The procedural fairness angle is what stands out most here. When adjudication templates and reverse-engineered decisions become standard practice, it fundamentally undermines the right to be heard. I've seen similar issues where administrative bodies prioritize efficiency over individualized review, and the human cost is real. The Secret BE-Memo detail is concerning - if internal guidance directly conflicts with statutory requirements, thatcreates a legitimacy crisis. Documenting these patterns through public interest letters might actually build the record needed forappeal.
Thank you for commenting. That's exactly what we are hoping to achieve. From the beginning, our goal has been to fully document the rampant Fairness abuses that combined to make up this Scandal.
Winning in Court was always a very long shot. But at least our detailed record Proves what happened – and their continued Abuses to cover this up & prevent a Fair Hearing.
And the Public Interest Letters document the widespread concerns of Canadians everywhere.
This also might potentially open the door to a Class Action later, depending on what happens this year...
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And the fact that it remained unpublished meant it could not be entered into evidence, because nobody could could prove it's authenticity.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...
Thanks for your efforts!
You're welcome. We're all in this together.
The procedural fairness angle is what stands out most here. When adjudication templates and reverse-engineered decisions become standard practice, it fundamentally undermines the right to be heard. I've seen similar issues where administrative bodies prioritize efficiency over individualized review, and the human cost is real. The Secret BE-Memo detail is concerning - if internal guidance directly conflicts with statutory requirements, thatcreates a legitimacy crisis. Documenting these patterns through public interest letters might actually build the record needed forappeal.
Thank you for commenting. That's exactly what we are hoping to achieve. From the beginning, our goal has been to fully document the rampant Fairness abuses that combined to make up this Scandal.
Winning in Court was always a very long shot. But at least our detailed record Proves what happened – and their continued Abuses to cover this up & prevent a Fair Hearing.
And the Public Interest Letters document the widespread concerns of Canadians everywhere.
This also might potentially open the door to a Class Action later, depending on what happens this year...
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...