"Plain and Obvious" it's about Discrimination

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

The Simple Facts of the Case: 

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

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

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

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

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

Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Olson

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Damages

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

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

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

Overview:

The plaintiff claims the defendants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 II: Why Smart People Lie

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

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

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


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


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


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

 

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

See other related postings:

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Remember The Patriot (the movie)? 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Sources:

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

REASON I: Why Smart People Lie

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

 

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

 

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

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

BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

THE BIGGER PICTURE:

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

See related postings:

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

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

Supervisor: You want answers?

Commissioner: I want the truth!

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

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

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

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

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

Commissioner:  Did you go against the Code as read?

Supervisor:        YOU'RE GODDAM RIGHT I DID!!

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


SOURCES:

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


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

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

 

When we share information freely, everybody gains knowledge.



ABCs of MOBBING brought 2U by CSC, OSD, TBS, MLB, MHRC, OMB, JUS

The Civil Service Commission failed to address a request for
an appeal dated June 25, 2008 (included below). There was
 never any request for details--irrefutable evidence that the matter had not been accepted or processed in accordance with the law.

 

 

CSC's failure to act on the appeal was submitted as evidence but the Manitoba Labour Board refused to admit that CSC was anything BUT accommodating to a person with a known disability. Even the Manitoba Ombudsman failed to consider that CSC's inaction was done with intent and malice against a vulnerable employee. 

See also related posting: A Biased MLB Decision Contrary to Evidence

What is the difference between a conflict and mobbing (bullying)?

One difference is that a conflict occurs between equally strong people. In a mobbing/bullying situation, the hostility is directed by one or more strong people towards a weaker individual who has become the underdog. This person is further weakened because of the immense pressure caused by the frequency and the duration of the attacks.           

  FAIR   (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform)

The Ombudsman failed to acknowledge my numerous complaints of government bodies' acts of impropriety, perjury, violations of statutes, laws, and Human Rights Code, even though indisputable evidence of wrongdoing was provided, preferring to adopt a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" stance--stepping aside to not interfere with the mobbing in progress.

The Ombudsman's office  adopted the Government's preferred practice of 'no reply is a reply' all parties knowing full well that approach would result in added stress and anxiety to me and putting my overall (mental) health in jeopardy.

The appeal letter in its entirety is as follows:

June 25, 2008

TO: Sylvie Lavergne

Director, Human Resources Programs

Civil Service Commission

935-155 Carlton Street

Winnipeg MB R3C 3H8

 

Dear Ms. Lavergne,

 

RE: Appeal 

I wish to appeal to the CSC for a review as follows:

1. for a review of the events and actions directed at, or against me upon my return to work from 3 1/2 weeks of stress leave, specifically from May 5, 2008 up to and including June 5, 2008; 


2. for a review of the procedures taken with regard to the investigative process of my complaint against  (supervisor) Jackie Desrochers dated April 30, 2008 which I feel did not adhere to the procedures as outlined for a Level 4 complaint in relation to the Respectful Workplace Policy;


3. for a review with regards to Anna Schmidt Beauchamp’s involvement in the investigative process dealing with my complaint against Jackie Desrochers. At the June 2, 2008 meeting where I was asked to provide my account of the situation, Ginette (Ginette Grimard, Human Resource Consultant, MB Finance, Admin & Financial Division assigned as investigator of RWP complaint) told me that Anna was there merely to observe. However, at this meeting:
   
   a. Anna did involve herself by interrupting me in mid-sentence at various times providing her information as she said, “in an attempt to clarify”. I felt she should not have been there to discount and dismiss what I felt was pertinent and needed to be considered; and
   
   b. At one point when I presented an email (sent May 30, 2008 4:20 pm and received by me the morning of June 2, 2008) to the investigator for her review, I began to explain that I believed Jackie was continuing her harassment through her replacement, Charlotte (Elson never assumed role as supervisor of Marie) A/Manager of Training Operations. Jackie had been in the OSD office regularly training Charlotte and it was during this period that I received this unfair and inappropriate email. I could only surmise that Jackie was behind it.


4. for a review of the actions taken by Anna Schmidt Beauchamp at a meeting resulting from the email as discussed in para. 3(b) held June 4, 2008, 1:00 p.m. together with Charlotte Elson. I believe that the manner in which senior management conducted this meeting and the things said directly to me are contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy and in addition, in violation of The Human Rights Code;


5. for a review of the actions of Ginette Ricard (sic Grimard) for a breach in confidentiality. On June 11th I advised Ginette that I would be providing more information for review and that “I wish to keep my intent to provide further information to you confidential until my term with OSD expires on June 30th.” 

On June 20th, Ginette Ricard (sic Grimard) replied to my email saying “I have not discussed your intent to provide further information with anybody other than Anna” and that “Anna and I (Ginette) are working together on this complaint”.

I believe that Anna’s involvement jeopardizes the objectivity and confidentiality of the investigation. I should have been advised that Anna was taking an active role in the investigation from the beginning of the investigation.

Specific details pertaining to this matter will be made available upon request should you decide to investigate this matter further.

Yours truly,
Marielle Rowan

 

cc Anna Schmidt Beauchamp (CSC Director / OSD COO)

 

cc The Manitoba Human Rights Commission

DISCREPANCIES

Meeting notes of Grimard from the June 2, 2008 RWP (accessed through FIPPA in 2011) albeit choppy, still clearly reflect that I was having a difficult time coping. There was no back to work re-entry on return from 3 1/2 weeks of stress leave (CSC testified that the stress leave was likely due to the extra work, and yet, did nothing about it); there had been no new hires and I was still expected to do my full duties as well as those of three vacant positions.

Flintoft in her MHRC Assessment Report stated there was "no evidence of harassment" on record which is false. CSC was aware that there had been multiple complaints of harassment against Desrochers - now totalling a minimum of 4 complaints. The names of the other complainants, as subordinates under Desrochers, were provided to MHRC as witnesses but were not interviewed. Other documents on record included but not limited to:

1. Level 4 RWP Complaint dated April 30, 2008 (done at home while on 3.5 weeks stress leave); 
2. Level 4 RWP Complaint dated July 15 2008 forming part of April 30th complaint.
3. Grimard's handwritten notes of June 2, 2008 interview with me (see excerpts below**)  It is very suspicious that no transcribed report was ever provided of Marie's testimony yet notes were transcribed into a proper report for all other witnesses that Grimard interviewed.
4. Memorandum of the June 4, 2008 termination meeting (See Mean Girls vs. Civil Subservient employee) created by my computer at home on July 2, 2008. The June 4th termination meeting was conducted by Beauchamp Schmidt in retaliation to my manic email sent from home wherein I signed off in exasperation as Marielle, "Civil Subservient"  (See Human Rights Complaint in full). 

 Excerpts of Grimard's RWP notes from the June 2, 2008 investigative meeting accessed in 2011 are as follows:  

**  “...unhealthy & hostile work enviro” Person A (Supervisor) “totally stripped me of that…my work is inferior…not quite doing as well as you think – 2 mos prob…did not recognize pos things…poorly act with trainers/participants, thrown out there to be mean…no written doc…unhealthy work envir …“no attempt to make sure I was doing well…she called mtgs and mtgs, tone was condescending…she was picking at every little thing…need affirmation…micro manage… 

“ind is strong minded – has something to say; needed to do this to make sense of it… affected my health – have med cond 20 yrs –made healthy life choices –nothing needed – accomd – only need – resp WP… toxic/unfair enviro …provide report stay up to do 11 p.m. to show I did not do what they said I did.

Dr. said was harassment; got other bad health chest x-rays can get hospitalized; he suggested take time off…. doesn't make sense… always pick/pick … unrealistic expect – workload/dist. of work, knowledge expected, not in pos desc. Supervisor said it was my fault, was no need for ‘blame”… not once said good job organizing… no apology – always a smile – not really meant is sarcastic” OPCP mtg unfairly & vehemently … you did on purpose to be away… she was being hostile… can you not take proper notes … didn’t say let’s talk about … humiliated… got yelling email…

Expectation – work is recognized – should I need a ref – is fair eval - not about what perceived – did I meet it or excel. Don’t harbour resentment to Supervisor - don’t see as a (ends at the bottom of page in an incomplete thought -- red bold emphasis added)

In addition to the peculiarity of these notes not being properly transcribed into a report, it would appear that pages are missing from the handwritten notes as required under access for information. The notes provided do not include any reference from Grimard to Beauchamp Schmidt directing her to proceed with duty to accommodation as testified by Grimard.  As the matter had occurred two years prior, Grimard stated that she had to refer to her notes in order to recall the details of the RWP complaint.  The MHRC assessment includes that Grimard had directed the COO to proceed to duty. It would then appear that any likely ensuing pages were surreptitiously removed.

Beauchamp Schmidt had testified under the Labour Relations Act that I was "screaming and yelling" throughout the June 2nd, 2008 RWP meeting. Grimard refuted this allegation to MHRC stating that if I had acted that way she would have written that up in a report. She knew that was not true. Grimard's notes also reveal that I was, in fact, extremely reasonable in not "harbouring resentment to Supervisor". This should have alerted investigative authorities to a conflict of interest in the COO responding on the Government's behalf with hearsay statements. Any proper investigative authority would have known uncorroborated evidence is not admissible or relevant.

The issue of the workplace reorganization had never been discussed with any staff, to my knowledge. It was never even mentioned in the RWP investigation - or in its annual reports for that matter. Although I challenged this alleged workplace reorganization as challenged the Labour Board from the beginning (2008) as a total fabrication by TDS lawyer, Rob Olson, my testimony fell on deaf ears and I was denied an opportunity to cross this lie at a hearing. 

According to a FIPPA request in 2011, CSC acknowledged in a letter that "there was no workplace reorganization of any kind at any time" no doubt, without fear that there would be any retaliation for lying --especially given both Labour Relations and Human Rights complaint had been dismissed without hearing.

 

How biased is the Manitoba Human Rights Commission?

The MHRC states it does not take on  an investigation until a determination has been made that a protected disability, as designated by the Human Rights Code, has been confirmed. This initial step, in my case, took two years and even then, did so in a biased manner.

Flintoft knowingly outsourced false and slanderous information to my doctor (February 2010), most likely in an attempt to garner sympathy for the poor government (paraphrased)

" ...for having to deal with this screaming and yelling employee; referring to herself totally unprovoked, as a 'civil subservient'. How very difficult indeed, given the poor poor government was experiencing so much difficulties due to a huge 'workplace re-organization' and had absolutely NO knowledge at any time that Marielle suffered from a disability and couldn't have possibly have known...'

Given the nature and quality of the questions asked, and seeing as Flintoff was now in a hurry to get rid of this complaint offered to my doctor, "you could give me the report over the phone."  Unbelievable! It is not surprising that MHRC was not eager to release the letter to the doctor (through FIPPA) as it clearly shows MHRC partnering in the smear campaign, but I eventually did manage to get it after multiple attempts which letter provides indisputable evidence that MHRC acted in an unprofessional, unethical and unlawful manner, in violation of my rights. (The Manitoba Ombudsman -- consistent as always -- ignored the violation.)

 

How Bad (or Stupid) Can a MHRC Assessment Report Get?

Ultimately, MHRC's assessment report failed to include that government's testimony to one--Labour Board--directly contradicted what was testified to another--Human Rights Commission. Perjury clearly having no effect on one's credibility when done by  government.

 

This speaks to the integrity of the Human Rights Commission: it knowingly ignored the fact that false information was provided to a tribunal, that it was criminal to do so, and then MHRC purposely and willingly sabotaged the process in order to delegate the matter out of this province's jurisdiction all the way out to the Yukon. Then the Yukon rubber stamped it over the August long weekend (See Electronic Signatures Rubber Stamping --Good Grief!) -- truly beyond belief!! Or, more sadly, is it? 

Flintoft knowingly involved herself and the MHRC (likely acted on the direction of the Executive Director) to conspire with the government in a smear campaign against me.