Poll: A Holocaust in Canada-The cruxificition of Glen P. Robbins-Book 2

127. The plaintiff alleges that every effort that the plaintiff had made to voice his concerns about the fairness of the proceeding with the pending Tribunal hearing had been rebuffed, as witnessed by the reluctance ofthe Defendants the B.C. Human Rights Commission, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Tonie Beharrell, and the Office of the Ministry of Attorney General of B.C. to properly investigate his allegations of fraud and other concerns. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal operate in such a way as to preempt any attempt by a Respondent to revisit the investigation phase of a complaint once it has been referred to the Tribunal, which the plaintiff alleges, is prejudicial to the rights of the Respondent. The plaintiff further alleges that his protestations of fraud were ignored because, as noted in Human Rights Law in B.C. : Sexual Harassment, prepared by the Canadian Human Rights Reporter for the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (November, 1999), the system is predisposed to finding against "..a male supervisor or manager- often the owner of a small company..." because "the overwhelming majority of situations that pass through the legal system involve cases of men sexually harassing woman.", in which demographic the plaintiff unfortunately fit all too well.

128. The plaintiff alleges that when he realized that there was no way of having his allegations of fraud heard prior to the Tribunal hearing which was scheduled to begin on June 19, 2000, the plaintiff consequently acted to file a Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on June 16, 2000, File NO. SO60813, in which the plaintiff outlined many of his allegations and concerns. The plaintiff contends that, given this preceding action was filed in a higher court, it was incumbent upon the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to adjourn the scheduled hearing so that the plaintiff would have the opportunity to voice his allegations and concerns in a higher court of competent jurisdiction. The plaintiff further asserts that all Respondents to the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, including, but not limited to, the Defendants, the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal were duly served with the appropriate documents. The plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant Tom Patch designate of the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal knew, or ought to have known about the plaintiffs lawsuit, and in fact admitted in testimony (dicta) being aware of the lawsuit, but elected to proceed with hearing the sexual harassment complaintants on or about June 19, 2000 stating in his Reasons for Decision, "I determined that Calvary and Mr. Robbins had adequate notice of the hearing and elected not to attend, I concluded that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Respondents absence." The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal erred when it failed to properly respond to the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, and erred when it failed to adjourn the hearing despite the admission of the Defendant Tom Patch (quasi-Judge) that there was another hearing time available "in three months".

129. The plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal had the ability to compel the plaintiff to attend the hearing by make an appropriate application in a higher court, which action, the plaintiff asserts, the Tribunal failed to make. The plaintiff alleges that the decision to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the plaintiff, was taken because the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal believed that the plaintiff had ground to apply for a stay of proceedings based on the B.C. Court of Appeal; Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) (1998), 31 C.H.R.R. D/175 (B.C.C.A.), which opinion had yet to be overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada in June of 2000, and which opined "..delays longer than 30 months in sexual harassment cases, even where there is not extraordinary stigma experienced as in Blencoe, are unacceptable...", and which opinion had already been referred to resulting in the dismissal of a number of complaints because of delay, or in the alternative, the decision was taken because it was the mandate of the office of the Defendant the Ministry of Attorney General of B.C., the Defendant Graeme Bowbrick to 'concentrate on clearing the backlog of complaints before the commission'. The plaintiff asserts that he could see no valid reasons that his Tribunal hearing could not have been delayed a little longer in order to hear the plaintiff's allegations of fraud (and to properly examine the complainants) who complaints were 'full of holes you could drive a truck through'. The plaintiff therefore alleges that the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal made the arbitrary and unfair decision to proceed with the hearing in June of 2000, despite the known difficulties and objections of the plaintiff, in order to arbitrarily preempt any attempt by the plaintiff to have the hearing dismissed on the ground of infringement of the plaintiffs s. 7 Charter Rights, or in the alternative, to satisfy the directive of the Defendant Attorney General Graeme Bowbrick to arbitrarily proceed in clearing the backlog of Human Rights Code cases. The plaintiff further alleges that the decision by the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to proceed ex parte was a complete, wilful and vexatious abrogation of the plaintiff's Audi Altarim Partim rights to be heard, to rebut and to cross examine within the contest of a fair hearing as guaranteed under the laws of the Province of British Columbia and Canada.

130. The plaintiff asserts that the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's decison on or about April 8, 1999 to join the complaints of the Defendants Jennifer Tannis, Angela Abbate, Laura Dato, Glenda Lee, and Sarah Clemente (Ed note--Sarah Clemente failed to testify and refused along with BC HRT to have a hearing re-scheduled) so that they could be heard together pursuant to S.35 (4) of the "Code", was in fact not "fair and reasonable" because, the plaintiff alleges, it afforded the complainants a further opportunity to collaborate with counsel and to refine their stories and corroborate each other's testimony. The plaintiff asserts that the document, Human Rights Law in B.C.: Sexual Harassment, prepared by the Canadian Human Rights Reporter for the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (November 1999) speaks to this concern: "There is always the concern that those giving such evidence have collaborated, or that other people's similar evidence simply matches the complainant's false allegations by coincidence." The plaintiff alleges that, had the complaints not been joined, it would have been more difficult for the complainants to sustain their various fabrications, including, but not limited to, the almost complete absence of reference to the presence of the Defendant, employer and business owner, Mitchell Tannis. The plaintiff further alleges that the decision to join the complaints was taken for the convenience of the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the complainants and no though whatsoever was given to the rights of the plaintiff Glen P. Robbins in this matter.

131. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal employ a system of investigation which has shown itself to be completely inadequate for the purposes of investigating and identifying fraudulent claims made by a group of Complainants whose common goal is to seek revenge against a Respondent. The plaintiff alleges that this system is completely inadequate for dealing with the possibility that a group of women may conspire to lie and to seek revenge against an employer. The plaintiff further alleges that, given the obvious flaws in the existing system, it would be virtually impossible for a Respondent to defend against circumstances similar to those experienced by the plaintiff.

132. The plaintiff asserts that he spoke with the Defendant Tonie Beharrell of the law firm the Defendant, Heenan Blaikie (representing the complainants) about the obvious conflicts of interest with the Defendant Jennifer Tannis in her role as an officer and director of Calvary Publishing Corp., during at least part of the time that the alleged harassment of the Defendants Jennifer Tannis, Sarah Clemente, Angela Abbate, Laura Dato and Glenda Lee had allegedly occurred and the plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Tonie Beharrell indicated to the plaintiff that the Defendant Jennifer Tannis had "explained that sufficiently for her not to think is was an issue." The plaintiff asserts that he telephoned the Defendant Tonie Beharrell sometime during 1999 and asked her to speak with the Defendant Joseph Daou about the plaintiff's allegations that the Defendant Joseph Daou had influenced Kimberley Corbett to file a sexual harassment complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Tonie Beharrell was satisfied with the Defendant Joseph Daou's answer that he had "never spoken" to Ms. Corbett. The plaintiff further asserts that he then asked the Defendant Tonie Beharrell to speak with the witness Mary Gillis who saw and heard the Defendant Joseph Daou speaking to Ms. Corbett about filing a sexual harassment complaint. The plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant Tonie Beharrell did not think that the plaintiff's allegations of interference, influencing, and fraud by the Defendant Joseph Daou with Kimberly Corbett were "worthy of investigation". The plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant, Tonie Beharrell had a fiduciary responsibility as an Officer of the Court to consider the allegations of the plaintiff, and to a minimum, ask the Defendant Joseph Daou if he had, in fact met with Kimberly Corbett, who the Defendant Tonie Beharrell of the law firm Heenan Blaikie ought to have known had filed a sexual harassment complaint against the plaintiff, and later withdrew it when it was discovered she was a prostitute hired by the Defendants Joseph Daou, Jennifer Tannis and Mitchell and Nadine Tannis to fraudulently expand the number of women filing sexual harassment complaints and in particular include a complainant who wasn't one of the five friends who had already filed their complaints. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Tonie Beharrell (made a Judge after one year of being a lawyer) was shamefully incompetent and brought the Courts into disrepute through her negligence.

133. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant law firm Heenan Blaikie and their designates the Defendants Tonie Beharrell and Lindsay Lyster provided witness statements to the plaintiff via his legal counsel on or about April 30, 1999 which contain marked differences between the original complaints signed by the complainants, and the subsequent testimony of the complainants in June of 2000 during the ex parte hearing at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, as paraphrased by the Defendant Tom Patch in his Reasons for Decision. The plaintiff further alleges that these inaccuracies and other substantive changes and additions are due to the fact that the Defendant Lindsay Lyster and her successor, the Defendant Tonie Beharrell (who was articling with Heenan Blaikie in 1997/1998, at the time that the complaints were filed) are coaching the complaintants to refine their original statements in order to gloss over some of the more glaring contradictions in the complainants stories. The plaintiff further alleges that the decision of the Defendant, the BC Human Rights Tribunal to allow the complaints to be joined, aided and abetted this 'convenient' corroboration. The plaintiff further alleges that the complainants were coached by the Defendants Tonie Beharrell and Lindsay Lyster to provide testimony which fit the currently accepted 'tests' of sexual harassment, which contention is born out by the fact that the stories of the complainants have noticeably evolved from that which was stated in their original complaints. (Note that then BC Liberal Attorney General Geoff Plant--who ignored Glen P. Robbins repeated requests for an investigation had his own law firm bought out by the Defendant Heenan Blaikie--something many lawyers would call a coincidence but most reasonable people might see as suspicious).

134. The plaintiff asserts that the Defendant Tom Patch designate of the Defendant the BC Human Rights Tribunal, in his Reasons for Decision, indexed as Tannis et al v. Calvary Publishing Corp and Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 47, refers to the corrobative witness and Defendant Joseph Daou thus: "He was a friend of the Tannis family. Mr. Daou appears to have little to gain by testifying in this proceeding." {100} The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, Tom Patch was apparently unaware at the time of the plaintiff's Tribunal hearings in June of 2000, that the Defendant Joseph Daou was raised as the son of the Defendant Mitchell Tannis and a brother of the Defendant Jennifer Tannis, in the Tannis family home. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Tonie Beharrell apparently neglected to inform the Defendant Tom Patch of this conflict of interest.

135. The plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision, indexed as: Tannis et al v. Calvary Publishing Corp. and Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 47 were published on the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's web site on or about October of 2000. The plaintiff alleges that these Reasons for Decision contain much of the testimony of the complainants, as paraphrased by the Defendant Tom Patch. The plaintiff further alleges that, as noted herein, both the Defendants Angela Abbate and Jennifer Tannis testified that the plaintiff allegedly 'confessed' or made statements to them about molesting a young girl, variously described by these two complainants as being 7,8,9 or 10 years of age at the time, who was then a student at a Roman Catholic school where the plaintiff taught. The plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant Jennifer Tannis is quoted by the Defendant, Tom Patch in his Reasons for Decision, as having used the word 'pedophile' to describe the behaviour of the plaintiff towards young women in general: "On a couple of occasions Ms. Tannis told him (the plaintiff) that he was "sick" and a "pedophile"" {22}. The plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant, Tom Patch in his Reasons for Decision, as published on the Internet, declares the paraphrased testimony of the Complainants to be "FACTS". The plaintiff therefore alleges that it must be assumed that the Defendant, Tom Patch, as an Officer of the Courts, has accepted the plaintiff's alleged 'confession' to be a "FACT". The plaintiff further alleges that, to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, the Defendant Tom Patch and the Defendant the BC Human Rights Tribunal failed to report this alleged incident of child molestation, as required by law, to the appropriate authorities for investigation. The plaintiff further asserts that he was never contacted by any agency investigating said allegations. The plaintiff therefore alleges that the Defendant, Tom Patch is in breach of his judiciary responsibilities, or in the alternative, that the Defendant Tom Patch did not believe the testimony of the Defendants Angela Abbate and Jennifer Tannis regarding the alleged 'confession' of the plaintiff as allegedly witnessed by the Defendants Angela Abbate and Jennifer Tannis. The plaintiff further alleges that the aforementioned statements were and are irrelevant to the Defendant's Jennifer Tannis's and Angela Abbate's contentions that the plaintiff discriminated in employment against the Defendants Jennifer Tannis and Angela Abbate on the basis of their sex by sexual harassment. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Tom Patch knew, or ought to have known that said unsubstantiated statements were not relevant to the sexual harassment complaints of the aforementioned Defendants and that the Defendant Tom Patch was negligent when he failed to strike said testimony from the records of the hearing, knowing full well that the plaintiff was not represented at said hearing, and that the hearing was proceeding on an ex parte basis.

136. The plaintiff asserts that the complainants frequently alleged in their testimony before the Defendants Tom Patch and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that the plaintiff demonstrates excessive interest in "young" women. The plaintiff asserts that the Defendant Tom Patch in his Reasons for Decision appears to have been swayed by these allegations, as he made the following comments, "The complainants were all young when the harassment occurred. "(127); "They were all young and vulnerable." (134); "She (the Defendant, Laura Dato) was, however, very young" (135). The plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant Tom Patch in his Reasons for Decision concludes, "It appears that Mr. Robbins saw the office as his sexual playground and acted accordingly." The plaintiff therefore alleges that the Defendant Tom Patch was negligent in his use of the word "playground" in his comments, in as much as the word "playground" has obvious connotations for 'right-thinking members of society' as a place where children play. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Tom Patch has been negligent, and knew or ought to have known that he was allowing the plaintiff to be portrayed as a sexual predator, or in the alternative, a "pedophile" who preys on "young" women. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Tom Patch knew, or ought to have known, that such a portrayal, intentional or otherwise, would cause the plaintiff to be shunned and avoided, and exposes the plaintiff to the hatred, contempt and ridicule of 'ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general'. The plaintiff further alleges that such a portrayal was completely irrelevant to the complainants contentions that they were discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of their sex by sexual harassment. The plaintiff further alleges that the portrayal of the plaintiff as a "pedophile" would in fact by judged by experts in such matters to be completely inconsistent and conflicting with the alleged behaviour of the plaintiff in the workplace. (Editor's note-if you blog Jennifer Tannis under Google and go to her MySpace.com site you will note that she refers to one of her many 'friends', a person named "Layla" as "= pervert...or homicidal maniac.whichever". Naturally, a reasonable person would likely wonder if her use of language lacks a proper vetting mechanism---the Judge in the case--Tom Patch is a lawyer--and knows what a pedophile is--and certainly understands that labels inference in terms of the use of the phrase "sexual playground").

137. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal knew, or ought to have known that their decision to publish the Defendant Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision indexed as: Tannis et al v Calvary Publishing Corp. and Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 47, which contains the unsubstantiated allegations of child molesting by the plaintiff, and which allegations are vexatious and completely irrelevant to the case of sexual harassment being judged by the Tribunal, and which unsubstantiated allegations were prejudicial to the reputation of the plaintiff, and which allegations were published on the Internet for world-wide distribution, and which allegations were borne by the weight of the Defendant Tom Patch's quasi-judicial position and office as a Tribunal mMember, and did unilaterally condemn the plaintiff to be branded as a convicted "pedophile" in the minds and eyes of the right-thinking members of society, without the plaintiff having enjoyed the benefit of a formal accusation, investigation, hearing, charge, legal defense, trial or conviction for any criminal wrong doing whatsoever. The plaintiff asserts that said publication contained unfounded allegations of criminal activity which exceeded the scope and purpose of the Tribunal hearing, and which defamed the plaintiff's reputation and which constitute a virtual and unwarranted 'registration' of the plaintiff as a sexual offender. The plaintiff asserts that there is no behaviour judged more repugnant by ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, then the sexual acts of a "pedophile".

138. The plaintiff asserts that it is becoming commonplace for prospective employers and members of the general public to use Internet search 'engines' to look up information about individuals with whom they are considering engaging in a business or personal relationships. The plaintiff further asserts that an experiment was conducted on April 11, 2001, in which the popular Internet search engine, "Google" (TM), was used to search for "Glen Patrick Robbins", which is the plaintiff's full name. The plaintiff further asserts that of the 1,346,966,000 web pages that this tool reported available for view on the Internet's 350 million computers as of April 11, 2001 only 4 documents or pages were identified and listed specifically as a result of the search for the plaintiff's full name, which search took a reported "0.09 seconds" to complete. The plaintiff further asserts that 3 of the 4 pages listed pertained directly to, and included Tannis v. Calvary Publishing Corp BCHRT 47, Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision on the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal website. The plaintiff therefore alleges that anyone in the world who has access to an Internet capable computer, can access the full text of the Defendant Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision, including but not limited to, the aforementioned damaging references to the plaintiff being a "pedophile", within a few seconds. This the plaintiff further alleges, constitutes ongoing world-wide distribution of the disputed and defamatory material.

139. The plaintiff asserts that a friend and one-time business associate, did on two occasions receive telephone calls directing her to the Reasons for Decision indexed as Tannis v. Calvary Publishing Corp BCHRT 47, of the plaintiff's sexual harassment Hearing, as published on the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal BC government web site. The plaintiff further asserts that within a short period of time following the publication of the Reasons for Decision in the Fall of 2000, the plaintiff's friend received a call from a co-worker, who asked if she knew that her friend the plaintiff had been "convicted" of sexual harassment. The plaintiff further asserts that his friend received a second phone call approximately one week later from the Defendant Jey Wyder, who was at the time acting as a 'personal coach' for the Defendant, Jessica Lee, Executive Director for the Defendant, the Avalon Women's Centre. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Jay Wyder asked the plaintiff's friend to come to her home "right away" to view the content of the Reasons for Decision of the plaintiff's sexual harassment hearing, as published on the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal web site. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Jay Wider specifically directed the plaintiff's friend to read the material pertaining to the allegations that the plaintiff was a "pedophile" within said document. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant, Jay Wyder then asked the Plaintiff's friend "Aren't you afraid that (the plaintiff) is going to get into (your daughter's) pants?" The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant, Jay Wyder intimated that if the plaintiff's friend was not prepared to act on this knowledge, then the Defendant Jay Wyder stated that she "would be obliged to contact the B.C. Ministry of Social Services on the friends' behalf". The plaintiff asserts that the Defendant Jay Wyder believed she was acting properly out of concern for the plaintiff's friend's children, as well as acting at the request of the Executive Director of the Defendant the Avalon Womens' Centre, the Defendant Jessica Lee.

141. The plaintiff alleges that the slandering of the plaintiff's reputation, or in the alternative, the negligent and wilful distribution of mis-information about the plaintiff was perpetrated by the Defendant Jay Wider at the direction of the Defendant Jessica Lee while the Defendant Jessica Lee was Executive Director of the Defendant Avalon Women's Centre and while the Defendant Jay Wider was her 'personal coach'. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Jessica Lee was at that time engaged in discussions with the Defendant Helene Beauchesne who is a B.C. government employee and designate of the Employment Standards Branch (Burnaby) of the B.C. Ministry of Labour, regarding a judgement for back wages fraudulently claimed by the Defendant Joseph Daou. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Helene Beauchesne, while she was employed by, and acting in her capacity as an employee of the Defendant the Emmployment Standards Branch (Burnaby), did wilfully contact a number of individuals who knew the plaintiff, in order to inform them that the plaintiff was a convicted "pedophile". The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Joseph Daou, through his wife the Defendant Rose Daou who worked WITH the Defendant Helene Beauchesne at the Employment Standards Branch (Burnaby), or in the alternative, one of a group of lawyers emmployed by the Defendant the Ministry of Attorney General of B.C., 'fed' the information about the web site and defamatory material to the Defendant Helene Beauchesne, who in turn used it during her discussions with her 'new' associate, the Defendant and Executive Director of the Avalon Women's Centre Jessica Lee, or in the alternative, that the Defendant Jessica Lee was informed about said web site by other persons. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Jessica Lee, acting in a wilful and vexatious manner, subsequently informed the Defendant Jay Wider (a woman) and others about said web site. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Helene Beauchesne acted in a wilful and vexatious manner to discredit and do harm to the reputation of the plaintiff because the plaintiff had caused her and the lawyers acting for the Defendant, the Ministry of Attorney General of B.C. some embarrassment in court actions related to the disputed claims for unpaid wages allegedly owed to the Defendant Joseph Daou. The plaintiff therefore alleges that his reputation was irreparably damaged by the publication of erroneous and irrelevant information found on the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal web site, and by B.C. government employees and by others who wilfully distributed and promoted the mis-information, which resulted in a defamation of the plaintiff's reputation.

142. The plaintiff alleges that the Employment Standards Branch (Burnaby) of the B.C. Ministry of Labour had become frustrated and embarrassed with their unsuccessful dealings with the plaintiff as they related to an Employment Standards complaint filed by the Defendant Joseph Daou by way of his wife, the Defendant Rose Daou, a long time employee with Employment Standards (Burnaby), and her long time friend, the Defendant and Employment Standards delegate Helene Beauchesne. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants Joseph Daou, Rose Daou and Helene Beauschene encouraged, facilitated and generally assisted by way of lies, fraud and publishing of mis-information, the defamation of the reputation of the plaintiff.

143. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, the Board of Directors and the Avalon Women's Centre knew, or ought to have known, that Jessica Lee had a history of unethical conduct, deceit and dishonesty in her business affairs. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants the Board of Directors and the Avalon Women's Centre were negligent in allowing the Defendant Jessica Lee to wilfully and vexatiously slander and defame the reputation of the plaintiff.

144. The plaintiff alleges that right-thinking members of society who have seen the Defendant Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision indexed as: Tannis et al v. Calvary Publishing Corp and Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 47 would find that the aforementioned document is virtually indistinguishable in their eyes from a document whose purpose might be the Reasons for Decision of a higher court in a criminal conviction for sex-related crimes, such as a criminal conviction for the sexual touching of a child.

145. The plaintiff asserts that he did contact the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal on or about the Fall of 2000, to request that the Defendant Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision indexed as: Tannis et al v Calvary Publishing Corp and Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 47 be removed from the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal web site because it contained unsubstantiated and irrelevant allegations states as "FACTS" that were prejudicial to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that BC Human Rights Tribunal member Heather McNaughton acting on behalf of the BC Human Rights Tribunal failed to mitigate their damages as required by law by complying with the request of the plaintiff. (Readers should note that then BC Liberal Attorney General Geoff Plant informed the plaintiff Glen P. Robbins that 'meta tags' were being placed around the offensive site).

146. The plaintiff asserts that he did contact the office of the Defendant, the Ministry of Attorney General of B.C., the Defendant Graeme Bowbrick on or about the Fall of 2000, to request that the Defendant Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision indexed as: Tannis et al v. Calvary Publishing Corp. and Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 47 be removed from the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal web site because it contained unsubstantiated and irrelevant allegations states as "FACTS" that were prejudicial to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further asserts that the office of the Defendant, the Ministry of Attorney General of B.C., the Defendant Graeme Bowbrick failed to mitigate their damages by complying with the request of the plaintiff.

147. The plaintiff asserts that he did contact the office of the Premier of British Columbia, the Defendant Ujjal Dosanjh and spoke to the Assistant Communications Director onor about January of 2001, to request that the Defendant Tom Patch's Reasons for Decision indexed as: Tannis et al v Calvary Publishing Corp and Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 47 be removed from the Defendant, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal web site because it contained unsubstantiated and irrelevant allegations stated as "FACTS" that were prejudicial to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further asserts that the office of the Premier of British Columbia and the Defendant Ujjal Dosanjh failed to mitigate their damages by complying with the request of the plaintiff.

148. The plaintiff alleges that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal have themselves contravened the B.C. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c210, in so far as they have discriminated against the plaintiff by Discriminatory Publication: 7.(1) A person must not publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that...(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt...because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons. The plaintiff therefore alleges that he has been discriminated against by the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal on the basis of sex, due to their publication of erroneous and irrelevant statements attributed to the plaintiff, which statements were portrayed as "FACTS" on the Tribunal web site, which publication the plaintiff alleges, was justified, the plaintiff alleges, by the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal because the plaintiff is a male employer and owner of a small business, and which publication has caused the plaintiff to be subjected to hatred and contempt by the general population.

149. The plaintiff alleges that the B.C. Human Rights Commission contravened the B.C. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.210, in so far as they have discriminated against the plaintiff by Discrimination in Employment: 13. (1) A person must not....(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment, because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.

150. The plaintiff therefore alleges that he has been discriminated against by the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Commission on the basis of sex, and on the basis of political belief, by their refusal to hear his sexual harassment complaints, and by their refusal to employ due diligence in their investigations of the Complainants, and by their refusal to investigate the plaintiff's allegations of fraud, which actions the plaintiff alleges were justified by the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Commission because the plaintiff is a male employer and owner of a small business and because the plaintiff is widely known to have held political views which were contrary to those held by the New Democratic Government of the Province of British Columbia, and which actions have caused the plaintiff loss of business income, loss of business opportunities and loss of self-employment resulting in financial hardship.

151. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal was designed to be a punitive body which has no powers to investigate complaints. The plaintiff further alleges that once the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Commission has passed a complaint on to the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal there is already an assumption of guilt attached to the Respondent. The plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has a clear mandate to punish those Respondents who cannot or will not engage in a mediated settlement of their differences with the Complainant. The plaintiff therefore alleges that the outcome of the plaintiff's Tribunal Hearing was a foregone conclusion, given that the plaintiff had no other option but to admit guilt and to settle with the Complainants in mediation even thought their respective complaints were fabricated. The plaintiff further alleges that the true punishment available to the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in such cases amounts to 'public shaming' of the unsuccessful Respondent. The plaintiff further alleges that he has been the subject of such a public shaming by the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal through their publication of the Reasons for Decision on the Internet.

152. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendants the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal allowed themselves, through a combination of gross negligence, incompetence, wilful blindness and systemic flaws, to be used by a group of private citizens who collaborated in order to exact a personal revenge against the plaintiff for what is little more than a business partnership that went terribly wrong. The plaintiff further alleges that the concerted efforts of the complainants and other Defendants named herein contributed to the eventual destruction of Calvary Publishing Corp., which in January of 1997 employed approximately 40 people, and which in any capacity ceased to do business approximately 3 years later.

153. And Wherefore the plaintiff claims as follows:

(a) From the Defendants Mitchell Tannis, Nadine Tannis, Christian Tannis, Joseph Daou, Rose Daou, Jennifer Tannis and T.E.G Generation II Ltd. $500,000. For non-pecuniary damages, damage to the plaintiffs reputation, slander, libel, defamation of reputation, stress, humiliation, embarrassment, the loss of business opportunities and income and subjecting the plaintiff to the hatred and contempt of the general population.

(b) From the defendants Judy Parrack, Christopher Finding, the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia: $1,500,000, for wilfully and negligently aiding and abetting an obviously unmerited sexual harassment claim, and for failing to provide for an expeditious hearing of the sexual harassment claim, and for failing to mitigate or in the alternative, the failure to ensure that damage was not done to the plaintiff's reputation, when the plaintiff had notified the Defendant four years before the Tribunal Hearing, that he was being slandered by the Defendants and in particular Mitchell Tannis, Nadine Tannis, Joseph Daou, Rose Daou, Jennifer Tannis, Sarah Clemente, Angela Abbate, Laura Dato, Glenda Lee and T.E.G Generation II Ltd., relating to the false sexual harassment claims, which resulted in damage to the plaintiff's reputation, slander, libel, defamation of reputation and character, stress, humiliation, embarrassment, and the loss of business opportunities and income for the plaintiff.

(c) From the defendants Tom Patch, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and the Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia: $2,500,000 for wilfully and negligently aiding and abetting an obviously unmerited sexual harassment claim, or failing to provide for an expeditious hearing the of the sexual harassment claim, and for failing to mitigate or in the alternative, failure to ensure that damage was not done to the plaintiff's reputation, and for the publication of erroneous information found on the Defendant the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal web site, which resulted in damage to the plaintiff by slander, libel, defamation of the plaintiff's reputation, stress, humiliation, embarrassment, the loss of business opportunities and income, and subjecting the plaintiff to the hatred and contempt of the general population.

(d) From the defendants, Ujjal Dosanjh, Graeme Bowbrick, and the Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia: $10,000,000 for wilfully and negligently aiding and abetting an obviously unmerited sexual harassment claim, and for failing to provide for an expeditious hearing of the sexual harassment claim, and for failing to mitigate or in the alternative, the failure to ensure that damage was not done to the plaintiff's reputation, when the plaintiff had specifically notified the Defendant of the possibility of such a claim on more than one occasion, and which resulted in damage to the plaintiff by slanders, libel, defamation of reputation, stress, humiliation, embarrassment, the loss of business opportunities and income, and subjecting the plaintiff to the hatred and contempt of the general population.

(e) From the Defendants Tonie Beharrell, Lyndsay Lyster and Heenan Blaikie: $1,500,000 for wilfully and negligently aiding and abetting an obviously unmerited sexual harassment claim or in the alternative, for wilfully and negligently aiding and abetting an obviously fraudulent claim and the encouragement of false testimony when they knew or ought to have known as Officers of the Court, the unwarranted damage that would accrue to the plaintiff as a result of their wilful blindness and incompetence, and conduct unbecoming of an Officer of the Court, which resulted in damage to the plaintiff's reputation, slander, libel, defamation of reputation, stress, humiliation, embarrassment, and the loss of business opportunities and income for the plaintiff.

(f) From the Defendants the Board of Directors and the Avalon Women's Centre: $100,000 for wilfully and negligently aiding and abetting the defamation of the plaintiff's reputation by the slanderous and defaming actions of the Defendants Jessica Lee and Jey Wyder, resulting in stress, humiliation and embarrassment for the plaintiff.

(g) From the defendant Jessica Lee: $250,000 for wilfully and negligently slandering and defaming the plaintiff's reputation, resulting in stress, humiliation and embarrassment for the plaintiff.

(h) From the Defendant, Jey Wyder: $250,000 for wilfully and negligently slandering and defaming the plaintiff's reputation, resulting in stress, humiliation and embarrassment for the plaintiff.