Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Budgell versus Leacock

A Special Note To Readers

The following document has been reproduced verbatim and in its entirety as transmitted to CyberSmokeBlog. It has not been altered in any material way.

Alright, alright so we bolded the two links so you'd go for a read. Jeez, what's the Big Effen Deal eh?


Clare L. Pieuk

Vancouver, B.C.
V6E 1N7

Jill Leacock, Law Officer
B. C. Supreme Court
800 Smithe St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6Z 2E1

June 13, 2012

Further to: Assignment of Judge to Matter Heard on April 13

Dear Ms. Leacock,

I have received your letter dated June 5 in reply to my letter of April 9 addressed to Chief Justice Bauman.

I had not presumed I would receive an answer at all, but I must thank you for giving me another opportunity to make my case, in view of what transpired on April 13.

I had expected, given the number of judges who hear cases in the Vancouver courthouse, that I would likely not recognize the name of the judge before whom I would be appearing. To say that I was surprised to find it was Justice Miriam Gropper would be a considerable understatement. I suggested to her at the outset that she should consider recusing herself. She refused to do so. She also refused my subsequent request for an adjournment.

In my letter of April 9 I expressed specifically concerns about judges who are former members of the labour law bar, and I mentioned one in particular. I did not mention Justice Gropper in that letter, but I had named her in a complaint (copy of which is enclosed) to the Canadian Judicial Council in 2010.

I suggest you read it, and note what I had to say about the document Ms. Gropper signed in 1998. I have alleged that the proposed amendment to Section 13 of the Labour Relations Code was intended to ensure the public would never learn of the amendment that had been effected illegally and surreptitiously less than a year earlier using a process that is part of the mandate of an office of the Ministry of Attorney General. An important point in the chronology of this entire matter is that the government did not proceed with the amendment proposed in 1998, and as a result the illegally executed amendment remaining in place.

The specific substance of the matter I put before Justice Gropper is not about the illegal amendment, but is about Section 13 of the Labour Relations Code, and it remains my goal to have a special prosecutor review all the evidence I have assembled that reveals the various games that have been played with that provision, the sole agenda being to deny due process to Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) complainants before the Board and in the courts.

My pursuit of justice has resulted in a lengthy record of correspondence. I can say about many of the letters I have received that I will say about yours. It is a "bald denial." That term is a variation of "bald assertion," with which I became familiar years ago from reading the many Labour Relations Board decisions that have used Section 13 to summarily dismiss DFR complaints.

The decision that I challenged in judicial review - an action I initially won (in January 2033) before it was overturned on appeal - is one example.$2001.pdf

I am copying this letter to the Canadian Judicial Council in support of a formal complaint. In my view no reasonable person would believe that Justice Gropper's assignment to hear the matter on April 13 was merely a coincidence. I believe it is a compelling illustration of the issue I raised in my letter of April 9.

Chris Budgell

cc: Madam Justice J. Miriam Gropper
The Honourable Shirley Bond, B.C. Minister of Justice and
Attorney General Geoffrey Cowper, Q.C.
Canadian Judicial Council



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home