Journalism lost its guts?


Defending against aggression by blogging-- because I can.

 

If this is happening to me
surely I am not the only one.

Another year gone by, and
in many ways the pursuit of truth
and justice seem more distant
than ever as journalists stand by
merely as observers,
unwilling to pick up the story.

 

When a public authority does not
act in a lawful manner,
void of all integrity such conduct
must bear the consequence of
having that aggression made public.

 

As Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger described it, (Jan 12, 2013, FINANCIAL AID FOR POOR POLITICIANS? ) justice "has really become a club for millionaires and, in some cases, billionaires… and democracy needs to function in a way that average people have a chance to participate in it...” No truer words spoken by a politician.

 

 

A FAX was sent to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in response to a notice I received by regular mail of a court date scheduled for Wednesday, March 13, 2013 before Master Berthaudin. When I checked the Manitoba Courts Queen's Bench Registry Saturday, March 9, 2013 the Registry showed as follows:

 

Court Date Mar 13, 2013 Status: DELETE Notes: RE: ORDER Deleted

 

 

FAX dated March 10, 2013, requested assistance and written confirmation that the court date was in fact, not happening stated as follows:

 

 

 

TO: Court of Queen’s Bench,

QB Chief Justice Glenn Joyal,

Judicial Services, Executive Director Karen Fulham

 

DATE: March 10, 2013

 

I received notice after work on Friday (March 8, 2013) that Master Berthaudin was signing off on Order and Bill of Costs on Wednesday, March 13th. I checked QB Registry that states “Deleted”... Please clarify that the master is not dealing with either Order or Bill of Costs due to 1) insufficient 4 business days’ notice to me and 2) Complaint pending against Master Berthaudin. (correction: 7 days' notice required according to QB Rules) 

 

 

Please be advised that if Mr. Bock’s ongoing assault does not stop, I will be seeking a restraining order against him and any member of his firm.* As partner of Aikins Law, Bock knowingly acted in a conflict situation. I first consulted with Aikins Law partner Brent Ross August 30, 2009 providing documents for his review, specifics relating to this action.

 

 

And again, on April 17, 2012 I emailed Brent Ross Subject: “Statement of Claim Rowan vs TDS (Thompson Dorfman Sweatman)” attaching a copy of the claim asking if he’d take on the case. His response by email, “I opened it up and realized it’s against another firm/lawyer …. Our firm is regularly retained by the law society to defend these cases…”  

 

 

Mr. Bock cannot claim ignorance that a conflict existed especially given at the August 20, 2012 hearing I repeatedly referenced communications with Mr. Ross: Brent Ross a senior partner of your firm--Aikins Law before you were even retained, and his professional opinion even then was, “Yeah, they certainly could have handled that better…” 

 

 

No call on that from the referee, Master Berthaudin—only my delay in not knowing the law is excusable.

 

  

M Rowan

 

 

 

* Note: Requests for help were ongoing to Manitoba Courts as to civil and criminal contempt behaviour by (or directed by) Ted E. Bock, a head Kahuna of The Law Society of Manitoba and senior partner of Aikins, MacAulay Thorvaldson.

 

 

Direct requests were made to Bock to stop the ongoing harassment over several months, described as an ongoing assault and perceived to be pressure (extortion) to sign a false document 'as is' or suffer the consequences of appearing before Master Berthaudin. The same master who is really ticked off about the pending complaint filed by me against him. 

 

If it was really about the money, the Order and Bill of Costs would have been signed off (last year) at the August 20, 2012 kangaroo court hearing. This now brings clarity as to what the members really wanted; a signed Release by me, full of legalese and goobly-gook (that could only be interpreted by a member) to mean that I (unknowingly) signed off on my right to freedom of speech.

 

 

The next move no doubt would have been a cease and desist order against me to stop maintaining and publishing my blog, A bullish government. 

 

 

---------------------------------------- 

 

ANYONE should be able to question, or have explained to them the meaning behind such actions; particularly when they involve court procedures and one is unrepresented and has requested protection by way of accommodation under The Human Rights Code.

 

 

In what can only be seen as an underhanded move, Master Berthaudin and Bock met to sign off on the Order and Bill of Costs anyways on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 which seemed to be of little (or no interest) to Chief Justice Joyal or Executive Director of Judicial Services Karen Fulham.

 

The total of $3,657.50 is said to be owing by me to The Law Society of Manitoba (as insurer and 'muscle') contrary to all past decisions that does not provide costs when a lawyer is acting on his own behalf. As stated in posting, Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Glenn Joyal Don't Stand for No Bullying "Becoming a lawyer, at least in Manitoba, is like joining the mafia..." especially if you run your own insurance protection plan (see Law Society Member Benched!) :

 

Excerpt from the members' insurance manual, "Safe and Effective Practice", 

"The lawyer who has been negligent should not try to be the one who repairs the situation....But it is important to realize that if the Law Society makes use of able and imaginative lawyers from the earliest possible moment ... the number of ways in which this may be done are infinite... It is very instructive to see what can sometimes be done in what is usually assumed to be the most hopeless of cases..." (Underline emphasis added)

 

  

In surreal moments such as this, favorite movie quotes come to mind, and in this case I have adapted from the movie, The American President (scene where actor, played by Michael J Fox confronts his Chief in Command):

G Joyal: The Chief Justice doesn't answer to you, Rowan!

M Rowan: Oh, yes he does C.J. I'm a citizen, this is my Province. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders, it's our responsibility. 

 You hit me WE hit you!  

And apparently much harder when done against a member(s) of the Society then if you were to say -- file a claim against a (non-member) like our City Mayor. See QB Registry CI12-01-75787 CHAN, JOE vs. KATZ, SAMUEL M. where costs were fixed at only $750 against a self-represented litigant whose claim was struck out.

Strike One - $750.

Strike Two - see YUGO Wheels of Justice where Chan was penalized $10,000 for exercising his right to clarify The Conflict of Interest Act -- just to ensure there's no Strike Three

 

 

In both cases (mine and Strike One against the mayor) the Registry noted all parties as self-represented which would explain why the mayor was not given solicitor client costs. What is not public knowledge (or lawful) is that in my case, the defendants were given solicitor client costs (and a lot -- $3.657.50) without actually having retained legal counsel. As insurer, The Law Society of Manitoba would be a third party- and by law, you can't claim legal fees when you are defending yourself. (See QB Registry Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman -- no legal representation noted).

  

This is clearly abuse; a show of power in retaliation against a self-represented party who dared to file a claim against one of its own (a member of the Society). From the non-existent news coverage on this story (despite the media's noted regular visits to my blog) it would appear the members of the Society do not have to answer to media either.

  

Fortunately in cases like this (much like what occurred with the football players caught online in the Steubenville rape case), the Internet provides an alternative means to inform the public of shameless behaviour and misconduct by upscale boys' club mentality-types that brings to bear (at least in Manitoba's case--poetic) justice, that the crap on their hands gets rubbed in their faces.

  

From the movie: The Scent of a Woman (likely--not soon to be forgotten):

 "Hoo-hah!"

   

To The Law Society of Manitoba and ALL its members --

The "jig is up" -- you have been 'outed'. The forces of law and order WILL prevail.  

NOVEMBER 8, 2013 UPDATE:

Complaint against Master Berthaudin to Chief Justice Glenn Joyal dated and delivered Friday April 19, 2013  STILL DENIED.  Joyal has yet to decide on whether it exists (which says a lot about other cases pending before him.)

 

 

 

Law Suit against TDS and Robert Olson

 

Once symptoms of a known disability became exacerbated due to a toxic work environment, a government employee (terminated after 3 years of exemplary reviews) followed due process to address her complaints. Marielle, whose disability was known, bears witness to the difficulties, bias, incompetence, perjury and flawed logic of government in the process. On April 17, 2012 a legal proceeding was commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench against the firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Robert William Olson.

This has evolved into something so much more than from where it all began, just a case of one employee getting a raw deal from the Manitoba Civil Service Commission when it outsourced unfair, uncorroborated and false information to an employment agency. As posted on November 13, 2011 in Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell:

 

From a Government's perspective, particularly at the onset of the complaint, Marielle could not have been viewed as much of a threat. She was out of work. Had no legal representation. And any mental acuity she had at the time of employment with OSD was pretty much fried at the point of termination. 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.

Why would government direct or allow its lawyers to launch such an aggressive stance without at least one attempt to try to resolve the matter in a conciliatory manner? The plaintiff made several requests to resolve the matter 'peacefully, respectfully and amicably" from the start, but all attempts were ignored.
 

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…
 

One of the objectives in pursuing this civil suit is to shed light on the lavish spending by Government, money taken from public funds: a practice that continually adds to the provincial deficit. It is no secret that private law firms charge hefty fees for its services. Just how much is yet to be known. Manitoba Ombudsman denied a FIPPA request as to what those legal fees and government costs actually were in pursuing this one complaint. See Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman.
 

Perhaps one thing that should be learnt from all this is that if there is any outsourcing to be done, with the intention of achieving a fair resolution in a conflict situation, it would make more sense to go with an independent mediator rather than a private lawyer. An independent mediator would be more likely to strive to avoid conflict – rather than create it in order to pad their billable hours. Independent mediators are also more likely to focus on goodwill and respectful treatment of all persons and not discount someone who is seen to be vulnerable and dismissed as collateral damage.
 

I Marielle Rowan, am the creator of this blog and Plaintiff in this civil suit, representing herself; doing up all the pleadings, research, etc. as I have done for the last four years throughout this quasi-complaint process of Consumers Bureau, Manitoba Human Rights Commission, Manitoba Labour Board and Manitoba Ombudsman.
 

The call is out for a GOOD lawyer to take a stand against those lawyers who give the profession of 'lawyer' a bad name. Right now I stand alone but at least I'm standing on principle. I could use some company.
 

Please also see open letter to Premier Selinger below as to what YOU can do.
 

Thank you.

Marielle

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

Dear Reader,

 

Please do your part to remind Mr. Selinger that rights that are 'rights only on paper' are meaningless if they are not accessible to those who suffer from mental / intellectual illness who are denied access to the complaint process due to their disability or do not have the financial means to get legal representation. The original purpose of the tribunals were to provide access to the complaint process for those who were not able to because of their disability or did not have the financial means to hire a lawyer.
 

Imagine having a K-12 school that has built a play structure for the early years but allows the seniors to take it over and push out the little guys. Well, welcome to DISCOUNT JUSTICE (as it is known). As stated by a Winnipeg lawyer (someone on the Board of MHRC), who hissed out--the quasi-judicial system "... is not an investigation process. It's a trial by paper and you BLEW it by not hiring a lawyer."

As stated in the Manitoba Community Living report "When Bad Things Happen" most people found that the complaint process (such as Labour Board or Human Rights Commission) was more difficult than they could have possibly imagined and more damaging than what they had initially suffered as a result of the original complaint. The quasi-boards are NOT serving the purpose (or group) it was meant for. It is actually causing more damage, causing someone to expend all their energy on a mirage. Better that government come straight out and say, "We are NOT at your Service". At least then those most vulnerable to government's bullish ways can maintain some form of self-respect and dignity.
 

 

 

ASK QUESTIONS. GET INFORMED. BE PRO-ACTIVE.

 

 

Greg Selinger’s email address is premier@leg.gov.mb.ca.

 

“To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” Winston S. Churchill (diagnosed bipolar disorder)

"… it is possible to recover from mental illness and overcome it and be successful - because Churchill is an example of someone who was able to do that …Had he been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation. In 1940, when all the odds were against Britain, a leader of sober judgment might well have concluded that we were finished.”  Anthony Storr, psychiatrist and historian



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 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.



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!

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.

RWP process is a "CLM" (Career Limiting Move)

My former Supervisor, Desrochers (whose harassment charges now numbered at the minimum--four) was passed over to another department; in much the same way teachers don't fail a student anymore, just make them someone else's problem. On my return to work after a 3.5 week stress leave, I handed a Respectful Workplace (RWP) complaint dated April 30, 2008 to my new Supervisor, Chief Operating Officer of OSD, Anna Schmidt Beauchamp.

Self-preservation 101 :

Never fire a manager  who knows where all the bodies are buried; it will likely lead to whistling about it.

The assigned investigator to the RWP complaint, was Ginette Grimard. Her notes accessed in 2011 supports my position that I expressed no malice in bringing forward a complaint but did so in good faith that it would lead to positive change. I expressed empathy for my Supervisor stating the harassment was likely due in part to the stress of the staff shortages and unrelenting and increasing workload. I had spent several unpaid hours at home compiling reports as a pro-active response, with the understanding that the decision was ultimately theirs. I had plans to move on and had a few good solid leads for new employment and it was clear that I was focused at the meeting on my needs, that included:

Self-preservation for Bipolar 301  

• ensure any future employment references would be fair and truthful;
• advise of an ongoing medical condition protected under the Human Rights Code;
• advise of accommodation required being a reasonable workload and a respectful workplace;
• ensure my 3.5 weeks stress leave would not adversely affect future employment opportunities;
• advise employer of medical history and of ongoing past hospitalizations for a full understanding that accommodation was essential to maintaining and sustaining recovery; and at serious risk of permanent institutionalization should 'it get really bad'. 

Feeling Grimard had a good grasp of the situation and feeling good about their meeting together, I sent off the following email (excerpt below) elated at having an impartial investigator to conduct the investigation. Unbeknownst to me, that would be the first and last meeting. Excerpt of email sent from home June 2, 2008 4:16 PM to Grimard:

Hi Ginette,

Thank you for the time you spent with Anna and myself today. I appreciated the fact that although we had only anticipated an hour. you did not rush through the information and showed a sincere interest in understanding the situation.

I am confident that this time will have been well spent and positive changes will result from it.

Mille fois rnerci, ("A thousand thanks")                   Marielle

• This email was forwarded to the Labour Board on December 6, 2008 in defence of the accusation made in the Reply by Beauchamp that I was screaming and yelling (at her and Grimard) throughout the duration of the June 2 meeting. I explained to the Board, the email is "indicative of how I conducted myself at the RWP meeting (June 2nd) and what I strive for daily."  The Labour Board did not accept the document and returned the correspondence to me. 

Grimard's handwritten notes accessed in 2011 ended with the last page in mid-sentence with no concluding notes, but nonetheless, even this is evidence that refutes what was stated in Flintoft's Assessment.  With all other interviews the testimony is typed up into a report, so it is then incredible that CSC did not provide a typed up report from Grimard as to my interview. According to Grimard's verbal testimony in 2010 (MHRC investigative meeting) the MHRC reports includes the statement that Grimard had instructed Beauchamp Schmidt to proceed to accommodation at the conclusion of our RWP meeting. Did CSC destroy Grimard's report? What happened here is anyone's guess but ultimately speaks of  'cover-up'.  How about perjury? At the very least --Bullish?  

The situation turned from someone who felt "kicked like a dog' by one supervisor, to being 'a deer caught in the headlights'  by those desperate to protect the government's status quo.  I had no clue of the real danger I was up against; having grown up in an era that you trust people in authority to do what's right.

Evidence of a smear campaign (by way of notes accessed in 2011) shows numerous meetings held after I had already left OSD. Outrageous accusations to support the 'screaming' and 'yelling' smears stating dates, times and meetings that this was occurring with OSD staff and management. And yet each accusation can be easily dismissed. Like one VISA statement would show that on a couple of those occasions describing me as 'out of my mind', I was actually out of the country cheering on the Celtics at an NBA game in Minneapolis.

Upon receipt of the RWP findings in September 2008, I left Grimard several messages by email and phone requesting an opportunity to meet.  I received no acknowledgement or response.  File accessed 2011 showed that Grimard did seek advice from Government as to how she should respond to me. 'No response' speaks volumes to a person who suffers from manic depression.

Manitoba Ombudsman Investigator Bob Baker responded he saw nothing wrong with Beauchamp Schmidt conducting the RWP investigation (an assessment made after being apprised of Beauchamp's FIPPA violations, HRC violations, perjury, criminal acts) on the basis that I had initially handed the complaint to Beauchamp.  Baker also stated that it is appropriate for CSC to investigate its own complaints which is in contradiction to CSC's earlier promise that an 'outside department' would be conducting an unbiased, off-site and impartial investigation. 

Cover letter to Manitoba Labour Board dated November 24, 2008 requesting to respectfully address the inconsistencies in the Government's Reply to LRA application went unacknowledged by both MLB and Government. The following email is once again indicative of my respectful and professional approach despite the mistreatment I was receiving:

The information is provided in good faith and with respect for the Government of Manitoba, as it is my genuine desire to resolve the conflict peacefully. 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.

Crazy is as crazy does! Mama always says 'You can't outgrow crazy."

MHRC Rule: The Most Important Thing Must Remain the Most Important Thing

Although Manitoba Human Rights Commission Intake Officer, Pat Daniels, first supported the merits of my complaint, it was evident there was undeniable pressure in the ensuing months to ‘get rid of the complaint'. Daniels redrafted the submitted July 2008 complaint to remove key points of the complaint. I was then repeatedly contacted by phone and email pressuring me to sign the redraft "as is" -- told that this was under the direction of the MHRC Executive Director.

Quite astonishingly, I was old by Daniels that the Respectful Workplace complaint (RWP) had ”the same authority as the Human Rights Code" and should therefore just drop the HRC complaint, and let the RWP run its course. Not to be taken for a fool, I responded by email, “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 HRC.

Government filed its Reply on December 8, 2008. Three months later, after repeated and numerous requests I was given a copy of the Reply, but without attachments. The Reply made repeated references to so-called documents submitted as evidence (handwritten notes and memos that I had no knowledge of, and believe that they were likely fabricated after I had been removed from my position and done unlawfully in support of government's defence). Failed promises over the next year to provide said documents were dangled. Often, I would be waiting at home on the dates MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft promised to have the documents delivered, but they never came.

There was no hearing to address any inconsistencies of the loose interpretation of emails and events. Email from me to my Supervisor, with copy to CSC Commissioner and COO at the start of my 3.5 weeks stress leave pleading for help; stated I was in 'crisis,' felt 'de-humanized and 'was being treated like a dog.' The evidence of record was then incredibly spun by legal defence, stating to investigative authorities, that I "didn't actually really mean that I was in crisis."

What is more incredible?

• That a COO, who claimed was "not a psychiatrist" was able to make the clinical assessment of my mental state: "Marielle's perception that she was in crisis was 'off'' or,

• That the Civil Service Commission did not bother to ask what I meant by the word 'crisis' upon my return from 3.5 weeks of stress leave because (as sworn to) they wanted to respect my privacy or,

• That MHRC actually bought that bullish malarkey?

If you guessed all of the above, you would then be in agreement with me. If you qualified (#3) further, adding Flintoft's statement in MHRC Assessment that "employers are not psychiatrists" and therefore the employer could not possibly have seen this coming, then give yourself an additional bonus point. But unfortunately, we all seem to have taken about a 100- year step back in the advancement of mental health rights.

The delay in not sending the MHRC Reply was first said to be due to the fact that an investigator had to be assigned to remove any confidential material, then, they didn't have anyone to make copies, ... then, half a year later when I was given the Reply the attachments were not given. Flintof told me it should in no way affect my ability to complete a Rebuttal to the Reply.

Under Duty to Accommodate, I asked to be allowed to see the Reply with attachments because the anxiety and stress of not knowing what was claimed (especially in light of the Government's past transgressions) was adversely affecting my health as I was experiencing escalated manic thoughts and it was affecting my ability to sleep - which then usually leads to psychosis.. HRC responded "It hasn’t even been determined that you have a disability.”

One can see how easy it is to get swallowed up in details, but for professionals experienced and entrusted to do a good job, the issue should be a simple one. The most important thing must remain the most important thing. MHRC procedure is to record every communication (emails, phone calls, meetings, etc.) in its database. Entry dated August 22, 2008 from MHRC Intake Officer, Pat Daniels (accessed 2011) refers to an initial conversation with me after termination meeting of June 4th while still employed at OSD as to what is relevant under the Code for MHRC to accept an investigation:

Reviewed with (Marielle) that during our first calls I had very clearly advised her that we don’t get involved in personality conflicts and that to have a basis for a human rights complaint – it has to be based…on her disability. She spoke about the conflict resulted in her having to go on leave and the ultimate result of the meeting where employment basically terminated. However, she still spoke about the conflict. Again reminded her – under our leg., has to be based on one of our g.f. … Advised C that the complaint would then be based on the (termination) meeting. She agreed.

February 9, 2009 – Letter from me to MHRC Investigator Paula Hamilton

“...in December you advised that a determination as to whether my health issue was protected under the Human Rights Code had yet to be made. My doctor recently advised (January 30th) that he had not yet been requested to provide a medical report. Should a medical report be required, it may be prudent to do so at this time to avoid any further delays in the processing of the October 20, 2008 complaint. (doctor) advised paperwork is abundant and his time is limited so it will likely take awhile before he can get to it.”

The pre-investigative process took three times longer than the median 8-10 months causing me undue hardship and distress; constantly preoccupied with the details, reliving her experiences both at OSD and afterward; constantly reviewing the documentation. Both stressful and at times incapacitating. Bringing Down the Barriers: The Labour Market and Women with Disabilities in Ontario notes:

...women with disabilities in general have higher overall stress levels than any of the other groups regardless of living arrangements.

The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems to take longer.

Edward R. Murrow

A Bi-polar Life

Bipolar is not well known, and its effect varies greatly from one person to another. Government's defence against unfair labour allegations and violations under the Human Rights Code was to undermine my credibility by describing me as just someone who was having “emotional problems” and was ‘depressed." And yet, during my time at Organization Staff  Development (special operating agency of Government of Manitoba), all documented evidence showed me to be clearly in an escalated manic state during the weeks preceding termination of employment.

My work history began as a legal assistant to senior partners of some of Winnipeg's top legal minds in the 80s; followed by a successful fifteen year career in direct sales where I was #1 in North America breaking many records. I have several years' experience volunteering in the community as a certified facilitator with Developing Capable People™  (an adult based program working with youth), where I trained at my own expense with Chris B. Rush, Pres. and CEO of the Resiliency Institute Corp. and Pres. of DCP  (Canada). My successes (over the past 20 years, including taking care of my family) is not in spite of being bipolar, but I rather view it as the catalyst that has driven me all my life. People with bipolar are often seen as the “movers and shakers" of society.

Success, for me, is measured in the number of years gone by without hospitalization, now more than a decade. In the nineties, there were six within an eight year span (estimated costs according to 1994 report was $8,000 to $12,000 per hospital stay). It should therefore be in the best interests of government, community, and family to support any and all efforts by individuals to sustain and maintain recovery.

Bipolar is a chronic lifelong illness. It is well known that bipolar is genetic, but it is also personality based. The Manitoba Civil Service Commission's findings from a Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument project it conducted in 2008 on select departments which required all participants to partake --profiling (believed to be against Personal Information Act)--revealed the following characteristics the month prior to getting fired:

...does have a natural inclination towards organization, order and discipline. She dislikes chaos and confusion and needs to make sense of things, putting things in order. There is a need for structure in a practical and procedural sense (methodical approach), step by step. Tasks need to be prioritized. Most comfortable communication approach for her is to have explanation in writing, and the information presented in a brief, clear and precise format. Most natural problem solving strategies include factual analysis, logical, step-by-step process but may not consider feelings.

In Paul E. Jones book, Up and Down Life: The Truth about Bipolar as follows:

Mood elevated, grandiose racing thoughts; like being in a room and not only hearing every conversation in the room but mentally engaged in the thought process of each line of thought, and racing to keep up with all communication.

In an elevated state, the drive, the courage, the intensity of feeling, is common which can make life and work a challenge. Over the years I have learned to view it as a gift that has challenged me to live a fuller and more rewarding life—a life with purpose.

I have read that that 85% of the most successful … are likely to have bipolar-like traits. Those super creative, those spontaneous ‘crazies’ who make risky changes that the norm wouldn’t dare; those tremendously smart; those relentlessly never tiring until they find the answer– all likely characteristics consistent to bipolar traits

...common to have a spiritual experience. God has chosen you for a mission- to go out and affect in some powerful positive way that others would recognize."

In an (audiotaped) investigative meeting of whether there wasI any wrongdoing on the part of MHRC, Ombudsman Investigator Kris Ramchandar was asked if he had any experience or knowledge of uni-polar disability  (tendency more to either mania or depression). Ramchandar acknowledged he never even heard of the term but stated he "doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand the law, and he doesn't have to be a doctor to make a determination of the case." As to whether MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft had any knowledge of mental illness, Ramchandar did not know.  GABS

Flintoft's Assessment did not include a doctor's medical report in her assessment to educate on the unique characteristics of bipolar. Her unqualified opinion (contrary to supporting documented evidence) reflects a collaboration of CSC and OSD smear campaign against a person known to have a disability: GABS

"her problems  were ... just a personality problem...(employers) are not psychiatrists, and were not in a position to realize that a difficult employee who complained and was disrespectful to many of her co-workers had a disability... in addition to her difficulty in managing stress, she had problems with interpersonal relationships, which made the workplace more stressful for her... The nature of her job was stressful as a few positions were vacant..." GABS

In reality, there were three long-term vacancies over several months wherein all duties were given to me and documentation from management stated OSD was in crisis, and when I asked for help, I was told "we have no one else to give the work to." Another flaw in Flintoft's logic:  'many of her co-workers' -- there were none (see below).

By the start of 2008, I was experiencing physical and mental ailments. Additional prescribed medications caused drug-induced tremors and dry mouth, exacerbated due to stress that only surfaced (as witnessed by senior management) in the last months of employment. Government e-mail posting sent out January 2008 to all departments introduced me as the newly promoted "backbone" of the OPCP project, (previously done by a full time Professional Officer--vacant since October 2007--PLUS unceremoniously given the full duties of the Registrar--position-vacant due to an extended sick leave starting January 2008 which CSC didn't bother to fill) all given to me, with the full expectation that I was also to keep up with the full duties of  the position I was hired for back in April 2007.

NOTE:  When the situation was discussed recently with Manitoba Mood Disorders Executive Director, Tara Brousseau, she was not surprised: Of course you could do all that--you're bipolar.

When I left OSD on stress leave in April 2008, only Senior Officers remained: All admin staff had either quit; requested to leave on secondment (stated was "for a change of scenery"), or were on medical leave. When I returned to work, there was no 'back to work re-entry" period (and yet, COO claimed they implemented said procedure--in that they just 'said' they did). According to documents received from CSC in 2010 through Privacy Act, there had been no new hires, no re-entry to work; no response to requests from an employee describing situation as a 'crisis'; no planning strategy meetings to deal with staff shortages and work overload: No response was Government's response.

Would this be allowed in the private sector?

Government's legal defence went with negative stereotypical characteristics in its ensuing investigations describing me as: Just an employee who was being difficult, and now that we know about her mental illness (attacking her credibility over 22 times in LRA and MHRC affidavits in response) --well, I guess that explains everything.

The mobbing and criminal violations were further supported and escalated by Ombudsman Investigator Ramchandar who, during his investigation, belittled me for being  "too intelligent ... in fact (he went on to say)  you know more about [it] than most people I know." The snide remark inferring that I was 'working the system'-- an abuser of a law intended for real disabilities.

The most troubling thing is that the Ombudsman's office was asked to investigate alleged improprieties by commissions: Civil Service Commission and government tribunals--Labour Board, Human Rights Commission--as to the manner in which it conducted its investigations. After all, is that not the job of the Manitoba Ombudsman? It is, according to the face MB Ombudsman presents to the public.

Irene Hamilton has stated the Ombudsman's position as follows: Any investigation should result in the Commission being subject to public scrutiny, not the individuals who come before it". 

Well, Good Night Irene! Clearly, what goes on behind closed doors is not keeping you up at night.

“I'm going to paraphrase Thoreau here... rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth. ”   Jon Krakauer