Using an outside party with no vested interest would represent ...UNBIASED.
In the civilian world, if someone suggests wrong doing, and they have proof of this, would not unfettered access to the Investigator be appropriate? This would seem FAIR.
Both sides being able to see what the Investigator has found out regarding wrong doing would be FAIR and UNBIASED.
In my two claims of wrong doing under the "whistle-blower legislation", I have not even received confirmation of a formal investigation into either claim. Keeping a person with severe Anxiety caused in part by the claimed actions, is not FAIR or UNBIASED. It is just crewel.
So far I have had:
1. One interview. I was able to had over direct printed evidence of one claim but not the second.
2. I have been able to explain in person, both claims. I achieved this by demonstrating how this would have happened through printed evidence and other evidence I was not permitted to present.
3. I have been told that the Investigator looking into whether a formal investigation will take place, is not requesting or desiring any documentary evidence of my second claim. Only one of two.
4. I have forwarded some (unsolicited) documents demonstrating a strong possibility of a link between my two claims as I expressed it to the investigator in our face to face meeting.
5. The Investigator was and is not interested in my second claim and stated so. Reason, unknown to me. Very kindly, the Investigator did say, it is not in the mandate given to me.
This feels very UNFAIR and BIASED to me thus far.
My two claims are:
1. Deployed as an Aircraft Commander, medically unfit to fly. (SEE NDA art 107 attached below)
2. Destruction of legal documents and evidence regarding my Harassment claim, where the Senior Officer named within my Formal Complaint made himself Judge at his own trial.
Senior Officers below and above the Rank of Major were aware of this wrong doing but did nothing. An Alternate Dispute Resolution was agreed upon and "Terms Of Settlement" signed. I kept my commitments to this agreement, I claim they did not.
The Judgement Letter written by the CDS, the Terms of Settlement and the entire file was destroyed. This was done as I claim to cover-up what happened and to deny me Veterans Benefits as clearly agreed to in the Settlement as this pertains to document retention, storage and the Pension Act itself.
How can you charge under the "National Defense Act" with "Unclean Hands?"
National Defence Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-5)
Wrongful acts in relation to aircraft or aircraft material
107. Every person who
(a) in the use of or in relation to any aircraft or aircraft material, wilfully or negligently or by neglect of or contrary to regulations, orders or instructions, does any act or omits to do anything, which act or omission causes or is likely to cause loss of life or bodily injury to any person,
(b) wilfully or negligently or by neglect of or contrary to regulations, orders or instructions, does any act or omits to do anything, which act or omission results or is likely to result in damage to or destruction or loss of any of Her Majesty’s aircraft or aircraft material or of aircraft or aircraft material of any forces cooperating with Her Majesty’s Forces, or
(c) during a state of war wilfully or negligently causes the sequestration by or under the authority of a neutral state or the destruction in a neutral state of any of Her Majesty’s aircraft or of aircraft of any forces cooperating with Her Majesty’s Forces,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person acted wilfully, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
Federal Courts Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7)
Grounds of review
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.
103.57 - OFFENCES IN RELATION TO DOCUMENTS
(1) Section 125 of the National Defence Act provides:
"125. Every person who
wilfully or negligently makes a false statement or entry in a document made or signed by that person and required for official purposes or who, being aware of the falsity of a statement or entry in a document so required, orders the making or signing thereof,
when signing a document required for official purposes, leaves in blank any material part for which the signature is a voucher, or
with intent to injure any person or with intent to deceive, suppresses, defaces, alters or makes away with any document or file kept, made or issued for any military or departmental purposes,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to less punishment."
No comments:
Post a Comment