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).