The source of this complaint was based on the alleged lack of response from the Council in regards to numerous letters the Council received from the complainant.

webid-20150000

The source of this complaint was based on the alleged lack of response from the Council in regards to numerous letters the Council received from the complainant. In its final response to the complainant, the Council described the past correspondence it received in detail dating back to 2010, and stated that each letter was written in a way to show irrational, biased and unsupported complaints.

The initial complaint was based on the decision to end the complainant’s probationary employment. The complainant took many actions before different courts and labour tribunals but was unsuccessful due to unnecessary pleadings without support and vexatious behavior. The second letter was written to express the belief that the Council was institutionally biased. The third letter in the correspondence was about new concerns, including an inquiry of a 1996 amendment to the British Columbia Labour Code, and to state the belief that a judge was in conflict of interest.

After being advised that the complaint was unable to be processed by the Council because it did not follow the Complaints Procedures, the complainant wrote a number of letters to the Council to declare that the legislation was corrupt. The following correspondence informed the Council that the complainant had filed an application with the Federal Court of Canada regarding the Council’s refusal to open a complaint file about the previous complaint. More correspondence was then sent by the complainant to state his opinions on the legality of the Complaints Procedures, to which the Council decided not to reply. The complainant then requested that yet another complaint file be opened regarding how the Council uses the Complaints Procedures and how a judge was a part of a conspiracy in 1996 while working on the amendment to the British Columbia Labour Code.

The Council determined that the complainant was in direct abuse of the complaint process, and the matter was dismissed.

Back