Quixote's Horse: Workfare - Legal Aid

Legal Aid - Legal Treachery

Again we defer the documenting of the abuses served up by the notorious Social Benefits Tribunal. When we left off in the previous installment, we had just popped open the lid on the Pandora's Box of horrors known as the Kingston Legal Aid Office. As promised, news is breaking and even Quixote's Horse has been rendered almost stunned by the brazen twisted treachery that has now been uncovered. If you can read this little tale, gentle reader, and not end up shaking in repressed fury then may God help us all. It is YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS that the state is trying to steal. Are you ready to help fight back now?

In order to meet the arbitrary 7 day deadline for preparing and submitting an appeal from the decision of the Kingston Area Committee to deny my application for Legal Aid, I literally scribbled some grounds on a standard form and indicated that a more formal presentation would follow. There never was an acknowledgement of that preliminary submission. So what else is new?! I was hardly the first to receive such treatment from the Kingston Legal Aid Office (LAO). With your help, we can and will ensure that I will be the last.

In an unguarded moment, a secretary had revealed to me that Kingston Legal Aid Area Director Peter Radley was extensively involved in the Appeal contrary to the Legal Aid Services Act. Naturally I promptly requested all the documents in the file dated later than the April 17, 2007 Area Committee Hearing date. I was refused!

Get real. Enough was enough. My polite insistence that the documents be turned over immediately was met with an equally insistent suggestion that I could go... just kidding. I was told to file a Freedom of Information Request.

Excuse me? This is an agency funded by my government and that makes me the boss. There was absolutely no reason to refuse the request and I fired off an outraged e-mail to Toronto Legal Aid indicating that I would indeed file the FOI Request and I would demand that heads roll for wasting my time and government money. Again - I received no reply from Toronto but *surprise* I did get a phone call from the Kingston LAO. It seems that saner heads had prevailed and a package of documents was waiting for pick up. Smart move... but not quite smart enough.

The next day I arrived, quickly reviewed the offered documents, and coldly but politely requested that I be allowed to personally review the file. You will see what I had noted shortly, friends. It was no real surprise this time when I was refused; politely, even adroitly avoidant, but a refusal it was. So I asked a second time and that was met by more of the same. No matter. I had just enough.

The simplest way to present the actual issues and arguments in my next Submission is to reproduce the entire thing. This spares you much of the outraged rhetoric and repeated frustrated calls for action. That frustration is not for me, friends. I will continue this struggle until it is won or I am dead. My path is determined.

Nope - my frustration is because I see us repeating the lessons of pre-W.W. II Germany. "First they came for..." There were people just like me back then - trying to warn friends and strangers alike of the imminent threat to their freedoms and even their lives. Most of them were ignored too - dismissed as over-reacting, of being paranoid... it couldn't happen in one of Europe's most civilized democracies... But it could. It did. Whether you believe it or not, it is happening all over again.

If you are moved to pick up a phone or write a letter to your M.P.P. or the Editor of your local newspaper then there may be hope for all of us yet. If not... kiss your human rights goodbye, folks. Here is the Submission, sent November 26, 2007.

APPEAL TO THE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
LEGAL AID ONTARIO
(Section 30(2) appeal)

November 22, 2007

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: CE54716520
CLIENT NUMBER: CLT1025463
APPELLANT: WAYNE A. COPPIN

PART I- THE FACTS

On October 24, 2007, the Appellant received a Notice of Decision on Appeal to Area Committee dated October 22, 2007 in which the Committee indicates that it “has refused further services on the basis that there is insufficient merit to justify the expenditure of public funding”.

In order to meet the arbitrary one week deadline imposed by the Kingston Legal Aid Office for submission of an Appeal to the Provincial Office, the Appellant submitted a preliminary document on October 29, 2007. This submission indicated that the Appellant had been refused documentation contained within the Kingston Legal Aid Office (LAO) which could reasonably be expected to support this Appeal. The Appellant subsequently received two documents from the office of R. Bourdeau - the legal firm that provided the Area Committee with the second opinion that it demanded in its initial Decision. The Appellant was advised by the Kingston LAO to file a Freedom of Information request to receive the requested documents from the Kingston LAO file. This refusal by the Kingston LAO was subsequently reversed in a telephone call on Wednesday October 21, 2007 and the Appellant was provided with a number of documents on Thursday October 22, 2007. After quickly reviewing the documents provided, the Appellant asked twice to be allowed to review the entire file at that time and was refused twice.

The Appellant’s financial circumstances have not changed since the original application for the Certificate. Loss of social assistance will result in loss of the Appellant’s subsidized apartment, homelessness and a high probability of starving or freezing in the street. At 57 years of age and in poor health, the Appellant is ill equipped to survive even a single winter on the streets of Kingston.

PART II- THE ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS

There are three issues to consider:

The groundless reasons for both the initial refusal to grant the Certificate by the local Area Director and the subsequent refusal by the Area Committee on Appeal.
The allegations of abuse of process made by the Appellant.
The allegation that the Kingston Legal Aid Office is guilty of a criminal act commonly referred to as an "hate crime" under the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Groundless Reasons

As provided by the Area Director, Mr. Peter Radley:

The request for authorization/amendment is refused for the following reasons:

Other -Legal ineligibility

Comments:

Further services under this certificate will not be authorized. A person of modest means paying privately would not proceed with the matter due to the costs involved. Mr. Ecclestone: Please submit your account for the opinion.

As provided by the Area Committee:

The Committee has refused further services on the basis that there is insufficient merit to justify the expenditure of public funding.

The Appellant is not a lawyer and is quite frankly at a loss to understand the meaning of the reasons offered by the Area Director and by the Area Committee. Repeated requests to the Kingston LAO that the Appellant be provided with the grounds in support of the reasons for refusal have been ignored.

Since the Appellant has been given no grounds for the refusals and since the Appellant has been invited to submit this Appeal, it is assumed that the Appellant is morally free to speculate.

Clearly, on the basis of the information made available to the Appellant, it is fair to say that the Area Director’s decision to cancel is an arbitrary one. Has the Director objected to the Appellant’s beard, the colour of his hair or perhaps more ominously to his professed Christian faith?

The Kingston LAO has received recent legal opinions from two of Kingston’s most respected law firms. These opinions were clearly supportive of the Appellant’s position. Both opinions advised that the case has more than sufficient legal merit to justify pursuing the matter. However, the Kingston LAO has also received a third supporting opinion on the exact same case in an opinion dated April 19, 2001 from attorney C. Carter, then of the well known legal firm Racioppo, Zuber, Coetzee, Dionne.

An April 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an ODSP-Sudbury Community Legal Clinic appeal (Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513, 2006 SCC 14) that featured the identical legal arguments as the Appellant prepared in 1998. These arguments have not changed.

Unless we are to assume that the Kingston LAO Area Director and the Kingston Area Committee are prepared to second guess the legal opinions of THREE Kingston lawyers and an affirming Decision from the highest Court in the country then we must continue to seek the grounds for the decision. It clearly has nothing to do with the legal merits of the case, notwithstanding the groundless reason provided by the Area Committee.

In fact, the explanation is quite simple - the Kingston Legal Aid Office has consistently and repeatedly attempted to REDEFINE THE ISSUES in the Appellant’s application. The Appellant has calmly and repeatedly refused to allow that to happen.

The Appellant seeks only one thing from the Kingston Legal Aid office: a certificate for representation at the Social Benefits Tribunal. Speculation regarding possible government appeals (if the Appellant is successful at the SBT) is irrelevant.

The Appellant has written clearly and repeated numerous times, both orally and in written submissions to the Kingston Legal Aid Office and to the Area Committee that the issue in the Appellant’s case is: the refusal to sign the so-called Ontario Works Participation Agreement on the grounds that signing the document is offensive to the Appellant’s creed based beliefs.

The Appellant’s creed based beliefs at issue are shared by every major religion in the country. The Kingston Legal Aid office is in possession of a document confirming the Appellant’s creed based position from the United Church of Canada. This is more than sufficient to meet the required threshold under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Code, of course, enjoys primacy over all other legislation in the province - a status that was finally reaffirmed in Tranchemontagne.

The issue could not be more forcibly stated or confirmed. However the Kingston Legal Aid Office continues to try to redefine the issue by demanding to know what are the specific terms within the Participation Agreement to which the Appellant rejects. The Appellant will now repeat what has been told repeatedly to the Kingston LAO and the Area Committee:

The specific terms of the P.A. are not at issue. It does not matter what the terms are. If the terms stated that Ontario Works was required to finance an all expenses paid trip to the tropics for six months of the year in order for the Appellant to continue receiving assistance, the Appellant would still not sign the offensive document! The reasons for this objection are on the record and are briefly summarized later in this Appeal. A text copy of the legal case as submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission is appended.

The Appellant is insistent. The Appellant’s legal case will not be allowed to be arbitrarily dismissed or worse, redefined and thus fatally compromised, by the Kingston Legal Aid Office.

While the Area Director most assuredly has a right to his opinion on the merits of the Appellant’s case and indeed, the Appellant speculates that the Director is mandated to do exactly that, in light of the evidence it seems to this layman that there are many in the legal community who would disagree with the implied grounds for denial of a legal aid certificate. Surely, in light of the evidence, it is appropriate that this case be allowed to proceed to the Social Benefits Tribunal where the issue may be decided as the Supreme Court has instructed.

Abuse of Process

The Appellant is greatly disturbed by what appears to the nonlegal mind to be yet another abuse of process in a very lengthy series of such systemic abuses: ranging from the actions of the local OW decision makers in 1999 and the subsequent refusal of the Social Benefits Tribunal in 2001 to consider the Appellant’s legislatively protected human rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code through to the current abuse that the Appellant has endured from the Kingston Legal Aid Office. One formal Complaint has already been filed with the Kingston LAO in the wake of an unprovoked horrific abusive treatment by a staff member. The Appellant chose to accept the Director’s assurances that the matter would be addressed. However it seems that the abuse has continued in a less obvious systemic form.

The original decision to refuse the Certificate has been quoted in the previous section titled The Groundless Reasons. The pertinent quote is:

A person of modest means paying privately would not proceed with the matter due to the costs involved.

What the Director is blatantly stating is the following:

The Appellant was refused because the Appellant is too poor to afford to pursue the legal rights enjoyed by all citizens of the province.
The Appellant’s creed based beliefs are either a trivial concern or the Director is of the opinion that those beliefs are not sincerely held.

The Appellant dryly notes that this battle to force the state to uphold the legislatively guaranteed and protected human rights of the citizens of Ontario has been ongoing for almost 10 years. The struggle has resulted in the loss of one home (and most of the Appellant’s possessions), two extended periods of starvation (10 days and 7 days) and one incident in which the Appellant narrowly escaped freezing to death. There is no need to understand or agree with the Appellant’s creed based beliefs- this Office is invited to note those personal consequences already endured and conclude that the Appellant is either madder than a March Hare or his beliefs are most sincerely held.

The Appellant believes that there are precious few things worth fighting for in this world but our inalienable human rights are most assuredly one of those few things. The Appellant’s human rights are YOUR human rights. They do not belong to the state - either to abrogate or bestow. Whether one believes as the Appellant that our human rights come from God or whether one prefers the more secular view that our human rights our ours by birthright, one thing is absolutely true: our human rights can no more be given away to the state than we could agree to give up our minds or hearts.

Mr. Radley has profoundly insulted the Appellant with the logical implications of his decision. The Appellant is unwilling to sacrifice his faith or his creed or his very humanity on the alter of systemic expediency. The breathless implication that "some animals are more equal than other animals" if they can afford it is simply indefensible in the Appellant’s opinion. If this groundless reason is acceptable to the Provincial Office then the Appellant can and will immediately take this case to the court of public opinion. The Appellant’s patience with such intolerance and systemic double standards is frankly exhausted.

The Appeal to the Area Committee was clearly presented. The issue in the Appellant’s case was clearly spelled out. The Area Committee chose to overturn the refusal but rather than authorize the issuance of a certificate, the Area Committee REDEFINED THE ISSUE and demanded a second opinion! This outrageous abuse of process was puzzling to the Appellant, since the question of the “specific terms of the Participation Agreement” had been put during the Hearing and clearly answered. The Area Committee had the correct issue in writing before it and the Appellant had affirmed and clarified that issue in response to direct questioning from the Area Committee. It would seem that something happened between the April 17, 2007 Appeal Hearing and the subsequent final decision to refuse the Certificate on October 16, 2007.

It is significant to note that the Appellant was NOT INVITED to address the Area Committee on October 16, 2007.

In a letter dated August 21, 2007 from Peter J. Radley, Area Director to lawyer Richard Bourdeau we note the following peculiar request:

Please advise whether you read the agreement that Mr. Coppin refuses to sign and, in particular, the clause that your client objects to?

This is the first actual evidence that the Appellant has obtained demonstrating the attempt by the Area Director to redefine the issue. Remember - the Area Committee was made well aware of the actual issue in the case. Yet here we have the Area Director personally requesting information that was already dismissed as irrelevant by the Appellant.

It is important to stress here: the Appellant advised the Area Committee specifically that the actual terms of a Participation Agreement had never been presented to the Appellant by the local Ontario Works office.

Mr. Bourdeau attempted to clarify the Appellant’s position in a letter dated August 23, 2007 addressed to Peter J. Radley. [attached] Any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Bourdeau’s reply is a reaffirmation of the Appellant’s issue:

He objects in that being forced to agree to something without (legal) consultation goes against his personal creed...

It is not the most precise summary of the issue but it clearly indicates that the actual terms contained within the Declaration are irrelevant. In the copy of this document received from the Kingston Legal Aid Office, we note the hand scribbled insistence that Mr. Radley KNOWS THAT but nonetheless insists:

I know that but what specifically does he object to in the agreement... what condition?

Mr. Radley follows up in a letter to Mr. Bourdeau dated August 27, 2007 with precisely that request. [attached]

It is important to note that Mr. Radley again made no attempt to contact the Appellant for clarification. This is important because the Appellant was becoming concerned with the passage of time (and no decision) and was now seeking to meet with Mr. Bourdeau. Had this meeting been allowed, the matter would have been immediately clarified. However Mr. Radley had made yet another seemingly arbitrary decision. On September 5 (or 6 as hand edited), 2007, [attached] Mr. Bourdeau requested an increase of 2 hours on the certificate authorized by the Area Committee in order to:

... allow for further interviewing of the client, as well as, allow for my response to your letter of August 27, 2007.

Mr. Radley responded in a letter dated September 10, 2007 with the (apparently) insulting suggestion that Mr. Bourdeau make a discretionary increase request to the Lawyer Services & Payments Centre. [attached]

The tone of Mr. Bourdeau’s reply in his letter of September 20, 2007 suggests that Mr. Radley could surely have anticipated the response. Mr. Bourdeau refused to elaborate on his opinion and added the following condemnation:

Perhaps legal Aid should look at changing their policy so that clients and lawyers alike do not suffer any unnecessary delays in processing opinion letters.

It is important to note that Mr. Radley is clearly still involved contrary to Section 30(3) of the Legal Aid Services Act. In light of the obvious tension between Legal Aid and the lawyers, and given Mr. Bourdeau’s response to his additional tariff request, it would seem perfectly prudent and reasonable for the Kingston LAO to contact the Appellant directly to obtain the information being sought. Yet Mr. Radley chose not to extend his involvement in the matter at that point to include the one thing that would have instantly resolved the question. Even more ominous is the following note scribbled in what appears to be Mr. Radley’s handwriting on correspondence dated September 24, 2007: [attached]

What does he object to in the agreement? THIS IS THE WHOLE ISSUE L.A. [[AC]] WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT.” [emphasis added - note that the [[AC]] (Area Committee) appears in smaller script and darker ink as a superscript in the document, strongly suggesting it was added later]

L.A. surely indicates Legal Aid. The question the Appellant has is whom in L.A. was instructing Mr. Radley to redefine the issue? It was NOT the Area Committee because that superscript AC appears outside the flow of the scribbled note and was almost surely added afterwards.

Apparently Kingston bureaucrats really do believe that they are above the law and can do or say anything they please. The following cite is from the Legal Aid Services Act:

30.

Area director not to participate in appeal

(3) An area director shall not participate in any appeal from a decision made by him or her EXCEPT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION [emphasis added], to explain the reasons for his or her decision being appealed and to answer any questions from the members of the area committee respecting the application or decision. 1998, c. 26, s. 30.

The Appellant may not be a lawyer but can read as well as most. The Act specifically excludes the participation (with certain clearly spelled out exceptions) of the Area Director in an Appeal before the Area Committee. The obvious reason for this is surely to avoid any conflict of interest. However, the Appellant has already pointed to repeated examples of Mr. Radley’s clearly expressed attempts to redefine the issue in the Appellant’s case. No matter how this office chooses to interpret that interference, the facts remain: Mr. Radley was repeatedly involved in a matter properly put before the Area Committee and Mr. Radley made no attempt to advise the Appellant of his alleged 'problem' when it is obvious that if anyone was in a position to provide the information Mr. Radley was allegedly seeking, it was the Appellant.

Mr. Radley’s personal involvement in this issue is both highly suggestive and suspicious. Section 30 Subsection 3 of the Legal Services Act is clearly intended to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. For whatever his reasons, Mr. Radley chose to ignore that in breach of the Act. The Appellant notes that the Kingston LAO refused repeated requests to turn over correspondence until presumably forced by the Provincial Office and twice refused subsequent requests by the Appellant to review the entire file. It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Mr. Radley was well aware of his breaches of the Act and suspected that, given the Appellant’s determination in his campaign for justice, it might reasonably be considered a potential problem if the Appellant was also aware of those breaches.

'Hate Crime'

As suggested in the previous section Abuse of Process, one of the more disturbing logical implications of the Kingston Area Director’s reason for refusing the Certificate is that the Appellant’s creed based beliefs are either not sincerely held or in any case are not worth the public funding required to protect them. This implication is hateful and horrifying.

While Christian sensibilities seem to be almost fair game around the world these days, Canada and the Province of Ontario consider attacks on members of protected groups to be hate crimes by definition. Indeed, if a Christian posts biblical truth that condemns the practice of homosexuality (another protected group), the courts in this country have ruled that this can and will be construed as an hate crime. It does not matter if you publish the truth and it does not matter if your intent was spiritually inspired. More recently, the Halima Muse creed based human rights case hit the media with a vengeance. The Ms. Muse case is substantively identical to the Appellant’s case - an insistence that the individual’s creed based beliefs are protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code and must be respected. The only significant difference is that Ms. Muse is Muslim while the Appellant is Christian. Ms. Muse has had her job reinstated and been awarded all back pay while her union pursues her case in court. She will win. The Appellant does not have a union to finance the defense of your human rights. Nonetheless, the Appellant has demonstrated that the struggle will continue until those human rights are respected.

There are many ways to demonstrate intolerance for the needs of the group as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Kingston LAO has chosen both overt demonstrations of intolerance and disrespect (as documented in a previously cited Complaint of personal abuse) and more subtle systemic disrespect. As a Christian, the Appellant is no longer willing to turn the other cheek in the face of outrageous expressions of trivialization of my personal faith. How dare Mr. Radley even suggest that the Appellant’s creed based beliefs are not sincerely held or not worth the funding to ensure that they are upheld!

The Appellant submits that Mr. Radley is guilty of egregious disrespect for the Appellant’s sincerely held beliefs. The Appellant submits that this disrespect was deliberate and consistent with the Area Director’s repeated attempts to redefine the issue in this case.

The Appellant will seek every means available to ensure success in this matter. These means include but are not limited to seeking local activist support, appeals to political representatives, locally, nationally and internationally, appeals to Amnesty International and other international human rights groups, appeals to the international courts through our United Nation’s representative... and more. Indeed, the Appellant wishes to make absolutely clear that many of these avenues are already being pursued on a preliminary basis! For example, the Appellant has just been nominated for the Queens University Human Rights Initiative Award. If it was the Director’s sincere wish to open a veritable Pandora’s Box of human rights outrage, then this Office should understand that the Appellant is precisely the person to provide the key to that box.

The Appellant will not accept any further systemic abuse in this matter. Up to this point, the Appellant has willingly entertained the demands to “jump through systemic hoops” even as the Government of Ontario is deliberately attempting to starve or freeze the Appellant into submission. This Office has a right to understand that the state will literally have to kill the Appellant to prevent justice from being done in this case. The Appellant’s creed based human rights are not trivial. The Appellant has been moved in this matter by God. There will be no rest for anyone in this matter until the Ontario Government is removed from between the Appellant and God. This Office is advised, with the greatest respect but in the strongest of terms, to help the Appellant remove the legal aid barriers to God’s will in this matter.

Attempts to redefine the issue will be publicly condemned as nothing more than a subtle exercise in the Hegelian Dialectic. The Appellant’s human rights are YOUR human rights and they do not belong to the state to abrogate or bestow. That is the reason that the Appellant refuses to entertain even benign or beneficial terms in the Participation Agreement. The instant that the Appellant agrees that the state has the right to curtail our legislatively protected human rights, as the Ontario Works Act states quite clearly that it can, is the instant that the state owns ALL of our human rights. Sooner or later, the state will come for you too. That is the lesson of history and this Appellant has no intention of passively allowing that to happen. The Participation Agreement denies a wage and all labour standards workplace protections to OW recipients. This is nothing more than state sponsored slavery by definition and this Appellant will die rather than agree to serve as a slave to the state. The Appellant does not care in the least whether this Office or the government agrees with my personal creed based objections to the de facto state of slavery that signing a Participation Agreement would place me in. The courts have clearly indicated in countless precedents that the Appellant need not defend those beliefs to the government or the private sector. It is sufficient that they exist and be sincerely held! A failure to accommodate the needs of the group, be it by Legal Aid, Ontario Works or ABC Widgets, is an hate crime by definition. Christians have been persecuted throughout history but we have peeked at the last chapter in the book and we intend to celebrate this time around.

Wayne A. Coppin
Appellant

Legal Aid - Appeal Upheld

It came as no surprise that the Toronto Legal Aid Office did indeed overturn the outrageous Kingston denial of a certificate. The Decision to uphold the Appeal, dated December 5, 2007 and signed by Linda Hall, Director, Appeals, ignored the allegations of systemic and legal abuse (including the blatant interference by Kingston Area Director Peter Radley) and did not quite characterize the case correctly, but it did echo the most compelling point in my Appeal Submission. Ms Hall wrote: "... these determinations of fact are matters which should be made by the Tribunal." Indeed. So sayeth the Supreme Court of Canada.

Here is the entire text of the Reasons for upholding the Appeal:

Wayne Coppin, reasons:

This appeal, by letter of appeal by the applicant, dated November 26, 2007, from the refusal of a legal aid certificate by the Area Committee at Kingston on October 22, 2007, comes to me by way of Section 30(2) of the Legal Aid Sen/ices Act, 1998. The applicant applied for legal aid in order to have representation at the Social Benefits Tribunal.

I have carefully considered the material in this application, including the submissions of the applicant contained in his letter of appeal, the accompanying material provided and the submissions of counsel on behalf of the applicant.

The Area Committee determined that there is insufficient merit to the application to justify the provision of a legal aid certificate. The applicant wishes to argue that the requirement that he sign a participation agreement as a condition of receiving social assistance is a violation of his human rights, on the basis of religion or creed. This appears to be based on the assertion that forced participation in employment amounts to coercion of the state, which undermines the dignity of human beings and violates the teaching of Jesus that call for fairness and respect for an individual's dignity and worth. In order for this argument to be successful, the applicant would be required to establish that the belief is sincerely held and that the belief is a matter of religion or creed and not a moral or political belief. In my view, these determinations of fact are matters which should be made by the Tribunal. It would be open to the Tribunal to find against the applicant on either of these issues, but there appears to be sufficient basis for the argument to be made before the Tribunal and Legal Aid should not, in these circumstances, make the determination instead of allowing it to be made by the Tribunal.

The issuance of a legal aid certificate for the purpose of the hearing before the Social Benefits Tribunal is justified in these circumstances. This does not mean that any further proceedings beyond the Tribunal stage would necessarily be funded through a legal aid certificate. If the matter were unsuccessful at the Tribunal, a further application would be required and it would be evaluated based on merit at that time, with the benefit of the written reasons of the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the legal aid appeal is allowed on a non-contributory basis at this time.

Our human rights belong to us, folks. If you let the state take mine, you are inviting the state to take yours... sooner or later. Think about it.

Next time we look at the Social Benefits Tribunal. Some of you will be shocked. Some will simply refuse to believe what they read. Welcome to the world of the OW \ ODSP recipient. Some animals are more equal than others.

Part 8: The SBT - the fix is in.

Top of the page

Table of Contents