From my perspective, there are at least two  extremely dangerous Court judgements involved. –


(a) The Selladurai and Nesa Premakumaran case (immigrants deceived about work prospects) - Edmonton Sun article of Aug. 23, 2005

Analysis of what went wrong and why:- CLICK HERE


(b)The case of Dr. Michael Stanley Short vs. SNC in the Quebec Court of Appeal on November 12 1987. Cover-up / ignorance of  corruption in business, Court not told about what was going on. DOCUMENTED AND ANALYZED ELSEWHERE ON THIS SITE.



In both these cases, the Judges involved were not made aware  of important information about the business behaviours of Canadian society, which could have been crucial to the decisions in both cases.


In (a) the Selladurai and Nesa Premakumaran case, which is currently ongoing (March 2007), Judge Konrad von Finckenstein was not made aware of the mis-information routinely disseminated about the state of the Canadian job market. This ubiquitous mis-infornmation would seem to explain, in part at least, the series of unpleasant surprises and near-complete financial ruin suffered by the Premakumaran family. This resulted in Judge Konrad von Finckenstein making an extremely dangerous and quite inappropriate decision which asserted that the Premakumaran family s problems were entirely their own fault, when their difficulties in getting work were in fact the result of incomplete statistics concerning the Canadian unemployment numbers, and bad analysis of those statistics based on flawed assumptions anf faulty arithmentic. The Premakumaran family would have been unaware of this problem concerning under-statement and mis-reporting concerning the Canadian  unemployment numbers, WHICH IS A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY. The problem is analyzed elsewhere on this site; whatever the reason(s) why this is going on, it is obviously extremely dangerous.


In (b)  - the case of Dr. Michael Stanley Short vs. SNC in the Quebec Court of Appeal on November 12 1987 – the Judges were not made aware of corrupt business practices by SNC in which, among other things, SNC contrived to have themselves described in favourable terms in a 1986 book, The 100 Best Companies to Work for in Canada. This description was based on interviews with some of SNC s employees WHO WERE SELECTED BY SNC THEMSELVES AND NOT BY ANY SCIENTIFIC METHOD INVOLVING RANDOM SAMPLING OF THEIR EMPLOYEES. SNC then exploited this write-up in at least two newspaper advertisements to recruit employees, within days of the book going on sale. WARNING TO LAWYERS : ALL IS DOCUMENTED ON THIS SITE. YOU WILL BE SHOT DOWN AT ONCE IF YOU ATTEMPT TO ATTACK ME.