Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Glenn Joyal Don't Stand for No Bullying

"I am still a member of the Law Society of Manitoba," former white collar criminal prosecutor and defence lawyer, Raymond Flett writes after retirement.  "Becoming a lawyer, at least in Manitoba, is like joining the mafia; you’re in until you’re on the other side of the grass."
 

Masters*, judges, government lawyers and BS** politicians continue as members of the law society. Participation in its self-administered protection policy is mandatory.
 Master*  A provincial civil servant, duties are administrative in nature:

~can strike out improper documents or paragraph(s) from a claim;
~ensures there is at least one point of law (cause) that can be tried;

A Master cannot strike out a claim on bias of ability or likelihood of success at trial.
If 'no cause' is plain and obvious then goes to judge for dismissal. 

BS** politicians passed the bar as barrister and solicitor.

BACKGROUND:
 A civil action was commenced April 17, 2012 under CI 12-01-77387 based on evidence obtained from earlier proceedings in which the defendants, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman et al acted as legal counsel in defence of an action brought against the provincial government under the Personal Information Act, Labour Relations Act and Human Rights Code. It is the actions of the defendants (legal counsel for government) that I believe to be actionable but members have done everything they can to kill this thing. 

See related postings:

Feb 20, 2012: The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?

The judge made the following comment... in response to the disciplinary action against Schmidt in court:  the day after filing of the statement (by Mr. Schmidt) bang, you're suspended. It's unbelievable. Your client (Federal Government) has done everything it can to kill this thing...The court doesn't like that...We see that in different countries that we don't like...Canada is still a democracy.

Sep 19, 2012:  Distance negates responsibilty

It is understandable the Law Society doesn't want that on record given its position as insurer defending against insurance claims and then on its other face claims to act on behalf of the public's interest. I give you "Oxymoron" the Trojan horse placed to win.

Aug 22, 2012:  Upscale Violence:  King of the Castle

Marielle had asked for an injunction by way of motion to be heard at a hearing in front of a judge. She lives in very real fear that her life, security and freedom rights are threatened. Professional and society's dissent of the difficulties she faces as a woman with an "invisible disability" is made even worst when her request for an injunction is unacknowledged, no referrals are made, and assistance is denied. 

All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil.  The only crime is pride.                      

Sophocles, Antigone

A letter of intent to file a complaint against Master Berthaudin (conduct unbecoming and neglect of duty) was sent to Chief Justice Joyal on January 22, 2013. Assistance as provided under section 11.18(3) of the Act to formulate a proper formal complaint was also requested. 

The letter indicated that the master found no cause of action, and took it upon himself to usurp his jurisdiction and judge the case as dismissed in one steamroller move. One example provided to Chief Justice Joyal as to bias against an self-represented and vulnerable person is as follows:

Excerpt from Master Berthaudin's decision dated September 14, 2012 as to the August 20, 2012 Hearing, “BACKGROUND FACTS”:

[5] According to the re-amended statement of claim (filed subsequent to the defendants' motion to strike, three business days prior to the contested hearing of these motions), the plaintiff was employed in various departments by Manitoba between January, 2005 and June, 2008. She claims to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder ... (emphasis added). 

An insurer is required by law to defend an insured against any claims filed against it. The Law Society of Manitoba (in meeting its duty as insurer--arms length or not) violated its self-governing mandate to protect the public interest in defending (burying) a serious and valid complaint against one of its own. Can one serve two masters?

**2012 Annual Report of The Law Society of Manitoba shows Bencher, Ted E. Bock sitting on the following committees:

• Chair, Admissions and Education Committee
• Chair, Admissions and Education Appeals Sub-Committee
• Practice and Ethics Committee
• Professional Liability Claims Fund Committee
• Investment Committee

Ted E. Bock filed a motion on May 14, 2012 to strike out only the original April 17 claim Rowan vs Rob Olson et al ignoring the amended April 25 claim Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman et al (filed and served). As the motion to strike was based on the fact the original claim was said to be lacking (as a good will gesture to clarify any of the shortcomings and confirm points of issue), a re-amended claim was filed on August 9, 2012.  

The master's comment as to  “claims to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder”  is defamatory in nature, posted online for an intended response. A  well-documented history was filed with the court as evidence of an ongoing disorder spanning over 20 years, further supported by the (stonewalled for 2.5 years) MB Human Rights Commission  investigative findings.

The master's stricture as to filing a re-amended claim just "three business days prior' is interpreted as high-handed personal displeasure towards a 'non-member'' (disdain for any self-represented wanna-be-lawyer type) as told by a member, she is "way over her head delving in a lawyer's world".

Is the intended objective not pursuit of truth and justice--or this akin to some Gladiator sport? Mighty Berthaudin holding high court in his splendid robe, responding to the members' cries for a 'thumbs down' KILL! KILL! KILL! Or in this case strike strike strike all three claims with one motion.

On February 15, 2013 I received a response to my letter of January 22, 2013 from Chief Justice Joyal. He advised that the complaint had already moved to investigation and, “You will no doubt be hearing from Justice Everett in the near future.” 

No doubt indeed as the file would have been quite thin given there was no complaint on file, as there was no offer of assistance, or, opportunity to provide a complaint (period). 

February 15, 2013 FAX to Court Att'n C.J. Joyal : 

Stated, "Please clarify that you are not limiting my complaint to that ... I intend to file a complaint."

 

The next communication came on Monday, March 4, 2013. I received a phone call from the Executive Director Judicial Services, Karen Fulham who advised she would be assisting me, and wanted to know what other issues I had—over the phone. 

I have a unique advantage (as former Executive Assistant to two Judicial Services Executive Directors and to Ms Fulham as in-house counsel) of a good understanding of mandated procedure in terms of responding to a complaint, particularly against one of the judiciary.

My question then to Ms Fulham was why had she not responded to my request for help in June 2012 that was sent to both her and the Chief Justice wherein I was frantically asking for help, advising that I was being totally railroaded?  Given no response then was her response (See 911 Complaint June 4, 2012 HELP!!) how could she expect that I would see her offer of assistance now as credible? It became quite apparent early on in the conversation as to what form 'assistance' would take shape.

Bipolar 101: Under what conditions can accelerating be helpful?

When a member blocks you, accelerate to avoid being cut off. 

Mood elevated, grandiose racing thoughts; like being in a room

and not only hearing every conversation in the room

but mentally engaged  in the thought process of each line

 of thought, and racing to keep up with all communication.  

In an elevated state, the drive, the courage, the intensity

 of feeling  is common ...I have learned to view it as a gift

see full posting: A Bi-polar Life 

I threw out one point after another as to blatant disregard of statutes and procedures. Normally when someone is providing assistance, there is some feedback as to whether the issues raised, fall within the scope of what would be accepted. There was no response.  

Once again I could see this to be yet another futile expenditure of my time and resources, without any expectation whatsoever that anything I presented would be heard or acted upon.

Ms Fulham (redundant to say--a member) was clearly not free to provide the level of assistance I know her to be capable of.

See related posting on Why Smart People Lie that defined “moral distress” as a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it...can occur in any situation or workplace...It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their better judgement.

I also have the unique experience after going through the members' tribunal complaint process (four years of my life I'll never get back) that when a member with any authority goes 'off the rails' of procedures, such occurrences occur only over the phone--never intended to be documented. 

   

Aug 15, 2013: 

 click on Complaint against Master Berthaudin to Chief Justice Glenn Joyal 

DENIED (Heck! - Not even acknowledged as having been received. See no evil; hear no evil, then there's EVIL!) 

This needs to be documented.

 

Chief Justice Joyal,  

 

I believe it is only due to my dogged determination and power of blogging that we can now be an informed public, and have any hope of a proper investigation of these, and other matters yet to be disclosed. 

Integrity by compulsion is not an acceptable standard of professional conduct.

 

I believe two solemn duties have been breached: 

1. the duty to assiduously obey Manitoba law, and 
2. the duty to be vigilant in treating a self-represented litigant (and in my case, one who requested accommodation) in a humane and non-discriminatory manner.

These are personal duties entrusted to you to protect public interest that cannot be delegated, deflected, or denied.

These are duties that come with the privilege of being Chief Justice.  

I am not concerned about the members' readiness for change nor am I concerned about your comfort zone. I’m concerned about preserving whatever is left of our Constitution for my sons who are now entering the workforce.

Respectfully yours,

Marielle Rowan

When the only Defence left is Trickery & Intimidation

 

A Human Rights Complaint alleging violations of discrimination was first initiated June 2008 based on racial (Métis), religious (Christian), disability (bipolar disorder), and refusal of access to the Civil Service Commission's Employee Assistance Program. The Government's Reply was allegedly filed December 8, 2008.

After several attempts to obtain a copy of the December 2008 Reply went ignored, I was then forced to escalate my concerns to MHRC Executive Director Dianna Scarth. Letter dated February 19, 2009 stated that  my right to obtain a copy of the Government's Reply was being ignored: contrary to law, and against rules and procedures of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other is pulling up. -

Booker T. Washington

 

Scarth never responded to my letter, but would seem that she directed MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft to courier a copy of the Reply to me but without any attachments. There was no cover letter to explain why only part of the document was being provided. Also contrary to procedures, and law, the Government's Reply was signed by "Robert W. Olson". He did not identify himself as 'legal counsel' nor did he identify he was acting as a representative of his firm, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. Olson was then a third party with no direct knowledge that the statements he had deposed to were true. Olson had received a substantial fee for his services and that speaks to a credibility issue. Any $250 an hour 'pro' is known to do just about anything to get their client off--right?

 

These concerns were immediately addressed to MHRC in writing and Flintoft opted to respond by phone that she "… hadn't noticed." When I reiterated my objections, Flintoft stated that "anyone could sign on behalf of the Government, and it's normal for different people in government to sign." But Olson was not Government, and it is not true that anyone can sign on Government's behalf. Specific people are designated to sign specific documents such as cheques: Olson had no such signing authority.

 

 "As legal counsel to Government…” Flintoft then stated in exasperation “…Olson could sign." Even less credible given she knew Olson had not signed as legal counsel.

 

Olson (and his firm TDS), are identified as counsel of record regarding the complaints under the Labour Relations Act (unfair labour practices and unfair union exclusion). Olson would then have had first-hand and thorough knowledge of the evidence its client submitted to the Labour Board: statements made prior to Government being served with the MHRC complaint. Documented evidence now on record that support my allegations against it that the Government of Manitoba, as an employer, violated the Human Rights Code in acting in a criminal manner. Olson would also then have known that in complying with Government's instruction to provide false testimony in the quasi-judicial process--personally signing the MHRC Reply--he would have known the legal ramifications and consequences of doing so, and yet, did it anyway.

 

There were no further discussions or clarification on the issue of a lawyer testifying as a witness and, although there were many promises, the attachments to the Government’s Reply were never provided to me. What does the law say?

 

THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE

The Lawyer as Witness -

The lawyer who appears as an advocate should not submit the lawyer's own affidavit to or testify before a tribunal save as permitted by local rule or practice, or as to purely formal or uncontroverted matters... generally speaking, they should not testify in such proceedings except as to merely formal matters. The lawyer should not express personal opinions or beliefs, or assert as fact anything that is properly subject to legal proof, cross-examination or challenge. The lawyer must not in effect become an unsworn witness or put the lawyer's own credibility in issue. The lawyer who is a necessary witness should testify and entrust the conduct of the case to someone else.

See Related Posts:

• A Bullish Government: Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell -- questioning the inappropriateness of Government, thinking so little of a HRC complaint that it would just 'farm out' that responsibility to Olson. But MHRC just brushed me off stating "any government authority could sign ...
• A Bullish Government: Is MB Gov't #WINNING? --instead of dealing with a situation in accordance with its own stated policies on accommodating employees with disabilities, Government opted to dodge the bullet and hired Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to ...
• A Bullish Government: Electronic signatures, rubber stamping ... -- a hearing was clearly needed to cross-examine the evidence and witnesses, including but not limited to deponent, Olson, who personally signed off on the MHRC Reply in the complaint against the Government but NOT as ...
• A Bullish Government: "YES WE CAN" says Manitoba Government -- my blog, A Bullish Government has shed light on a number of instances where provincial government authorities and its defence counsel, Rob Olson of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, have broken the law. Small fish, by global ...
• A Bullish Government: A Biased MLB Decision, Contrary to Facts ... -- Government made full use of all its legal resources including that of Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, specializing in labour law to launch an attack that can only be described as ''mobbing'. The Labour Board...
• A Bullish Government: ABCs of MOBBING brought 2U by CSC, OSD ... -- By way of FIPPA request in 2011 CSC acknowledged in a letter that "there was no workplace reorganization of any kind at any time" but rather a fabrication by counsel, Rob Olson of TDS, to baffle the issues with bullshit.

How are Today's Lawyers Perceived?



The following quote speaks volumes: Jordan. Furlong is a lawyer and legal journalist specializing in law practice innovation, legal business trends, and the changing landscape of the legal profession; formerly Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Bar Association’s magazine National and blogs on the profession’s rapid evolution at http://law21.ca.

 

Justice Abella is correct to express concerns that if lawyers are seen to be motivated first and foremost by self-interest, then we will lose respect, business, and support for our independent governance. I submit, however, that that ship has already sailed. That is exactly how lawyers are now perceived – acting in our own interests first, in clients’ interests second, and in the interests of the public, the justice system, and doing the right thing much farther down the list, if at all. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that we have lost much of the public’s respect, we are losing their business to non-lawyer legal service providers, and we are hearing the first grumblings about why lawyers should merit special treatment in their governance. It bears repeating that lawyers, like the laws that enable our livelihoods, exist for the purposes of clients, not the other way around. Our profession, unfortunately, too often sees that in reverse, viewing clients primarily as a means to our own ends rather than as ends in themselves.

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

There have always been lawyer jokes, but the consensus of  public opinion, that as a group, they have dropped down considerably over the years as not being very 'professional'. Stop me if you've heard this one.: How does a lawyer sleep at night?

First he lies on one side, and then on the other.

REASON III: Why smart people lie

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

Trust me. I know more than you.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 Forms, forms and more forms - bureaucratic red tape.

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

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

Defiant compliance

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

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

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

 

Passive Aggressive Behaviour

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

 

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

• See related posting:  When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

 

Stonewalling

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

 

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

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

  

No response?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

An inspirational quote from the Movie "Taken":

 

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

 

REASON 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.