HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  MARTIN  MORGAN  SCHWARTZ  SINCLAIR
Prytulak tapes four CHRC misrepresentations
Lubomyr Prytulak to J. Grant Sinclair    Letter 02    19-Nov-2005

CHRC  Canadian Human Rights Commission
CHRT  Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
CHRA  Canadian Human Rights Act
CJC    Canadian Jewish Congress
KOZAK:   Mr Prytulak, you're not listening to me.
PRYTULAK:   Yes, I am.  You're not listening to me.
KOZAK:   Yes, I am listening to ...
PRYTULAK:   No you're not.
NOTE ADDED 09-DEC-2005:  The incorrect "Cindy Kozak" which appeared below initially and was mailed out in all hard copies is today changed to the correct "Sandy Kozak" in this Internet version of the letter.
  19 November 2005
J. Grant Sinclair, Chairperson
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Suite A100, Floor 11
160 Elgin Street
Ottawa ON  K1A 1J4

Re: Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) v Lubomyr Prytulak, CHRT File: T1078/5905

J. Grant Sinclair:

Lubomyr Prytulak's purpose in attempting to talk to CHRC Investigations Manager John J Chamberlin was to learn the identity of the Investigator who wrote the Second Investigator's report so as to be able to determine from that Investigator the cause of the systematic exclusion of all Prytulak facts and arguments from the Second Investigator's Report, as perhaps by the Investigator having decided to spoliate (suppress or destroy) Prytulak submissions on his own initiative, or having been denied access to Prytulak submissions, or having been commanded to disregard Prytulak submissions by a superior.

Although the above was the primary question that Prytulak intended to ask both Chamberlin and the unknown Investigator, secondary questions were to be asked as well: why Prytulak had not been informed that a Second Investigation was in progress, and why he had not been invited to submit any further facts and arguments to the Second Investigator; why the Second Investigator had not signed the Second Investigator's Report; and why the Report identified no Investigator.

As CHRC employees had demonstrated over the last two years a phobic avoidance of epistolary communication, Prytulak telephoned John J Chamberlin twice on 19-Oct-2005, and was able to record his questions on Mr Chamberlin's answering machine, and got a return call around noon Vancouver time on 20-Oct-2005, though not from Mr Chamberlin himself, but from John J Chamberlin representative Sandy Kozak, who astonished Prytulak by taking the following four positions.

1.  SANDY KOZAK DENIED THAT THERE HAD BEEN ANY IDENTIFIABLE INVESTIGATOR

Sandy Kozak stated that it was impossible to name any Investigator willing to take responsibility for the Second Investigator's Report because in fact there had been only a loose team of investigators.

PRYTULAK:  OK, I was interested in who the investigator was for the Investigator's Report of 30 June.   [00:25]

KOZAK:  OK.  That information isn't being put on the reports at this time because it's not relevant.   [00:36]

PRYTULAK:  In the first report that I received, the investigator's name was on it, with the invitation to communicate with the investigator.   [00:44]

KOZAK:  It's all done through, uh ... most of those Section 13 reports are investigated by a team.  So, it's done through Mr Chamberlin as a contract.   [00:55]

PRYTULAK:  Oh, so it was left to him to decide who the investigators would be, you're saying, and so on.   [01:01]

KOZAK:  There's a group of investigators [unintelligible] that have a knowledge of your complaint, but there's several of us that basically train just in this area, and all of our investigation formats have changed, and it's not relevant as to the particular investigator.  Certainly, if you have questions, such as me calling you back today, to answer them for you, then that's done that way.   [01:28]


However, despite Sandy Kozak's assertion that the creation of an investigative team had so diluted responsibility that no particular investigator could be credited with the Investigator's Report, the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), to which bold emphasis has been added below, continues to give the impression that responsibility is placed in the hands of a single investigator, the question of whether that investigator may rely on assistants who might be considered a team being a detail that the CHRA omits to mention because it is inconsequential.

Investigation
Designation of investigator    

43. (1) The Commission may designate a person, in this Part referred to as an "investigator", to investigate a complaint.
[...]
Production of books    

(2.4) An investigator may require any individual found in any premises entered pursuant to this section to produce for inspection or for the purpose of obtaining copies thereof or extracts therefrom any books or other documents containing any matter relevant to the investigation being conducted by the investigator.

Also relevant is that the Second Investigator's Report showed no evidence of investigation.  It consisted of no more than a summary of Canadian Jewish Congress allegations.  A product this dinky does not require a team of investigators � it can be thrown together by a single writer in a matter of hours.

2.  SANDY KOZAK STATED THAT THE CHRC HAD ADOPTED A POLICY OF CONCEALING THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTIGATOR

Sandy Kozak stated that within the last six months, the CHRC had adopted a policy of concealing the identities of Investigators from the parties, and thus of no longer having Investigators sign their Reports.

PRYTULAK:  Why don't you just tell me � are you going to tell me the name of the investigator or not?   [07:14]

KOZAK:  No, I'm not.   [07:14]

PRYTULAK:  All right.  And you think I don't have a right to know?   [07:17]

KOZAK:  I'm saying I don't know at this point if we're releasing that information to you.   [07:21]

PRYTULAK:  So, you have a right to hold it back?  Hannya Rizk was the first investigator, in the First Investigator's Report.  Why did you release that information?   [07:30]

KOZAK:  We've changed our format since then.  I explained that to you, Mr Prytulak.   [07:33]

PRYTULAK:  I'm sorry, you've changed your what?   [07:34]

KOZAK:  We've changed our investigative format, our report formats.   [07:37]

PRYTULAK:  For everybody, so now nobody gets to know the investigator?  Is that true?   [07:42]

KOZAK:  Yes.   [07:42]

PRYTULAK:  I didn't know that.  Has that been announced, or justified anywhere?  Where can I read this?   [07:47]

KOZAK:  I don't know.  It could be online.  I haven't looked.   [07:49]

PRYTULAK:  All right.  So, what I understand from you now is that nobody now knows the investigator in the Investigator's Report.  Is that what you're telling me?   [08:01]

KOZAK:  Yes, they're not ... the reports aren't signed by the investigators.   [08:02]

PRYTULAK:  And you've changed that recently?   [08:05]

KOZAK:  It was in the last six months.   [08:08]

PRYTULAK:  I see.  And that wasn't announced anywhere?   [08:10]

KOZAK:  I don't know if it was or not.  That's not my department.   [08:12]


However, no announcement of this radical departure from accountability can be found on the CHRC web site, and the modus operandi appears impracticable, as the investigator often needs to interview the parties and witnesses, and traditionally has gathered submissions from them.

3.  SANDY KOZAK REPRESENTED THE INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT AS PROPERLY SUMMARIZING ONLY THE COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATIONS

Sandy Kozak stated that proper procedure was for the Investigator's Report to summarize only Complainant allegations, with the Respondent defense properly making its first appearance only during CHRT proceedings.  Explanatory material (bracketed and in red font) is added for clarification.

KOZAK:  It would depend on how ... I mean, in your complaint form [the complainant's complaint form] it [the Investigator's Report] would state the [complainant's] allegations [that appeared] in the complaint form that was investigated.  All the investigator can do is, and I said I apologize I don't have it before me at this point, can only look at [and summarize in the Investigator's Report] those allegations [that appear] in the [complainant's complaint] form.   [03:09]

PRYTULAK:  Yeah, but these [submissions of mine which the CHRC systematically excludes from the Investigator's Report] are my defences to the [complainant's] allegations.   [03:11]

KOZAK:  Depending on what information, with that [Investigator's] Report, within the new format, all they [the investigators] do is put forth the information that would be brought into a tribunal by the complainant [and the investigators do not put forth the information that would be brought into the tribunal by the respondent] so the information that was there ...   [03:25]

PRYTULAK:  But [the investigators do] not [report] my information, only the complainant's information?   [03:28]

KOZAK:  Your information would have been looked at as well [looked at, but not included in the Investigator's Report], and for that complaint [meaning "based on the allegations in that complaint"], the recommendation was to go to tribunal, so that both sides can [respondent for the first time] represent themselves with regards to that [complainant's] information [it being premature to represent both sides within the Investigator's Report].   [03:36]


However, if the Investigator's Report properly only recites the Complainant's Complaint, then the investigator performs no investigation, and the Disposition Committee which relies on the Investigator's Report to decide whether to request inquiry by the CHRT is never presented a reason not to.  In his 03-Oct-2005 letter to Mary M Gusella titled "Concealment, followed by confession, of CHRC spoliation" at www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell-11.html, Prytulak reviewed reasons for believing the opposite � that the Investigator's Report is required to be fair and balanced:

Although the CHRC is entitled to rely on the investigator's report, the report must be able to provide a fair and adequate basis for the CHRC's decision, that is, it must be neutral and thorough.

Joanna Birenbaum and Bruce Porter, Screening Rights: The Denial of the Right to Adjudication Under the Canadian Human Rights Act and How to Remedy it.  A research paper prepared for the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, 04-Nov-1999
www.equalityrights.org/cera/docs/screen.htm

The above is the most disturbing of Sandy Kozak's allegations, as it shows her obliviousness to the requirements of natural justice, and even her approval of the denial of the right to be heard, which denial characterizes totalitarian regimes.

4.  SANDY KOZAK REPRESENTED THE CHRC AS INCAPABLE OF SPOLIATION

The general rule that Sandy Kozak repeatedly urged confidence in was that the CHRC could be depended upon to place all submissions before all relevant CHRC personnel:

KOZAK:  Any information that you forwarded in your complaint, the investigator has access to.   [01:48]


The particular application of the rule that Sandy Kozak urged belief in was that the 29-Jul-2005 Prytulak Comment had been placed before the Disposition Committee:

KOZAK:  [...] if anything that you [probably intended to say "anybody" instead of "you"] said that you don't agree with, I mean, you have the right to submit it in your submissions [meaning "in your 29-Jul-2005 Prytulak Comment"] with regards to the [Investigator's] Report.   [05:08]

PRYTULAK:  Well, nothing is paid attention to.  My submissions just vanish.  Nobody acknowledges them.  Nobody acknowledges any of my arguments.  The decision ...   [05:16]

KOZAK:  Did you submit a submission [meaning "a Comment"] to the [Investigator's] Report?   [05:18]

PRYTULAK:  Of course.   [05:18]

KOZAK:  OK, then it [the Comment] went before the Commission [meaning "before the Disposition Committee"] with it [meaning "along with the Investigator's Report"].   [05:22]


In contraindication of Sandy Kozak's trust in the integrity of the CHRC, however, is to be found the CHRC confession that the 29-Jul-2005 Prytulak Comment � which the CHRC had seven compelling reasons to place before all members of the Disposition Committee � was in fact withheld by one member of the Disposition Committee (Mary M Gusella) from the only other member (Aimable Ndejuru), as has been detailed in the following two documents:

ALL FOUR OF THE ABOVE SANDY KOZAK REPRESENTATIONS APPEAR TO BE FALSE

There appears to have been not a word of truth in anything that Sandy Kozak said.  As among the messages that Prytulak had earlier left on Chamberlin's answering machine was a list of the questions that Prytulak wanted answered, it may be assumed that Chamberlin had the opportunity to ponder these questions, and to reach agreement with Kozak as to the answers she should offer, such that her answers may be taken to also be Chamberlin's answers.  In any case, as Kozak ended by saying that Chamberlin would be calling Prytulak back so as to provide the satisfaction that she had been unable to, it can be expected that she told Chamberlin what she had been telling Prytulak, leaving Chamberlin the opportunity � indeed the obligation � to correct any misstatements that she might have made.  Chamberlin's never having called back may be taken as further indication that he has no corrections of Kozak's statements to offer, and that Kozak double-talk is the best help that the CHRC is willing to extend Prytulak in his quest to assign responsibility for smothering his voice during the CJC v Prytulak proceedings.

TRANSCRIPT WITH AUDIO FILE OF THE KOZAK-PRYTULAK DIALOGUE

The audio file which corresponds to the transcript below of the 20-Oct-2005 Sandy Kozak telephone call to Lubomyr Prytulak can be heard at 2005-09-20-chamberlin-to-prytulak.mp3.  If two copies of a web browser are opened simultaneously, it will be possible to read the transcript on one copy (which has been placed on top) while listening to the audio on the other (which has been placed underneath or minimized).

PRYTULAK:  Hello.   [00:04]

KOZAK:  Ah, yes, Mr Prytulak, please.   [00:05]

PRYTULAK:  Speaking.   [00:06]

KOZAK:  My name is Sandy Kozak.  I guess you had left a phone message for Mr Chamberlin?   [00:10]

PRYTULAK:  Oh, yes.  Uh huh.   [00:13]

KOZAK:  In response to your file with us?   [00:13]

PRYTULAK:  That's right.   [00:13]

KOZAK:  Can I help you with some questions, or answers?   [00:16]

PRYTULAK:  OK, I was interested in who the investigator was for the Investigator's Report of 30 June.   [00:25]

KOZAK:  OK.  That information isn't being put on the reports at this time because it's not relevant.   [00:36]

PRYTULAK:  In the first report that I received, the investigator's name was on it, with the invitation to communicate with the investigator.   [00:44]

KOZAK:  It's all done through, uh ... most of those Section 13 reports are investigated by a team.  So, it's done through Mr Chamberlin as a contract.   [00:55]

PRYTULAK:  Oh, so it was left to him to decide who the investigators would be, you're saying, and so on.   [01:01]

KOZAK:  There's a group of investigators [unintelligible] that have a knowledge of your complaint, but there's several of us that basically train just in this area, and all of our investigation formats have changed, and it's not relevant as to the particular investigator.  Certainly, if you have questions, such as me calling you back today, to answer them for you, then that's done that way.   [01:28]

PRYTULAK:  Now, who determines relevance, because suppose that I said to you that it's relevant to my purposes?   [01:31]

KOZAK:  Which is what?   [01:33]

PRYTULAK:  Well, I would like to, for example, contact the investigator, and verify what was placed, what documents were placed, in front of the investigator, because I think that none of my documents are being considered, none of them are appearing ...   [01:41]

KOZAK:  Any information that you forwarded in your complaint, the investigator has access to.   [01:48]

PRYTULAK:  Yeah, then the second question is, why did the investigator totally ignore all my submissions, and not represent them in any way in the Investigator's Report?   [01:57]

KOZAK:  In, as what, in particular?  Unfortunately I don't have the file in front of me, because, as you probably are aware it's gone to Commission already, so I do not have that ... I'm not able to go access that file right at this time.  Depending on what questions you ask I may be able to have access to it in the next couple of days, I'll be able to get it from ...   [02:13]

PRYTULAK:  So I have, for example, there are four key documents that I submitted which contain my defense.  One was ... I can itemize them for you.  Letters to Mary Gusella of 20 February 2004.  Another letter to Mary Gusella 06 May 2004.  Another letter to Mary Gusella 27 May 2004.   [02:40]

KOZAK:  The investigator would have had all of these letters.   [02:44]

PRYTULAK:  OK.  Well OK, but not a word, there's no mention of them, there's no reference to them ...   [02:49]

KOZAK:  It would depend on how ... I mean, in your complaint form it would state the allegations in the complaint form that was investigated.  All the investigator can do is, and I said I apologize I don't have it before me at this point, can only look at those allegations in the form.   [03:09]

PRYTULAK:  Yeah, but these are my defences to the allegations.   [03:11]

KOZAK:  Depending on what information with that Report, within the new format, all they do is put forth the information that would be brought into a tribunal by the complainant so the information that was there ...   [03:25]

PRYTULAK:  But not my information, only the complainant's information?   [03:28]

KOZAK:  Your information would have been looked at as well, and for that complaint, the recommendation was to go to tribunal, so that both sides can represent themselves with regards to that information.   [03:36]

PRYTULAK:  But there's a lot of legal precedent that says that my information, or my submissions, cannot be totally ignored, and they are being totally ignored.  That is, the investigator never said Prytulak alleges this and this, but I don't agree with it, or it isn't credible.  He didn't refute it, he didn't discount it, he simply totally ignored it as if it didn't exist, as if I had not submitted anything.  He could have at least said, "He submitted several submissions, but they were of low quality, and we decided that they weren't worth looking at," at least then he would have acknowledged them, but no, it's as if I don't exist.  Now surely that is not following any kind of legal procedure.  It's not justice.   [04:16]

KOZAK:  Well, and I guess too, if you, in your rebuttal, or in your submissions � I mean certainly here but I'm trying to find pull up your reports here � if you put that in, that would be before the Commission as well and they would have looked at that.  So, all that would be before the Commission.   [04:34]

PRYTULAK:  Well, I want to know why it wasn't in the Investigator's Report.  It's not in the Investigator's Report.  If I'm being railroaded, then I can expect to be railroaded ...   [04:41]

KOZAK:  I reviewed that report, unfortunately I guess that I don't have it before me ...   [04:44]

PRYTULAK:  It just repeated the allegations, but no defense on my part at all.   [04:48]

KOZAK:  ... and you have how the reports are done for the section 13s, and provided the information that was required, so I am trying to pull it up here, but all the necessary information would have been put before the Commission, and if anything that you said that you don't agree with, I mean, you have the right to submit it in your submissions with regards to the Report.   [05:08]

PRYTULAK:  Well, nothing is paid attention to.  My submissions just vanish.  Nobody acknowledges them.  Nobody acknowledges any of my arguments.  The decision ...   [05:16]

KOZAK:  Did you submit a submission to the Report?   [05:18]

PRYTULAK:  Of course.   [05:18]

KOZAK:  OK, then it went before the Commission with it.   [05:22]

PRYTULAK:  Which Commission?  Do you mean the latest Committee which decided to send the matter to the Tribunal?   [05:26]

KOZAK:  The Canadian Human Rights Commission ...   [05:26]

PRYTULAK:  Right, right.   [05:26]

KOZAK:  ... that hears the reports, and makes their findings.   [05:30]

PRYTULAK:  Well, I don't know what you mean by the Commission ...   [05:33]

KOZAK:  All the Investigation Report is is a recommendation.  It takes the information and puts a recommendation   [05:38]

PRYTULAK:  But it doesn't take my information   [05:38]

KOZAK:  and it goes   [05:41]

PRYTULAK:  My information wasn't there anywhere.  It took the Canadian Jewish Congress information.   [05:43]

KOZAK:  It would look at both.  It would look at the information   [05:45]

PRYTULAK:  Well how do I know that it looked at it when it's not in the Investigator's Report?   [05:45]

KOZAK:  Because that is what the investigators   [05:47]

PRYTULAK:  Oh, you expect me to trust you.  Well, why wasn't it mentioned?  Why weren't any of my arguments mentioned?   [05:53]

KOZAK:  Well, you'll have to, you know ...   [05:56]

PRYTULAK:  I'll have to what?  I just want to know ...   [05:57]

KOZAK:  Did you put that in a submission?  I'm not going to argue ...   [06:00]

PRYTULAK:  I put everything in a submission.   [06:01]

KOZAK:  Then it would be before the Commission   [06:02]

PRYTULAK:  Oh, thank you.  So, I'm supposed to trust that.  Why wasn't it in the ...  I would trust you if it was in the Investigator's Report.   [06:08]

KOZAK:  A submission doesn't get put into the report,   [06:09]

PRYTULAK:  I don't want it, I just want my arguments to be acknowledged, none of my arguments were acknowledged.   [06:15]

KOZAK:  Mr Prytulak, you're not listening to me.   [06:16]

PRYTULAK:  Yes, I am.  You're not listening to me.   [06:16]

KOZAK:  Yes, I am listening to ...   [06:19]

PRYTULAK:  No you're not.   [06:19]

KOZAK:  I'm trying to respond to your questions.   [06:20]

PRYTULAK:  I'm being ignored, all my ...    [06:21]

KOZAK:  Unfortunately, that's how you feel ...   [06:23]

PRYTULAK:  The word is called "spoliation."  My submissions are being destroyed, or suppressed.  That's what's happening.   [06:31]

KOZAK:  Unfortunately you feel that way, the information was ...   [06:32]

PRYTULAK:  Now I want to know ... let's narrow our discussion.  Do I have the right to know the investigator or not?  Because usually the investigator signs the report.  There's no signature.  I want to know if anybody is going to take credit for this report.  Who wrote the report?  Can you tell me that?   [06:47]

KOZAK:  I don't know if we're releasing that information.   [06:50]

PRYTULAK:  You're saying you don't have to release it, and I don't have to know?  Is that your position?   [06:55]

KOZAK:  Pardon me?   [06:55]

PRYTULAK:  That's your position.  You don't have to release it, and you're not going to tell me if you don't feel like it.  Is that your position?   [07:00]

KOZAK:  I told you what my position was.   [07:03]

PRYTULAK:  Repeat it, please.   [07:03]

KOZAK:  and if you would like to keep arguing with me   [07:05]

PRYTULAK:  No, repeat your position.  You are not going to tell me.   [07:07]

KOZAK:  I'll have Mr Chamberlin call you back.  I thought I could help you ...   [07:10]

PRYTULAK:  Why don't you just tell me � are you going to tell me the name of the investigator or not?   [07:14]

KOZAK:  No, I'm not.   [07:14]

PRYTULAK:  All right.  And you think I don't have a right to know?   [07:17]

KOZAK:  I'm saying I don't know at this point if we're releasing that information to you.   [07:21]

PRYTULAK:  So, you have a right to hold it back?  Hannya Rizk was the first investigator, in the First Investigator's Report.  Why did you release that information?   [07:30]

KOZAK:  We've changed our format since then.  I explained that to you, Mr Prytulak.   [07:33]

PRYTULAK:  I'm sorry, you've changed your what?   [07:34]

KOZAK:  We've changed our investigative format, our report formats.   [07:37]

PRYTULAK:  For everybody, so now nobody gets to know the investigator?  Is that true?   [07:42]

KOZAK:  Yes.   [07:42]

PRYTULAK:  I didn't know that.  Has that been announced, or justified anywhere?  Where can I read this?   [07:47]

KOZAK:  I don't know.  It could be online.  I haven't looked.   [07:49]

PRYTULAK:  All right.  So, what I understand from you now is that nobody now knows the investigator in the Investigator's Report.  Is that what you're telling me?   [08:01]

KOZAK:  Yes, they're not ... the reports aren't signed by the investigators.   [08:02]

PRYTULAK:  And you've changed that recently?   [08:05]

KOZAK:  It was in the last six months.   [08:08]

PRYTULAK:  I see.  And that wasn't announced anywhere?   [08:10]

KOZAK:  I don't know if it was or not.  That's not my department.   [08:12]

PRYTULAK:  Very interesting.  OK.  And so you can't answer any of my questions.  My questions are, Who was the investigator?   [08:21]

KOZAK:  I did answer that, I said that ...   [08:22]

PRYTULAK:  You said you won't tell me.   [08:23]

KOZAK:  That's right, I don't know what our policy is.   [08:27]

PRYTULAK:  And the other question which you can't answer is, Why is all my information excluded from the Investigator's Report?  Why is the investigator not investigating?   [08:33]

KOZAK:  I ...   [08:33]

PRYTULAK:  You don't know that either.   [08:33]

KOZAK:  investigated fully   [...]

PRYTULAK:  You believe that, but you haven't even read the report.   [08:39]

KOZAK:  Yes, I told you that I did read the report.   [08:41]

PRYTULAK:  You did?  And did you read all my submissions to find out if they were included in the report?   [08:43]

KOZAK:  I read all the information that was put forth.   [08:46]

PRYTULAK:  You did not read my submissions, you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm telling you that all my information is excluded.  And you're telling me what?  Oh, it's not excluded?   [08:53]

KOZAK:  I'm not going to argue with you.  I'll have the supervisor call you, as obviously you're not satisfied with my answers.   [08:58]

PRYTULAK:  You bet I'm not.   [08:58]

KOZAK:  Have a nice afternoon.   [09:00]

PRYTULAK:  You too, bye.   [09:01]


LUBOMYR PRYTULAK IS WAITING

The CHRC has contaminated the CJC v Prytulak proceedings with duplicity and fraud.  The CHRC request that the CHRT inquire into the matter of CJC v Prytulak is a nullity.  The only inquiry that the facts of CJC v Prytulak mandate is an inquiry into the lawlessness of the CHRC.

Lubomyr Prytulak is waiting for the CHRC to inform him of the identity of the Second Investigator so that Prytulak can ask that Second Investigator to name the person who commanded the exclusion of Prytulak facts and arguments from the Second Investigator's Report.  Lubomyr Prytulak is waiting for Canadian Jewish Congress lawyer Mark J Freiman to join Prytulak's condemnation of CHRC malfeasance, and of CHRC cover-up of its malfeasance, as a belated first step toward demonstrating that the Canadian Jewish Congress is not its instigator.  Lubomyr Prytulak is waiting for both CJC lawyer Mark J Freiman and CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna to awaken to responsibilities that they may have under Ontario codes of conduct which parallel the British Columbia responsibility below:

A lawyer has a duty to be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client or of persons associated with such a client and, in some circumstances, may have a duty to make inquiries.

Professional Conduct Handbook, The Law Society of British Columbia, January, 1993, Chapter 4: Avoiding Questionable Conduct, Including Improper Communications, p. 10.1, Footnote 3.




Lubomyr Prytulak

cc:
Irving ABELLA, National Honourary President, CJC, Department of History, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto ON  M3J 1P3
John J CHAMBERLIN, Manager Investigations, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1
Hon Irwin COTLER, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 0H8
Mark J FREIMAN, CJC lawyer, McCarthy Tetrault, Suite 4700, Toronto Dominion Tower, Toronto ON  M5K 1E6
Mary M GUSELLA, Chief Commissioner, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1
Rt Hon Paul MARTIN, Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister, 80 Wellington Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 0A2
Ed MORGAN, CJC National President, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 84 Queen's Park, Toronto ON  M5S 2C5
Giacomo VIGNA, CHRC lawyer, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON  K1A 1E1

HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  MARTIN  MORGAN  SCHWARTZ  SINCLAIR