In Ontario we do have a grate program called Crime Stopper (triparte partnership between police, community and media to collect information to help solve crime).
Crime Stoppers is a civilian, non profit, charitable organization that brings together in a triparte relationship, the police services of a community, the media and the community in the fight against crime.

Crime Stoppers provide citizens with a vehicle to supply the police with information about a crime or potential crime of which they have knowledge.
Because Ontario is so focused on elimination of crime, we do have also ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CRIME STOPPERS as well as full commitment of Ontario’s Government / Office of the Attorney General.

Criminal Code was amended to be more reliable / flexible / easy to apply etc.

Despite of this, key Government Agencies (listed in my previous Letters) REFUSED TO REPORT CRIMES AGAINST ME / GENERAL PUBLIC / HUMANITY TO POLICE.

THOSE INSTITUTIONS / AGENCIES DID NOT ASK ME WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE ALL ALLEGATIONS WERE / ARE SUPPORTED BY HARD EVIDENCE.

On my request Ontario’s Workers Compensation and Insurance Board informed me in writing, that this is not their job to report this / any crimes to Police, BUT THEY DID ALLOW Apotex’s Counsel unrestricted access to my File and to purge them out of hard evidence.!!!!!!!!!
ORIGINALLY WSiB APPROVED MY CLAIM ALL READY ON NOV 14 / 2007, BUT DUE TO APOTEX’s /Counsel ’s criminal conspiracy /acts they stopped processing it and eventually denied it years later.

Also on my request Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal informed me in writing, that this is not their job to report this /any crimes to Police, BUT THEY ALSO DID ALLOW Apotex’s Counsel unrestricted access to my File and to purge them out of hard evidence.!!!!!!!.

WHAT IT IS GOING ON?
Who is responsible?

ARE THOSE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE ACCOMPLICES, COLLABORATORS, PARTNERS, FACILITATORS, CRIMINALS in Domestic / Global Terrorism, Crimes against General Public / HUMANITY, in Torture , obstruction of Criminal Code, CHARTER of Human Rights, Constitution, Labour Act etc., etc., etc.?

Regards,
Apotex’s / WSiB’s / Government’s of Ontario victim

When injustice becomes the rule of law…disobedience becomes a duty.
In other words…injustice breeds contempt.

Regards,
Apotex’s/ WSiB’s victim

*“EVERY LAWYER IS GOING TO GO IN TO THE OFFICE TODAY AND COMMIT FROUD”- A TOP LEGAL SCHOLAR AND EX-BAY STREET LAWYER PHILIP SLAYTON TALKS ABOUT HOW LAWYERS BECOME GREADY, UNPRINCIPLED ENABLERS OF THE RICH - THE CORRUPTION OF THIS PROFESSION . “LAWYERS ARE RATS!”
Ms. K. Koos (Apotex):
• Despite numerous letters from WSiB demanding Safety Data from Employer, Ms. K. Koos for many months stagnated process claiming, that SHE MUST PREPARE /fabricate THEM (SHE DID SORTE OUT WHAT WAS IN SUPPORT OF MY CLAIM) and provided selective / bias info.
• Ms. K. Koos obtain “list of products” that I was exposed to (?) from dysfunctional employee who during his employment created an accident at work place and he become a victim of it. Later on he become Apotex’s “safety” rep. and a criminally motivated “witness”.
• She miss represented herself claiming , that she did on regular bases meet with me to discuss safety issues and to do some safety quizzes while the truth are that she started her employment with Apotex 3 (three) years after I was criminally terminated.
• Ms. K. Koos Provided number of quizzes to WSiB , which she claimed that I did complete during employment , while in fact all of them were completed by me in one / first day of my employment in 1997.
• Ms. K. Koos altered my personal / Company’s medical records withholding / canceling all Records indicating my medical problems during my employment
• Ms. K. Koos cancels Company’s Record indicating , that I was perfectly healthy before my employment with Apotex
• She removed Company’s Records generated by Health and Safety Clinic recording fact that I never was issued any mask / protective equipment,
• She counseled record, that Company was under construction during my 6,5 years of employment and all equipment / systems were invalidated/ not functional and buildings were substantially demolished with piles of debris constantly present in Manufacturing /Packaging areas during processes.
• She concealed fact that during my employment Company did not have a Nurse on the stuff NOR OFFICIALY ORGANIZED SAFETY DEPARTMENT.
• Ms. K. Koos CONSEALED FACT , THAT VERY MANY EMPLOYEES SUFERRED DEADLY MEDICAL PROBLEMS AS RESULT OF / FROM UNPROTECTED EXPOSURES TO VERY POTENT ACTIVES
• She did not disclose that most Apotex’s employees from my period of employment were temporary and are not employed any more.
• She did not admit as Company’s Record show, that I worked with out any management, with out any in process quality control, on night shifts and that all my allegations are cross referenced by evidence.
• Etc., etc., etc.
Please include into my File additional medical condition MALICIOUSLY and in BAD FAITH, by means of fraud, deception , intentional deceit, perfidy omitted by all involved in my Case including Apotex’s Counsel Mr. Carl Peterson (Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP -who argues a legal position that he knows to be false – a Counsel who uses language and criminally twisted reasoning/ methodology which are deliberately misleading in order to deny my claim. Counsel, who is not willing /able to sincerely endorse the principles of justice), most Doctors, a CRIMINAL WSiB and all Government Agencies involved in my Case.
In law, there are inconsistent definitions of bad faith, with one definition much more broad than used in other fields. Black’s Law Dictionary equates fraud with bad faith. But one goes to jail for fraud, and not necessarily for bad faith. The Duhaime online law dictionary similarly defines bad faith broadly as “intent to deceive”, and “a person who intentionally tries to deceive or mislead another in order to gain some advantage”. A Canadian labor arbitrator wrote, in one case, that bad faith is related to rationality in reasoning, as it is used in other fields, but is ill defined in the law.
The concept of bad faith is likely not capable of precise calibration and certainly has not been defined in the same way by all adjudicators. At its core, bad faith implies malice or ill will. A decision made in bad faith is grounded, not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons… The absence of a rational basis for the decision implies that factors other than those relevant were considered. In that sense, a decision in bad faith is also arbitrary. These comments are not intended to put to rest the debate over the definition of bad faith. Rather, it is to point out that bad faith, which has its core in malice and ill will, at least touches, if not wholly embraces, the related concepts of unreasonableness, discrimination and arbitrariness.
What was called “Canada’s best judicial definition of ‘bad faith’” by Duhaime’s Legal Dictionary is similarly more consistent with use in other fields.
Good faith and its opposite, bad faith, imports a subjective state of mind, the former motivated by honesty of purpose and the latter by ill-will.
Duhaime also refers to another description, “…bad faith refers to a subjective state of mind… motivated by ill will … or even sinister purposes.”
Punitive and exemplary damages
Courts can award punitive or exemplary damages, over and above the claim, against any Corporation / individual or/and insurance company which is found to have adjusted a claim in bad faith; the damages may be awarded with the aim of deterring such behavior among insurers in general, and may far exceed the amount of the damage due under the insurance policy. In Canada, one case of this type resulted in a record punitive award of $1 million CAD when an insurance company pressed a claim for arson even after its own experts and adjusters had come to the conclusion that the fire was accidental; the company was advised by legal council that the desperate insured parties would be willing to settle for much less than what they were owed.
IN MY CASE, Mr.Carl Peterson (Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP) and Ms. Koos (Apotex) did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labor Board, WSiB (Workers Compensation Insurance Board), Ontario Human Rights Commission /Tribunal, obstructed Ontario Health Act, Ontario Labor Law as well as Canadian Constitution etc.

IN MY CASE, Mr.Carl Peterson (Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP) and Ms. Koos (Apotex) committed many counts of perverting the course of justice or intending to pervert the course of justice, many counts of perjury, criminal conspiracy, criminal negligence, criminal recruitment of false witnesses, attempted murder, did cause /contribute to permanent disability, irreparable damage.
Company and all involved in sabotaging of my allegations must be INDICTED and convicted on multiple offences / crimes (Criminal Code, Constitutional provisions, Bill – 45, Bill 107, Bill – 168 and other Law provisions).
Best Regards,
(Apotex’s victim)

TORONTO, May 11 /CNW/ - With the passage of the 2007 Ontario budget, the
McGuinty government is helping our most vulnerable workers (?), increasing
benefits to injured workers and speeding up resolution of employment standards
claims, Labour Minister Steve Peters announced today.
“The health and safety of Ontario workers is a priority for our
government,” (?)said Peters. “We are helping Ontario’s lowest-paid workers
benefit from Ontario’s economic strength, and have put in place policies to
ensure fairness and improved service delivery.”

<<
The 2007 Ontario budget provides benefits to workers by:
- Raising the minimum wage by 75 cents a year for three years until it
reaches $10.25 on March 31, 2010
- Improving Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits for
about 155,000 injured workers through increases of 2.5 per cent each
year for the next three years, starting July 1, 2007
- Committing $3.6 million to tackle the backlog of employments
standards claims

“This is about ensuring that all Ontarians are treated fairly,” Peters
said. “This is just one more example of how, working together, Ontarians can
continue to live and work in a successful, caring and compassionate society.”

——————————————————————-

IMPROVING FAIRNESS, ACCESS, AND FLEXIBILITY IN THE WORKPLACE SAFETY
AND INSURANCE SYSTEM ( not for me! - WHY?)

Amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) in the
recently passed Ontario budget are part of the government’s overall plan to
help injured workers. The proposed changes will increase Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits and provide greater fairness and flexibility
to the workplace safety and insurance system for injured workers.

Benefit Increases

The budget provides a 2.5 per cent increase in WSIB benefits in each of
three consecutive years for injured workers who are not 100 per cent disabled.
These recipients receive what is called partial benefits. There are
approximately 155,000 such recipients. Over the past 12 years these injured
workers have seen a significant deterioration in their purchasing power
because of the way WSIB benefits are indexed to inflation.
Injured workers who are 100 per cent disabled, along with their survivors
and dependants, receive an annual cost of living increase equal to the
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Canada.
Since 1995, workers receiving partial benefits have received an annual
increase in accordance with a ‘general indexing factor.’ Between January 1,
1995 and December 31, 1997, the factor provided for an annual adjustment of 75
per cent of the CPI minus one (with a cap of four per cent, but not less than
0 per cent.)
The current general indexing factor came into effect on January 1, 1998.
It provides for an annual adjustment of 50 per cent of the CPI minus one (with
a cap of four per cent, but not less than 0 per cent). For example, the
increase for 2007 was 0.1 per cent.
The budget establishes a 2.5 per cent increase on July 1, 2007 and a
temporary indexing factor of 2.5 per cent for the years beginning January 1,
2008, and January 1, 2009.
Since 1995, long-term benefits for injured workers receiving partial
benefits have increased only 2.9 per cent due to the general indexing factor,
while inflation has increased by almost 29 per cent. The budget proposal would
see monthly benefits increase by 7.5 per cent over an 18-month period, more
than double the increase given over the past 12 years.
The budget also provides for Ontario Lieutenant Governor in Council
regulation-making authority to prescribe indexation increases to benefits
after the end of 2009. This means legislative change would not be needed for
future indexation increases.

Reviewing Cases 72 Months After Injury

WSIB benefits for injured workers are generally fixed or “locked in” 72
months after the date of the worker’s injury.
The WSIB had restricted ability to review cases after this 72-month
period.
The changes provide additional circumstances where the WSIB can review
such cases. For example, under the proposals, an injured worker whose benefits
are “locked in” could be reviewed due to a temporary or permanent
deterioration in his or her condition that is related to the original injury.

Determining Benefits Based On Suitable and Available Employment

This change requires the WSIB to determine and calculate benefits for
injured workers re-entering the labour market based on what they are likely to
earn from employment that is both suitable and available.
Under former provisions of the WSIA, an injured worker’s benefits could
be reduced or terminated if the worker can return to suitable work even though
this work is not available. The WSIB “deemed” what an injured worker is able
to earn based on training and physical rehabilitation. This calculation did
not take labour market conditions into consideration.
The change will require the WSIB to base loss of earnings benefits on
employment that is available.

Lump Sum Payments for Injured Workers

The budget requires the WSIB to pay out a lump sum retirement payment in
lieu of a monthly income to injured workers who reach the age of 65 if the
benefit to which they would be entitled amounts to less than $3,000 per year.
The figure was $1,166.41.
The WSIB provides a benefit for loss of retirement income to certain
workers who have received loss of earnings benefits for at least 12 continuous
months. The WSIB sets aside an amount equal to five per cent of their benefits
to be paid as retirement income when the recipient reaches age 65.
Previously, a worker whose retirement account did not produce an income
of $1,166.41 or more per year received their account balance in one lump sum
payment. The change will provide for a lump sum payment if the annual amount
is less than $3,000. This responds to requests from injured workers.

Providing Broader Representation on the WSIB Board of Directors

In February 2004 the government ordered a third-party audit to assess and
recommend improvements to the WSIB. Among the recommendations was that the
Board of Directors be increased and that the same person could not occupy both
the positions of Chair and President of the Board.
In the new budget, the size of the Board of Directors has been increased
so there is a minimum of seven members and a maximum of nine members in
addition to the President and Chair. The same person cannot be President and
Chair.

Increased Funding for the Office of the Worker Adviser (DISFUNCTIONAL)

The mandate of the Office of the Worker Adviser (OWA) is to educate,
advise, and represent non-unionized workers and their survivors in workplace
safety and insurance matters. This agency plays a critical role in supporting
these injured workers who have to deal with the many complexities and levels
of appeal in the workers’ compensation system.
The OWA now has increased resources to improve and expand services to
injured workers and their survivors. The increase of $810,000 per year in
ongoing funding will allow the OWA to serve more clients in the province.
The OWA currently represents cases where there is a “significant” chance
of success and at least eight weeks of benefits at stake. With increased
funding, this criterion has been changed to a “reasonable” chance of success
and at least four weeks of benefits at stake for cases to be considered.

Injured Worker Groups Consulted Prior to Changes

Changes to the WSIA were made after consultation with a number of groups,
including Bright Lights, Injured Workers’ Consultants, Ontario Network for
Injured Workers Groups (ONIWG), and the Thunder Bay & District Injured Workers
Groups. MPPs Michael Gravelle, Jennifer Mossop, and the late Dominic Agostino
played important roles that contributed to the proposed legislation.

GOVERNMENT SPEEDING UP CLAIMS RESOLUTION

As the result of a number of factors, claims under the Employment
Standards Act by employees for such things as termination pay, unpaid wages
and vacation pay have increased and created a backlog of unresolved claims.

Factors Leading to an Increase in Claims

In 2006, the Ministry of Labour introduced internet filing of claims and
partnered with ServiceOntario to provide and accept claims through
ServiceOntario Centres, increasing the number of locations where clients can
access Employment Standards claim forms from 21 to 63 locations province-wide.
The convenient 24/7 online filing system and increased accessibility through
ServiceOntario Centres has made it easier for employees to file claims.
The Ministry of Labour has also been conducting outreach and awareness
efforts aimed at diverse communities to increase knowledge of employment
standards law in Ontario. The government has announced in recent years
partnerships with organizations such as the Centre for Information and
Community Services (CICS) in Scarborough and SISO (Settlement and Integration
Services Organization) of Hamilton who provide training and orientation to
clients in diverse and new communities. The ministry has educated the
organizations’ counsellors in employment standards law and they, in turn, are
able to foster an understanding of workplace rights and responsibilities in
clients from diverse cultures and in diverse languages.
The government also put emphasis on proactive inspections in targeted
sectors of the economy where workers are at most risk of not getting their
employment standards rights. The Ministry of Labour has a dedicated
enforcement team for this purpose.

New Funds Supporting Initiatives

In the recently passed budget, the government committed to protecting the
legislated employment rights of Ontario’s most vulnerable workers by dealing
with the backlog of claims they have filed under the Employment Standards Act.
There will be an additional $3.6 million annually to address
uninvestigated employment standards complaints. The goal is to improve
frontline service and shorten claims resolution times. The new funds will be
used to increase staffing to improve efficiencies in the claims triage and
early resolution process. They will also be used to provide additional support
to expedite the investigation of claims.

The Ministry of Labour receives more than 20,000 claims annually.

Ministry of Labour

( Att: Ms. Townsend)

Re: WSiB

Dear Ms. Townsend,

Your Letter dated May 04/2010 informing me about your (WA’s) decision to
uniterally close my File proves yet again, that my suspicions/ allegations
are valid.
Despite your acknowledgement of my serious medical conditions prohibiting me
from engaging in conversations over the phone and my request to carry on all communications in writing you have decided to abound a sick / disable person because you believe in your inability to engage in direct conversations with me will make representing me very difficult for you.
Well, no one did say, that representing sick/ disabled person with many neurological problems suppose to be easy a specially, that the goal of all Agencies was and it is to make me unsuccessful in my drive to justice.

I can understand that conversation may play integral part of your relationship with your clients on “normal” circumstance.
Since I am disabled person with drug - induced neuropsyhiatric/neurological problems with many clinical manifestations (significantly compromised speech mechanism, frequent thought blockages, memory disturbances and many more
etc.)I expected from you more innovation and proactiwness/accomodation.

Your statement “I am not comfortable with the method of representation that
you propose” is appalling!

I believe , that you do not have so much problems with recommended by me
method of representation as much as with fact, that I asked you to report crimes against me and General Public to POLICE.

Your decline to do so violates the Law and may be subjected to investigation.

Original Retainer was amended on request of Worker Adviser Representative.

I was following directives of previous Representative which prohibited me
from acting on my own in any circumstances.

Worker Adviser proactively prompted me to forward additional medical conditions which were omitted by WSiB.

The Worker Adviser decided to amend my WSiB’s Application and process Appeal
accordingly.

If you would scroll / study my File in sequence , you would discover every
thing you need to know / every thing you question, including Worker Adviser’s
request to AUTOMATICALLY AND PROMPTLY RETURN MY APPEAL TO PROPER LEVEL IF
RECONSIDERATION WOULD BE UNSUCCESSFUL.

Your behavior, conclusions, actions conform, that you lack of familiarity with content of my File and / or you are under some negative influence.

Worker Adviser guided me on every step of proceeding and I did not act on my
own.

Worker Adviser proactively undertake upon itself to amend scope of
representation.

Former Representative was PROFESSIONAL / KNOWLEDGEABLE AND THAT WAS THE
REASON WHY HE WAS REPLACED WITH PEOPLE WILLING TO COMPROMISE MY CASE.

So, if you Ms. Townsend would check all my previous correspondence with
Worker Adviser, probably you would have all your answers.

I communicated to you before, that Apotex prevented me from obtaining any
Lawyers/ paralegal Service, so I am with out any representation.

Closure of my file by your Office on such circumstance make you and your
Office liable for all adverse effects on my Case/me and places you and your
Office in position of criminal conspiracy/ criminal negligence, accessory to
the crime just to mention a few.

The set of rules that stipulate that you can not continue to represent
someone if he/she has any misgivings about your ability to represent him/her
are excuse for not diligent representation.

Worker Adviser refuses to accommodate “not regular” circumstance/ client
with severe/ demobilizing medical conditions.

Worker Adviser must earn faith of their clients.
Whether it is WA’s responsibility to report crimes to Police or not was
decided by Ministry of Public Safety.

I suppose they know their stuff, or are you undermining their competence?

Your decision to close my File due to inadequate reasons (because it is more
difficult to represent disabled / with limitations) person and because I do
not have confidence in Worker Adviser it is from my perspective criminal
with in it self.

After all MY CASE WAS AND IS STAGNATED FOR OVER SIX YEARS INCLUDEDEING TWO
YEARS BY WORKER ADVISER.

How you want to explain this to a sick/ disabled/ suffering person who was
denied for six + years medical help and all means of sustaining himself?
Dear Ms. Townsend, I am attaching another WARNING LETTER issued by FDA to
Apotex highlighting very serious deviations/non compliance.

Please reassess your decision to close my File and denial of representing
me.

I need special accommodation which demands a bit more of effort on behalf of
Worker Adviser.

Regards,

Pc: Protracted correspondence between drugmakers and the FDA in sorting out
the fixes to GMP violations is likely becoming a high-risk undertaking. The
FDA has indicated that from here on in, it will have limited tolerance for
manufacturers that make promises they don’t keep. Instead of sending stern
replies as follow-up to incomplete and inadequate drugmaker responses to
warning letters, the regulator is now planning to prosecute.

With Request for Reconsideration I forwarded 252 pages of NEW, printed /copied material with detailed cross references to Pages with relevant supporting information so the evidence / material could be understood by “children”.
Unfortunately Ms, Grenier –Registrar again directed my Request for Reconsideration to the same incompetent “member” acting uniterally in the back Room on behalf of the Employer in “bad faith”.
Again Caroline Rowan acted for Employer (that where her expertise is - labour Law).
Caroline Rowan (“MEMBER”) disregarded NEW EVIDENCE ( Doctor’s statements about periods of my total impairment during my employment - DUE TO UNPROTECTED /MASSIVE EXPOSURES TO VERY POTENT ANTI DEPRESSANTS, PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS, NARCOTICS AND MANY OTHER VERY TOXIC/POTENT ACTIVES, at the time of criminal termination with out required “just cause” for personal/political/ criminal reasons (of a sick/impaired/disabled employee) and ever after, document from WSiB conforming my impairment, Company Doctor’s statement refusing cooperation and conformation of my visits ( as well as visits of other employees with injuries and adverse side effects due to exposures to products etc.).
Tribunal ignored Canadian Constitution, Chapter of Human Rights, Bill – 45, Bill-107, Bill-168 and all other Laws /Legislatives as well as Criminal Code.
Tribunal/ Ms. Rowan very quickly /uniterally in the back Room ( with in 12 days including weekend) denied my request for Reconsideration ( on April 19/ 2010) stating as a reason “time delay” which Commission /Tribunal accumulated on behalf of me in criminal conspiracy with other Government Agencies (documented).
Tribunal effectively denied me options to be assisted, represented and protected under Constitutional and Law provisions.
A time ago I notified Office of the Premier of Ontario Mr. McGuinty about pending organized criminal activities at Government level urgently needing his Office/ authority involvement.
As of yet I did not get any reply.
Today I started to ask my self, whether Canada has the right to pretend domestically and internationally that is a Nation promoting/protecting Human Rights all around the World?
I started to question, whether Canada is nation bringing blessing to other Nations or is an invader of other Nations realizing imperialistic agendas in the name of Human Rights protection?
Appears, that under smoke screen of Human Rights protection, Canada is imposing own perception of “HUMAN RIGHTS” on other nations in order to realize Global Imperialistic agendas.
While Canada reinforces/imposes its own version of “Human Rights “on other cultures, domestically is very far from being raw model / compliant.
May case conform the situation?
Canada’s Human Rights Commission and a Tribunal are the rootless violators of Human Rights and criminal identities. Canada needs to organize and permanently establish Human Rights system in own house before starting to reinforce/ impose them on other Nations.

Regards,

Dear Ms. Grenier,

As I proved many times before I was guided by Human Rights Commission on my way to/for Justice right from the beginning of my case (DUE TO COMMISION’S “MANDATE” I WAS TRANSFERRED/ GUIDED TO DIFERRENT JURISDICTIONS FOR PROCESSING).
Furthermore, a person who experiences discrimination ( and yet impaired and very sick )likely has less power and resources than the offender – who might also hire a private lawyer – and an uneven match-up of legal expertise would be a strong disincentive to filing a human rights claim. This may be particularly relevant to people who experience considerable systemic disadvantage, and who may not have the financial resources, time, or familiarity with the Canadian legal system to hire a lawyer (or ne prevented from hireing a lawyer). A related concern is that even if the Tribunal conducts many more hearings each year, some hearings may proceed quickly because they appear easily resolvable due to an unrepresented complainant’s particular framing of the facts to the law. Tribunal in its proceedings ignored Government directives, Law, Legislatives, Constitution and its own Rules.
Tribunal ignored all of the McGuinty Government’s 10 key commitments on what Bill 107 will deliver to the public, including discrimination victims. See that full list of commitments.
“In summary, the Government has made these 10 commitments:
1. Commitment of free legal representation for all human rights complainants.
2. Commitment that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre will investigate the cases of people they represent.
3. Commitment of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to meet with everyone who wants legal representation.
4. Commitment to provide legal services across Ontario.
5. Commitment of Human Rights Legal Support Centre to pay for expert witnesses for their clients.
6. Commitment to having human rights cases decided within one year of filing a complaint under Bill 107.
7. Commitment that legal support to be provided to all regardless of income.
8. Commitment to establish Anti-Racism Secretariat and Disability Rights Secretariat at the Human Rights Commission.
9. Commitment that Human Rights Commission will become stronger force for human rights.
10. Commitment that Bill 107 responds to the Cornish and La Forest reports.”

Tribunal (“Member”) ignored Canadian Constitution, Chapter of Human Rights, Bill – 45, Bill-107 and all other Laws /Legislatives.

I am asking Tribunal to promptly revers its decision .
Apotex should enter the Criminal guilty plea voluntarily to avoid further damages to a victim, reduce Public’s impact and fulfill its obligations.

Dear Ms. Grenier,

Apotex subjected me to disabling and deadly withdrawal effects associated with Paxil and other products Apotex exposed me to.
Apotex subjected me to the most horrifying experiences imaginable. BEYOND ANY DOUBT I WAS EXPOSED TO THE DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES WITH OUT ANY PROTECTION AND THAT THEY CAUSED THE ADVERSE EFFECTS AND INJURIES I NOW SUFFER (Documented). As result of Company’s negligence (exposure to advanced structural composite materials /chemicals used in the manufacturing processes which have been classified as to have a co- carcinogenic and/or synergistic effect I am disabled. I am suffering a great deal with life threatening medical conditions not able to afford groceries, needed medications or to pay any of my financial dues. I am not able to perform any chores around my residence, forced to relay on assistance. I was “swimming in” / a massive exposure with out any protection to a potent immunosuppressant, brain function controlling drugs (psychiatric), antidepressants and narcotics which overwhelmed my system.Company criminally concealed records of almost daily industrial accidents in Facility (employees were getting deadly sick / injured on daily bases, some got stroke, some heart attack, and most Personnel after getting sick left the Company in the panic.
Company criminally concealed names/ nature of processed products. Company processed products with out regulatory permits in Facility not approved for those products (not providing any personal protection for Personnel), did not post Safety Data Shits and did not disclose short and long term health hazards do to massive unprotected exposures.
Apotex exposed own employees to appalling and atrocious conditions at work.
Defendant, Apotex / Counsel displayed bad faith, arrogance, disrespect to Canadian Constitution, Human Rights, whole Justice System, Public Order, Tribunals etc.
Apotex is defiant, not regretful, with out remorse, not willing to correct wrong doings.

What a crime it was to drop me off “cold turkey” when I was withdrawn creating additional damage and leading me into an additional serotonin nightmare. Apotex did not allow me to withdraw gradually?

Apotex, who exposes own employees to these extremely addictive drugs with out any protection, with no warning of the addictive properties should be held accountable for the results of that lack of warning and criminal negligence.
Apotex did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labor Board, WSiB (Workers Compensation Insurance Board), Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario Health Act , Ontario Labor Law as well obstructed Canadian Constitution etc.

Apotex committed many counts of perverting the course of justice or intending to pervert the course of justice, many counts of perjury , criminal conspiracy, criminal negligence, criminal recruitment of false witnesses, attempted murder, did cause permanent disability, irreparable damage,

Apotex and all involved in sabotaging of my allegations must be INDICTED and convicted on multiple offences / crime (Criminal Code, Constitutional provisions, Bill – 45, Bill 107, Bill - 168 and other Law provisions ).

Bill C-45 questions get answered by Cheryl Edwards
By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows. By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows:

Is the new Criminal Code duty different from OH&S duties to take all reasonable precautions or all reasonable care? How?

The new duty found in section 217.1 of the Criminal Code requires that “everyone who undertakes, or has the authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task, is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task”. “Everyone” includes individuals, organizations as broadly defined, and corporations.

This duty parallels traditional OH&S standards, but also expands on the matters contained in most OH&S statutes. The duty applies to any individual with authority to direct another person in the performance of work, while OH&S legislation generally imposes duties on employers, supervisors, constructors, owners, directors and officers. The Criminal Code may apply more widely to anyone who “undertakes” to direct work, including lead hands and working forepersons.

The Criminal Code duty also requires that reasonable steps be taken to prevent bodily harm to any person, which would include the public or volunteers who may enter the workplace or be affected by workplace activities.

Does violation of the Criminal Code duty mean we are guilty of criminal negligence?

Breach of the Criminal Code duty does not necessarily mean that an organization or individual is guilty of criminal negligence. In order for a breach of the duty of care to amount to criminal negligence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the breach of the duty occurred in a “wanton or reckless” manner.

Section 219 of the Criminal Code states that, “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.” The provisions of Section 219 broadly state that for the purposes of the criminal negligence section, Section 219 of the Criminal Code, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

Criminal cases have found that for criminal negligence to occur, a breach of a duty must represent a “marked” and significant departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. There must be more than mere failure to meet an OH&S or Criminal Code standard through inadvertence. There must be evidence of behaviour which shows complete disregard for, or indifference to the duty. As one court put it, there must be a finding of a “devil-may-care” attitude that shows a criminal standard has been met.

Wasn’t Bill C-45 all about creating criminal liability for directors and officers?

Not exactly. While the Westray inquiry which concluded in 1997 recommended that Canada “amend or introduce legislation to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety and the wrongful and negligent acts of their corporations,” ultimately Bill C-45 created a mechanism which allowed corporations to be more readily convicted of criminal negligence. The Criminal Code continues to allow individual charges of criminal negligence, which could include charges against a supervisor, or director or officer, for breach of a duty in a wanton or reckless manner, but that was not the primary focus of the Bill C-45 amendments when they were passed and came into force in 2004.

Does Bill C-45 create both corporate and individual criminal liability?

Yes, it does both. The provisions create new criminal duties and liabilities for both individuals and organizations (which are defined to include corporations). Both individuals and organizations can now be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to perform the duty, when it occurs in a manner that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.

What is necessary for an organization (including a corporation) to be convicted under the Criminal Code of criminal negligence?

The process for convicting an organization of criminal negligence in the workplace safety context involves two steps. First, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of a single representative (employee, partner, contractor, agent of the organization) breached the Criminal Code duty in a wanton or reckless way. This could involve reckless ignoring of safety rules or physical protective devices where the potential result is serious harm or death.

Second, after the breach of duty is established, the Crown must then show that a senior officer with operational or executive authority, or as drafters put it, someone with “real clout” who is responsible for the part of the organization involved in the breach, either failed to act or insulated themselves from obtaining the knowledge to act. The Crown has to prove a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected of a senior officer with obligations to protect workers and the public.
What are the potential liabilities under the Criminal Code provisions as amended by Bill C-45?

For individuals, the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death is life imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing bodily harm is ten years’ imprisonment. However, individuals are subject to a range of Criminal Code sentencing options from absolute discharge, to probation, to life in prison, depending on the specific circumstances of the contravention.

Organizations, including corporations, are subject to different penalties depending on how the Crown proceeds. Where the Crown proceeds by summary conviction (the least serious manner of proceeding), the maximum fine is $100,000 for an organization.

Where the Crown proceeds by indictment (the most serious manner of proceeding), there is no limit on the amount of the fine for the corporation or organization.
Organizations may also be placed on probation and the terms of a probationary order can include such matters as: requiring the organization to make restitution, financial or otherwise, relating to the offence; requiring the organization to report to the court or the public on implementation of remedial steps; requiring the appointment of a senior officer to be responsible for implementing remedial procedures; requiring the organization to disclose its conviction to the public.

Probation orders including these types of terms are available in addition to monetary penalties.

Cheryl A. Edwards is a former Ontario Ministry of Labour OH&S prosecutor and now leads Heenan Blaikie’s national OHS and WSIB practice group. Cheryl is recognized as one of Canada’s leading lawyers in workplace safety and insurance and occupational health and safety law.
Regards,

By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows. By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows:

Is the new Criminal Code duty different from OH&S duties to take all reasonable precautions or all reasonable care? How?

The new duty found in section 217.1 of the Criminal Code requires that “everyone who undertakes, or has the authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task, is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task”. “Everyone” includes individuals, organizations as broadly defined, and corporations.

This duty parallels traditional OH&S standards, but also expands on the matters contained in most OH&S statutes. The duty applies to any individual with authority to direct another person in the performance of work, while OH&S legislation generally imposes duties on employers, supervisors, constructors, owners, directors and officers. The Criminal Code may apply more widely to anyone who “undertakes” to direct work, including lead hands and working forepersons.

The Criminal Code duty also requires that reasonable steps be taken to prevent bodily harm to any person, which would include the public or volunteers who may enter the workplace or be affected by workplace activities.

Does violation of the Criminal Code duty mean we are guilty of criminal negligence?

Breach of the Criminal Code duty does not necessarily mean that an organization or individual is guilty of criminal negligence. In order for a breach of the duty of care to amount to criminal negligence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the breach of the duty occurred in a “wanton or reckless” manner.

Section 219 of the Criminal Code states that, “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.” The provisions of Section 219 broadly state that for the purposes of the criminal negligence section, Section 219 of the Criminal Code, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

Criminal cases have found that for criminal negligence to occur, a breach of a duty must represent a “marked” and significant departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. There must be more than mere failure to meet an OH&S or Criminal Code standard through inadvertence. There must be evidence of behaviour which shows complete disregard for, or indifference to the duty. As one court put it, there must be a finding of a “devil-may-care” attitude that shows a criminal standard has been met.

Wasn’t Bill C-45 all about creating criminal liability for directors and officers?

Not exactly. While the Westray inquiry which concluded in 1997 recommended that Canada “amend or introduce legislation to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety and the wrongful and negligent acts of their corporations,” ultimately Bill C-45 created a mechanism which allowed corporations to be more readily convicted of criminal negligence. The Criminal Code continues to allow individual charges of criminal negligence, which could include charges against a supervisor, or director or officer, for breach of a duty in a wanton or reckless manner, but that was not the primary focus of the Bill C-45 amendments when they were passed and came into force in 2004.

Does Bill C-45 create both corporate and individual criminal liability?

Yes, it does both. The provisions create new criminal duties and liabilities for both individuals and organizations (which are defined to include corporations). Both individuals and organizations can now be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to perform the duty, when it occurs in a manner that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.

What is necessary for an organization (including a corporation) to be convicted under the Criminal Code of criminal negligence?

The process for convicting an organization of criminal negligence in the workplace safety context involves two steps. First, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of a single representative (employee, partner, contractor, agent of the organization) breached the Criminal Code duty in a wanton or reckless way. This could involve reckless ignoring of safety rules or physical protective devices where the potential result is serious harm or death.

Second, after the breach of duty is established, the Crown must then show that a senior officer with operational or executive authority, or as drafters put it, someone with “real clout” who is responsible for the part of the organization involved in the breach, either failed to act or insulated themselves from obtaining the knowledge to act. The Crown has to prove a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected of a senior officer with obligations to protect workers and the public.
What are the potential liabilities under the Criminal Code provisions as amended by Bill C-45?

For individuals, the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death is life imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing bodily harm is ten years’ imprisonment. However, individuals are subject to a range of Criminal Code sentencing options from absolute discharge, to probation, to life in prison, depending on the specific circumstances of the contravention.

Organizations, including corporations, are subject to different penalties depending on how the Crown proceeds. Where the Crown proceeds by summary conviction (the least serious manner of proceeding), the maximum fine is $100,000 for an organization.

Where the Crown proceeds by indictment (the most serious manner of proceeding), there is no limit on the amount of the fine for the corporation or organization.
Organizations may also be placed on probation and the terms of a probationary order can include such matters as: requiring the organization to make restitution, financial or otherwise, relating to the offence; requiring the organization to report to the court or the public on implementation of remedial steps; requiring the appointment of a senior officer to be responsible for implementing remedial procedures; requiring the organization to disclose its conviction to the public.

Probation orders including these types of terms are available in addition to monetary penalties.

Cheryl A. Edwards is a former Ontario Ministry of Labour OH&S prosecutor and now leads Heenan Blaikie’s national OHS and WSIB practice group. Cheryl is recognized as one of Canada’s leading lawyers in workplace safety and insurance and occupational health and safety law.