WSiB collaborates over issues/ merits of all more complex Claims in criminal
manner omitting critical information, misinterpreting / disseminating other,
not reviewing previous submissions, not including new, not resource to
expert sources for supportive info nor to chronology of administrative
processes, only selecting sentences supporting own agendas etc. and every
thing is done under umbrella of legislated criminal immunity and other far
reaching legislatives designed to torment, torture, abuse, defraud
defenseless injured workers with out any rights/ avenues of recourse!
All those institutions are terror Agencies governing them selves with out
any scrutiny by independent Auditors / Public Inquiries. Those Agencies
caused alteration in the state of my body / organs, interrupting /
disturbing the performance of the vital functions (chronic pain and much ,
much more etc.). WSiB acts from position of power (criminal immunity) and
further victimizes already suffering people. Through out duration of
processing of Claims it does infringe on criminal and sadistic
In Ontario WSiB commits crimes against INJURED WORKERS!
How come WSiB ( "INSURANCE AGENCY" ) MANAGED TO LEGISLATE CRIMINAL IMMUNITY
AND MANY OTHER FAR REACHEING LEGISLATIVES.
Company (my former employer) developed integrated and very successful
network of crime in Ontario.
Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, Labour Relations Board (Ministry of
Labour), Ontario Ombudsman, Fair Practices Commission, Worker Adviser, Human
Rights Commission, Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, (GOVERNMENT Agencies ) are
"Who does Not Know the Truth, is simply a Fool.
Yet who Knows the Truth and Calls it a Lie, is a Criminal."
On March 11/2010, after very long period of criminal conspiracy, criminal
negligence, obstruction and denial of Constitutional / Law protection,
denial of medical help, torture, denial of all means of sustaining my self
and many more aggravating / criminal acts I received Ontario Human Rights
Tribunal's negative decision. On March 22/2010 I forwarded an Application
(Form TR-8) for Reconsideration of the Decision on the grounds of:
a. There are new facts and evidence that could potentially be determinative
of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
b. The decision is in conflict with established case Law or Tribunal
procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or
c. The decision is patently unreasonable.
d. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of
The Request for Reconsideration was received by Ms. Grenier -Registrar
/Tribunal on Apr 06 / 2010.
Unfortunately again Ms. Grenier-Registrar denied me all provisions of
Tribunal denied me all McGuinty Government's 10 key commitments on what Bill
107 will deliver to the public, including discrimination victims.
With Request for Reconsideration I forwarded 252 pages of NEW, printed
/copied material with detailed cross references to Pages with relevant
supporting information so the evidence / material could be understood by
Tribunal ignored Canadian Constitution, Chapter of Human Rights, Bill - 45,
Bill-107, Bill-168 and all other Laws /Legislatives as well as Criminal
Apotex did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and
fraudulent statements and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction
of the Ontario Labor Board, WSiB (Workers Compensation Insurance Board),
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario Health Act , Ontario Labor Law as
well obstructed Canadian Constitution etc.
Apotex committed many counts of perverting the course of justice or
intending to pervert the course of justice, many counts of perjury ,
criminal conspiracy, criminal negligence, criminal recruitment of false
witnesses, attempted murder, did cause permanent disability, irreparable
Apotex and all involved in sabotaging of my allegations must be INDICTED and
convicted on multiple offences / crime (Criminal Code, Constitutional
provisions, Bill - 45, Bill 107, Bill - 168 and other Law provisions ).
Carters Professional Corporation
CHARITY LAW BULLETIN NO. 218
By Barry W. Kwasniewski
Barry W. Kwasniewski, B.B.A., LL.B., practices employment and risk
management law with Carters' Ottawa office.
C. FACTORS TRIBUNAL WILL REVIEW TO UPHOLD OR SET ASIDE A SETTLEMENT AND
In determining whether or not a particular settlement and release relating
to a human rights complaint will be
upheld, the Tribunal will examine a variety of factors, including:
Capacity: If the applicant can prove that he or she lacked the mental
capacity to enter into an agreement, it will likely not be upheld. An applicant bears the burden of
proving that he or she did not understand the settlement agreement and release when it was entered
into as a result of lack of mental capacity. In those circumstances, the Tribunal may determine
that the applicant lacked the capacity to consent to the agreement, and is therefore not bound
by its terms.
Duress: The term "duress" means the party who signed the settlement and
release did so against his or her own free will. Duress may be a threat of harm or, more commonly,
the threat of financial harm, known as "economic duress". To prove economic duress, the
party must satisfy the Tribunal that the employer unlawfully coerced the employee by
threatening financial injury.
An example would be requiring the employee to sign a release by threatening not to pay wages
that are due and owing.
PAGE 3 OF 4
No. 218, July 28, 2010
Misrepresentation: The Tribunal may set aside a settlement agreement and a
release in circumstances where the employer negligently or intentionally deceived the
employee, if such representations induced the employee to enter into the settlement agreement.
For example, if the employer mislead the employee as to the components of the settlement and did
not permit the employee sufficient time to properly review the settlement before it was
signed, this could be grounds for the Tribunal voiding the agreement.
Fairness of the settlement: In light of the potential for the inequality of bargaining power
between the employer and the employee, the Tribunal may also examine the fairness of the
settlement. This is particularly true where the employee was not represented by a lawyer. While
the Tribunal will not parse a settlement agreement to see whether all potential claims for
compensation have been satisfied, the Tribunal will examine the overall settlement to determine
whether the employee received sufficient benefit in exchange for signing the settlement and the
In light of the approach taken by the Tribunal in determining the validity
and enforceability of a settlement agreement and release, employers should keep the following issues in mind:
Make sure that any release that an employee is asked to sign includes a release of claims under
the Code, whether or not the employee has raised human rights issues.
Allow the employee sufficient time to review the settlement agreement and release prior to signing it and suggest in writing that the employee obtain legal advice prior to doing so.
Be prepared to explain the settlement agreement and release to the employee, and do so accurately.
Do not adopt a negotiation strategy that could be construed as coercion, compulsion or abuse of power or authority, which will leave the employer open to complaints of duress.
Finally, be aware of your human rights obligations as an employer.