‑ 3­ -

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.

 

 

 


33. In November 1987 there was a hearing in Superior Court to fix a new trial date. Present were lawyers Anna Zampini representing me, and Brigitte Charron representing SNC.

 

▲ The lawyer for SNC, Brigitte Charron, attempted to stop the case being heard - by saying that my case was – quote - dentical to Dr. Michael Stanley Short s – unquote - when she knew (or should have known) there was at least one important difference ie. that I was dismissed before even being able to obtain Unemployment Insurance benefits.

 

s a result, on this occasion no trial date was set but my case was not thrown out.

 

I and another witness ‑ Mr. A.J. Fisher (see para. 32 on previous page) were also present.

 

See also Court Record (Plumitif Civil).  PLUMITIF CIVIL - EVENT 32

 

34.  In December 1987 William I. Miller QC took over my case against SNC. He obtained permission to amend the   proceedings and then served a revised and more detailed Declaration dated December 12th 1988.

 

This Declaration, unlike the original one dated March 31st 1983 served by Mr. I.S. Mass, details all the conditions of employment in SNC s offer of employment dated July 27th 1981 to me.

 

Original Declaration served by Mr. Mass in 1983 - CLICK HERE

 

Revised Declaration Served by  William I.  Miller, Q.C. –  CLICK HERE

 

See also Court Record (Plumitif Civil).  PLUMITIF CIVIL - EVENT 33

 

▲ 34.1  SNC s lawyers then wasted time by appealing against service on them of the new Declaration, which appeal was dismissed by Mr. Justice Macerola on February 1st 1989.

 

See also Court Record (Plumitif Civil). PLUMITIF CIVIL - EVENTS 38 TO 41

 

▲ 34.2  SNC s lawyers caused another delay ‑ to June 26th 1989 by contriving to get permission to examine me in court prior to writing their amended defence. They wasted additional time by another move involving a frivolous request for additional documents i.e. Certificates of my qualifications and proof of previous employment as an engineer when the case had already been going on since 1983 ‑ ie. for six years.

 

The examination, set for June 26th 1989, never took place ‑ because SNC s lawyers suddenly lost all interest a few days beforehand.

 

See also Court Record (Plumitif Civil). PLUMITIF CIVIL - EVENT 42

 

▲ 34.3 In their revised Defence dated July 19th 1989 SNC  claim, AGAIN, that they  - quote - eny all the allegations as ill founded in fact and in law – unquote - (i.e. deny that they advertised, offered me a job, offered a salary of CDN $3,000 per month for a 37.5 hour working week, etc.).

 

SNC s revised defence - CLICK HERE

 

See also Court Record (Plumitif Civil). PLUMITIF CIVIL - EVENT 45

 

▲ So between December 12th 1988 and July 19th 1989 another 7 months were deliberately wasted by SNC s lawyers, terminating in yet another questionable act.

 

 ./4

 

Top

<----Previous                                                                                                                               

 

Next---->

26

 


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.