we are hearing the first grumblings about why lawyers should merit special treatment in their governance. It bears repeating that lawyers, like the laws that enable our livelihoods, exist for the purposes of clients, not the other way around. Our profession, unfortunately, too often sees that in reverse, viewing clients primarily as a means to our own ends rather than as ends in themselves.
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/tenth_colloquium_furlong.pdf
There have always been lawyer jokes, but the consensus of public opinion, that as a group, they have dropped down considerably over the years as not being very 'professional'. Stop me if you've heard this one.: How does a lawyer sleep at night?
First he lies on one side, and then on the other.
