Oh wow! I didn't realize that people, in a similar situation as I was (refusing to disclose private medical information), were targeted to be discriminated against by that internal 'Secret BE-Memo' you've exposed. This infuriating and outrageous. Good luck on your case! Expose the truth!
It's unfortunate that nobody has called them out on this situation before. Every SST Case I read that mentioned the BE-Memo tried to argue 'Personal Discrimination' – which is a very high bar & triggers serious defensiveness from the Adjudicators – completely missing the 'Internal Records' factor.
SST TMs were not being 'discriminatory'. The Memo was certainly discriminatory, but it was imposed upon ADMs with 'force of policy'. If they refused to follow it, they were subject to Case Escalation, which could result in negative consequences for them personally.
And the fact that it remained unpublished meant it could not be entered into evidence, because nobody could could prove it's authenticity. That seems pre-meditated to me.
Thankfully, @LexAcker pursued multiple ATIPs, which gave us official 'chain-of-custody' documentation from the Privacy Commissioner's Office. That looks like the main reason why we were able to Docket it...
Oh wow! I didn't realize that people, in a similar situation as I was (refusing to disclose private medical information), were targeted to be discriminated against by that internal 'Secret BE-Memo' you've exposed. This infuriating and outrageous. Good luck on your case! Expose the truth!
Thank you. It is outrageous. It also violates Vavilov ¶95. (https://canlii.ca/t/j46kb#par95)
It's unfortunate that nobody has called them out on this situation before. Every SST Case I read that mentioned the BE-Memo tried to argue 'Personal Discrimination' – which is a very high bar & triggers serious defensiveness from the Adjudicators – completely missing the 'Internal Records' factor.
SST TMs were not being 'discriminatory'. The Memo was certainly discriminatory, but it was imposed upon ADMs with 'force of policy'. If they refused to follow it, they were subject to Case Escalation, which could result in negative consequences for them personally.
And the fact that it remained unpublished meant it could not be entered into evidence, because nobody could could prove it's authenticity. That seems pre-meditated to me.
Thankfully, @LexAcker pursued multiple ATIPs, which gave us official 'chain-of-custody' documentation from the Privacy Commissioner's Office. That looks like the main reason why we were able to Docket it...
Thanks for your efforts!
You're welcome. We're all in this together.