Home Page<\/span><\/p>\n Website last updated on November 15, 2024,<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Page two<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Page three<\/a><\/p>\n Donate to injustice in Ontario<\/a><\/p>\n Police and lawyer complaints covered up in Ontario, Canada<\/span><\/p>\n My name is Robert Burgiss, My website shows that the courts in Ontario, Canada are swamped and that police are under pressure not add to it so they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. It also shows that investigators from the Law society of Ontario are swamped so they cover up complaints against Lawyers. And that the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) and the Special Investigations unit (SIU) cover up complaints against police and that they have been for years. It also explains how covering up complaints against Lawyers, or police officers and the complaints that the Ontario Ombudsman\u2019s office receives is obstruction of justice. And it explains that the Attorney General of Ontario can investigate the OIPRD even though they are independent from the government. It explains how police discretion works, How the RCMP act & the police services act in Ontario say that police officers have to do criminal investigations & lay criminal charges, how the OIPRD does not deal with criminal complaints against police, how it is obstruction of justice for your Member of provincial parliament (MPP) to refuses to help you with a problem with Ontario government agencies. How in a\u00a0 defamation case the courts presume that the defamatory statement that the defendant made about the plaintiff is false. And that the defendant has to proof at the trial that the defamatory statement is true. How in a wrongful Dismissal case the courts presume that the employer did not have cause to fire the employee.\u00a0 And that the employer has to proof at the trail that they did have cause to fire the employee. And that politicians are not willing to do anything about the cover-ups because they are afraid of the police. It also shows that the news media will not do news stories about the cover-ups and that they will not let me advertise my website on their TV channels and in their news papers.<\/p>\n I have written to lots of Government agencies about this but they all give me the run around. So I need as many people as possible to read my whole website and then write to the Government agencies that are giving me the run around like the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner, the Ontario ombudsman\u2019s office and Chiefs of police in Ontario and complain. And write to the news media and complain about them not letting me advertise my website on their tv channels and in their news papers.<\/p>\n Email rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca<\/p>\n Please do not email me for legal advice. I am not an attorney<\/p>\n \u00a0If you have facebook or other social media please go on it and talk about this website. Hopefully if enough people see my website and complain to the government about the corruption the government will do something about it.<\/span><\/p>\n 1.<\/span>\u00a0In 1992 I was hired by\u00a0Magna International\u00a0<\/strong>as a press operator at their Milton Ontario plant called\u00a0Karmax Heavy Stamping<\/strong>. There was a lot of favoritism at Karmax and if you knew someone in management you get the easy jobs. At Karmax there are automatic presses for the easy jobs and there are manual presses for the hard jobs. Some employees who are known to Joe Monroe the head of press shop 2 are on the automatic presses a lot more than other employees. But on the other two shifts, everyone gets a turn on the automatic presses. So I complained about it and they shut down the entry line to have a meeting about it. After the meeting, things changed but it only lasted for a couple of weeks. So I stood up to management. In June of 1994, my boss Geoff Stanley called me into his office and told me that Rhonda Finn had filed a harassment complaint against me. I told him that it was not harassment. We were seeing each other at work and we had a fight. Mr. Stanley then said I will talk to her about it.<\/strong><\/span> And that was the last I heard of that complaint. Mr. Stanley did not tell me the details of the harassment complaint.<\/strong><\/span> In August 1994 I was called into Mr. Stanley\u2019s office again and told that Miss. Finn has filed a sexual harassment complaint against me. Mr. Stanley again did not tell me the details of the complaint<\/strong><\/span> and Rhonda was not there.<\/strong><\/span> Because of the complaints management told me that she had filed against me I stopped talking to her. In November 1994, it had been two years that I had been working there. So I had a job performance review meeting with Mr. Stanley and he said that there was a problem with my production that it was down. In the past two years, I was never told about problems with my production. <\/strong><\/span>And he did not mention which machine my production<\/strong><\/span> was down on. He also said that my attendance was a problem. At Karmax you get 3 personal days of paid holidays a year and you can earn 2-hour sick credits each month that you are not late or absent without pay. I had two days left.<\/strong><\/span> So he is wrong. And he mentions the problems with Rhonda. He then gave me a fail on my performance review and I did not get my pay increase. I then called the\u00a0Magna hotline<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>to complain about not getting my pay increase and the sexual harassment complaints. The\u00a0Magna hotline<\/strong><\/span> is a phone number that you can call if you feel that management is not treating you fairly. On November 23, 1994, I again was called into Mr. Stanley\u2019s office and told that Rhonda had filed another sexual harassment complaint against me. Again he did not tell me the details of the complaint<\/strong><\/span> and Rhonda was not there.<\/strong><\/span> On December 05, 1994, I again was called into my boss\u2019s office and told that Rhonda had filed another sexual harassment complaint. Again he did not tell me the details of the complaint.<\/strong><\/span> and Rhonda was not there.<\/strong><\/span> He then said that I was getting a written warning and a one-day suspension. I refused to sign the written warning.<\/strong><\/span> I then went straight to Jim Stratton\u2019s office. He is the head of human resources at Karmax. He said that the suspension would be served at a later date pending the outcome of the Magna hotline\u00a0investigation.<\/strong><\/span> Then on December 08, 1994, I was suspended until further notice. They did not say that there was another complaint<\/strong><\/span>. Then over that weekend the\u00a0Magna hotline<\/strong><\/span> called and said to meet them at the McDonald\u2019s down the street from the plant on Monday. Then Karmax called and said to come in for a meeting on Monday at 10:00 a.m. At the meeting with the Magna hotline,<\/strong><\/span> they said that they did an investigation and that you are sexually harassing Rhonda.<\/strong><\/span> Again they did not tell me the details of the complaint<\/strong><\/span> or show me a written complaint against me signed by anyone.<\/strong><\/span> I then went to the meeting at Karmax and there Jim Stratton said. She has filed another complaint.<\/strong> Which makes\u00a0no sense\u00a0<\/strong>because I was not even at work.<\/strong><\/span> I then asked for a meeting with m<\/strong>anagement and Rhonda<\/strong><\/span> but Jim Stratton said no.<\/strong><\/span> I was then given my termination letter signed by Klaus Niemeyer the plant manager<\/strong><\/span>. \u201cIn the letter, it says<\/p>\n \u201cPlease be advised that I have reviewed your employment situation with Joe Munro and the Human Resources Department. As a result of this review, please be advised that Karmax Heavy Stamping is terminating your employment effective immediately. <\/strong><\/span>In consideration of the two years and three months of employment with our company and the season, I have asked the payroll department to prepare your final pay cheque including 4 weeks\u2019 pay in lieu of notice. <\/strong><\/span>The reason for our decision is that our own investigation and that of the Magna hotline<\/strong><\/span> has indicated that you have been harassing a female employee <\/strong><\/span>despite her efforts to convince you that your behavior was completely unwelcome.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Rhonda never told me that.<\/strong> \u00a0<\/span>And I then left. I then filed for unemployment insurance benefits on the form for UI it asked for the reason I left your job. I put down I was fired for sexually harassing a female employee. I then got a letter from UI saying that I was not getting UI benefits because they believed that I did lose my job because I was sexually harassing a female employee. So I then filed an appeal of that decision and there was a hearing. UI asked Magna for copies of any evidence that they had in regard to the sexual harassment complaints. Magna sent them documents. But there were no written complaints against me signed by Rhonda or anyone\u00a0or any transcripts from any investigation and nothing from Rhonda in writing.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span> Nobody from\u00a0Magna or Rhonda<\/strong>\u00a0showed up for the hearing it was just me and the three referees. The appeal was denied.\u00a0This makes no sense because there is nothing from Rhonda saying anything about the complaints she had filed. <\/u>It was just Magna management people saying that Rhonda had filed these complaints.<\/span><\/strong> She did not say anything to me about the complaints that she had filed.<\/strong><\/span> The reason for UI\u2019s decision is that UI was under pressure to save money back then and not give it away. On January 25, 1995, my lawyer Victoria M. E. McIntosh of SULLIVAN, FESTERYGA, sent a letter to Klaus Niemeyer the plant Manager in the letter dated January 25, 1995, said, <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPlease be advised that I have been retained by Mr. Robert Burgiss, a former press operator with your company, to investigate his dismissal from your employ on Tuesday, December 13, 1994. Mr. Burgiss has advised that his dismissal was accompanied by a \u201cseverance package\u201d of four weeks’ pay (being the equivalent of entitlement of any employee for dismissal without cause<\/strong><\/span> under the Employment Standards Act); notwithstanding the letter of termination provided by you to Mr. Burgiss which states that his termination followed the investigation of complaints of harassment. It is my understanding that any effective harassment policy would contemplate a full investigation and report disclosed to the person against whom the allegations have been made<\/strong><\/span>. Kindly provide me a complete copy of all investigative statements and reports concerning the allegations of Rhonda Finn<\/strong><\/span> and any other employees of Karmax Heavy Stamping concerning the unwelcome behavior of Mr. Burgiss which led to his dismissal.<\/span> <\/strong>Harassment is defined as engaging in a course of vexatious<\/strong><\/span> comment or conduct that is ongoing and may include verbal threats, abuse, offensive sexual flirtations (not merely complaints or flirtations comments), or sexist jokes that cause embarrassment. The accepted procedure of reporting harassment requires a written complaint specific as to the date and time etc.<\/strong><\/span> The person against whom the allegations are made then has the right to be advised of the allegations so that he may respond to them. An investigation would ensue.<\/p>\n Magna then sent a letter to my Lawyer dated February 22, 1995, from R. Andrew Staniusz in the letter it says.<\/p>\n \u201cPlease be advised that your client was terminated for sexual harassment of a co-worker.<\/strong><\/span> The employer was first notified of the harassment on June 27, 1994, and attempted to have your client cease and desist. The form of his harassment comprised systematic and continuing dissemination of untruths concerning a supposed relationship between your client and this co-worker<\/strong><\/span>. Your client was counseled in July 1994, and to the best of Karmax\u2019s knowledge, he ceased his conduct. This course of conduct recommenced in or about November 1994. This conduct greatly distressed the co-worker who was subject to these untruths; your client was counseled about his conduct on several occasions. Your client refused to cease and desist from his conduct. In response to this Karmax met with your client and suspended him for his actions. The actual serving of this suspension was postponed while your client\u2019s concerns dealing with a job posting issue were dealt with.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This makes no sense why would they postpone my suspension for a job posting issue? The job posting issue could be dealt with after I came back.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In their letter, they do not say anything about a\u00a0written complaint from anyone or transcripts from any investigation.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0In a letter to me from Miss. McIntosh dated March 07, 1995, said<\/p>\n \u201cCounsel advised that your termination resulted from harassment in the form of \u201csystematic and continuous dissemination of untruths concerning a supposed relationship between [you] and [a] co-worker.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> Karmax corporate counsel indicated that you were suspended\u00a0while the company dealt with a job posting issue<\/strong><\/span>,\u201d This is not true what they said. Was the actual serving of this suspension was postponed while your client\u2019s concerns dealing with a job posting issue were dealt with?<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0My lawyer goes on to say. The company states clearly that it had just cause to terminate you.\u00a0The \u201cseverance pay\u201d that you received should not be interpreted as an admission\u00a0of an absence of cause.\u00a0\u201cThe harassment policy defines actionable conduct (that may lead to termination on the basis of harassment) as conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome\u201d<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0She left out the word\u00a0vexatious.<\/strong><\/span> Miss. McIntosh then sent a letter back to Magna on March 23, 1995, saying.<\/p>\n \u201cI have had an opportunity to review the contents of this correspondence with my client and have received instructions with respect to same.<\/strong> I have been instructed to request that you provide me with copies of\u00a0all written transcripts\u00a0from the\u00a0hotline investigation\u00a0in which Rhonda Finn was involved, and from which a\u00a0formal complaint arose.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Mr. Burgiss has instructed me to request\u00a0that the transcript from this investigation be signed by Ms. Finn as evidence of her complaint.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Furthermore, I have instructions to request copies of any written statements received by you being\u00a0complaints of any nature against Mr. Burgiss\u00a0that would justify termination on the basis of sexual harassment\u201d.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>Magna did not respond back.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n I had my lawyer send a letter to Rhonda Finn, Dated May 18, 1995, My Lawyer did not want Rhonda to reply because my lawyer wanted off the case.<\/strong><\/span> So she sent Rhonda a threatening letter. In the letter, she said<\/p>\n \u201cWe have commenced an investigation with your employer as to statements made to the hotline in the investigation process at the end of last year. Your employer has been asked to provide me with the statements that you made in the investigation, and I would ask that you consider providing me with that information yourself, either in writing or telephoning me at your convenience. Please consider this to be a formal request for your co-operation in this investigation, failing which we will be required to\u00a0take further legal action to resolve this matter.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n I did not see this letter before Ms. McIntosh sent it. And at the time I did not know to not trust my Lawyer so when she told me that Rhonda did not reply I did not know why.<\/strong><\/span> I only saw the letter after my Lawyer quit my case. The letter is a threatening letter and not one I wanted to be sent to Rhonda.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n When I lost the appeal at the UI hearing my Lawyer said, In latter of June 14, 1995, \u201cThe reasons for their decisions are based on the fact that Rhonda went to the employer with complaints, you did not deny this\u201d<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span>\u00a0There is no evidence of Rhonda filing complaints against me\u00a0just management of Magna saying she did.<\/strong><\/span> If she really did file complaints against me there would be w<\/strong>ritten complaints with her signature on them.<\/strong><\/span> My lawyer then goes on to say.<\/p>\n \u201cIn my opinion, you would be throwing good money away to invest in legal fees to fight this decision. I recommend that you turn your efforts to finding new employment. If you intend to sue for wrongful dismissal in small claims court, be aware that Karmax paid you four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice which exceeds the requirements of the Employment Standards Act.<\/span> <\/strong>It appears that I am unable to assist you further and I am therefore closing this file\u201d.<\/p>\n If Magna is making up the complaints then I can sue for\u00a0defamation and wrongful dismissal.<\/strong><\/span> In this case, Deildal v. Tod Mountain Development Ltd\u00a0the plaintiff got\u00a0$16,000:00 for defamation and $50,000:00 for general damages.<\/strong> The reason that my lawyer wants off my case is that she is afraid of hard work<\/strong><\/span>. After I got the bill from my lawyer I filed papers at the courthouse to have her bill assessed. The assessment officer then looks at the bill and the work she did to see if my Lawyer did good work for the money.<\/strong><\/span> At the hearing the assessment officer had me and Ms. McIntosh talk about the work she did. Because if you go on the record and you lose you will have to pay the lawyer for the time she was on the record. After talking about the work she did Ms. McIntosh gave me back\u00a0$250 dollars<\/strong>.<\/p>\n I then had a paralegal file for an appeal of the UI referee\u2019s decision. To an umpire. At the umpire hearing, the umpire said\u00a0\u201cIf you do not have\u00a0t<\/span><\/strong>he woman here to testify on your behalf you are going to lose.<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>And I lost.<\/p>\n After Ms. McIntosh quit my case I filed a complaint against her with the Law Society of Upper Canada. I explained to them that Miss. McIntosh lied to me. And that a Lawyer cannot quit your case for the reasons she did. In the rules of professional conduct published by the Law Society of Upper Canada, it says<\/p>\n Rule 8 1.\u00a0\u201cAlthough the client has the right to terminate the lawyer-client relationship at will,\u00a0the lawyer does not enjoy the same freedom of action.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Having accepted professional employment the lawyer should complete the task as ably as possible unless there is justifiable cause for terminating the relationship. 2. in all situations the lawyer who withdraws from employment should do all that can reasonably be done to facilitate the orderly transfer of the matter to the successor lawyer.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>MANDATORY WITHDRAWAL 3.\u00a0In some circumstances, the lawyer will be under a positive duty to withdraw. The obvious case is following the discharge by the client. Other examples are (a) if the lawyer is instructed by the client to do something inconsistent with the lawyer\u2019s duty to the court and, following explanation, the client persists in such instructions; (b) if the client is guilty of dishonorable conduct in the proceedings or is taking a position solely to harass or maliciously injure another, (c) if it becomes clear that the lawyer\u2019s continued employment will lead to a breach of these Rules such as, for example, a breach of the Rule relating to conflict of interest (Rule 5); or (d) if the lawyer is not competent to handle the matter, In these situations there is a duty to inform the client that the lawyer must withdraw. 4. Situations where a lawyer would be entitled to withdraw, although not under a positive duty to do so, will as a rule only arise where there has been a serious loss of confidence between the lawyer and the client. Such a loss of confidence goes to the very basis of the relationship. Thus, the lawyer who is deceived by the client will have justifiable cause for withdrawal. Again the refusal of the client to accept and act upon the lawyer\u2019s advice on a significant point might indicate such a loss of confidence. However, the lawyer should not use the threat of withdrawal as a device to force a hasty decision by the client on a difficult question.<\/p>\n In a letter from Trisha S. Danyluk from the law society Information Services Complaints of August 07, 1998, she said.<\/p>\n \u201cI have reviewed the materials you have forwarded to our office and do not believe that we can assist you with this matter in the manner in which you may have hoped. The circumstances you have described would indicate that you may require a second legal opinion<\/strong><\/span> on the merits of your case. I have found no evidence from your comments or the materials you provided that would prompt an investigation into the ethics of your lawyer. While you may have disagreed with the advice you received from Ms. McIntosh, or do not believe that she protected your interests to the best of her ability<\/u>;\u00a0these are not the types of issues that fall within our jurisdiction to investigate.\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n In a letter to Ms. Danyluk on August 14, 1998, I said.<\/p>\n If lying to a client\u00a0is not professional misconduct please explain what is professional misconduct.<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In a letter to me from Katherine Kowal Staff Lawyer dated October 22, 1998, she said.<\/p>\n While it is regrettable that you had such a difference of opinion about the interpretation of your case, there is no evidence before me that Ms. Macintoshlied to you<\/span>, <\/strong>as you have suggested.\u00a0We therefore I will not be investigating this matter.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In a letter to Ms. Kowal of December 09, 1998, from me, I say.<\/p>\n \u201cFor you to determine whether or not Ms. McIntosh has lied to me you must know the legal definition of misconduct and sexual harassment. In Ms. Macintosh\u2019s letter dated March 07, 1995, she said the company stated clearly that it had just cause to terminate you. Nothing in Karmax associate corporate counsel\u2019s letter of February 22, 1995, fits into the legal definition of misconduct or sexual harassment.<\/strong><\/span> So when Ms. McIntosh said the company states clearly that it had just cause to terminate you she is lying.<\/strong><\/span> In Ms. McIntosh\u2019s letter to Klaus Niemeyer dated January 25, 1995, \u201cMs. Macintosh defined harassment as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known as unwelcome. It must be ongoing and may include verbal threats, abuse, offensive sexual flirtations (not merely complaints or flirtatious comments), or sexist jokes which cause embarrassment.\u201d Again nothing in Karmax associate corporate counsel\u2019s letter of February 22, 1995,\u00a0fits into the definition that Ms. McIntosh said in her letter of January 25, 1995.\u00a0So when Ms. McIntosh said the\u00a0company states clearly that it had just cause to terminate you.<\/span> She is lying.<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Ms. Kowal if you see anything in Karmax associate corporate counsel\u2019s letter of February 22, 1995,\u00a0that fits into any of these definitions<\/strong><\/span> please show me where you see them.<\/span>\u00a0If you do not see them then Ms. McIntosh must be lying to me.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n In a letter to me from Katherine A. Kowal, she said.<\/p>\n I have reviewed the materials in the file in light of your continuing concerns about Ms. Macintosh\u2019s conduct. In particular, you say that she \u201clied\u201d when she told you that you were terminated from your employment \u201cfor cause\u201d. In particular, you say that your conduct did not\u00a0fit the legal definition of misconduct or sexual harassment\u00a0and you cannot understand why Ms. Macintosh gave you the advice that she did. In particular, you refer me to the letter of R. Andrew Staniusz dated February 22, 1995.\u00a0After carefully considering the materials, I must confirm my earlier opinion and that of Ms. Danyluk that the concerns you raise\u00a0fall outside of our jurisdiction.\u00a0There is no evidence before me that would call into question Ms. McIntosh\u2019s professional conduct. While you may question her professional judgment and in particular it seems you disagree with the legal position she has taken regarding your dismissal, these are not matters which the Law Society may investigate.\u00a0<\/u><\/strong>Based on the information provided to Ms. McIntosh by your former employer, and based on her legal knowledge, she apparently formed the opinion that you had been dismissed \u201cfor cause\u201d on the basis that you had harassed a co-worker. Whether or not she properly interpreted the legal definition of sexual harassment is not a question that this office may determine. <\/u><\/strong>If you believe your lawyer was negligent in representing you. Or that she made an error in judgment, then you may wish to pursue an action against her in the regular court system for professional negligence. Only a court of law may determine matters of professional negligence.<\/span> <\/strong>I regret but I must advise you that the law society\u00a0will not be taking any further action.<\/p>\n I then sent a letter to Ms. Kowal on February 03, 1999. In it, I said.<\/p>\n In your letter of January 14, 1999, you said. Based on the information provided to Ms. McIntosh by your former employer, and based on her legal knowledge, she apparently formed the opinion that you had been dismissed for cause. Ms. Kowal, how can you determine whether or not Ms. McIntosh formed her opinion based on her legal knowledge or whether she is lying to me if you have not sent her a letter asking for an explanation as to why she said what she sai<\/span><\/strong>d? <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In a letter to me from Ms. Kowals Staff Lawyer of April 21, 1999. She said.<\/p>\n \u201cUnless you have clear,\u00a0convincing,\u00a0and independent <\/span><\/strong>evidence<\/span> <\/strong>that would call into question Ms. McIntosh\u2019s motives in giving you the advice which she did, the law society would not be prepared to pursue an investigation. At this point, as there is no evidence before me that would suggest that Ms. McIntosh intentionally gave you bad advice, I will not be pursuing this matter further.\u201d <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n So t<\/strong>hen I wrote to the Treasurer of the law society. The Treasurer is the highest person in the law society.<\/p>\n In a letter to me from Scott Kerr, he said.<\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>I have been asked to respond on the Treasurer\u2019s behalf. A review of our records indicates that we previously reviewed the issues you raised with respect to Ms. McIntosh and informed you of our position that no action by the society is warranted. As the information you recently provided has all been previously considered, we do not intend to take any further action.<\/strong><\/span> Any future correspondence received from you with respect to this matter will be reviewed and placed in our file but no further response from us will be forthcoming\u201d.<\/p>\n The reason that the law society covers up complaints against lawyers is that they have cut back on investigators and the ones that are left are swamped.\u00a0Section 139(2) of the criminal code of Canada says<\/a> Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offense punishable on summary conviction<\/strong><\/a>.<\/a> Complaints against Lawyers are done through the Law Society Act. So if someone tries to cover up a complaint against a lawyer they are obstructing the Law Society Act.<\/strong><\/span> And obstructing a government act is Obstructing justice.<\/strong><\/span> It is also obstruction of justice for a Lawyer to lie to the client saying that they have no case. lawsociety@lso.ca Toll-free:\u00a01-800-668-7380<\/a><\/p>\n Update of December 06, 2020<\/span><\/p>\n 2.<\/span> I then found a second Lawyer David M. Bartkiw. I gave him one hundred dollars. Mr. Bartkiw then got me to sign a blank piece of paper which I got back from him two weeks later. He sent a letter to UI. Then he started to drag his feet with the case. I then figured out that he knew there was big money in this case. So he is dragging his feet with the case until he can get me to agree to give him a big percentage of the money. So I then fired him. He gave me back the one hundred dollars.\u00a0lawsociety@lso.ca\u00a0\u00a0Toll-free:\u00a01-800-668-7380<\/a><\/p>\n 3.<\/span> I then got a third Lawyer Denise M. J. Giroux. She said that I had no case so I asked her to put that in writing she charged me 80 dollars for that. In the writing dated March 06, 1996. she said.<\/p>\n In my opinion, you may have a cause of action based on the argument that the employer\u2019s act of termination was too severe a response considering the seriousness of the harassment alleged. On the other hand, the employer\u2019s action was consistent with its policy and it seems you were adequately warned (verbally) prior to their implementing the full letter of the policy. (the policy states that where sexual harassment is found to exist, the employee will be provided with a written warning, and if the behavior does not end, the employee will be terminated). If you were to succeed in proving a claim for wrongful dismissal, the potential damages arising from such a claim are not, in my opinion, high enough to warrant legal action, particularly due to the short term of your employment with Magna. The four weeks\u2019 pay in lieu of notice that was paid to you is in the normal range for someone with your length of employment and responsibilities.<\/span> As a result, I would not recommend you take further action.<\/strong><\/p>\n