Statement of Claim filed against NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine for harassment

"As for the lack of advance notice to the women, it stems from the deep mistrust between the two parties. The Liberals feared the NDP would leak the news if they were given advance notice." http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1249362-harassment-furor-causes-ndp-grit-rift RE: LPC MP harrassment. Trudeau did this for poitical reasons. There is a huge difference between the Chicoine incident and what these Lib MPs did. I got these links from Ian Gillespie; YES, THAT Ian Gillespie, via Twitter. Trudeau's actions were entirely about PR reasons. The NDP had asked for discretion; Trudeau clearly refused. He was obviously more concerned with how he and the LPC would look, then how the victims would feel about this.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"As for the lack of advance notice to the women, it stems from the deep mistrust between the two parties. The Liberals feared the NDP would leak the news if they were given advance notice." http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1249362-harassment-furor-causes-ndp-grit-rift RE: LPC MP harrassment. Trudeau did this for poitical reasons. There is a huge difference between the Chicoine incident and what these Lib MPs did. I got these links from Ian Gillespie; YES, THAT Ian Gillespie, via Twitter. Trudeau's actions were entirely about PR reasons. The NDP had asked for discretion; Trudeau clearly refused. He was obviously more concerned with how he and the LPC would look, then how the victims would feel about this.

They certainly took their sweet time about the Colin Kenny sexual harrassment charge. At that time Trudeau was informed after the Liberal Party senate leader recieved and offical complaint by email on October 23rd, 2013, which apparently reprised an earlier email from August 22nd that went astray.

They then followed up that email by interviewing the person who made the allegation on Nov. 4th.

On November 21st, nearly a full month after the initial complaint was registered, Trudeau handed Kenny a revolver and Kenny was allowed to "withdraw" from the Liberal caucus, effective November 13th, 2013, until the investigation of the complaint was complete.

At that time Trudeau said that the first step "is to ­ actually establish, with a level of clarity what the rules are, whether the rules were followed and do it in an open and forthcoming way."

In the most recent case, Trudeau heard about the allegations first hand from one of the offended parties on a bus on October 28th, didn't bother to follow up with a meeting with the alleged victim, and then unceremoniously booted the alleged offenders out the door a week later, without the giving them the grace of a "withdrawing", or even having an official complaint on hand.

More bizarre is the fact that Pacetti, one of the accused said that Trudeau had not given him any details of the allegations -- but of course how could the accussed be given details of the allegations, given that the alleged victim was not formally interviewed, as in the Colin Kenny case?

No face saving "withdrawal" for these guys. Immediate termination, basically forcing the alleged victims to out themselves, or watch the investigation that they had not asked for dissolve.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Why was Chicoine not suspended from Caucus until the truth could be determined? How is what he is accused of any less serious than what Benskin did with not paying taxes?

I think what you're saying is forget due process...   guilty until proven innocent.

thank you bagkitty and others  for following the breadcrumbs in this case...  a grievance process allows for a relatively transparent disupte resolution.

Tim Harper of theLiberal-Star. Really?

I thought we had agreed collectively this shouldn't be a bout scoring points?

I guess for some people posting here that is entirely what this is about.

He didn't actually say female, he just went into a long statement about how in "this day and age" allegeations "of this type" need to be dealt with decisively giving "the benefit of the doubt" to the victims. And then:

Two Liberal MPs booted from caucus on 'personal misconduct' allegations

Quote:

"As a leader, I have a responsibility -- a duty -- to act and when I heard these serious allegations from other MPs, I realized that one of the things that we need to do [is] to encourage and protect people who come forward with allegations like this and that's why I acted," Trudeau said. "[I] must give the benefit of the doubt to those who come forward."

In the present context it is entirely clear that he was talking about "sexual harrasment" of some kind, and Scott Andrews later that day filled in the blanks if anyone was confused by using the phrase "harassment" in the press release in his defense. A pretty good example as to how the way that the Liberals handled this issue set the ball in motion by suspending the MPs and holding a press conference, since they would obligingly need to offer statements in their defense.

He could simply have said they have been dismissed for alleged misconduct, and left it at that.

Debater wrote:

A lot of women are saying they are glad he dealt with this issue decisively by giving the benefit of the doubt to the complainants over that of his own MP's.

 

Justin Trudeau was on The Social today and he stated how seriously he takes this issue.  It isn't just something he did for political gain. 

uh huh.

'lection comin' up.

-

Pierre C yr wrote:

Debater Trudeau did not need to indicate who the victims were in anyway. For all we knew the liberal mps molested some barmaids in Hull. People thinking about this for some time will come to the obvious conculsion: Trudeau played politics with this instead of simply suspending the mps without any details about the victims due to privacy issues pending investigations that could take months or longer.

Trudeau did the right thing by referring the matter to the Speaker of the House as well as suspending the two MPs in question unless the NDP is now arguing that the suspensions were undeserved because the infractions are not that serious.

In referring the matter to the Speaker of the House Trudeau passed the responsibility for investigation up the chain of command which I think is entirely appropriate under the circumstances. The Liberals could not investigate their own in a dispute of this nature. They had an obvious conflict of interest.

Trudeau found out on Oct. 28. Within 48 hours, on Oct. 30th, Judy Foote, party whip, contacted the NDP party whip Nycole Turmel.

After one week in which all four MPs were interviewed by Judy Foote, on Nov. 5th Trudeau announced that he was suspending the two MPs and requesting 3rd party investigation and a process to follow.

The NDP had plenty of time to speak up if they had any ideas on how they wanted the Liberals to handle the situation. Instead they just let the Liberals interview both victims. Did the NDP expect the Liberals to take direction from the victims concerning how to proceed?

What would be so wrong about discussing the thread topic here? It honestly gets confusing when the same issue is addressed in several different threads.

Unionist wrote:

Arthur, lay off. If you don't like a post, contact the mods privately. Though I can't even begin to imagine what's wrong with Debater opening this thread and reporting news that I hadn't heard yet.

Thanks for this, Debater.

 

Why because you found someone that trolls this board as well as you do.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/video?clipId=490047

Interesting interview here. In 2001 a sexual harassment policy was put in place under the Liberals that exempted politicians and their office staff...

Near the end at 9.55...

Unionist wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

Ferro went thru the Union Greivance system which is extensive. I know I am a union local president and been involved in union business for 15 years. She lost her greivance and now is going to civil court. But knowing how lack of evidence cant help you in greivance procedures she will have a hard time in court. She'll be lucky if her case doesnt get thrown out. 

It depends on the nature of the complaint but making fasle accusations of a serious nature against someone can get you into hot water. If the NDP didnt fire her the party may have been liable for keeping someone who was making possibly libellous accusations on someone's character. The accused empoyee could at least have sought a peace bond. She was lucky in her situation of losing that she got offered another job elsewhere afterwards. 

Fabiola Ferro goes public. She says she was the victim of gender discrimination, family status discrimination, sexism, and misogyny. She claims her employment was terminated just for filing her workplace complaint. We have seen the allegations, but I personally haven't seen any statement of defence. Most importantly (to me), I haven't heard from her boss why he claims he fired her.

So how did this woman instantly turn into a liar and an ingrate?

That's her penalty for going public?

Oh wait - her boss was an NDP MP. And she has a great union. A union so protective of its members' job security, that they're divorcing from Unifor because Unifor won't commit to support all NDP candidates in 2015.

Guilty as charged.

Oh wait - who was the accused again?

 

Again you dont probably understand the legal system big unions operate under. Its extensive and uses the same legal representatives you see in the public legal system. not everything that comes out in those proceedings is material for public scrutiny. There are libel issues that are possibly invovled. Its her choice for going to another level like anyone can appeal to a higher court but its not a good indication if she plainly lost her first time at bat that she was making true allegations. If they arent true they are libellous. If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt and damn the accused until the supreme court hears the case thats your personal choice. Once a court has made a judgement it should be ok for us to also make one. 

People dont remain guilty after being proven innocent forever. But for libs playing political football trying to make an equivalence I guess that doesnt matter.

Unionist wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

 

Again you dont probably understand the legal system big unions operate under.

Ah, so that's it. Big unions. I'll look that up in Wikipedia.

Quote:

Its extensive and uses the same legal representatives you see in the public legal system. not everything that comes out in those proceedings is material for public scrutiny.

But your inside sources have told you that the woman is a liar and Cimon and Chicoine are innocent victims of her false complaints. Are you in a position to name your sources?

Quote:

Once a court has made a judgement it should be ok for us to also make one.

With all due respect, which court are you talking about, and what judgment has it made?

Quote:

People dont remain guilty after being proven innocent forever.

Not sure what you mean. You're saying Cimon has been proven innocent? Or Chicoine? Innocent of what exactly, and when did this happen? Source?

 

This is all public statements that have not been contradicted by the union or the plaintiff. Mulcair adressed it and pretty much settled the issue. Unless the plaintiff has new evidence that wasnt covered in her union grievance hearing its highly doubtful she has any case at all. We use lawyers in such hearings. The same professionals who go to court. Judging models vary but in my union can be up to a 3 man legal panel of highly paid lawyers and judges. ~15 grand a day to hear. The cases take months to go to hearing typically.

You dont need inside sources to figure this out.

Unionist wrote:

Pierre, why was she fired?

And have you ever heard of Weber v. Ontario Hydro?

We dont know. See thats the NDP trying to respect someones privacy until they come out publicly.  Likely it was because she made false allegations against a coworker...

No I havent but if you mean a civil case winning over a losing union greivance case there are rare instances.

1- Mulcair wasnt basing it on the facts of the case alone, if he was privy to them, hes basing it on the that fact the case was already heard and she had lost.  

2- Nonsense. The woman is an adult who has gone public. Her claims have to be answered. They are largely of a professional nature not of a personal nature. If she made allegations deemed false by a legal panel she then becomes not a victim but an aggressor. Ive seen that kind of thing at work by both men and women. They will disparage another co worker for various reasons of advancement and work load. If the allegations are false they need to be separated, as the NDP was trying to do, or fired depending on the case. Employers who do nothing in such cases are liable. 

1 -Already answered that. It went to greivance and she lost.

2- 'Treated worse'. I dont see any assaults on her person in this list of complaints. 

3- For someone supposedly in a union you dont seem to have any experience dealing with greivances. She lost her greivance after it was aired out in a union/employer paid court that uses the same legal professionals who work in civil courts. That says a lot. Accusations dont get to stand when you lose. They become attacks on another persons character and that is dangerous and she may be liable if found lying. She has a right to appeal to civil court heck she can goto the supreme court. But her chances are more than slim. 

Pierre C yr wrote:

1 -Already answered that. It went to greivance and she lost.

You haven't got a clue what went to grievance, if anything. My understanding is that her discrimination complaint was investigated and [i]never progressed[/i] by her union, and that it was withdrawn at the same time as the counter-complaint by Cimon.

As for her dismissal - that just happened last month. Did she "lose" that too? Was it ever filed? Why was she fired? You don't know.

Quote:

2- 'Treated worse'. I dont see any assaults on her person in this list of complaints.

I said she claimed she was treated worse than male employees. You think it's hilarious to talk about assault? You haven't even bothered to read her statement of claim. Why don't you? Because The Great Jurist Mulcair has spoken, and you're now happy - so you're free to attack a woman that you know nothing about? Seems that way.

Quote:

3- For someone supposedly in a union you dont seem to have any experience dealing with greivances. She lost her greivance after it was aired out in a union/employer paid court that uses the same legal professionals who work in civil courts.

I have a lot of experience dealing with grievances, with employers that don't take their legal responsibilities seriously to provide a workplace which is free of harassment and discrimination, and with people who concoct non-existent notions like "union/employer paid court".

What's that... tennis? The NDP MPs give their employees tennis lessons, cost-shared by the union? Ok, beg pardon, I wasn't aware of that.

Unionist wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

1 -Already answered that. It went to greivance and she lost.

You haven't got a clue what went to grievance, if anything. My understanding is that her discrimination complaint was investigated and [i]never progressed[/i] by her union, and that it was withdrawn at the same time as the counter-complaint by Cimon.

As for her dismissal - that just happened last month. Did she "lose" that too? Was it ever filed? Why was she fired? You don't know.

Quote:

2- 'Treated worse'. I dont see any assaults on her person in this list of complaints.

I said she claimed she was treated worse than male employees. You think it's hilarious to talk about assault? You haven't even bothered to read her statement of claim. Why don't you? Because The Great Jurist Mulcair has spoken, and you're now happy - so you're free to attack a woman that you know nothing about? Seems that way.

Quote:

3- For someone supposedly in a union you dont seem to have any experience dealing with greivances. She lost her greivance after it was aired out in a union/employer paid court that uses the same legal professionals who work in civil courts.

I have a lot of experience dealing with grievances, with employers that don't take their legal responsibilities seriously to provide a workplace which is free of harassment and discrimination, and with people who concoct non-existent notions like "union/employer paid court".

What's that... tennis? The NDP MPs give their employees tennis lessons, cost-shared by the union? Ok, beg pardon, I wasn't aware of that.

 

Statements of claim are dime a dozen. If her complaint was never pursued by her union thats even more damning in that there was zero evidence to support jher claim. The union that refuses to hear a greivance can be sued by a plaintiff so when they do refuse its because the case is iron clad against her. 

We hold court to hold greivances. Typically rented hotel conference rooms. I work in a french union in a french workplace if the terms Im using are not to your standard I couldnt care less. You want to be apopleptic in trying to hold this to the same level as the liberals who harrassed/assaulted 2 ndp mps, severe enough claims that JT took nuclear action on his own mps, but all the invective in the world wont help your case here. 

I would like to hate fuck you and rape you

Oh I was only being sarcastic and not sexual at all. I realize my words were poorly chosen but it was not harassment

Uh huh

I 'will choke you!' sounds about as harsh as 'Im crushing your head'.

The NDP is always being careful. This case should be resolved quickly as both sides have come forward. But to see the media pick up on every little complaint which can occur on a regular basis with any large contingent of staff and personnel, does look a bit like some liberal journies are trying to cover up the liberal/JT harassment screwups. Its like the way the coverage of the ndp office financing issue was made the equivalent of the senate scandals. Its biased media coverage plastering over significance of the issue.

And we know why especially in the case of anything that affects the libs. Its CBC thinking JT is gonna save them from the fiscal axe. Even tho he wont the libs have been cutting the CBC for decades. Its why the libs teamed up with Harper to bash the ndp in the partisan BOIE even tho they had no evidence of wrong doing. 

Im still waiting for any evidence of wrongdoing by the NDP in their satellite offices.  ALL parties have them. Even the tories had a sat office in the same strip mall as the mp's. But they werent cited for having their Ottawa staff in a far flung riding only the NDP was. Theres no way the NDP would have risked using Ottawa staff only to have some disgruntled worker at some point come out whistleblowing against them and put the whole thing into the open. The whole pseudo scandal was made up of circumstances and unbacked accusations.

I think the use of staffing in those offices is quite a bit more mundane. It was trying to get Ottawa staffing used in mps ridings as a principle ofsharing Ottawa's public sector abundance with the rest of the country As well as letting people live and work near their family and friends.

We see more and more of that at all gov levels. Getting gov public spending spread out of the capitals into the rest of the province or country. 

The fact you guys cite this serves only to obfuscate as the NDP acted properly here in this instance. No one can guarantee the behavior of everyone when you have hundreds of people working for you. The whole thing in this series of events is that the NDP acted properly in every instance and the libs did not. You act accordingly when something is made public and you act accordingly when the victim chooses for a cconfidential process.