Fairness checklist documentation

The guideline is included below:

Right off the bat, it doesn’t look good:

These are all ‘no’s. If I understood the decision making process, it came from third-party knowledge:

This is the expectation, even when the Respondent has more reputational clout. If the concern has reached the external compliance level, the impartial investigator must always consider whether the respondent has abused that clout. In an institutional setting –where the expectation is all actions must pass the reasonable person test — no institution “unknowingly” abuses its authority:

Did our lawyers inform us that — as an organization — we don’t have to legally act with integrity or impartiality is another important question I don’t see listed:

Having a policy that manages any potential or actual conflict can’t be effective if it is not followed.

I don’t know. Ombuds Office, have you trained your managers to train their underlings to ensure impartial and unbiased decisions are the minimum expectation of continued employment?

Did First Name, First Name approach my appeal with the understanding he was the only person in the institution trained to deal with complex policy concerns? Did he understand that his department’s independence required a Decision Maker to decide the Ombuds Office of British Columbia’s decision on my complaint based solely on the evidence and policies presented and not on what some other — possibly biased — Decision Maker had decided.

It must not matter what any Decision Maker not tasked with representing the Ombudsperson of BC decided.

Baker v. Canada states an officer does not have the power to create reasons not listed in Section 13 of the Ombudsperson Act to not investigate a complaint:

The institution had fair rules and decision-making criteria. They are published as Public Reports. If the Ombuds Office of British Columbia does not follow its own guides, it is no better than any other organization that abuses its power to make problems it is provincially mandated to deal with disappear.

“Because we said so” is not a reasoned Decision:

Yes, but they are not trained to.

Yes, but they are not trained to.

Yes, but they are not trained to.


Fairness Standard 6 deals with discrimination, not harassment.

Do you?


Any right can be eliminated through “Administrative” edits and then backdated.

Not so far.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s