With respect to
items marked ▲, Section 139 of
the federal Criminal Code of Canada
should be considered, which includes: wilful attempts to obstruct, pervert or
defeat the course of justice.
Due to the circumstances just referred to, I contacted CBC Radio in Montreal during March 1983
28.
Following
a telephone call by Rosemary Collins of CBC Radio (in Montreal, Quebec) on or shortly before March 25th
1983 to SNC Vice President of Personnel Robert Robitaille concerning my
situation as described on the previous page.
June 3 1983
Report para. 38 HERE
OTHER GOINGS-ON - 3- CLICK HERE
(a) A verbal offer of CDN
$8,000 was made by SNC lawyer Raymond Favreau to my lawyer I.S. Mass on
Wednesday March 30th 1983. June 3 1983 Report para. 40 HERE
▲ (b) SNC then failed to confirm the offer within 10
days of service of my declaration dated
March 31st 1983.
June 3 1983
Report para. 41 HERE
▲ (c) SNC then failed to submit a defence within the
further 10‑day legal delay leading to SNC being put in default on or before May
12th 1983. June 3 1983 Report paras. 41,42 HERE
See also Court Record (Plumitif Civil). PLUMITIF CIVIL - EVENT 1
The Plumitif Civil just referred to and in many
places later on in this narrative, was generated from a scanned copy of the Plumitif Civil Inverse printed
out in 1992. This Plumitif Civil Inverse - which is in
reverse chronological order - can be
seen, for reference, HERE
COMMENTS – 4 - CLICK HERE
To summarise: delaying
tactics calculated to waste time. This was just the start of an 8 – plus years saga of obfuscation,
delays and incompetence.
On Thursday, May 12th, I telephoned my lawyer who informed me that SNC's attorneys (now an outside law firm) had called him to say that a cheque for Can. $8,000 was - quote - on its way – unquote - and that SNC would present their defence for the outstanding amount (Can. $45,790.41 since the amount asked for in the writ was Can. $53,790.41) – quote - before the date of the default hearing. - unquote June 3 1983 Report para. 43 HERE
On Tuesday, May 24th, my
lawyer informed me that he had still not received the cheque for Can. $8,000
and SNC s defence for the rest from SNC's attorneys. He was going to chase SNC s attorneys again.
June 3 1983
Report para. 44 HERE
On Monday, May 30th, my lawyer informed me that he had received the cheque for Can. $8,000 and SNC s defence for the rest, and that these were being sent to me along with his comments; I received these on Wednesday, June 1st.
June 3 1983 Report para. 45 HERE
29.
My
Declaration of March 31st 1983 stated that SNC advertised in British newspaper
- The Daily Telegraph - of May 15th 1981 for engineers, and made a written job
offer dated July 27th 1981.
▲Para. 1 of SNC s - quote –
defence –unquote - dated May 27th 1983 states that SNC - quote -deny all the allegations in the
declaration as ill‑founded in fact and in law – unquote - then they admit in
para. 3 that they employed me. I
completely failed to see how they could justify such an attitude in the face of
irrefutable documentary evidence coupled with the fact that there are other
persons in SNC who are prepared to
provide me with references and can confirm that I was employed by SNC over the
period when I said I was. June 3 1983 Report
para. 45 HERE
SNC's
– quote – defence – unquote - dated May 27th 1983 - CLICK HERE
[Ref. Exhibits (23), (24), (25), (26)]
▲Thus SNC s - quote – defence
– unquote - was self‑contradictory. I have heard so-called justifications for
such behaviour based on the notion that this is - quote – normal – unquote - in legal practice. Such – quote –
justifications – unquote - are not competent by any normal standards and in
particular when judged against the standards of competence expected of
Professional Engineers in the exercise of their profession. Professional Engineers must follow the natural laws
of the universe, not man‑made laws or procedures which might be bent for
corrupt purposes, in particular to protect dubious
members of the Quebec legal profession at the expense of Anglophone immigrant
professional engineers.
In early 1984 – after over 6
months additional waiting – a court hearing date was set for October 1984. My lawyer, Mr. I.S. Mass, told
me at the time I first saw him that if the case went to court then I could expect about an 18 month wait, and
possibly more, before getting proper compensation. In the event,
because of deliberate time-wasting by SNC s lawyers, it took over 8 years and,
as reported and documented later, I won my case but the result was
unsatisfactory in other ways.
COMMENTS – 5 - CLICK HERE
... /2
24
With respect to
items marked ▲, Section 139 of
the federal Criminal Code of Canada
should be considered, which includes: wilful attempts to obstruct, pervert or
defeat the course of justice.