Don't pay the Ferryman (the hooded man at the rudder) 'til the ship gets right-side-up again

 

SELF-REGULATING CIVILITY OF LAWYERS

Proposed amendment: simply remove SELF



Legislation that allowed the legal profession to be self-governing (decades ago) was on the condition that lawyers conduct themselves in a professional manner. The Code of Professional Conduct (“the Code”) is not enforceable by law, but rather a recommendation by The Law Society of Manitoba (the "Society") as a self-governing body. The problem with that concept is that law firms are not regulated.

The ship has long since sailed from whence this ship was launched. It should be apparent the Society has clearly lost its way, somewhere along the shores of a rock and a hard place. We are seeing practices that are in clear violation of its governing authority and criminal. In Manitoba, these include:

• unreported criminal behaviour i.e.,
  - (Jack King's actions required police investigation);
  - knowledge of perjury, obstruction of justice, (many references throughout this blog);
  - price fixing - collusion (Law Society Member-Benched!);
• members starting up a side business of insurance of by and for its members;
• members administering and investigating its own claims;
• members* (judges and masters) judging in court as to whether a claim has any merit;
• members in conflict of interest situations.
• But  WAIT! There's more .... like female lawyers interviewed by The FIRM (as stated in the Society newsletter and posted online) whereby candidates (redundant to say young and female)

1. have been asked whether they intend on having a family then
2. directs those women to go article for the government if they do!  

When a watchdog is on a master’s lap, only justice is kept at bay.

 

The Society’s effectiveness is further weakened with the enactment of the Limited Partnership Act (“LLP”) which allows law firms to distance itself even further  -- and not to CODE.

Note: Firms have become such BIG business that changes are presently under review to allow non-members (as in, people who are not lawyers) to purchase and own law firms. I can just see the lawyer in the not so distant future--looking up the status of a court case online at QB Registry and having an online link to the NASDAQ exchange for quick reference as to who's ahead.

Enough is enough.

 

The time has come for the Government of Manitoba to step in, remove the right to self-govern away from the Society, and let lawyers return back to the practice of law and the novel notion of being a profession. Let's NOT allow big business to further threaten the administration of justice even further than it has--where the greatest impact is on those most vulnerable (that now includes anyone whose personal income is below 6 figures.)

 

When a young man with great potential (LCS Grad of 2012) told me he wanted to be a lawyer, I was very concerned for him and worried whether he could survive The FIRM of 2017--you see, he's never had to experience bullying or forced to do anything he had to lie about. I simply refuse to live life in a doom and gloom world and tell him to abandon his values and principles in order to "go along to get along" in the world of legal society because...

I HAVE HOPE FOR THE FUTURE that we can fix this by then.  I don't think it's too late to turn things around. That's what I believe. That's what I'm fighting for. What -- like it's hard?

I was proud to be a Legal Assistant in the 80's, in the good old days of great legal legends like DeGraves, Mackay, Settle, Buchwald, Sarchuk--a time when even a legend like Richard Shead could fall (charged for fraud 1995, investigated and went to prison). Those were the days when it truly was a profession, and lawyers were the heart of the firm, and an office manager -- an employee. Now The FIRM has a lawyer's heart and soul under contract in exchange for a priviliged life of riches and protection.


The time has come and the time is NOW for an independent (non-member) Lawyer Enforcement Review Agency ( LERA-II). If we can expect this type of an independent review of our police force then certainly we can hold the business of law accountable as well.

Policing is first and foremost a service to the public, the more it is at odds with the composition and values of that public, the less well it works.   

Max Yalden, Chief Commissioner
of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Do it for the class of 2012 and those graduating thereafter.

This unpaid political message is brought to you by:

M.A.M.A. 

A Bullish Government
Home of:  Mothers Against Members* Association
 

Monkey with Rules -- Get a Monkey on your Back

The focus will now shift from When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal to documenting the process of bringing forth a complaint against a lawyer(s). As previously discussed in "YES WE CAN" there are rules and consequences for  "lawyers that really go above and beyond sheer impertinence ... A Government cover up could never happen without the collaboration of all parties. It is therefore only fitting that all parties, including lawyers, be held accountable.

 

Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator.

Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.    

- Holocaust Museum, Washington, DC

 

October 2009 Anna Schmidt Beauchamp [as newly appointed Director of Civil Service Commission] signed a Solemn Declaration, prepared by Rob Olson of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. It was a ten-page Reply to a Request for Review and Reconsideration with no attachments, but with one blatantly obvious screw-up on page 5 para. (x): sticking out as obvious as a "Kick Me I'm Stupid" post-it note, stupidly left in the document by Olson, and he then filed it with the Labour Board without reading it first.. The Registrar Janet Duff gave me a copy, no doubt, without reading it herself. [Another extra-wide sticky note for Duff, please.]

 

Paragraph (x) claimed that the Civil Service Commission always had an external Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider in place for its employees (who felt confidentiality would be breached--EAP was, in fact, staff of CSC.) Olson provided no documentation to corroborate this alleged fact (as was the case with the majority of the hearsay testimony always gratuitously accepted by the tribunals), no doubt  confident that the matter would never proceed to hearing anyway.

 

I immediately responded that the Reply should not be allowed as Olson was clearly the author of paragraph (x) and undoubtedly the whole document. Furthermore, it should be obvious Beauchamp Schmidt did not read the document before signing it, and therefore could not possibly have knowledge of the facts deposed to which is a criminal offence: punishable under Section 17 of the Act.

 

Government--who only speaks through its lawyer, Olson--dismissed the seriousness of the matter as being just a ‘typo.’ (A whole paragraph?) A seemingly biased Chair of the Labour Board, W.D. Hamilton, accepted the explanation as reasonable but failed to be reasonable with me. Numerous letters went unacknowledged: October 12th, 20th and 28th. A final letter sent on November 4th stated:

"… an offence under The Manitoba Evidence Act should be regarded as an offence against the public…If this is not properly addressed the message the Board is sending out is that we, as a province have set a lower standard for government bodies such as the CSC when it comes to making a false declaration under oath..."

The Board through its Chair, W.K. Hamilton, then decided to abuse his power and authority by retaliating against me by dismissing my Request for Review without hearing. Hamilton then haughtily stated that seeing as the matter is dismissed, he saw no need to respond to any of my four letters. The Labour Board's Decision stated as follows:

Page 5 para. 15 “…the Respondent addressed a typographical error that certain information had inadvertently been left on a document filed as an attachment in its Reply.”

Page 7 para. 17(d) “…As to the Applicant’s request in the letter of October 12, 2009 to the Board [See para. 14, supra] that the Board ought to disregard the Respondent’s Reply, the Board notes that, following an extension of time to the Respondent, the Reply was properly filed in a timely manner by the Respondent in accordance with the Board’s Rules. The Board affirms that the Reply is properly before it." 

If we are to believe that there was no attachment to the Respondent’s Reply then either the Labour Board Chair (Hamilton) screwed up when he stated that the “’typo was in an attachment”; or at the time he dismissed my complaint,  there was a bait-and-switch for the benefit of the Ombudsman's pseudo-investigation, and a revised one was filed in a  cover up--based on the Labour Board Decision, “…following an extension of time…Reply was properly filed…” 

 

Even with all the monkey business going on, Manitoba Ombudsman Irene Hamilton could not see the forest for the trees: it's all relative when dealing with Government's monkey business.

 

*NOTE: The blog, Black Rod, indicated in one of its past postings that a conflict existed due to the fact Ombudsman Irene Hamilton is related to Chair, W.K. (Bill) Hamilton. Accordingly, the complainant felt Irene should have recused herself, but she did not. The Ombudsman's decision was viewed by the complainant as unfair and biased.  I can neither confirm or verify how they are related, or whether it is true. But it would explain a lot. (See Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board Violated Privacy Laws.)



IT'S NOT THE LAW YOU KNOW, IT'S WHO YOU KNOW



Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (TDS) 0 Degrees of Separation

Manitoba Labour Board Chair: William (Bill) D. Hamilton (TDS Alumni)

Manitoba Labour Board Vice-Chair: Blair Graham Q.C. (TDS Lawyer)

Manitoba Labour Board Vice-Chair:  M. Lynn Harrison (TDS Lawyer) 

MB Justice Attorney General/Minister of Justice: Andrew Swan (TDS Star Alumni)

 

 

 

"At Your Service" is our motto.
Step this way out the EXIT...
I mean, ah Complaint Department.

When MLB dismissed my complaint in its entirety, without hearing, I then filed a formal complaint December 3, 2009 regarding the criminal violation under Manitoba Evidence Act to Deputy Minister Jeffrey Schnoor  As I had previously worked with Schnoor at Justice during 2006-2007, I expected, at the very least, the courtesy of a response. Clearly, my expectations were set too high: having received no response, I escalated the matter on January 25, 2010 to Attorney General Andrew Swan.

 

Only in government can one 'escalate' an issue and in return, get a 'Swan Dive': my complaint was delegated down the food chain to a Manager in Human Resources who responded in part as follows:

 

"Manitoba Justice does not have the authority to review or investigate this matter. The Manitoba Evidence Act provides the statutory foundation for the way information and documentation is to be handled. It does not provide the Deputy Minister or employees of Manitoba Justice with the authority to investigate ...you may want to contact the Manitoba Labour Board for advice... You may also consider consulting a lawyer."    

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!

 

 

CSC doggedly responded to a FIPPA request for all information in existence regarding the alleged external EAP [as sworn to in the Reply -para. (x)]

 

Upon order from the MB Ombudsman (after 2nd complaint) CSC, on January, 2011 responded with the only information they had -- an email from the EAP Director dated June 19, 2009 that the program would be implemented that fall. One year after termination from employment which spells out perjury by government and its lawyer, Robert Olson: "Marielle was well aware of an external EAP existed".

 

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but when government lawyers are paid over $200 an hour to do government's bidding -- there must never be a time when we fail to protest when counsel (with purpose and malice) is wrong with the facts and the law.

How Does MB Government deal with charges against heads of institutions?

When the head of Canada's premier human rights adjudication agency is accused of "creating a workplace that had deteriorated to the point of toxicity" Government took quick affirmative action as reported in the Ottawa Citizen "Harassment complaints upheld against human rights tribunal head" as follows:

"...Harassment complaints are typically directed to the heads of ministries or agencies, but given the unusual — likely unique — situation of the head of the tribunal being the subject of the complaint, an independent outsider had to be found to adjudicate..."

Why wasn't this process followed by the Government of Manitoba regarding complaints, first against CSC Commissioner and its Director, and then the heads of MLB and MHRC, and subsequently with the Ombudsman's Office? It really is sad when leaders get caught up in a series of events where one inappropriate and criminal act leads to another, and another, in a domino effect. Even sadder is that at any time the Ombudsman could have stopped the madness by doing her job and advising all parties to accept the consequences of his or her prior mistakes; to learn from it and then move on and be better for it. "A public office is a public trust." When someone breaks that trust, there needs to be accountability. 

"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

MB Government did not take the higher road and has responded by covering for its heads of institutions in ways far greater than the original wrongdoing. The cost in defending its actions (legal costs denied by Ombudsman), the amount of work and stress by all parties including private counsel Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (see Law at Lunch - More Cowbell) in fabricating and maintaining a lie, is rarely ever easier than accepting the consequences of the truth. The Provincial Government has had a tremendously ridiculous time in keeping its story straight, to the point of embarrassment. Government could have nipped it in the bud at the source where it all began at the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with an apology.

"... If this was a lower level manager, the head of the institution would have the authority to take specific measures: That person could be sent for sensitivity training or moved to a different position or fired. But how do you appropriately deal with harassment charges against heads of institutions?”

Bravo for the Conservative Federal Government, perhaps after learning from past mistakes of trying to cover up for bad behaviour. (See Whistleblower Rulings Hurt Canada's Reputation.)

 

In answer to the question: How do you appropriately deal with harassment charges against heads of institutions? In the end it would seem that the Manitoba Government is rewarding Ombudsman Irene Hamilton by creating a new position for her. Her newly created high-paying position is to focus on helping Manitoba Justice speed up its court processes. Quite ironic based on her past record of procrastination in violation of legislated time limits to address issues brought before her. Complaints before the Ombudsman are to be responded to in writing, and when accepted for investigation, addressed within 90 days.

 

Complaints against the MHRC--much more serious than what occurred at the Federal level (referred to herein)--was filed on  and accepted for investigation on October 2010,. No response (by phone or in writing) has been the response from the Ombudsman and in violation of her mandate--there has been no final report or recommendation. See related posting: MB Ombudsman buries report...)

In fact, many matters filed with the Ombudsman's office have been stonewalled indefinitely without a letter of explanation. Much of what goes on with politics occurs behind the scenes. What we get to see is only the affirmation of what has occurred in secret: this we get delivered to us in a prepackaged media release.

 

There ought to be a note of caution with these articles i.e.

"Has been in contact with Government and may not contain adequate amounts of truth: accountability and transparency".

 

As long as Manitobans do not speak out, what we are essentially saying is that we have different standards set for our leaders in government, or worst yet, no expectations. Given the lack of voter turnout at the last provincial election, it would seem that through nature or nurture, we have become quite an apathetic group.

Editorial: MB Gov't OK with flipping ‘the Bird’ -- flips off Jesus

As stated in my 2008 Human Rights complaint, my co-worker had a long standing history of constantly swearing at management and staff. When asked to stop, the co-worker responded by cutting out an outline of a hand with a middle finger pointing up and taped it to a stick -- the compromise seemingly being to give people ‘the finger’ instead of swearing. As staff found that more annoying and management took no action, it was eventually accepted over the years that nothing could, or would be done about it.

In order to have a respectful workplace environment there needs to be an atmosphere of mutual respect, responsibility, self-discipline and cooperation from entry level position all the way to the top,  particularly when it comes to human rights and political correctness.

When my mood disorder (bipolar disorder) was exacerbated in 2008 (resulting in intensified religious beliefs) I could no longer accept management's laissez-faire attitude about the co-worker's improper conduct, particularly since the swearing, heard by anyone in the reception area, would associate me with behaviour I abhorred. Had management taken the swearing more seriously, it would have likely stopped especially if the consequence involved losing an annual $40K salary.

I did speak to Potty Mouth (not her real name) on a number of occasions, asking her to stop the swearing. The response was "forget about it, you’re not the first one to ask me to stop. It won’t work. You don’t want me to do to you, what I did to them” and the co-worker laughingly recounted ‘the finger’ story as being the way she would deal with my request.

I  did try to make the co-worker aware as to how often she swore; whenever she would hear outbursts of "Jesus Christ”, "for Christ sake" or for "God's sake" I would say, “He’s probably a little busy right now. Can I help?”

Of course "the finger’ was meant as a joke but is the line not drawn when someone finds the humour offensive? How alarming is it to have a civil servant use a paper cut out of a universally known gesture in responding to a work related request, and management does not respond, or alternatively sees only the humour in it? How does that reflect Government's stated objective of a respectful work environment?

Government did not respond. In fact a Reply was signed and submitted by private lawyer, Rob Olson, and accepted by the Human Rights Commission. Olson (a third party without any corroborated facts to support) stated that the "issues of religious slurs were addressed" and he knew for a fact that I “was aware that efforts were being made" to deal with the swearing despite no documents exist or were presented. The fact that there is no single document, email or note of any action taken to deal with the complaint speaks of inaction by Government and its authorities.

Although the issue of the religious swearing was included in a formal Respectful Workplace complaint filed April 2008 with the Manitoba Civil Service Commission, it appears it was never regarded an issue worthy of investigation. It was not factored in as part of the “three key themes” of the Civil Service Commission's findings conducted by the Supervisor (Chief Operating Officer "COO") for Organization Staff Development, the department where I was employed. Clearly a conflict as the COO, had the allegations been proven, would have "fingered" herself as being responsible for allowing a violation of the Code under her direct supervision. Not surprising then that the religious issue was seemingly just 'flipped off' as not a big deal. Manitoba Ombudsman saw nothing wrong with a government officer investigating her own department..

Had a proper investigation from the Human Rights Commission or Ombudsman's Office occurred, it would have shown that the employer, Government of Manitoba did not do its due diligence in conducting a fair investigation.There was ample time to do so given the complaint was stonewalled for two years in a pre-vegetative state.

After procedures went off the rails, in 2011, I  took it upon myself to access my files through FIPPA; information that could have been easily accessed by the investigative authorities. The file provided indisputable proof that the ongoing swearing was a known problem to management but that management's attempts to deal with the problem were ineffective and quite lax. There is no mention of following procedure regarding behaviour-based issues that continue on even after warning. Instead there are excuses that the co-worker "did try to quit, but she wasn’t able to stop.”

It would seem that Government decided to accommodate a social disability that is not a protected characteristic and chose to not accommodate a person based on religious beliefs further heightened by a mental disability; both of which are categories protected under the Human Rights Code.

It seems The Code, in practice, is served up like some buffet where management and Government authorities can pick and choose according to its personal preferences and tastes.

Employees are to refrain from wishing one another a "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending non-Christian believers. However, there are no restrictions on religious cursing which may in all likelihood offend all Christians.

God help us all if these are the people entrusted with our civil and human rights!

EDITORIAL: Uncivil Behaviour and Civil Liberties

By the time you finish reading the following sentence you will already have pre-determined in your mind what happened and who you will favour, based on who you view as having the higher ‘social ranking’.

A woman with a mental disability filed a complaint against her employer Government of Manitoba with the Labour Board and MHRC, and claims she has been treated unfairly and denied due process of her complaints.

CAUTION:

May appear further from the truth than the way things actually are.

The family watched a documentary of a City of Victoria police officer using excessive force. The 57-second video clip showed a man being kneed and kicked while being handcuffed by another officer. The armchair quarterbacks in my house were totally horrified and stated, “Well, that’s way worse than what happened to you, Mom! I mean, they got it on video and everything.”

The discussion followed as to whether a person getting kicked in the back by a likely  'jacked up' street cop caught up in the moment was worse than someone who was psychologically and mentally abused in a calculated and ongoing basis by various government bodies and authorities over a number of years. 

At first glance, yes the guy was kicked in the back, which is instinctively wrong on many levels. However, on the plus side, the guy was not charged with any crime--nor did the police try to plant evidence on him so they could save face--to support the police acting with brutal force.

The guy has likely gone on with his life. He likely didn't have to explain over and over again to friends, family and acquaintances, "honestly, I did nothing wrong!!" Any physical bruises have likely long since healed, and as to any mental scarring – well that does heal quickly when you are given a tremendous show of support for your pain and suffering by the community overall. He also likely didn't lose his job over it. There is no black smudge on his permanent employment record.

Other positive action in favour of this 'guy': There actually was an investigation of the officer's conduct. The decision to not lay charges on the officer was made in light of the fact that witnesses (not fellow police officers) did support the police's claim that the man did resist efforts to be handcuffed.  There was an acknowledgement from the Criminal Justice Branch that the amount of force used by the officer did call “for close scrutiny" so there is admission of questionable conduct which would likely be reviewed. 

 

In my case I was repeatedly, mentally, 'kicked like a dog' over a number of years by a front line supervisor and then the attacks continued on with high level government authorities entrusted to protect those most vulnerable.  At no time, had I ever been advised that my record of employment was anything but exemplary; and never given an opportunity to correct the misinformation from a smear campaign carried out after I was terminated from employment; there was never a proper (or any) investigation, or hearing, and the online reference of personal information in violation of personal information by the Manitoba Labour Board, as reported in the Ombudsman report, after having it online for 1.5 years, only to then be re-posted by the Labour Board on a different webpage on its website.

This evidence certainly is stronger than a 57-second clip. There is solid evidence spanning over three years of well documented wrongdoing and criminal behaviour. In Canada (where Manitoba is a province of) perjury and obstruction to justice are criminal offences and Government authorities are not (supposed to be) above the law. 

Society does tend to judge without having all the facts based on pre-determined beliefs. Our sense of fair play is based on social norms much like that of the game, Rock-Paper-Scissors. In a conflict situation between a police officer versus a punker with spiked pink hair wearing metal and leather; or a police officer vs. an Aboriginal homeless man, society tends to instinctively side with the police officer. But when society sees a regular-Joe type guy being kicked by a police officer on the news, in the papers and on YouTube, the world reacts on a Paper Rock Scissors mentality and the 'regular guy' is favoured. 

Whereas my story has yet to raise an eyebrow, compassion or show of any support for those most vulnerable to Manitoba Government's undue hardship as evidenced by a petition of 21 signatures (as of the date of posting to over 180,000 YouTube viewers of the guy being kicked): deemed a 'person of inconvenience' by mental association. The invisible-ness of it all even further reinforced when my story is passed over for stories such as   "lies, damned lies and ..."  in Winnipeg Free Press   Driving them crazy  about EGAD!  "...parking spots" A conspiracy going on at the Winnipeg International Airport on the basis that someone had to spend 10 minutes before actually finding a parking spot.

Scissors beats paper – paper beats rock – Rock beats scissors - and Government beats on those most vulnerable with its bullish ways. Is MB Government #WINNING?!!

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.

MHRC: You'll miss the donut if you keep looking through the hole.

Three years later, I still believe that I was unfairly terminated by the Government of Manitoba  once symptoms of  disability became exacerbated due to a stressful and toxic work environment. As stated in the MHRC Complaint dated October 20, 2008 para 9:

The workplace became very toxic in that the work expectations were unreasonable and I felt my supervisor was not providing me with the necessary tools to get all the work done. I felt hostility from (Supervisor) Ms Desrochers when asking for support or direction. I began physically feeling the strain of workplace stress in that I suffered daily migraines, hot flashes, muscle aches and difficulty in breathing with chest pains that resulted in medical attention.

The purpose of a doctor’s report is to corroborate and clarify information. An independent expert opinion from a psychiatrist or other trained professional in mental health issues would of, could of, should of, occurred but MHRC never asked for one. As stated in “A Bipolar Life” blog, MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft never revealed if her comments in the Assessment constitute that of ‘an expert’ or not. GABS

Multiple FIPPA requests eluded disclosure of Flintoft's letter to my doctor -- and for good reason. Information finally accessed revealed the letter was mailed for the doctor’s report on February 12, 2010 and stated that it was needed by March 1, 2010. No professional courtesy as to his limited time between office consults, hospital days, on call, delivering babies...) but Flintoft did offer, “... if you’re busy you can give it to me over the phone.” GABS

Flintoft knew for two years that a report was required. MHRC's failure to properly plan for a doctor's report that is supposed to be first and foremost --the most important thing--should not constitute an urgency on the doctor's part to do it on the fly. An unrealistic demand that required the doctor to do it on a Sunday. (Much like that of a parent doing their kid's science project in one night while the kid is in bed sleeping.) The unnecessary delay in requesting the report, and the sudden urgency to 'phone it in' is only overshadowed in absurdity by the context of Flintoft's questions and biased 'colour commentary': GABS

According to the Respondent, the department in which she worked was in the midst of a workplace re-organization which made the work of all its employees more challenging.

FALSE: CSC confirmed there was no "workplace re-organization.” Never happened. G

(Marielle) also advised that she saw you twice in six months [dates unknown] due to migraine headaches but that you did not change her medication at that time.

Lithium had been working for the past 20 years. Why change now? Is this to imply that the migraines were likely caused by the meds? X-rays were taken and tests were required regarding chest pains and difficulty in breathing as a result of stress as submitted in the complaint, but not questioned by Flintoft. 

Respondent’s evidence is that at the time it did not know she suffered from a mental disability and it had not been asked to make any accommodation for a mental disability. Raising her voice when meeting with management had also happened a few days before the meeting.  GABS

FALSE:

• Supervisor (Desrochers) admitted to Flintoft in 2010 that she had told OSD COO / CSC Director Anna Schmidt Beauchamp that she did know I suffered from a mental illness (knowledge going back 15 years) and she thought the changed behaviour was likely caused by it (said to have told Schmidt Beauchamp once, possibly twice);
• Accommodation had been requested June 2, 2008 at the Respectful Workplace investigation meeting, after which time the investigator advised Schmidt Beauchamp (who became my new supervisor once Desrochers was removed from OSD) to proceed to accommodation. The next work day, upon arriving to work, I was terminated. Told by Beauchamp Schmidt I was "paranoid" and "you think everyone is out to get you."
• Flintoft knew at the time of writing the letter to the doctor that Beauchamp Schmidt's sworn LRA statement that I was yelling and screaming at meetings was false, as confirmed by co-workers in attendance.  

Did the medication affect her ability to do her job? If so, please explain.

This is a performance based question regarding employment making an assumption that my ability was below par, which is in direct contradiction to the performance review letter that I was "an exemplary employee," and "asset to the organization," "showed initiative in taking on new projects" and "meeting the expectations of the job.” As a physician, all he could be asked to speak to, in his report, was the fact that he advised me to stay away from work due to the effects workplace stress was having on my health.


One statement in particular highlights Flintoft’s inexperience in the areas of bipolar, and likely mental illness (page 27) of the Investigative Assessment, when she wrote with placid impudence:

“...after their second child, the Complainant tried to get weaned off her medication but was unable to do so…”  GABS

The term used, to "wean oneself’ off generally means it is in one’s best interest to ‘stop using’ or ‘stop doing something’. To then state I “was not able to do so” (that is, wean myself off  meds) is a tactless comment considering I am to stay on my meds for the rest of my life. The presumption seems to be that I am 'weak' and 'not in control.' It is unclear if this is just in reference to me, or to any woman in general with an 'invisible disability' or "post partum?"

To the contrary,  problems occur when you stop taking your meds. Or, alternatively (which is often sadly the case) when someone ought to be on meds, and are too scared to go on it for fear that they will be ostracized by friends, family, society, government (or they can't get into a doctor). But is this an accepted mentality of a Human Rights investigator?!!

It is truly sad when a Government prescribed remedy is worst than the disease.

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 come down with brute force on a vulnerable, newly unemployed, without union (also questionable), employee without the means to hire legal counsel. Access to total cost borne by taxpayers paying for the Government's defence has been denied, apparently as stated in (see post below) Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman the joke's on us taxpayers. This cover-up is now going into its fourth year and it's time to assess who is winning?

Olson, an expert in labour disputes and co-author of "Dos, Don'ts and Dollars" warns employers don't play hardball in termination matters. I followed all the proper steps to address the issues in a respectful non-threatening manner. And yet, at no time during or after employment would a government official agree to meet with me or even respond to attempts to mediate.

All I wanted was that the reference, as given to an employment agency by CSC Director Anna Schmidt Beauchamp be corrected to properly and fairly reflect the quality of work I had provided to OSD as stated in letter dated March 17, 2008 (as provided by OSD as a true account of only exemplary performance) wherein I was described as "an asset to the organization".


There was only seven work days from the date of this performance review letter (March 17th) to the time I went on stress leave. For the COO to then state that there has been a "personality conflict" with the Supervisor during those seven days is incredibly unfair and grossly misleading in light of the circumstances. Particularly given the fact that CSC was well aware that the Supervisor had a history (four including my complaint) of her harassing other subordinates. And then of course, the fact that disability was then known to be a factor in her changed behaviour. To not correct the wrong would affect my chances for future employment in addition to setbacks to recovery.


The Government's strategy was to stonewall the complaint over the years, and then without reason or hearing, dismiss the complaint (and me). As to Government’s denial to disclose all its legal fees and costs, the rationale was that it was to protect the lawyer’s financial business interests. In reality it is the lawyer’s financial interests that are in direct conflict with any hope of a quick and fair resolution and therefore a conflict of public interest. Clearly it is in the lawyer's financial interest to secure as many $200+ billable hours as it can, and when deep pockets are involved, that is plenty. G


According to MHRC's online policy a person does not need to demonstrate they are disabled at all times to be considered disabled. Some medical conditions can go through lengthy periods where symptoms are not noticeable at all, which is likely why there is reluctance in acknowledging a disability even exists. Considering the Government's initiative in filling the labour shortage, it ought to consider that accommodation in these cases would likely result in no more sick days than that taken by 'healthy' employees without a disability.


My supervisor's (from March 2007-April 2008) recollection even later in 2010 as to how she had viewed me as a candidate for the clerk position: qualifications and employment history, was "WOW!" Desrochers also confirmed to the MHRC Investigator that she had knowledge of the disability and that knowledge went back fifteen years prior to my bing hired. Contrary to Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony, as confirmed by Desrochers, that she had, in fact, advised Beauchamp that changes in my behaviour (just prior to termination) were likely as a result of the mental illness. Beauchamp Schmidt perjured herself in stating 'no one in the department knew of a disability. Talk about Cool Hand Luke! No fear of recourse. 


It is well known that women with intellectual disabilities have a hard time coming forward as noted in Manitoba’s report “When Bad Things Happen”. Unfortunately even real evidence doesn’t stand a chance in the case of a Government cover up. Four years later, I still refuse to be silenced because I believe this is not an isolated occurrence. There are also many people who do not have the fortitude to come forward and cannot (due to disability) articulate what has happened to them and she is compelled to speak for them. Sure the Government likely sees that it is winning, but at what exactly: And at what cost? 


Putting the obvious legal issues aside, you would think Government would feel some moral obligation to do the right thing. To witness this breach of trust firsthand (painstakingly documented) is frightening as it leads to even greater issues questioning Government’s inability to protect all Manitobans' civil rights. Where is the accountability and transparency, and where is due process when there is no one to take your complaint to? The Whistleblower Act (2007) is as ineffective here provincially as that revealed with the Federal Privacy Commissioner scandal which came out December 2010.

No matter what the political consequence, things need to be made right and the public also needs to see that it is handled right. Otherwise, what we are saying is that we have set a lower standard for government. The Labour Board, Manitoba Human Rights Commission and Manitoba Ombudsman office; all staff paid by Government of Manitoba to be its gatekeepers stonewalling due process in an attempt to divert conflict away from government giving them the false belief of #WINNING!