You can't control every situation and outcome but you can control how to deal with what you learnt

The system behind the scenes.

If you go against the law of Cause and Effect --the Law of All Laws will overrule the Rule of Law.

Whistle blowers, rape victims, human rights, SRLs who come forward often get taken in by the promise of fair and equal access to justice. But make no mistake, the Cosmic forces are always prevalent. "They' may let you 'do the dance’—but there has likely already been a predetermined outcome from the start. 

Like the foxes guarding the hen house.

Take the Law Society (please) who play double duty in encouraging the public to come forward with their complaints, and then failing resolution (or even any investigation), you’ll find that same firm (as insurer for the Law Society) will be the firm defending that Member against your complaint in court. Can you see the conflict here?


See Related post on Regulating Civility of Lawyers

Cause I spoke out in a truthful, respectful and factual account in this blog, the extreme Cost of Freedom of Speech (the Effect) came a decade later after my last posting. I do know what the Members of the Society are capable of, and still I am prepared to speak out.

There’s a whole system at play within our government that most people aren't even aware of. This "Group-think" where each branch of government is cut from the same cloth, is already a big problem and it's a danger to our democracy.

The only way to get reform is by exposing the injustices. 

If Noah had to build an ark today...

This -- whatever this is -- started off as really just something that could have been cleared up at no cost or cause for any embarrassment to government. But you know what happens when lawyers get involved, "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.” See posting: Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

 

#1 QUESTION ASKED -- WHY BOTHER?

Don't ever question the value of unpaid work by a Whistleblower.
Noah's Ark was built by a volunteer -- the Titanic was built by professionals. 

From the time my sons were able to sit up at the dinner table we have had family meetings. ‘No bullying' as agreed, went both ways -- and double for authorities like teachers and parents --  so, whenever the boys did something wrong--and they often did (they're kids right?) -- the experience was always used as an opportunity to teach; oftentimes the student becoming the teacher.

  

In their teen years it became even more important to check out how my sons' own personal mission statements were developing in place of the family one. Talk is cheap, and often has little impact, which is why I made the decision to use my experience of taking each step of the complaint process as an opportunity to teach. For the plethora of lessons that were derived from my experiences, I guess I should say -- thanks...?

Secondary Education Lessons such as:   

1. the importance of protecting your name 
2. the importance of protecting your reputation (how people see you) 
3. the importance of protecting your character (how you see yourself)
4. the importance of sound work ethics
5. it’s easier to remember ONE truth than MANY lies
6. if suspect someone is cheating -- call out 'bullshit' to see their hand
7. feelings of anger are OK, re-acting in anger is NOT
8. 100% compliance with work computer usage i.e., no texting, surfing, Facebooking
9. information by phone must always be followed up in writing, and
10. document everything, don't leave important details to memory.

The Government Bipolar Dance

 

Life lessons to live by --  so when government (through privately hired lawyers with our public funds) went to great lengths to fabricate an unbelievable smear campaign,  I would take it to the next level and challenge them on it to show just how unbelievable it actually was. For years, the boys and I would do The Government Bipolar Dance, celebrating when we thought we were "UP," and then get crushed with the toll of the "LOW".

Re-defining 'Closure' 

 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013,  I received the most moving email from my oldest son which he sent after reading my latest posting, It's about having the courage to pursue truth wherein he wrote,

 “… I take pride in the Rowan name and take pride in that we are not quitters...”

 

There's no greater feeling for a parent than knowing you've done something right. I now have great inner peace knowing (however this ends) that I have left my sons with what matters most and it's reassuring to see I am not alone as covered in a USA News.com article: "Parents Say Money Isn't the Most Valuable Inheritance".

To my family (and friends from too many years gone by)  I apologize that I have been so distant for so long – to the point of being a hermit. I ask for your understanding. The challenge I had undertaken is tantamount to someone today accepting the mission to build The Great Ark: Some things are best kept under wraps while still in development -- if you know what I mean.

 

As Edgar Schmidt (lawyer who spoke out against Canada putting through laws that violate the Constitution) stated in an interview on CBC Radio: It took a trip to Egypt for him to truly realize "how fragile democracy is and how much it needs care and tending." As I put it in my earlier posting, it’s about The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?

 

 

News flash: Youth at Risk!

 

7 Deadliest Words as a community and a parent, we don't want to rely on:

 

I'm the government--I'm here to help.

 

 

Definition of Insane is doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting different results. In my opinion, adding another Bill (like Bill 18) -- to our other 'rights-only-on- paper' benched Constitution and Charter Rights, is just another case of our upscale legal community's way of making a lot of money without any expectation of getting any results.

 

But what can you ONE person do? 

1. feedback is needed from people that have found themselves in a similar situation
2. provide resources from that combined knowledge: what's working and what's not 
3. form relationships within our community to include professionals ie., mental health, legal, community, and government (free and/or inexpensive)
4. get a real movement going for real change; and
5. bring out the 'inner child' in all of us when we never would have considered taking 'no' for an answer or look away from a friend being bullied.

"MAKE SOME NOISE" cause I'm pretty sure we can do better.

Resource:

Highly recommended and living testament for 15+ years by this DCP family:  Developing Capable People for Educators and Parents: Classes may be offered at University of Winnipeg, or check online or at your library for more info.

 

Distance negates responsibility.

MANITOBA INJUSTICE:  Democracy is eroding before our eyes as government authorities forego wisdom and compassion.

When government uses tactics that are threatening and frightening we refer to this as a totalitarian government. When our Province carries out these tactics behind closed doors, and honest public discussion and awareness is suppressed, we are only kidding ourselves that we live in a democracy -- a free world.

 In the past four years while trying to maintain and sustain recovery of a lifelong mental illness, I witnessed unfairness, hypocrisy, ignorance and a lack of humanity at the hands of government and its lawyers. Surprisingly, even after all I have been through, I am not angry or cynical.  As a person with bipolar I constantly search out meaning in all of life's experiences. Like the story of the optimistic child in a room full of manure, despite all odds I too can't help but believe that under all that shit there’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere.  I came to blogging as a form of therapy. I believe in the power of word. Writing has given me back my sense of identity, dignity, pride, humanity and even humour.

It is said distance negates responsibility. It would appear that the Court of Queen’s Bench has successfully completed more passes of my (April 17, 2012) action than our own Winnipeg Blue Bombers, ending my play with a dishonourable sack by the Province.

One would have to take a look at the Province's playbook to fully appreciate how both federally appointed judges and the province carried out such a masterfully-executed play. The hearing at the Law Courts on August 20, 2012 was attended by Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson (the firm claims to be) counsel for defendants Thompson Dorfman Sweatman but the reality is that Aikins Law is retained by the Law Society of Manitoba. It is understandable the Law Society doesn't want that on record given its position as insurer defending against insurance claims and then on its other face claims to act on behalf of the public's interest. I give you "Oxymoron" the Trojan horse placed to win.

Two lawyers attended from Aikins, Ted E. Bock and Thomas K. Reimer. (See explanation on billing at posting Law at Lunch - More Cowbell). The hearing was presided over by newly- appointed master formerly of Filmore and Riley (which together with TDS and Aikins completes the trilogy of the largest and most powerful firms in Winnipeg).

Master Berthaudin (as would be the case with any provincially paid civil servant) should have recused himself given it was the Province that hired the defendants in the first instance that led to this action. A successful civil suit would most certainly reflect badly on the Province - his employer. A motion was raised to address the conflict but not acknowledged or addressed.

How does the courts distance itself from conflict?

At the first hearing on May 25, 2012 Justice Greenberg was asked to hear the motion regarding said conflict and for an injunction for the defence to 'play by the rules'.


QB Rules require only that notice of a hearing be given. The defendants had indeed been duly served and there were given the required time to file any argument to oppose the motion, but did not do so. Neither defendants, or counsel attended. But then attendance is not mandatory if you are not contesting the motion.


Despite evidence of foul play (abuse of power and influence over an unrepresented and vulnerable litigant), her Ladyship refused to hear the matter without first checking with the defendants and adjourned the motion.

On June 1, 2012 Justice Perlmutter presided at the adjournment but did not carry out his sworn duties. On the basis that years prior he had worked at TDS and 'knew the guys', and made the (unprecedented) decision to not hear the matter. His Lordship's actions were in conflict with the purpose of the Order requested and his actions had severe impact--to me.

Justice McKelvey presided on June 11, 2012 at the third adjournment, or more accurately advised she would not be hearing any issues that day. She adjourned the motion out of QB Court to a Master, a provincially paid civil servant--which takes the court procedures full circle: I did not believe a master should be deciding on such issues and Her Ladyship should have (would have) known an injunction can only be granted by a Judge. (See related posting Upscale Violence King of the Castle)




*****************************************

It is only on rare and extreme cases that a claim gets struck out and only then, is done if it passes the stringent test of 'plain and obvious' that there is no lawful cause. The master took an unprecedented 25 days to apply the 'test'. Even then his decision contained only bland statements that failed to recognize anything relevant I presented in support of the action. Causes that had been accepted in previous decisions.

MasterB's decision states he relied only on 'oral' testimony. A little hard to swallow, as he told me at the hearing I would not have to go over the issues. He claimed he had read all the documents including my Re-Amended Claim.



With the exception of my 18 year-old son, I stood alone on principle at this hearing. Advocacy groups advised me throughout that they were unwilling to chance a reduction in funding from the Province should they come forward and advocate on my behalf.

Upon entering the court room my son removed his cap, a polite gesture generally reserved for his grandmother. When I introduced him to both Aikins’ lawyers he stood up to shake their hands and exchanged social niceties, as is his nature. I believe my son exhibited instinctively the most effective way to promote social and economic justice. It starts with respect -- despite differences and despite conflict of the situation.

How is it possible for lawyers to smile, shake hands, connect, inquire about plans for summer and college etc., and then erase from all consciousness, any awareness that their inhumane acts would have hurtful consequences to actual people and their families? The problem is growing to epidemic proportions.

 

Diagnosing the Failure of Professionalism among Lawyers and Finding a Cure. It is an imperfect justice system that allows, and perhaps even encourages lawyers to manipulate the system. Yet, because prosecutors, judges and many politicians are also lawyers, they say that lawyers benefit from the very system they create..."

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/tenth_colloquium_furlong.pdf

 

 

Support is needed for those who can't stand up for their rights. There is NO advocacy for people with mental illness, particularly if their complaint is against the Province or its government services. Not until we allow and encourage civil behaviour of politicians and provincial gatekeepers, will we be able to ensure civil rights for everyone.

More than ever Manitobans are in need of a new perspective. Time for action.

 

• Time to rethink mental illness and connect in a more humane way.
• Time to break through a new path. If not you, than who?

More than at any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness and the other to total extinction. Let us pray we will have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Woody Allen

 

Sources:

Community Living - Manitoba: When Bad Things Happen. Manitoba Women with Intellectual Disabilities... a study

 

"Plain and Obvious" it's about Discrimination

An "Invisible Disability" with a "HEARING" Problem
Hearing scheduled May 25th; adjourned to June 1st adjourned again
Judge Wanted who has no connections with TDS or Aikins Law.

The Simple Facts of the Case: 

TDS prepared one Reply for Government's signature as filed with Labour Board  (before it knew about the Human Rights Complaint).

Olson (TDS lawyer) then prepared a drastically different version which he himself signed. It should be 'plain and obvious' why a lawyer is not supposed to be signing as witness.

Frustrated with the total departure from the truth, Marielle then commenced filing (many) requests under the information Act with Government.  It is this new evidence which is not in dispute, along with the previous pleadings (which is not in dispute that TDS drew up) would support a claim that there was false, misleading information, including perjury and/or at the very least made no attempt to actually do a proper investigation as to what the actual facts were. So this is not a "he said - she said."

Disability only plays a part in relation to how much harm did the lying and stonewalling (etc.) cause? Was discrimination a factor - because they thought they could?

For educational purposes, I have included the claim... 

Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Olson

excerpts of AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM 
(Re-Amended Statement of Claim Aug 15, 2012 posted see tabs Parts 1-4 above)

Claims payment of lost wages; Damages for mental and emotional distress; Damages for quality of life for her and family

Punitive and Aggravated Damages: punitive damages and aggravated damages as compensation due to the egregious nature of this complaint and injury to feelings, dignity, pride, and self-respect resulting from the manner in which the injury was inflicted i.e. intentional infliction of mental suffering despite knowledge and reasonable foreseeability that such conduct would acutely heighten the plaintiff's sensitivity or susceptibility to mania. Plus Punitive damages for egregious conduct that must be deterred. ...

Background

The plaintiff is diagnosed as bipolar, a chronic lifelong disease. Being employed is a very important part of her life. To a great extent her self-worth and mental well being is wrapped up in her work.

January 2005 the plaintiff accepted concurrent positions with MB Justice, first at Judicial Services as an Executive Assistant, and at QB Chambers as a Judicial Assistant working five days a week. As a result of having flex hours in place, the plaintiff had a perfect work attendance.

With the stability and security of upheld policies and procedures under doctor supervision, her medication was reduced to one drug, and a smaller dosage thus minimizing the effects of tremors and feeling out of sorts. She was regarded by supervisors, judiciary, and senior management as an exemplary employee. Even after termination her three supervisors continued to provide very positive feedback in employment references which led to her present employment.

The plaintiff states that during her employment at OSD special ops of Gov't of MB (March 2007 to June 30, 2008) her health suffered and believed this to be due to the department's failure to follow set procedures, different than what she had experienced at MB Justice.

The claim is to see if the defendant Olson personally, or as a lawyer carrying on business under the firm name of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLB...

i)    acted in an unprofessional manner contrary to law;
i)    acted in an oppressive manner;
ii)   acted unreasonably, or unjust;
iii)  failed to act in a conciliatory manner;
iv)  the strategy undertaken was improper or discriminatory to a person with a disability;
v)   fabricated a defence based wholly or partly on a mistake of the facts;
vi)  acted in a manner contrary to government's stated objectives in accommodating and employing persons with disabilities;
vii)  was morally wrong.

Employment was terminated at a time when she was experiencing and exhibiting signs of distress and advised top management that she perceived the situation had risen to a "crisis situation" to her employer a few weeks prior to termination.

General Damages

The claim states that these remaining unresolved issues continue to exacerbate her medical condition resulting in constant cycling of mania and depression affecting her relationship with her husband, her children and community. The hardship of the complaint process far greater than any setbacks experienced due to her disability or the termination of employment itself. The strain has turned her into somewhat of a recluse. Every waking moment is consumed with research, writing letters and recently blogging in pursuit of accountability and justice. She has lived these past four years of her life a shadow of her former self, alienated from her extended family, friends and community; involvement which she used to partake. Her concentration, memory, and ability to make decisions have also been adversely affected.

The Defendants are experts in the area of labour law and would know the rules for employers regarding accommodation.

The plaintiff claims the defendants acted in an unprofessional manner and showed a lack of integrity in pursuing an unlawful defence. As a deterrent to others in the profession, the defendants must assume responsibility for the plaintiffs deteriorated mental state and overall health condition. ...

Overview:

The plaintiff claims the defendants:

• pursued and fabricated a defence where there was no basis for a defence by using tactics that are unbecoming a member of the law profession and failed to advise its client properly, or at all of its obligations and fiduciary duty to act in a conciliatory manner towards a person with a disability.
• knowingly offered false evidence and maintained false pretences to mislead investigations. The defendants suborned perjury, persuaded witnesses to avoid appearing and/or obstructed access to witnesses. In so doing, they not only were in violation of its duty to the quasi courts, but also did harm to the provincial government and its stakeholders in that it put its client in breach of the representations and warranties of the Government of Manitoba  made publicly regarding the quality of service, duty; and care for its employees particularly those most vulnerable.
• have compromised set proresstonal standards in order to please certain civil servants holding positions of significant authority. However as the standards are set out in A Lawyer's Duty to the Court "a lawyer may not be able to act in a way that serves the client's best interests, if doing so would put the administration of justice and the community's confidence in the profession at risk."
• that documented evidence will support a claim of contempt criminal involving both, a public and private injury.3. The plaintiff claims that the breach and conduct has risen to the level of fraud or a serious and intentional ethical breach, and is therefore believed to be outside the scope of the immunity of soliCitor privilege. In that event, the defendants are liable.

The first affront to the plaintiff was when she discovered that a negative employment reference had been outsourced to an employment agency. Although the plaintiff claims that initially the  Consumer's Bureau supported her complaint, once the full weight of the defendants came down on the Bureau, they were no longer able to assist and then advised to retain legal counsel.

Despite the anxiety and difficulty the plaintiff was experiencing, she made every effort to maintain control and present herself in a professional manner. Numerous attempts for a peaceful resolution yielded no response. Letter dated November 24, 2008 to the MLB from the plaintiff stated in part:

The information is provided in good faith and with respect for the Government of Manitoba, as it is my genuine desire to resolve the conflictpeacefully. Mediation cannot begin until a meaningful exchange of perceptions is conducted. I believe the Respondents are in agreement with me that there can only be a win/win resolution and that can only be done in a climate of mutual support and respect.

The defendants failed to certify that the deponent's knowledge, information, and belief were formed after reasonable inquiry, and well grounded in fact. The defendants failed to go over the document it created with the deponent. This is most obvious in the LRA Reply subpara. (x).

The defendants have a duty to ensure sworn documents are not attested to lightly. Undertaken only after reasonable investigation or inquiry has been made that the information submitted is well grounded in fact, compliance with existing laws and undertaken in good faith. The plaintiff claims the defendants induced a witness to swear to an affidavit that contained a different version of events from the facts at issue and of record. Information that has since been refuted.

In 256/09/LRA Request for Review and Reconsideration page 5 para. 7 subpara. (x) a whole paragraph was added by the defendants without due diligence and without corroboration. The document contained an errant notation left behind for the deponent. In response, the defendants offered more lies to cover up the mistake by claiming it was just a ‘typo’. A reasonable person would never accept a whole paragraph as a typo, but the Board did.

The rules of professional conduct states that a lawyer must not compromise professional standards in order to please a client. A lawyer must at all times act in a manner consistent with the goals of the judicial system. To do otherwise would constitute misconduct.

Civil Legal Services (CSL) is the Government of Manitoba’s in-house legal counsel. According to its annual reports the CSL has a high performance rating in the areas of providing prompt, efficient resolution of all legal matters, and without excessive delays. Pursuant to a request under FIPPA it was disclosed that a file pertaining to the plaintiff existed.

On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the defendants were retained after Civil Legal Services refused to take the lead. In light of the fact that the plaintiff was unrepresented and in a fragile state, resources would likely have been better allocated enlisting the aid of professionals in the area of intellectual disabilities (rather than a “Spin Doctor,”) in line with government’s stated policies in accommodating persons with disabilities in the workplace.

The defendants fabricated evidence of a ‘workplace reorganization’ and then gave false testimony advancing this evidence ten (10) times in the LRA complaint and then twelve (12) more times in the HRC complaint. There was no probable cause or any credible basis to support this claim and believe this formed part of its unfair practices with the intent to delay, demoralize, annoy, injure, or harass the plaintiff; all the while padding the defendants’ fees; negatively impacting the plaintiff and adding to the already overburdened provincial deficit. Information accessed in 2011 stated there was no workplace reorganization at any time. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims that the wrongful acts of the defendants justify an award of aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages.

The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendants encouraged civil servants to engage in the conduct outlined herein and/or allowed such conduct and/or failed to properly give instruction, supervision or control to ensure that such conduct was avoided.

The defendants utilized its full influence to manipulate, control and stonewall the various processes, all of which were intended to wear down the Plaintiff into a position of vulnerability for manipulative purposes. As a result the plaintiff suffered financial setbacks, disadvantaged due to the protracted time and energy expended in pursuing justice.

The plaintiff has endured emotional distress and social embarrassment due to being unemployable due to her pre-manic state and due to the barriers to gain new employment and due to the manner it was done. Duty to accommodate is intended to give peace of mind to protected groups in employment and in the delivery of government services. The plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to treat her fairly, reasonably and humanely at a time when she was most vulnerable and would have known the plaintiff (or even a person without a disability) to suffer the toll of extreme trauma and stress.

The plaintiff believes the defendants took advantage of their status in this city as pillars of the community; members of the finest clubs and golf courses, sure to always be seen at all the finest fundraising events. By all accounts and popular standards the defendants are leaders in this community intimately connected to politics, government, boards and tribunals.

The plaintiff was reasonably entitled to expect the defendants would not abuse the power imbalance. Where is it written that outside the walls of Camelot lives the lives of lesser men (or women)?  To investigative authorities the defendants responded in a dismissive high-handed, contumacious and arrogant fashion regarding this in a  much ado about nothing fashion, without any corroborated evidence to support the belittling.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants have failed to be candid, reasonable, honest, and forthright in its dealings with the plaintiff or with any investigative authority, purposely providing false misinformation in a misleading and insensitive manner. When caught in a lie, the defendants would revert to an more lies to cover up. However, the explanations failed to hold water given procedures are in place which were knowingly not followed and circumvented.

This mental warfare to date continues to cause the plaintiff profound mental and emotional distress aggravating the plaintiff’s trauma and stress beyond belief. Such treatment is in direct violation of her equality and legal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The plaintiff claims damages for the defendants’ negligent infliction of mental and emotional distress.

Despite the fact that this proceeding will no doubt add additional stress, even though no lawyer (including Legal Aid) will represent her, she feels even more compelled to deal with these outstanding issues in a court of law. The plaintiff has accumulated thousands of hours of time in research and documenting the process over the years. Hours and hours of sifting through and dissecting all the details. Details that she reviews over and over in her mind. She has extensive knowledge of   the facts and how all the pieces fit (or in the case of the defendants) don’t fit, with the hope that her ordeal will pave the way for those most vulnerable dealing with the same fate.

When the only Defence left is Trickery & Intimidation

 

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.

REASON III: Why smart people lie

Politics without Principles - Even dead fish can go with the flow.

 

 

Throughout history, government has been the authority and final word on law and order. Decisions from those holding positions of authority were rarely ever challenged. In light of having no other information, the general public merely accepted what it was told.

The ground rules have changed. Anyone who has access to a computer, a phone line, and an Internet connection can have access to knowledge and information. As a result of media, television and technology, we are now an informed public. We are no longer forced into submissive. blind obedience, nor do we have to accept 'because I said so' as an explanation.

 

 

 

The Government institution is no longer held up as some sacred cow. There have been enough chinks in the armour of our judges, lawyers, mayors, and politicians brought to the public's attention to substantiate the need for real transparency and accountability from everyone and by anyone who has reason to question it.

Smart people believe others are too stupid to know any different.

 

Trust me. I know more than you.

MHRC Intake Investigator Pat Daniels in a telephone conversation suggested I should drop my MHRC complaint because the matter was already being investigated by the Government's Respectful Workplace Policy and the "RWP is the same as Human Rights Code."

 

• If you ask an authority to document what they have just said to you, and they display signs of annoyance, or become irritated, or worried and/or appear guilty and refuse to put it in writing; you then need to recap what was said in a letter to them. Be forewarned, they REALLY hate that, and will likely treat you with contempt and disgust. My response to Daniels:

As I understand it, the Respectful Workplace Policy, is just that--'a policy'; a policy implemented as a result of our laws… I do not agree with you that the parties commissioned to hear matters pertaining to policy would, or should be dealing with matters of law pertaining to the Human Rights Code…I would like to confirm (as per our telephone conversation) it is my intention to proceed with the Human Rights complaint.

The ‘nice guy’ who does nothing but keep YOU busy.

The first formal complaint to the Ombudsman was July 15, 2009 and assigned to Investigator Bob Baker who advised me, over the phone that the complaint was not accepted for investigation. When asked for the reasons--in writing--he then did, well, 'sort of'' changed his mind, and then asked for more information. For close to a year, he kept me busy asking for more clarification and more information--well into 2010.

• If you notice that almost a year has gone by and at NO time is your case ever assigned a file number, and then the matter is closed a year later without a formal Ombudsman’s report but rather just an informal letter with nothing more than bland content -- you know you have been taken for a moron. In contrast to the Ombudsman's pseudo-investigation, my own investigation (through access of information in 2011) provided concrete evidence that the allegations against the Government of Manitoba were valid.

• If you are feeling hurt, disappointed, disbelieving, and/or disgusted that your crusader of justice is dropping you like last night's date -- an abrupt sudden dismissal of you and your complaint, more than likely he was never that nice guy but rather just a player: consider yourself 'played'.

 

 Forms, forms and more forms - bureaucratic red tape.

There are many instances that I was asked to re-submit the same form, as was the case with a complaint filed with the Manitoba Ombudsman regarding the Labour Board’s violation of FIPPA laws which I was asked to resubmit on three separate occasions (no doubt to re-start the clock, and not show that the complaint had been initially submitted to Bob Baker in July 2009.) Each time I  would provide copies of the original complaint, always insistent that the date submitted remain as July 2009.

• see Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.

Defiant compliance

If the authority goes with the authoritarian position: “I’m in control and you’re not telling me what to do” -- consider yourself to be in a power struggle: fight all instincts to meekly bow down to your self-appointed God or Goddess, and then go over their head to their superior and force them to abide by the rules. Some applies if you are feeling challenged, threatened, defeated--you have likely encountered a wall of defiant compliance.

• Although a complainant may worry that being "too pushy" may harm their position, the reality is, if you are encountering nothing but resistance, chances are your complaint isn't going anywhere anyway. The last thing you should do in the case of stonewalling is nothing.

That had been my mistake (first) with The Labour Board. There was no one assigned, so any attempts to speak to a Board member or Chairperson was stopped dead by its formidable gatekeeper, Registrar Janet Duff. As stated earlier, Labour Board stonewalled for 260 days (median time is 48 days) and when they felt safe enough to do so (assured of no intervention), simply dismissed the complaint. You need to keep 'poking the bear', and in this case that means taking it to a higher authority.

 

Passive Aggressive Behaviour

In response to FIPPA request for information made on MHRC after the dismissal, the Commission eventually released (after the due date) a large bundle of loose paper (nothing stapled and in no particular order). Think of the card game 52 Pick Up with five decks of cards thrown down on the floor. After 14 hours of compiling the documents, first by assessing and separating from the pile my documents, I was then able to determine which were the Government's and which documents were missing (the ones Government did not want me to have.)

 

In the end, through repeated requests more documents were eventually provided but many are still missing. This was brought forward to the Ombudsman's office. Investigator, Kris Ramchandar has yet to complete (or more than likely even start) his investigation from the complaint personally delivered to Manitoba Ombudsman, Irene Hamilton October 2010 and in the presence of Liberal Leader Dr. Jon Gerrard.

• See related posting:  When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

 

Stonewalling

Initially MHRC said it would allow Government all the time they needed (stating there were no time restrictions) to file its Reply to the complaint I initiated back in June 2008. It is quite likely, that had I not persisted, it would never had happened. In reality, the law only says the employer has an option to reply, there is nothing that states that the Commission needs to wait for a reply to start its investigation. No doubt because I pressured the Commission on this point, voila, the very next day--Dec 10, 2008--Government had allegedly submitted its Reply.

 

The fact that the MHRC refused to provide me with a copy, and gave really feeble and contradicting excuses as to why they would not provide me with a copy (they had no one to make copies was one excuse), led me to believe that there likely was no Reply on file--just said so to stall. I did offer to come to the office just to review the Reply,  to avoid the need for photocopying at that time (and to confirm it actually was there). But MHRC 'flipped out' and told me not to come to their office in a very stern letter stating, "seeing you have to have everything in writing....We will do our best to disclose it (Gov't Reply) as soon as we can, but it is not expected to be before January."

Question: If Government's rule is document, document, document; why is it viewed as rude and disrespectful on my part to request information be in writing?

  

No response?

If you have done everything by the books, and believe you have proven your case fairly and honestly and yet --

• nothing happens
• there is no longer any promise as to when a response can be expected
• there is no longer any communication or response for updates; and
• years have gone by and still NO final response has been provided as that authority is legislated to do...

and you have had no group, or someone of importance advocate on your behalf...

and you are experiencing symptoms of severe, traumatic mental abuse: feeling despair, hopeless, helpless and/or inadequate...

It is obvious that authorities have now grown quite tired of you. Based on Government's expert legal resources it has concluded that no one would even notice, let alone care, if it just told you to "F--K Off already!"

Can Government do this?  "Yes We Can" says Manitoba Government.

 

Formal complaint proceedings are similar to any court proceeding. Each party must comply with specific procedural rules, appear before the investigative authority, and file documents that address legal issues of that court or tribunal. Parties are usually represented by lawyers, however, those most vulnerable usually do not have access to legal representation. I went forward with my complaint on my own trusting that if I follow the rules and the law, a fair investigation would be conducted on the matter. The regulations governing the procedures are government. There are legal ramifications if the rules are not followed. 

 

An inspirational quote from the Movie "Taken":

 

I do not have money. But what I do have is a particular set of skills. Skills that I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

 

REASON II: Why Smart People Lie

Why would someone so prominent and respected in the community lie and chance a character assassination? 

See no evil. Hear no evil.
But then there's ... EVIL.

The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing article published September 30, 2010 (Andrew Jameton (1984) defined moral distress as “a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it.” Moral distress can occur in any situation or workplace environment. It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their own better judgment.


A certain amount of submission is expected when you work in a hierarchy (government, or otherwise), but there are times when what you are expected to do for the privilege of keeping your job: prostration, literal groveling, sucking up to and kissing body parts crosses over to a "hazing" mentality which is totally unacceptable. We often think of hazing in terms of fraternities and with team sports but I witnessed it first-hand at the Civil Service Commission and in my department, Organization Staff Development (OSD). Hazing was allowed to go on, albeit in somewhat secrecy, despite being totally contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy. No doubt, it was able to do so, due to the fact it made sure it had no union interference.


Although my clerk position was open to be filled on a permanent basis, I was offered 'terms' at OSD. Three terms in fact, despite the fact that my work was said to be exemplary, and it was stated that I excelled in taking initiative of taking on projects: described as an "asset to the organization."


I made several requests under the Access of Information Act for copies of Staffing Requests and CSC postings for various 'term' and suspiciously filled positions. CSC ignored, refused and even pleaded ignorance: what I don't recall. Eventually, CSC just "denied" access to the majority of the requests, alleging that the document requested either "does not exist or cannot be located."

 

It is in the lack of documentation that supports my case that claims were being made to the tribunals without any documents in evidence to corroborate said testimony. The lack of documentation is also in violation of 'abuse of term positions' as regulated by Government's own Principles and Policies for Human Resource Management Staffing 2.1.5.

See other related postings:

Reason I: Why Smart People Lie - Smart people follow their anger into some pretty stupid places.

Mean Girls vs Civil Subservient - termination meeting held on June 4th following the RWP Investigation meeting. Beauchamp Schmidt was told to proceed to accommodation but instead carried out an attack in violation of HRC. 

RWP(2) - Beauchamp Schmidt provided an unfair uncorroborated employment reference to employment agency.

In the same (behind-closed-door) fashion, Anna Beauchamp Schmidt was given a one-year term position in an Acting Status as Chief Operating Officer of OSD even though there was no reason not to fill the position as a permanent position. There was no incumbent holding that position, as the former COO had left government altogether to work in the private sector.

 

It should be evident that the Civil Service Commission filled its positions by hand-picking the woman they wanted: rather than posting it in accordance with policy, and in compliance with employment equity. CSC would place the chosen woman, first, in a temporary position then later, after the woman had proved her solidarity, would then unceremoniously transition the 'Acting'  into a permanent status, without competition, and without any questions asked. The end result was then a perfectly homogeneous group of scary think-like mid-life white women.

 

Anna Beauchamp Schmidt’s one-year initiation came to a successful conclusion after only four months coinciding with the successful execution of the dirty deed in terminating my employment as ordered by the Commissioner.

 

This then leads us to Reason II: Why Smart People Lie. Smart people will stupidly follow leaders to gain a position, promotion or for continued employment.

 

Remember The Patriot (the movie)? 

"I'm a parent I haven't got the luxury of principles."

 

It is easy to understand how a vulnerable person (like newly divorced Beauchamp Schmidt) can become morally upended when she finds herself in a most precarious situation: paying maintenance to an ex husband, as well as primary caregiver to two teenaged daughters--one of which was going through more than just the usual teen angst.

 

Unlike the former COO, "Anna" (as referred to in this section only) brown-bagged it for lunch. The small dinette table provided an opportunity get close to Anna. I found Anna to be "real," kind and approachable. There were many discussions regarding the difficulties she faced, and given I also had teens and had experienced a year-long separation in my marriage, a friendship developed. 

 

When Anna invited me for a meeting to discuss ways to improve processes at OSD, I was hopeful of positive change for the future. [Anna's notes, later accessed through FIPPA, stated she found something ‘off’ with me at this point and that I had “approached the meeting different that anyone else." The following day Anna sent me an email and asked for medical emergency phone numbers. I accepted that she was likely concerned because, no doubt, I must have seemed a little accelerated. I also gathered that my supervisor had likely informed her about my mental illness history: I responded to the email request by providing four emergency numbers.

 

I viewed the request for medical information as a positive sign of Anna's caring. There were a number of other telltale signs of care and concern from Anna. Most compelling was when Anna responded to my lengthy manic email that I had sent from home at the start of her 3.5 weeks stress leave. It was indicated in the email that the harassment I endured at the hands of my supervisor had grown to a crisis level. Accordingly, I advised that I would be filing a formal RWP complaint. Anna had immediately responded with what seemed to be genuine concern by email, in addition to emailing me a  personal Get Well card and then sent a follow up email giving her assurance that the “matter outlined in this email will be appropriately addressed... your return to health is of primary importance.”

 

Upon returning to work, the Anna I knew was transformed into a cold and distant COO. There were no meetings. No girl chit chat about family and life. No casual inquiries about my health or whether any accommodation was needed. There was no re-entry to work process: I felt 'frozen out'.

 

In addition to gaining a permanent status as Chief Operating Officer, Beauchamp Schmidt was also made a Director at CSC. No doubt she had favourably ingratiated herself within the cluster of the CSC Executive Society and the full physical transformation into a 'mean girl' occurred.

 

Although it is not likely that it was Beauchamp Schmidt's intent from the onset to cause me harm--that had collaterally occurred. The change in Anna's attitude and the actions taken against me could only have occurred on order by her supervisor, Civil Service Commissioner Debra Woodgate: alternatively, if the Commissioner had no clue what was going on--she should have. There is no other plausible explanation as to why someone with Beauchamp Schmidt's solid background in education: Director of Manitoba Adult Learning & Literacy, (Supporting Lifelong Learning program), transitioning into a completely new position as COO at OSD in an "Acting Status" would, on her own, launch an attack on a person known to have a mood disorder: disability was known, procedures and policy were not followed, and conflicting testimony supports the claim of perjury.

 

Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony in the MHRC investigation as to why support was not given, "I am not a psychiatrist." And that was good enough for MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft. Her assessment report stated: "employers are not psychiatrists" which defies all sane and reasonable logic of what accommodation is all about.

 

When you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle 'em with bullshit.

What is even more incredible is that someone would commit an illegal act seemingly without conscience by lying under oath in violation of the Manitoba Evidence Act to tribunals: Labour Board, Human Rights Commission and their oversight body--Provincial Ombudsman. No one would dare do that unless that person had some assurances (friends in high places) that would guarantee to them that there would be no retaliation.

 

Heck, Government will likely even create a new job for you. Right Irene? (see Ombudsman moves to Government Job Winnipeg Free Press January 5, 2012)

 

Sources:

 

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/

Hazing is the US English term used to describe various ritual and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing

 

 

Epstein, E.G., Delgado, S., (Sept 30, 2010) "Understanding and Addressing Moral Distress" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No. 3, Manuscript 1.

 

The Movie Mean Girls (2004) Synopsis (self-explanatory)

The Patriot - a widowed father of seven children, does what he can to avoid fighting in the Revolutionary War knowing the implications surrounding it.

REASON I: Why Smart People Lie

In a prior posting, BS – GOV’T HAS A KNACK FOR THAT,  I explained in detail how the card game Bullshit is played. Challengers are forewarned when playing The Government Bullshit Edition (2008) that bullshitting overall should never be confused with stupidity, although one should not be too quick to discount that as a possibility. Generally speaking however, you are more likely to find government to have rather intelligent players but who on occasion will defend really bad decisions, taking up positions that defy any sane or reasonable logic.

 

Why would someone so prominent and respected in the community lie and chance a character assassination? Although the answer may seem obvious, a closer look would provide insight on how to stop harassment / mobbing.

 

People lie for many reasons: Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, once said, “We will do more to avoid pain than to gain pleasure” so it is understandable one would lie for fear of being confronted by a superior, or, because we want to be seen as better than we actually are to our peers and employer. When situations arise beyond one’s control that might make them look incompetent, or fear that some obstacle may stop them from realizing their objective, it is understandable that a 'Take No Prisoner' mentality-type (like my Supervisor Desrochers), would follow their anger into some pretty stupid places.

Remember this? What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Answer:  Lipstick.

BACKGROUND:

As you read the following, keep that image in mind: Desrochers (then Supervisor with provincial government's training program, Organization Staff and Development "OSD") actually is a hockey mom, and as Sarah Palin depicted tongue-in-cheek is 'of that kind'. 

On any Monday that Desrochers' son lost a weekend hockey tournament, everyone in her department knew to stay clear.  At the cottage (in the same small bay where I also had a cottage), Desrochers’ reputation as an aggressive snowmobiler determined to keep up with the guys, on the most powerful of sleds, was legendary--said that “she drives like a man." And just like many-a-man has learnt (or died learning), a tree doesn’t move for you no matter how fast you are going -- and that’s her fun side. Desrochers, as a senior OSD manager and supervisor, was equally as driven at work and would never let anything or anyone get in her way.

The OSD department was like the poor cousin to the powerful Manitoba Civil Service Commission "CSC" and Desrochers did not like being left behind in the dust: she wanted to be up front where all the power was. In my first year at OSD, Desrochers openly shared with me stories of where all the skeletons were buried: there was a lot of history and conflict between the two departments.

• When  a senior position would become available within OSD, CSC dangled the promotion to Desrochers but in true Charlie Brown 'mean girl' fashion, the football gets snapped away at the last second resulting in anger and humiliation for Desrochers.
• When OSD needed something--like filling one of its many vacant positions in order to meet the demands of the workload--CSC (whose mandate is to hire staff) failed to do so, despite knowing the department was "in crisis" (a direct quote from senior management in its departmental Minutes).
• When OSD needed information updated on the CSC website -- it was like a big favour-- akin to grovelling due to the fact CSC failed to fill vacation staff positions (Communications position: vacant fall of 2007 to summer 2008).
• When Desrochers needed parking spots for her staff, and CSC was not giving any to her department, Desrochers applied directly to the Parking Authority who regulates the number of government subsidized parking spots allocated to each department. Recognized as s a separate department, OSD was given its own parking spots: Imagine the rage Desrochers felt when CSC then surreptitiously took OSD's newly-acquired parking spots for its own (CSC) staff's use. 

Going into 2008, the situation at OSD had already grown to toxic proportions due to two extended-vacant positions and a newly created admin position left unfilled: the person quit after a couple of weeks. As captured in the November 2007 OSD Minutes, "the department was in crisis with no one to give the work to:" To make matters worse,  the only other OSD Clerk was away regularly starting January 2008, leading to an extended sick leave for nine weeks. At a senior management meeting this position vacancy was brought up as a critical issue, but ignored: CSC preferring to talk about planning a new project that would (and did) add more stress to the department and me, then, the only  remaining admin person (a lowly-paid clerk) without increase in pay, job security, or control of duties.

THE BIGGER PICTURE:

Government's private lawyer, Rob Olson, (of the firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman) suppressed a key witness (Desrochers)  altogether from investigations at the Consumer's Bureau and Labour Board, and then for two years more from the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.  It wasn't until March 2010 that my supervisor Desrochers was interviewed. By this point the Consumers Bureau (according to its annual report), made no investigation and Manitoba Labour Board had already denied me of the right to an investigation or hearing.

March 2010: The Human Rights Commission investigator finally interviews Desrochers (MHRC was first contacted in June 2008). Due to overwhelming evidence of a past connection, Desrochers reluctantly admitted that disability was known and that at the time of the extended stress leave, she had told her supervisor (Chief Operating Officer Anna Beauchamp Schmidt) it was known to her"that medical history went back 15 years prior to employment at OSD."

 

Desrochers knew about my medical history as a result of an ongoing friendship, spanning twenty years, between our spouses; as part of the hiring committee, she would have known that at some point, accommodation could likely be a factor when they hired me in April 2007, and she would also have known that the overall stress of her department (in total flux with position vacancies) was well beyond the reasonable expectation of a clerk position, even for someone without a mood disorder.

Lawyer, Robert Olson personally testified, on government's behalf,  that disability was not known by any government employee at any time.  Normally, a lawyer cannot fabricate a defence and then sign for its client, but when the client is government, the response is: he committed perjury--so what?

 

Going into 2008, OSD had a skeleton staff of ONE admin person (me) for four senior managers (brokers) churning out a huge new program, in addition to the regular OSD workshops (i.e., How to Manage Stress, Accommodation for Disabilities, etc.). The workload had increased unceremoniously--already stressed due to the three vacant positions--without any plan whatsoever as to how the projects would all be delivered.

Knowing accommodation was needed, and that it was the right action to take is one thing, being able to act on it and still meet the objective of delivering on all the work, was quite another. When someone is pouring a drink and we feel it is enough, we generally are allowed to say "when" we have had enough. Desrochers was not given a voice to "say when" when she realized she had more than enough to deal with due to the limited resources in staff and lack of support from CSC.  It is then not surprising that once I said "when" "When" WHEN!!!  -- that quite frankly Desrochers had had it at that point. The end result was a 'shaken clerk syndrome'  similar to shaken baby but more so in a mentally abusive kind of way.

Notes taken by RWP Investigator Ginette Grimard (accessed by me in 2011--but not given any weight in tribunal investigations) reflected that my supervisor had a bias against people with disabilities, believing that they take too many sick days. This is a false belief based on stereotypes. Reports show that people with disabilities often take less sick days than co-workers without disabilities. Under a reasonable and respectful workplace environment, I likely would not have required stress leave based on my record of a perfect work attendance prior to this time.

Further information accessed (under FIPPA 2011) showed evidence that at the time I had taken extended sick leave, Desrochers ultimately did do the right thing by telling her supervisor (the "COO" Chief Operating Officer of OSD) that she knew of my history of mental illness, and suspected that the noted change in behaviour was likely as a result of that disability: Solid evidence that Government authorities (and its lawyers) lied under oath testifying that none of its employees had any prior knowledge whatsoever of a disability.

See related postings:

• RWP Complaint submitted April 30, 2008 - took 5 months only to then come across by COO Beauchamp in a baffling Clinton-like jargon to detract from the very real fact that the line had been crossed by a Supervisor.
• RWP 2 July 15 2008 - COO took 23 business days (48 hours is the law) for an employment reference, provided uncorroborated comments negatively impacting chances for employment as provided by employment agency's report; then lied to the Labour Board.  RWP(2) deals with remaining issues previously held back on.
• Is MB Government #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 come down with brute force on a vulnerable unrepresented employee.
• MHRC took 2 years to start its investigation then ends up being dismissed in the Yukon over the August long weekend in Electronic signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief"

Due to Employment Equity A FEW GOOD MEN*
has been pre-empted by MEAN GIRLS
already in progress...

Supervisor: You want answers?

Commissioner: I want the truth!

Supervisor: You can't handle the truth! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You leave positions vacant and you curse at me for having trouble delivering more and more of your workshops without giving me any staff. You have that authority to just say ‘do it!”. You have the luxury of not knowing how it is I’m actually able to get the job done and you now question about my harassing Marielle?

While tragic as it is, it probably saved your ass. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, in fact saves many asses...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about like at the Legislature and meetings with the Minister, you want me there getting rid of these mental cases that ask for accommodation. You need me to put up that wall.

We use words like employment equity, respectful workplace, and Human Rights Code... OSD uses these words as the backbone to a life spent making money off that 'feel-good BS'. You use 'em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a woman who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very cushy job it provides her, then questions the manner in which I had to manage those duties in order to get the job done! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Commissioner: Did you go against the Human Rights Code as read?

Supervisor:       (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

Commissioner:  Did you go against the Code as read?

Supervisor:        YOU'RE GODDAM RIGHT I DID!!

Commissioner: Well, all right then. Just so I know. RELEASE DA KRAKEN!! --uh, I mean get Olson crackin' on getting rid of the complaint ...


SOURCES:

*  "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"  Best Ever Movie Quotes:  A Few Good Men


This is not a paid endorsement... but Kudos out to Scott Berkun for sharing his brilliant essay papers  Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas online (excerpt):

...one thing I did learn after years of studying advanced logic theory is that proficiency in argument can easily be used to overpower others, even when you are dead wrong. If you learn a few tricks of logic and debate, you can refute the obvious, and defend the ridiculous.

 

When we share information freely, everybody gains knowledge.