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 II: Why Smart People Lie

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

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

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


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


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


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

 

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

See other related postings:

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Remember The Patriot (the movie)? 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Sources:

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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!

For Fear We May Forget...

Bad jobs -- bad supervisors happen every day to everyone. You pick up the pieces and move on. What is most frightening however, is when a situation arises like that described in A Bullish Government blog where the final decision on whether a situation is escalated or de-escalated;  whether a complainant is humanized or to be de-humanized is only, and can only be made at the highest level.  It is this abuse of authority of one (or select few) who then in turn instruct other potentially good people to do its bidding.

Highly respected and powerful people holding office of: CSC Commission, Manitoba Labour Board Chair, Manitoba Human Rights Commission Executive Director and Manitoba Ombudsman will (upon order) ignore policy, procedure, law and humanity for fear of falling into disfavour of its government leader. This is in total contradiction with Manitoba's new Canadian Museum of Human Rights, which is to stand proudly as a symbol of "Canada's unwavering commitment to recognizing, promoting and celebrating human rights" and “to stand as a reminder to take action against human rights violations." [Note: Mental illness and the strides in advancing civil rights in response to mental disability, are not recognized by the CMHR, primarily funded and sponsored by our Governments. ]


Government then undertakes to do whatever it takes to silence the complaint (away from public attention) to sweep a "person of inconvenience" under the rug.  One would hope to think that somewhere in this there would be one or two unwilling cohorts losing some sleep over it. But nonetheless, the fear of losing a paycheque, promotion or approval from any one of the Great Kahunas is much more compelling. 
 
Then, on the flip side, there's the really scary 'psycho'  leaders who really get off on being abusive. These are the ones that go way above and beyond the call of duty to inflict even greater pain and suffering.  Experiments conducted in the '60s and '70s  such as 'The Milgram and Stanford Prison' (one of many well documented cases) shows just how easy you can get people to do the unthinkable.
 
It has been said that it is better to protect your character than your reputation. Your reputation, after all, is only what other people think of you; but your character is who you really are.

This  Remembrance Day as we honour all those who gave their lives for others; and for those that came home to live out their lives to be strong leaders in our free world; free to marry their sweetheart, free to raise a family strong in principles, free to grow old and teach their  grandchildren the true meaning of honour, I leave you with my Remembrance Day bidding to you, "For Fear We May Forget ... 

We must never forget that we may also find meaning to life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed. For what matters then is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into triumph, to turn one’s predicament into human achievement. When we are no longer able to change a situation—we are challenged to change ourselves.

Man’s Search for Meaning
Viktor Frankl, survivor of Auschwitz

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

Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman

Those who dare go up against Government generally find themselves fighting a David and Goliath battle where Justice is not weighed on evidence, but on the fact government has unlimited access to resources (funded by taxpayers) and nothing but time on its side. Stonewalling (used by every political party) must be recognized as wrong and measures implemented to put an end to this inhumane and costly practice.

It should be noted that the Manitoba Labour Board and Manitoba Human Rights Commission were first initiated by Government to allow access to those who could not afford to go to court, or may not have had the mental capacity to enforce their rights. However in reality, “Discount Justice” is merely a cruel illusion as noted by the province in "When Bad Things Happen": where complainants felt victimized all over again by the process; feeling 'they' were held in contempt for coming forward and treated in a bullish manner. The process seemingly more intent on a quick dismissal of complaints--especially when one dared to challenge the government's status quo.

 

Statistics speak for themselves that complaints against the government are more likely to succeed through the courts than through the government control quasi-judicial processes: Labour Board and Human Rights Commission. In my case, the initial intent was only that I be given a fair employment reference consistent with that stated in her personnel files.

 

As my requests were repeatedly ignored, November 2010 I posed the question to Manitoba Ombudsman Investigator, Kris Ramchandar:  "Why is it that the Government of Manitoba would feel a need to hire and spend an exorbitant amount of money hiring a private law firm (Thompson Dorfman Sweatman) when they have their own Civil Legal Services (32 lawyers) -- surely myself, a person with a disability and vulnerable would not merit such an aggressive defence?”

 

Ramchandar laughed and nodded in agreement  (audio taped with his permission), “Well now, that would be a question to ask your MLA, Dr. Jon Gerrard:  It would be up to the people of Manitoba to ask that question.”

The protracted length of time, the fabrication of a defence (documented evidence that now supports claims of perjury) and burying a victim in bureaucracy, only adds to Manitoba's growing deficit, as the matter is still ongoing and accumulating more legal fees. The only person not getting paid is the victim. Where accommodation would have cost nothing, the true cost borne by taxpayers remains unknown as CSC has denied access to the overall costs of legal fees and disbursements for both its in-house, as well as TDS (TDS claiming 3rd party privilege). The denial of the request for information was denied by Manitoba Ombudsman Irene Hamilton.


Is this Government accountability and transparency? Or, is this bullish? Send an email, or call your MLA... do what is possible and trust that the impossible will be taken care of.