No Ombudsman and no Member of Parliament to champion for rights of taxpaying Canadian citizen Alien Anna… take take take, never give and above all, crickets in lieu of mature conversations!
From: Anna W
Sent: July 9, 2024 9:11 AM
To: cloverdale-langleycity@parl.gc.ca <cloverdale-langleycity@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: Confidential Information: Duty to Act Fairly/Rule of Law violation follow-up
Good Day Hon. Ruby Sahota,
I am writing due to receiving a general public notice in the mail that provided this email address for correspondence due to John Aldag’s resignation.
Kindly see attached email string below. I have not heard back, therefore this is a follow-up inquiry.
Thank you,
Anna Wierzbicka
From: Anna W
Sent: May 16, 2024 5:51 PM
To: john.aldag@parl.gc.ca <john.aldag@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: Confidential Information Follow-Up
Dear John,
Today I received a call and follow-up email (copy included below) advising my “leave without pay status” reflected on Statements of Earnings dated 2024 is a misrepresentation, as, instead of processing my leave 7 years ago, the compensation branch is just getting to it now. In fact, I am in “overpayment” due to leave being entered late (no fault of my own) and owe Canada money. According to my calculations, it may be upwards of 11 thousand dollars…
To summarize, I am currently involved in an illegal grievance to reinstate me from a position from which I resigned over email on December 8, 2017, with no face-to-face contact during a time of crisis where the same person who officially accepted my resignation on December, 12, 2017, whose actions I claim were unreasonable given my circumstance, was named their own judge and denied my reinstatement. A grievance which is dragging on for years and has placed me in extreme undue hardship.
I have been told I must wait to go to arbitration (final stage of the grievance process) after my grievance was denied at all three levels by the Correctional Service of Canada. Year after year after year of “sorry” you must wait because the government follows the principles of “administrative fairness”; there is a long line of people ahead of you.
Procedural/administrative fairness which was not afforded to me in that my immediate supervisor, whom I emailed resigning from my position during medical leave and a time of extreme stress, forwarded my resignation to his immediate supervisor who was then placed as Decision Maker at the First Level Grievance, saw nothing questionable or out of the ordinary with my decision to resign and denied my reinstatement. The same Decision Maker of the First Level Grievance who forwarded my resignation to her immediate supervisor who “officially” accepted it via letter signed by her, who was then made Decision Maker at the Second Level Grievance and saw nothing wrong with her decision of accepting my resignation and denied my request at reinstatement. Denials at reinstatement made by the First and Second Level Decision Makers, who by law are mandated to be impartial, were then backed-up at the third level, in Ottawa, where the Third Level Decision Maker saw nothing wrong with the same people whose decisions I am grieving being given the power to judge their own actions and supported them in the conclusion of no fault of the government in accepting my email resignation with over a decade of exemplary service under my belt and a thriving career, no face-to-face contact for over a month, no union consult or suggestion thereof, on medical leave and not even a “fairwell lunch” to ensure I am “okay” — request at reinstatement denied.
Again, for the sake of clarity, the following is an excerpt taken from the website of the Correctional Service of Canada preaching they “uphold” values and laws which they ignored in my case:
“The Correctional Service of Canada and its employees are not exempt from the Rule of Law and the rules of natural justice, including the duty to act fairly implied by it… The duty to act fairly relates to two basic rights: (1) the right to be heard and (2) the right to have an impartial hearing”.
Thank you for contacting the Commissioner who contacted the compensation branch who then told me I am in debt.
Given the below attached email received as a result of your inquiry on my behalf, is this the extent of your involvement?
Are you able to inquire why the Rule of Law was not applied in a grievance process which is meant to be impartial?
Thank you,
Anna Wierzbicka