A DANGEROUS QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL JUDGEMENT: Dr. Michael Stanley Short. SNC s attempt to exploit it at my expense, followed by their allowing their Royal Bank account to be seized.


Their apparent idea of  How to be Clever in Business in Quebec.


SNC were extremely lucky to have found themselves ordered to pay a Judgement of only $10,000 in my Superior Court case.


The main reason for this was the attitudes of Quebec Appeal Court judges Mailhot, Moisan and Chouinard as expressed in their Judgement dated November 12th, 1987 (case nos. 500‑09‑001835‑834 C.A.M. and 500‑05‑002695‑839 C.S.M.) concerning Dr. Michael Stanley Short vs. SNC Inc., in which the judges imply that Dr. Short was at fault for not taking  full account of the –quote -risks and uncertainties –unquote - involved in changing employment and immigrating to Canada. Some of these "risks and uncertainties" involve companies like SNC apparently falsely advertising themselves as one of The 100 Best Companies to Work for in Canada.


This attitude does not correspond to the attitudes of judges elsewhere in Canada, in particular the case involving a class action by several plaintiffs against Dresser Industries Canada Ltd. which was heard on November 29th, 1989 in the Ontario Court of Appeal by Judges Howland, Catzman and Carthy (case no. 602/87). The plaintiffs concerned, like myself, were all people who had come from England to work for the defendant company and who were likewise offered permanent jobs, i.e. for at least two years, so that pre‑employment contracts existed as in my own case. The trial judge in the lower Court - the District Court of Ontario - The Hon. D.F. Mossop, awarded compensation based on the difference between the length of time they had actually worked and the two years mentioned in  their job offers. Dresser Industries Canada, like SNC, were also suffering severely from the 1982 recession so that this factor was also common to my own case against SNC.


The judgement of the Hon. D.F. Mossop was upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal by judges Howland, Catzman and Carthy on November 29, 1989. .


The judgement of Quebec Appeal Court Judges Mailhot, Moisan and Chouinard concerning Dr. Short thus seems to have set an extremely dangerous precedent for Quebec because it can be relied upon by companies like SNC to declare open season, so to speak, on Independent Immigrants, by appearing to offer permanent jobs which are subsequently found ‑ in law, in Quebec ‑ to be not really permanent at all, at the expense of the immigrants concerned.  So what you then had was a legal precedent for a deep‑seated and subtle business scam operation, to procure cheap labour (or more accurately, to cheapen labour by indulging in chicanery and insults), calculated to steal money from Independent Immigrants coming, to Quebec, at a time when Quebec said it needed more immigrants whilst complaining about the number who eventually left for other Provinces in Canada.


(ex. P 33,P 34)



Dunton, Rainville, Toupin and Perrault ‑ general.


Obviously, other lawyers from this firm were involved in addition to the three named elsewhere on this site (Marc de Wever, Brigitte Charron and Paul Andre Martel).


According to William I, Miller, Q.C., SNC fired this law firm after the bank account seizure, at a time when it was boasting to Mr. Millers partner, Allan Adel, that it worked exclusively for SNC (in a feeble and fraudulent attempt to pass itself off as – clever - at my expense).


At the same time, according to the winter 1993 issue (Volume 8, Number 2) of the legal profession periodical, Le Monde Juridique, page 12, this law firm – 2 years after they were fired by SNC – then had 30 lawyers. One is left wondering why this law firm was allowed to continue in business.


 Judges Mailhot, Moisan and Chouinard ‑ Quebec Court of Appeal.


Their judgement concerning Dr. Michael Stanley Short has already been referred to above. They reduced his judgement in Quebec Superior Court, on account of loss of salary, from six months to three months, based on their notion that Dr. Short – quote - should have been aware of the risks and hazards of changing employment… -unquote - and immigrating to Canada.


This judgement, rendered in November 1987, was referred to constantly by Dunton, Rainville, Toupin and Perrault in order to get rid of me. As an example, Brigitte Charron claimed in Court in November 1987 that my  case was - quote...identical to Dr. Short’s…-unquote - when in fact this was not so. At the time I had already received compensation from SNC to the extent of about three months salary.  Brigitte Charron apparently did this in order to try and persuade the Court not to hear my case and thus prevent it from taking account of the fact that I was dismissed by SNC before I could even get U.I. benefits, whereas Dr. Short was able to get U.I. benefits. The effect of this trick, combined with other things, was to delay the hearing of my case for up to another 3 1/2 years.


The three Quebec Court of Appeal judges were apparently told nothing about SNC s write‑up in the book, The One Hundred Best Companies to Work for in Canada, published in March 1986, probably because of concerns that the judges would dismiss it as irrelevant on the grounds that it was not part of the advertising that SNC did in order to entice Dr. Short to come to Canada. Dr. Short in fact came to Canada to work for SNC in about June 1981 and was dismissed in December 1982, furthermore Short s lawyer who represented him at the Quebec Court of Appeal, Sylvain Lustier, told me himself that he could not use the book in Court as evidence of reprehensible conduct by SNC.


Yet what type of conduct by SNC and their lawyers could be more reprehensible? They were passing themselves off in public as good employers whilst doing their utmost to exploit the letter of Quebec law (i.e. jurisprudence) and the perceived attitudes of certain judges in the Quebec Court of Appeal in order to perpetrate bigotry calculated to destroy me, and thought that their tracks would be covered in a so-called mystery which no one was supposed to be able to unravel. This so-called mystery, which I have exposed here, was supposed to have been covered up by things left un‑said, which do not appear in the Court files (or, so far as I am aware, in anyone else s files).