abroadcom – listening to North America since 2009 – Page 11 – independence

This letter, (and 600 others like it – which exposed their constant 1913-present administrative genocide of injured workers), is why all Premiers of Ontario have tried to administratively murder me since I became injured-on-the-job. The WSIAT tribunal attacked, defamed and defrauded me at my August 2000 hearing – and every day since – because they know that it is the TRUTH!!

January 27, 2000

Chair of the WSIAT; Vice-Chair of the WSIAT
Panel members
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (WSIAT)

Dear Sirs:

In my claims and appeals, several rational connections do exist
between the breach of the Act, and the consequences that I have
suffered which are adverse to the fulfillment of the objectives
of the Act, and the remedy.

The legislation includes provision of the necessary care for the
consolidation of an injury, the physical, social and vocational
rehabilitation of a worker who has suffered an injury. I have
been denied the necessary care that I needed numerous times by
the board and the WSIAT. I feel that the board did exceed its
powers by recklessly, maliciously and unconstitutionally imposing
closure on my claim for no bona fide reasons.

I have been made a victim of interference to obtain the
cessation thereof, as well as compensation for the moral or
material prejudice resulting therefrom.

Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct which
lie upon him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as
not to cause injury to another. To date, I have only experienced
injury from the board.

As you are aware, I am in a life-threatening situation that the
WSIAT has knowingly allowed to continue and I am forced to demand that the WSIAT, (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals
Tribunal), rectify this unwarranted situation immediately, and to
cease and desist from continuing its unreasonable position with
respect to my closed and dismissed claims, and my delayed and
ignored appeals to the WSIAT.

I have repeatedly requested an invasive remedial order from the
Board/WSIAT in light of the core value of the Act, and the
unwarranted hardships that I have been facing since 1996. I have
been further attacked for making these requests. The Act, as
well as the Charter, authorizes the Board to make “equitable”
orders to remedy the consequences of breaches of the Act and
grants jurisdiction to make orders that the Board would otherwise
not have the power to make.

In my claims, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act clearly
clothes the Board and the WSIAT (Workplace Safety and Insurance
Appeals Tribunal) with the authority to determine whether a
particular party has acted in good faith and whether a party has
made every reasonable effort to make available to a claimant the
full benefits and protection under the Act. I have been denied
proper or fair treatment by the Workplace Safety and Insurance
Board (WSIB) and the WSIAT.

The WSIAT has not fully acknowledged or responded to my requests contained in my letter of September 15, 1999, and has totally ignored my letter of October 25, 1999. This is brutal
mistreatment, and an immoral abuse of authority by the WSIAT that
could be seen as bordering on the criminal. The WSIAT should
have already stayed the boards malicious, arbitrary, capricious,
discriminatory, wrongful and unfair determinations rendered by
the board and the assigned and obviously biased WSIB Appeals
Resolution Officer.

Despite what the WSIB/WSIAT asserts, the federal vested civil,
legal and Charter rights of a Canadian citizen cannot be, and are
not automatically extinguished by the incurring of an injury and
the casting of a citizen into a blatantly flawed and biased
quasi-illegal provincial administrative body such as the WSIB!
This is exactly what the WSIB has done to me! Even though the
Act must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to
achieve the general purposes underlying it as well as the
specific objectives of its particular provisions. This has not
been seen to be true in my case. I have been made into a non-user
of the Charter, and a non-citizen by the WSIB and the WSIAT.

The WSIAT could have been seen to have possibly have acted in
collusion by surreptitiously placing my appeal into inactive
status with the hopes of secretly and unlawfully closing my
appeal — if I had not contacted them and inquired to the status
of my appeal within six months of the rendering of Mr. Tuchtie’s
predetermined and patently unreasonable conclusions.

I am being driven to either beg for my benefits and rights under
the laws of Canada, or to leave Canada due to the abusive
misapplication of WSIB policies. These forced choices represent
extremely harmful and grave injustices upon my person.

Once again, I would like to make the WSIAT officials aware that I am an innocent man who done no wrongdoing and do not deserve the politically-motivated mistreatment, abuse and fate that the WSIB, and the WSIAT to date, have balefully perpetrated against me.

There are no precise limits on the Board’s jurisdiction and the
fact that the Board could fashion equitable remedies indicated
that Parliament intended the Board to have wide remedial powers.
Furthermore, a broad privative clause provides that the WSIAT’s
decisions and orders are final.

The Hamilton staff, in my case, and the Board in general for
decades have breached this duty (equitable remedies), attempts to
penalize those who had participated in a lawful Board activity
and this undermines the operation and basic principles of the
legislation. The WSIAT simply defers to the Board’s unlawful
acts.

Considering the already detailed, (in my correspondence to the
board and the WSIAT since December 1996), exceptional and
compelling circumstances prevailing in my case, the board and the
WSIAT would both already have been justified in exercising their
alleged experience and special skill in order to have fashioned
an immediate remedy in my claim/ appeal because the entire WSIB/WSIAT processes have been unwarranted, unfair, bitter, lengthy and extremely harmful to my career, health and life.

In May 1995 my claim fell within the alleged specialized
competence and broad equitable discretion delegated to the WSIB
by Parliament. My entire experience with the Board and the
Tribunal has been an unrealistic and even a cruel waste of time.
The matters of my appeal have had an exhaustive procedural life
starting with the adjudicative staff in 1996 unconstitutionally
acting with oblique motives and actions that amounted to
persecution, harassment and discrimination.

The WSIB Appeals Branch delayed scheduling an Appeals Hearing for over two years and then Mr. Tuchtie overlooked the facts before
him, deliberately mis-worded my appeal, misled and lied to me,
and took a year to blindly support the Board’s criminal acts and
maliciously placed me in a virtually perpetual state of life-
threatening and career-destroying sub-poverty. The wording of
the Appeal was deliberately made imprecise and exclusionary in
order to make the entire detained appeals/tribunal processes
fruitless.

The Act grants the Board remedial authority for the purpose of
ensuring the fulfillment of the objectives of their mandate. I
feel that the repeated refusals by Mr. Tuchtie and the Hamilton
Director to allow me reinstatement in VR services and the
opportunity to pursue a new VR plan are criminal acts of malice.
I feel that their collusive decisions to keep me in this life-threatening status of sub-poverty and out of the workforce
for as long as possible is criminal harassment.

It seems inconceivable that the VICTIM should be the one who in
the final analysis pays for the fault and willful negligence of
the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), but this has been the reality for myself and injured workers for decades!

The board and the WSIAT can easily, and actually have a duty to,
design a remedy that would be eminently fair and sensible,
beneficial to all parties and the community — they repeatedly
chosen not to do so.

Neither the board nor the WSIAT will act fairly or even
acknowledge my correspondence or requests, even though the
obvious abuses that I have suffered are antithetical to the Act’s
objects.

By its very nature, the Act calls for a large and liberal
interpretation that allows its objectives to be achieved as far
as possible. In this sense, not only the provisions at issue but
the entire Act and its policies must be examined in this appeal
(WSIAT #98-0177, and all my ignored appeals).

The remedy directed by the Board and then affirmed by Mr. Tuchtie
was patently unreasonable. I feel that they both acted with
actual malice, and have intentionally made their flawed
determinations in order to cause me maximum harm, and they have
succeeded.

The remedy is: (1) punitive in nature; (2) the remedy granted
infringes the Charter; (3) there is no rational connection between the breach, its consequences, and the remedy; (4) the remedy contradicts the objects and purposes of the Act.

This appeal raises two main issues. The first is the scope and
fairness of the quasi-judicial review of the adjudicator’s
decision. The remaining issue is the correctness of the Board’s
finding that a promise to pay benefits to injured workers can
survive the initial unfair and unlawful closure of the Board
biased adjudicators/claims managers. They have the discretion to
provide services and benefits at anytime — but they unfairly and
unlawfully refuse to! All of my 16 legitimate VR plans could
have been enforced after the termination of the Sheridan plan —
but Mr. Craven was on a mission to destroy not assist.

The Board and the Tribunal both long ago should have properly
exercised their discretion to impose a remedy which would put an
end to the impasse, but they are trying to harm me by their lack
of cooperation and good faith. This is the reason that the Board
deemed me unable to return to my position and cast me into the
flawed and infamous WSIB Vocational Rehabilitation services in
the first place. My fate was sealed at that time — I was made
into an easy target — a non-citizen and no longer enjoyed any
rights under the law.

I had hoped that the WSIAT would have already agreed that the
ultimate indefeasibility or inviolability of these paramount
rights cannot be nullified by baseless fabrications and sneaky
set-ups of incompetent, biased front-line staff and corrupt
Appeals staff employed by the WSIB to close claims/appeals.

This is ridiculous — the WSIAT must no longer condone these
blatantly illegal actions of the WSIB. The WSIAT as a matter of
policy, routinely defers to the so-called expertise of the Board
and the Appeals Resolution Officers in questions relating to the
interpretation of the Act and the handling of a claim. This
deference is unwarranted — if not criminal.

The WSIAT Appeals proceedings are, and will further be affected
by gross irregularities, and there is abundant reason to believe
that justice has not been, and will not be done.

The acts of delay/procedural unfairness alone should have already
guided and directed the WSIAT to immediately “put-me-back” to my November 1996 status — if — the WSIAT was truly an independent and unbiased administrative body that it claims to be.

The WSIAT should rectify this situation without delay in the
exercise of their superintending and reforming power by staying
their proceedings! The WSIAT should accordingly conclude that
for numerous and obvious reasons, the decision of the Appeals
Resolutions Officer was null and void — if — justice — not
punishment is their true and only goal.

The WSIAT Tribunal must now recognize that it is not only dealing
with the unlawful set-ups, claim closures and abuse that happened
in my particular case — or simply their imperfect and
unaccountable privative clause/jurisdiction. The Charter
formalizes standards of conduct that apply to all individuals.
The violation of one of the guaranteed rights is therefore
wrongful behavior, which, as the WSIAT must recognize, breaches
the general duty of good conduct.

The WSIAT vice-chairs hearing the case should, (but may not),
have the ability to order the author of unlawful and intentional
interference to pay exemplary damages. This multifaceted remedy
is part of a distinct legislative scheme and cannot be completely
dissociated from it.

The legislation gave the Board a wide and flexible remedial role.
The WSIB and the WSIAT have repeatedly refused to act in a
remedial manner towards me.

The Board/Appeals Branch have obviously not acted in good faith.
Their decisions must be set aside by the WSIAT for they are
patently unreasonable. That decision, given the overwhelming
evidence supporting my request must be reached at this time by
the WSIAT. If the WSIAT, in error/collusion refuses to
immediately “put-me-back” to my status prior to the Board’s
denial of my submitted proposals and unfair closure of my claim,
and to pay me all withheld benefits from December 1996, then I am
forced to make the following requests of the WSIAT. The proper
focus that the Tribunal must now take is to immediately:

a) Quash all of the unfounded, unproven, malicious, unlawful,
criminal and unconstitutional determinations of the Toronto and
Hamilton WSIB staff and the Appeals Branch have previously
rendered against my person — (The remedy would ensure the
fulfillment of the objectives of the Act.);

b) Pay me all outstanding benefits that the Board has
withdrawn from me since December 1996 to the present time; c)Reinstate me in full VR benefits and services; please use

MIT potential income for review, valuation and decision-making of
all my past and future VR proposals: (Note: I feel that both my
former employer and the Board are guilty of conspiring to limit
me to a job description that was never a formal position or one
that I had agreed to with my employer. I was offered the job of
manager-in-training, financial standards, and accepted
immediately. The Act must be so interpreted as to advance the
broad policy considerations underlying it. That task should not
be approached in a niggardly fashion but in a manner befitting
the special nature of the legislation, which in these
circumstances the board should have ordered other remedial
measures, such as reinstatement or reassignment. I feel that this
constitutes a tort — Negligence — Negligent misrepresentation
— Duty of care — Employer’s representative and board making
negligent misrepresentations to prospective employee during
hiring interview — Whether employer or representative and board
owed prospective employee/claimant a duty of care — If so,
whether duty of care breached — Effect of subsequent employment
agreement allowing termination without cause and reassignment). d)Schedule a WSIAT hearing within two weeks where my case

will be examined anew and fully; e) Summon all parties listed in my previous correspondence

and the parties that I will be supplying the WSIAT with in the
near future (Note: The first step in analyzing the arbitrability of Board’s determinations is to subpoena all statistics of the overall claim closures that the Board has perpetrated since the Harris government took power; the number of former WSIB claimants that have been forced onto welfare; and the specific claims/ statistics of the Hamilton Board staff members that were assigned to “handle” my particular claim/appeals. (Note: Nothing in the Charter or the Act relieves the victim of an unlawful interference with a guaranteed right of the burden of proving a causal connection between that interference and the moral or material prejudice he or she allegedly suffered. This is what I wish to do and this is the reason why I have repeatedly asked the WSIAT to subpoena and summon various parties in order to prove the casual link needed for me to receive compensation and damages. I feel that if these parties are subpoenaed that I
will be able to provide the WSIAT with abundant, clear, hard and
incontrovertible evidence to support my allegations. This action
by the WSIAT would bring to light the short-comings of the
available remedies.); f) Summon all statistics of the overall claim closures that

the Board’s Toronto WSIB office has perpetrated since the Harris
government took power; g) Summon from the Ministry of Community and Social Services

for all information regarding the number of former WSIB claimants
that have had their claims closed and who have been forced onto
the welfare ranks since the Harris government took power. (The
Board’s actual and bona fide actions and efforts to act in
good faith should be measured by an objective standard which can
be ascertained by looking to the past practices of the Board.); h) Summon the overall statistics of the number of claims and

the number of claim closures by the Hamilton WSIB office since
the Harris government took power; i) Summon the individual statistics; caseloads, files and all records of claim closures and all claims of each of the

Hamilton and Toronto WSIB staff members that were assigned to
“handle” my particular claim, or involved in anyway in any of
the decision-making in my claims since the Harris government came to power, (Note: The extent to which the present case turns on questions falling within that area of expertise must be
considered. Here, the question to be decided requires
consideration of history of the individual WSIB staff involved.
The extent to which the present case turns on questions falling
within that area of expertise must be considered.); j) Mr. Tuchtie of the WSIB Appeals Branch, as well as Mr.

Rick Craven and Mr. Richard Morrison of the Hamilton WSIB office
should be charged and investigated under section 118 of the
Criminal code, and investigated by the Ontario Human Rights
Commission — if — the rule of law was actually respected
and adhered to by the Ontario government. k) The Tribunal should also address the possible acts of

fraud, theft and treason that the WSIB may have been allowed and
even encouraged by WSIAT to perpetrate with impunity against
injured workers and Canadian taxpayers for decades. l) The Tribunal must conclude that the Board failed to

decide in good faith and that their determination have been
patently unreasonable.

The Board and the WSIAT have lacked a certain fineness in looking
at a situation through the eyes of others. The WSIAT has ignored
my requests and has waived the possibility of my obtaining full
compensation by way of a civil action.

It is the combination of unlawfulness and intentionality that
underlies the decision to award exemplary damages and damages for the prejudice suffered as a result of the employment injury.

Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by
the Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such
interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice
resulting therefrom.

In these circumstances the board could have ordered other
remedial measures, such as reinstatement or reassignment
compensation that did not correspond to the prejudice that I have
suffered. I have experienced extreme pain and suffering and loss
of enjoyment of life resulting from that deficit. I request that
the Tribunal award moral damages to the extent that this is
within their jurisdiction. This is a major issue in this appeal.

Damages: (1) Moral damage resulting from harassment: $25,000 (2) Loss of health and psychological prejudice: $50,000 (3) Inability to return to work: $50,000 (4) Exemplary damages: $25,000

These figures are not only reasonable in the circumstances but
are in fact extremely under-valued.

Please acknowledge and fulfil these requests on or before
February 21, 2000.

Thank you.

Yours very sincerely,

Mr. Gary McGrogan

c.c. Secretary General of the United Nations
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Premier of Ontario
MPP of Ontario
Minister of Labour
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Media of the world