tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post6505123149214098383..comments2023-07-25T02:39:44.615-07:00Comments on Bill Tieleman: Basi-Virk defence demands huge disclosure of sensitive government documents on BC Rail, gifts to MLAs, media influenceBill Tielemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03304971610140279157noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-4034209602964237072007-06-08T22:34:00.000-07:002007-06-08T22:34:00.000-07:00The Carrier Lumber case and the Leg Raid case seem...The Carrier Lumber case and the Leg Raid case seem to have connections and similarities.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the post DT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-878735647962924432007-06-07T18:26:00.000-07:002007-06-07T18:26:00.000-07:00So let’s see what this “shaking of the bushes” wil...So let’s see what this “shaking of the bushes” will expose – whether or not any interesting “Briefing Notes”, “Notes to File” or “e-mails” (government or personal) will “come to light”. <BR/><BR/>In this regard, I cannot help but note some interesting similarities between the Basi/Virk and the Carrier Lumber case albeit in the case of Carrier Lumber the Defendant was the Crown - as perhaps they will be someday in the Basi Virk case.<BR/><BR/>The following are some of the more interesting excerpts from Justice Parrett’s closing statement on the Carrier Lumber case: <BR/>___________________________________-<BR/>[501] The conduct of the defendant's servants in the<BR/>present case has been found to be both deceptive and the result<BR/>of bad faith. The bad faith in question is illustrated by<BR/>attempts and conduct calculated to conceal their real actions<BR/>and motivations and to create a different appearance calculated<BR/>to cast the blame and the resulting losses on the plaintiff. <BR/>That conduct reveals a course of dealing that extends from the<BR/>time of these events in the Chilcotin until the end of this<BR/>trial. While some aspects of the defendant's document<BR/>disclosure failure are certainly attributable to other factors,<BR/>in some selective areas I have identified the non-disclosure<BR/>is, in my view, the product of system and design.<BR/><BR/>[503] It must be stressed the actions of the<BR/>defendants in the present case were not only<BR/>unlawful, a fact which in and of itself would not<BR/>necessarily give rise to claim for damages, but were<BR/>also excessive and high-handed. I award the plaintiffs punitive damages in the amount<BR/>of $10,000. I note that those damages will come out<BR/>of the pockets of we taxpayers, not the individual<BR/>bureaucrats and Minister involved.<BR/><BR/>The defendants, acting as servants and agents of Her Majesty,<BR/>deliberately chose to disregard the law. <BR/><BR/>The defendants deliberately abused their powers<BR/>knowing the actions taken were without legal<BR/>authority… the defendants caused undue hardship to<BR/>the plaintiffs. <BR/><BR/>[388] It is improbable that a decision of such magnitude<BR/>would be taken without a briefing note setting out the options<BR/>for the Minister. This was in fact the very system designed<BR/>and implemented by Deputy Minister Halkett and to which he<BR/>demanded rigid adherence. <BR/><BR/>[390] The pattern of behaviour of<BR/>this Ministry and these individuals is simply too well<BR/>established on the evidence for there to be a) no briefing note<BR/>before the Minister, b) no documents communicating his<BR/>instructions, c) no documents reflecting Carlson's decision to<BR/>take the step of suspending Carrier's licence, and d), no<BR/>drafts of Carlson's letter of June 16, 1992. I conclude that<BR/>such documents clearly existed and that they have been<BR/>deliberately withheld. I draw the inference adverse to the<BR/>defendant that those documents, if produced would have<BR/>established the events took place as I have described, and that<BR/>contrary to the evidence led and relied upon by the defendant<BR/>at trial Carlson was instructed to suspend Carrier's licence.<BR/><BR/>[391] Neither the author of the briefing note (Friesen) nor<BR/>its ultimate recipient (Forest Minister Dan Miller) were called<BR/>as witnesses. Instead, the Crown chose to rely on the evidence<BR/>of Phil Halkett on this issue. Mr. Halkett's evidence and<BR/>recollection on those events is unreliable.<BR/><BR/> [400] It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling and<BR/>cynical example of duplicity and bad faith. The words<BR/>"managing perception" may have a gloss which seems to carry<BR/>with it some high purpose. The reality is, at least in this<BR/>case, little more than a process of altering reality by<BR/>concealing the truth and presenting a fabricated cover story. <BR/>__________________________________<BR/><BR/>This is, of course, the same Mr. Halkett who still receives consulting contacts from the BC Liberal Government. Most recently, from Minister Rich Coleman to undertake an “independent” study entitled the: Port Alberni Forest Sector Review. <BR/><BR/>I would imagine that part of Minister Coleman’s defense for hiring Mr. Halkett would be his “stellar” reputation as a former senior civil servant dedicated to serving the “public good”. <BR/><BR/>But perhaps others might think that it is just another example of “birds of a feather that flock together”. And perhaps they might also wonder whether Mr. Halkett has been hired by Minister Colman to help him “manage the perception” that “something is not what it appears to be”.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com