Every Story Has An End But In Life Every End Is A New Beginning

Day 984 - Divorce Wars End

On May 7 2020 my brother signed on as Power of Attorney. Judge had determined bipolar as mentally incompetent despite a position in violation of the Constitution. I had lived and worked successfully with bipolar for 3 decades. Also after consultation with my lawyer, we had agreed to accept an offer of settlement from my Ex November 2019 (prior to the judge's Jan 24 2020 Order). The courts had its own agenda, and clearly not in my best interests.

The first priority for the newly retained lawyer through my POA, was for me to get my voice back in divorce. A Motion was set for June 3 2020 to remove the Appointment (signed without notice to me or following Rule of Law 4+ violations) pointed to the fact that this breach was to oppress not assist. 

It was not until June 3 (by teleconference due to COVID) that my POA discovered that our lawyer (unbeknownst to us) had been working on a new strategy with the Province. On June 3 2020 at 10:00 am the Judge pushed through the Province’s settlement (QB Registry allowed on June 1st a 2nd Motion for June 3rd Hearing that had the effect of replacing our Motion). 

I found 2-3 weeks is norm to get anything signed, so for the Province to push through a Motion in ONE day -- for Judge to cover 3 years of pleadings and evidence, and waive the requirement of ONE week service of documents to the parties prior to day of Motion, does not happen nor is it reasonable.

As the intent for the Province to 'assist me' to protect my best interests, would the Province not be required to provide an actual breakdown as to what evidence was used? There was no agreement provided or filed. And more incredibly, no accounting (Comparative Family Property Statement) which is required by law in every divorce. So how is it “best interests” falls so far off the mark and significantly less than what we (the parties) had agreed to back in November 2019. And why did the Judge feel it was his position to assist my Ex -- "'the proof is in the pudding' or as in future postings.

What was thrown together (only Motion, Bill of Costs and Affidavit) contradicts several regulated laws, nor reflects evidence on record (from 3 years), even fabricating claims (pure conjecture beyond belief) that include assets in excess of $500,000 was gifted from his dead mother -- quite surprising, given the woman's not dead yet. And in the end, the Province made no mention of my having a disability or of being mentally incompetent. The ease of which this miscarriage of justice was carried out begs to be made public.

If Noah had to build an ark today...

This -- whatever this is -- started off as really just something that could have been cleared up at no cost or cause for any embarrassment to government. But you know what happens when lawyers get involved, "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.” See posting: Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

 

#1 QUESTION ASKED -- WHY BOTHER?

Don't ever question the value of unpaid work by a Whistleblower.
Noah's Ark was built by a volunteer -- the Titanic was built by professionals. 

From the time my sons were able to sit up at the dinner table we have had family meetings. ‘No bullying' as agreed, went both ways -- and double for authorities like teachers and parents --  so, whenever the boys did something wrong--and they often did (they're kids right?) -- the experience was always used as an opportunity to teach; oftentimes the student becoming the teacher.

  

In their teen years it became even more important to check out how my sons' own personal mission statements were developing in place of the family one. Talk is cheap, and often has little impact, which is why I made the decision to use my experience of taking each step of the complaint process as an opportunity to teach. For the plethora of lessons that were derived from my experiences, I guess I should say -- thanks...?

Secondary Education Lessons such as:   

1. the importance of protecting your name 
2. the importance of protecting your reputation (how people see you) 
3. the importance of protecting your character (how you see yourself)
4. the importance of sound work ethics
5. it’s easier to remember ONE truth than MANY lies
6. if suspect someone is cheating -- call out 'bullshit' to see their hand
7. feelings of anger are OK, re-acting in anger is NOT
8. 100% compliance with work computer usage i.e., no texting, surfing, Facebooking
9. information by phone must always be followed up in writing, and
10. document everything, don't leave important details to memory.

The Government Bipolar Dance

 

Life lessons to live by --  so when government (through privately hired lawyers with our public funds) went to great lengths to fabricate an unbelievable smear campaign,  I would take it to the next level and challenge them on it to show just how unbelievable it actually was. For years, the boys and I would do The Government Bipolar Dance, celebrating when we thought we were "UP," and then get crushed with the toll of the "LOW".

Re-defining 'Closure' 

 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013,  I received the most moving email from my oldest son which he sent after reading my latest posting, It's about having the courage to pursue truth wherein he wrote,

 “… I take pride in the Rowan name and take pride in that we are not quitters...”

 

There's no greater feeling for a parent than knowing you've done something right. I now have great inner peace knowing (however this ends) that I have left my sons with what matters most and it's reassuring to see I am not alone as covered in a USA News.com article: "Parents Say Money Isn't the Most Valuable Inheritance".

To my family (and friends from too many years gone by)  I apologize that I have been so distant for so long – to the point of being a hermit. I ask for your understanding. The challenge I had undertaken is tantamount to someone today accepting the mission to build The Great Ark: Some things are best kept under wraps while still in development -- if you know what I mean.

 

As Edgar Schmidt (lawyer who spoke out against Canada putting through laws that violate the Constitution) stated in an interview on CBC Radio: It took a trip to Egypt for him to truly realize "how fragile democracy is and how much it needs care and tending." As I put it in my earlier posting, it’s about The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?

 

 

News flash: Youth at Risk!

 

7 Deadliest Words as a community and a parent, we don't want to rely on:

 

I'm the government--I'm here to help.

 

 

Definition of Insane is doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting different results. In my opinion, adding another Bill (like Bill 18) -- to our other 'rights-only-on- paper' benched Constitution and Charter Rights, is just another case of our upscale legal community's way of making a lot of money without any expectation of getting any results.

 

But what can you ONE person do? 

1. feedback is needed from people that have found themselves in a similar situation
2. provide resources from that combined knowledge: what's working and what's not 
3. form relationships within our community to include professionals ie., mental health, legal, community, and government (free and/or inexpensive)
4. get a real movement going for real change; and
5. bring out the 'inner child' in all of us when we never would have considered taking 'no' for an answer or look away from a friend being bullied.

"MAKE SOME NOISE" cause I'm pretty sure we can do better.

Resource:

Highly recommended and living testament for 15+ years by this DCP family:  Developing Capable People for Educators and Parents: Classes may be offered at University of Winnipeg, or check online or at your library for more info.

 

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

Peace and Goodwill to all with Mental Illness



I recently watched the true story  of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient portrayed in the movie,  A Beautiful Mind, where the main character suffering from schizophrenia sees, and talks to people who are not there.  At one point the man (a doctor and professor) stops one of his students and (in regards to a second person he believes to be standing beside him) asks the student, “can you see this person too” to check that this new person is actually real before engaging in conversation in self-management of his illness.  
 

I often do similar tests of  'is this for real' when dealing with the labyrinth of political bureaucracy I find myself trapped in. It is important that my blog is not viewed as ramblings by some delusional person who has (as stated in the last posting) admitted to having gone off her prescribed meds, so I try my best to provide well-articulated arguments.
 

I am proud to boast close to 5000 views on my blog  A Bullish Government.  I often wonder if this truly reflects support or just curiosity, or are the numbers reflecting the number of times The Law Society monitors my blog in the hopes  I slip up, and they can either sue me for slander, or institutionalize me to undergo an involuntary psychiatric evaluation.  I hear Dr. Stanley Yaren is an expert on bipolar, regularly used by the courts [which brings to mind the show CSI Las Vegas that always seems to have the same detective on all the cases in Vegas.  But I digress...]  
 

I am not a doctor, but I am a person who has successfully lived for decades with bipolar disorder and have personal knowledge,  as well as professional experience working with organizations in the community dealing with intellectual disabilities. I am also a certified leader with Developing Capable People (Canada) a program that provides a profound understanding of why today's youth behave the way they do.
 

If we are to believe Winnipeg Free Press article, " Student found not criminally responsible for killing her grandmother" as true and factual (and that would be a big IF) I would say that  I find Dr. Yaren’s insight of bipolar disorder to be beyond offensive to the point of slanderous to people like me living with mental illness—not to mention completely inaccurate.  In any event, thank you Winnipeg Free Press for further adding to the lack of insight regarding mental health issues and adding to the ever-growing disinformation that is out there doing further harm to the most vulnerable in our society.  
 

It would seem that Dr. Yaren, in essence, has given the killer a hall pass from having to deal with the full consequences of her actions after only 15 months of committing murder. Madam Justice Joan McKelvey of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench accepted bipolar disorder as a criminal defence stating, "Clearly, at the time (of the killing) she  suffered a break from reality that has now been addressed through treatment" based on Dr. Yaren's expert medical opinion.
 

Manitoba Courts made quite an impact (on me anyway) in the way it handled this 2011 murder case whereby a 19 year old girl pushed her 84 year-old Muslim grandmother to the ground of their bathroom floor (where they lived together - three generations). The murder victim died from injuries as a result of the adult teen repeatedly stomping the head and upper body of this poor granny.
 

Let's be real, here --setting aside the 'killing part', could you not see a situation like this unfold in any household, on any given night -- where a confrontation with a teen explodes to the point there is a serious break from reality? I find the lack of insight and transparency of the facts in this case (not to mention baseless defence) more grotesque than any and all recent news involving mental illness to date.  Reason being -- What’s worse?  

1. Doing wrong, or
2. Knowing that you are doing wrong -- have full power and authority to do something about it -- and yet still choose to do nothing?

Bipolar Disorder has been found to NOT be accepted as a criminal defence. As quoted in Bipolar is not linked to Violent Crimes
 

In the wake of Edward Renehan's attempted use of his bipolar disorder as a defense for stealing multiple items at multiple times from the collections of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, the New York Sun's Jay Akasie examines the issues surrounding this particular legal strategy. He quotes defense attorney Murray Richman: "Using bipolar disorder as a defense in a case is just not viable. It's absolutely not a defense — it's an excuse. It has nothing to do with a person's ability to know right from wrong."

Other lawyers told Akasie that "bipolar disorder can have so-called jury appeal if the sufferer has a long and well-documented history of aberrant behavior coupled with requests for institutional help," and that documented cases of bipolar disorder can be used to achieve more favorable plea deals. Most often, however, because bipolar disorder primarily "affects mood rather than cognition," it is not considered a valid insanity defense.

First of all, would you not say that the majority of criminals in the justice system today must have some form of mental illness to commit the crime they were found guilty of in the first place? Why the special provision for this young beauty that had no history of mental illness prior to the murder; bearing in mind violence is not characteristic of bipolar disorder (except of course when the inflictions are turned inwards).


The behaviour described in earlier news reports does not even remotely resemble that as being characteristic of the disorder. What is found, however, is that when a person (with bipolar disorder) breaks the law, the disorder is only a mitigating factor; the motivating cause resulting in the crime is generally linked to illegal drugs and/or alcohol.
 

Regardless -- plain and simple:  whenever laws are broken, there must always be accountability and transparency to ensure that consequences openly and properly reflect that of all parties including public interest.
 

It would seem that the pendulum has swung too far away from timeless values and principles. Our first response when dealing with youth seems to be to cover up for their misdeeds, thinking we are somehow helping them. And, if as a parent, you happen to be affluent, and have access to, and can do the appropriate hobnobbing to enlist all resources at your disposal -- mental illness can be created to get your kid (in this case, an adult) off the hook.

 

 

I don't think it is a coincidence that Dr. Yaren did not diagnose schizophrenia (synonymous with the infamous Vince Li Greyhound Bus beheading) in this young girl's case as the "S-word" conjures up all kinds of bad images and public outrage. This would then tie in to my earlier posting,  Uncivil Behaviour and Civil Liberties where I described how society pre-determines who we favour in any conflict situation based on who has the higher 'social ranking'. 
 

Coming back full circle to my case, Rowan v Thompson Dorfman Sweatman,  I broke no laws and followed all processes to legally address what I believed to be wrongdoings against me. Professional and society's dissent of the difficulties I face as a woman with an "invisible disability" is evident given the manner I was treated regarding my request for an injunction order, in an attempt to stop the ongoing abuses of power, as duly documented and filed with the Court.
 

Requests for help at all levels went unacknowledged. Power handed off like schoolyard bullies keeping things from my grasp amongst three judges (under Chief Justice Joyal's supervision) ending with (yes...) Justice Joan McKelvey. Disability, in this case, did not pass GO with her and the play was taken out of jurisdiction for a Master to 'bench' it. Clearly a violation of my equality rights under Section 15 that is supposed to guarantee equal benefit and protection of the law to groups known to be historically discriminated against. 

"When we allow this to happen, we minimize the potential for dangerous consequences. Someone lost their head here, and Marielle isn't the one to blame for this one."

It is not an accident that Manitoba Justice did not factor mental illness when it was called to act on my behalf. This was an attack, not on some old person but friends with benefits. When I tried to broach the subject of violence within the legal system, I found no one willing to break the sacred code of silence to expose abuse of someone vulnerable, at the hands of one, or a group that belongs to the most educated and upper-income segments of our privileged society.  

 

See related postings:

 Distance Negates Responsibility

 Upscale Violence: King of the Castle
 

A CALL TO ACTION IS NEEDED 

• We need to re-think mental illness and disarm the real problem at its root.

• Time to hold government ACCOUNTABLE to practice what it preaches.

• Time to STOP the harm that is knowingly being inflicted on those most vulnerable.

• Time to GIVE HELP when asked and be careful of what works -- like revolving doors at health care institutions that result in long-term pain.

• Time to STOP with the EXCUSES.

• TIME TO TAKE A STAND AND SPEAK OUT. 

• TIME TO CONTACT YOUR MLA TODAY!!

 

DEC 21, 2012 IS NOT THE LAST DAY OF THE WORLD

BUT IT CAN BE THE START OF A WHOLE NEW WORLD

TO SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER FELT OF THIS WORLD

Marielle "Marie" Rowan

To those suffering from mental illness ... always remember
 Don't give up because you are loved. (YouTube link - Josh Grobin)

"When you are at the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."

Thomas Jefferson

Distance negates responsibility.

MANITOBA INJUSTICE:  Democracy is eroding before our eyes as government authorities forego wisdom and compassion.

When government uses tactics that are threatening and frightening we refer to this as a totalitarian government. When our Province carries out these tactics behind closed doors, and honest public discussion and awareness is suppressed, we are only kidding ourselves that we live in a democracy -- a free world.

 In the past four years while trying to maintain and sustain recovery of a lifelong mental illness, I witnessed unfairness, hypocrisy, ignorance and a lack of humanity at the hands of government and its lawyers. Surprisingly, even after all I have been through, I am not angry or cynical.  As a person with bipolar I constantly search out meaning in all of life's experiences. Like the story of the optimistic child in a room full of manure, despite all odds I too can't help but believe that under all that shit there’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere.  I came to blogging as a form of therapy. I believe in the power of word. Writing has given me back my sense of identity, dignity, pride, humanity and even humour.

It is said distance negates responsibility. It would appear that the Court of Queen’s Bench has successfully completed more passes of my (April 17, 2012) action than our own Winnipeg Blue Bombers, ending my play with a dishonourable sack by the Province.

One would have to take a look at the Province's playbook to fully appreciate how both federally appointed judges and the province carried out such a masterfully-executed play. The hearing at the Law Courts on August 20, 2012 was attended by Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson (the firm claims to be) counsel for defendants Thompson Dorfman Sweatman but the reality is that Aikins Law is retained by the Law Society of Manitoba. 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.

Two lawyers attended from Aikins, Ted E. Bock and Thomas K. Reimer. (See explanation on billing at posting Law at Lunch - More Cowbell). The hearing was presided over by newly- appointed master formerly of Filmore and Riley (which together with TDS and Aikins completes the trilogy of the largest and most powerful firms in Winnipeg).

Master Berthaudin (as would be the case with any provincially paid civil servant) should have recused himself given it was the Province that hired the defendants in the first instance that led to this action. A successful civil suit would most certainly reflect badly on the Province - his employer. A motion was raised to address the conflict but not acknowledged or addressed.

How does the courts distance itself from conflict?

At the first hearing on May 25, 2012 Justice Greenberg was asked to hear the motion regarding said conflict and for an injunction for the defence to 'play by the rules'.


QB Rules require only that notice of a hearing be given. The defendants had indeed been duly served and there were given the required time to file any argument to oppose the motion, but did not do so. Neither defendants, or counsel attended. But then attendance is not mandatory if you are not contesting the motion.


Despite evidence of foul play (abuse of power and influence over an unrepresented and vulnerable litigant), her Ladyship refused to hear the matter without first checking with the defendants and adjourned the motion.

On June 1, 2012 Justice Perlmutter presided at the adjournment but did not carry out his sworn duties. On the basis that years prior he had worked at TDS and 'knew the guys', and made the (unprecedented) decision to not hear the matter. His Lordship's actions were in conflict with the purpose of the Order requested and his actions had severe impact--to me.

Justice McKelvey presided on June 11, 2012 at the third adjournment, or more accurately advised she would not be hearing any issues that day. She adjourned the motion out of QB Court to a Master, a provincially paid civil servant--which takes the court procedures full circle: I did not believe a master should be deciding on such issues and Her Ladyship should have (would have) known an injunction can only be granted by a Judge. (See related posting Upscale Violence King of the Castle)




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

It is only on rare and extreme cases that a claim gets struck out and only then, is done if it passes the stringent test of 'plain and obvious' that there is no lawful cause. The master took an unprecedented 25 days to apply the 'test'. Even then his decision contained only bland statements that failed to recognize anything relevant I presented in support of the action. Causes that had been accepted in previous decisions.

MasterB's decision states he relied only on 'oral' testimony. A little hard to swallow, as he told me at the hearing I would not have to go over the issues. He claimed he had read all the documents including my Re-Amended Claim.



With the exception of my 18 year-old son, I stood alone on principle at this hearing. Advocacy groups advised me throughout that they were unwilling to chance a reduction in funding from the Province should they come forward and advocate on my behalf.

Upon entering the court room my son removed his cap, a polite gesture generally reserved for his grandmother. When I introduced him to both Aikins’ lawyers he stood up to shake their hands and exchanged social niceties, as is his nature. I believe my son exhibited instinctively the most effective way to promote social and economic justice. It starts with respect -- despite differences and despite conflict of the situation.

How is it possible for lawyers to smile, shake hands, connect, inquire about plans for summer and college etc., and then erase from all consciousness, any awareness that their inhumane acts would have hurtful consequences to actual people and their families? The problem is growing to epidemic proportions.

 

Diagnosing the Failure of Professionalism among Lawyers and Finding a Cure. It is an imperfect justice system that allows, and perhaps even encourages lawyers to manipulate the system. Yet, because prosecutors, judges and many politicians are also lawyers, they say that lawyers benefit from the very system they create..."

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

 

 

Support is needed for those who can't stand up for their rights. There is NO advocacy for people with mental illness, particularly if their complaint is against the Province or its government services. Not until we allow and encourage civil behaviour of politicians and provincial gatekeepers, will we be able to ensure civil rights for everyone.

More than ever Manitobans are in need of a new perspective. Time for action.

 

• Time to rethink mental illness and connect in a more humane way.
• Time to break through a new path. If not you, than who?

More than at any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness and the other to total extinction. Let us pray we will have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Woody Allen

 

Sources:

Community Living - Manitoba: When Bad Things Happen. Manitoba Women with Intellectual Disabilities... a study

 

"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.