To CJ Joyal - Request sent June 4, 2012 - no response



DATE: Monday June 4, 2012

To: Honourable Chief Justice Joyal and
Ms Karen Fulham, E.D. Judicial Services >

The Statement of Claim

I started a civil action under CI 12-01-77387 based on evidence obtained from earlier proceedings in which the defendants, TDS et al acted as legal counsel in defence of an action brought against the provincial government under the LRA and HRC. It is the actions of the defendants (legal counsel for government) that I believe to be actionable.

The LRA Reply prepared by Rob Olson (TDS) used hearsay and uncorroborated dis-information prior to being served with a HRC complaint. Olson then had to do some serious back peddling and then not only prepared, but personally attested to a different version in the HRC Reply.

In (256/09/LRA) Request for Review and Reconsideration page 5 para. 7 subpara. (x) a whole uncorroborated paragraph was added by TDS (which had never been introduced prior in earlier proceedings – and this was a ‘review’) which was followed by an errant notation left behind by Olson in the document for the deponent. This speaks of violations under MEA on many levels.

The claim is not a review of the earlier proceedings but brings fresh evidence accessed through FIPPA of indisputable proof of perjury, false and/or misleading evidence, and primarily hearsay statements as evidence; failed to ensure the accuracy of the documents, as well as stalled the process and delayed access to witnesses (as confirmed in writing by E.D. MHRC and according to the entries in its database obtained through FIPPA.

Disability 

The issues leading up to my claim first started when I spoke to an intake person after being terminated June 2008 after returning from 3.5 stress leave. When I returned I filed a RWP complaint. At the first and only RWP meeting I explained my medical condition – if unchecked leads to hospitalization and that accommodation was required. The defence took an unlikely stand that disability was not known.

Two years later March 2010 first (official) interview of Supervisor stated she was aware of my mental illness (bipolar- diagnosed 1991) and knew of it possibly 15 years earlier and told the COO when I went on sick leave.

It is now June 2012. I am preoccupied with the details of the misinformation that is on record. I am reliving the experiences and difficulties that stem from a person with a disability. A fair and open trial where both parties are allowed to bring their best case forward is needed in order that justice be done but be seen to be done and in order that I can move on to have a life.

Irregularities of Judicial Services for Review

Like it is stated in the Council of Canadians with Disabilities[1] when it comes to persons with disabilities, it totally raises the spectre of survival of the fittest. In other words, I am required to expend extraordinary efforts to even step into a court room.

I am denied any legal representation (I have quite a list) but despite my best efforts to be prepared and follow the rules, I am constantly barraged with obstacles and irregularities as follows:

1. Service of the Statement of Claim – see affidavit on file. The QB Rules allows for registered mail for service, however TDS can avoid / delay service because all mail is put in a “lock box” (see Affidavit of Service) Spent 3 weeks of aggravation dealing with Canada Post. Even when a mail clerk did sign off, counsel said it was not served.

2. That under QB Rule 8.02 I amended my claim to reflect that the firm name is listed first but it appears that both counsel and Registrar are in total denial. Registrar doesn’t reflect that, nor the notices on the bulletin, and even counsel continues to use the un-amended claim.

3. There was no affidavit filed by defence counsel to strike out my claim scheduled for June 5, 2012 and counsel refuses to provide same. In stark contrast, when I filed a motion to contest their motion, I provided supporting affidavit that includes QB Rule 37.02(2)(d) that a master does not have jurisdiction against a party under disability as well as a master (a provincial employee) ought to recuse himself given the obvious conflict.

4. Unlike the manner I was given notice of their motion (by fax and regular mail), I attended at Aikins Law and personally served the notice and affidavit. Yet neither the defendants nor counsel showed at the hearing. Justice Greenberg repeatedly questioned and doubted me whether I had in fact served him properly despite having evidence of service. The transcript will show that even with evidence I had no credibility as “how do you know it was him?"

5. The defendants provided no affidavit as to information it intended to provide at the June 25, 2012 there was no reasonable basis for Madam Justice Greenberg to adjourn the hearing as the questions before her were of questions of law based on QB Rules – more administrative in nature.

6. The matter was nonetheless adjourned. Once again there was no affidavit filed for the adjournment on June 1st. Justice Perlmutter advised at the start that there was a conflict due to his former association with TDS although he would have known prior to June 1st that a conflict existed and alternate arrangements could have been made that would not have cost me another day’s lost wages.

7. Justice Perlmutter would not deal with just the issue of switching from master to judge, however he did offer to schedule the adjournment for Monday. He asked his clerk to check on the computer to make that arrangement which she did while the court room waited. After a few minutes he said it was done. That I would have an opportunity to have my motion heard Monday which would give me an opportunity to have my motion heard before the one scheduled with the Master. Very concerning was that Mr. Bock said that in any event I would have to attend on Tuesday (rather foreboding). The Registrar shows the adjournment rescheduled to Monday, June 11, 2012; one week later than promised.

My motion had also asked for an interlocutory judgment to deter tactics such as these that go beyond reason. Any intentional act that is done to such a degree that it is foreseeable that it would likely cause mania or psychosis is tantamount to someone lacing a water glass with peanut oil when an adverse or even deadly allergic reaction is known to occur.

The irregularities and noted biases leave me with no expectation that my claim or I would be treated fairly, respectfully or humanely if allowed to just proceed in this course. For defence counsel to not provide an explanation as to why my claim has no merit is in direct violation of my equality and contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in terms of “equal concern, respect and consideration [Charter s.15(1)] for persons with disabilities.

After many years of living and coping, for the most part successfully, I believe I have met and exceeded my own personal and social responsibility in terms of my mental illness. I have seen no safeguards nor set procedures implemented to ensure a respectful environment in your courts contrary to the Human Rights Code.

I do not believe my decision as to what I believe to be in the best interests of my health should be seen as negative by not attending tomorrow’s Hearing. My medical history does reflect that despite Lithium being at therapeutic levels (meaning I have not gone off my meds) as stated by my doctor, “a high stress environment with interpersonal conflicts would cause an exacerbation” of my condition.” 


[1] The Canadian Human Rights Commission Strives To Design a New Business Model: What Does That Mean for Persons with Disabilities? http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/promoting/new-business-model 

No comments: