Tribunal

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:43 pm

I don't know if anyone has experience in the Civil Aviation Tribunal arena, but it might be interesting to hear comments from those who have. I have heard they are little more than a "he said she said" with TC normally prevailing.

Any comments?

Out of Control · Post by **Out of Control** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:51 pm

Deny, Deny, Deny

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:53 pm

I was subpoened as a witness for TC around 1993, it was concerning a company falsifying jurney and personal logs.

the proceedings were exactly like a court and very impartial, I found the tribunal in that instance to be fair.

Cat

CD · Post by CD » Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:04 pm

It's actually the Transportation Appeal Tribunal now as it's scope has expanded over the years to include other modes of transportation as well as the CTA.

Eagle Eye · Post by **Eagle Eye** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:49 pm

The hearings are open to the public. I hear there will be one in Vancouver the end of this month. Check out the TATC website for a schedule.

From what I know, it's as close to a court hearing as it gets...lawyers, witnesses, cross-examination, evidence, the whole shitteroo.

Don't fool yourself (or be fooled by other anti-TC left wingers), this is no kangaroo court controlled by TC.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:19 pm

They are conducted under the rules of administrative law, begin with assumed neutrality, and the finding is based on a balance of probabilities. Unlike a criminal court judge, a tribunal panel or chair can ask questions and call for evidence neither side has introduced if it will help them find the truth of the situtation, and that is the goal.

Criminal courts presume innocence, can only consider evidence presented by crown or defense, and require the crown to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge has no interest in finding the truth, and is only interested in weighing if the crown has met their burden of proof.

l_reason · Post by **l_reason** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:11 am

I have been there and done that. If you want to win bring a lawyer that knows their sh*t. Here in Ontario the system was rather corrupt (of course that’s my opinion). If your going contest a charge be sure and ask for full disclosure so you will know exactly what evidence they have on you. Bring as meny witnesses as you can and if possible ask to have witnesses subpoenaed to court if need be. Also ask them what the percentage of the cases they lose are. That will give you an idea how one sided their game is.

PM me if you like
P

wha happen · Post by **wha happen** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:28 am

what were you there for?

Was it for that time that you went balistic with penny benjamin?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:50 pm

I was quite surprised as to the very low caliber of the members (think judges). Not what I was expecting.

Also, it's very "loosey-goosey". Virtually no rules of evidence. Anything and everything is admissible, including hearsay.

It doesn't start to get serious, really, until you appeal to Federal Court, which is of nebulous value because if you get a decision from Federal Court in your favour, Transport may simply ignore it, or act in very bad faith upon their ruling.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:14 am

I'm not sure what specifically applies with TC, but in most cases, when an administrative tribunal finding is appealed to the courts, the court can only consider the matter on a point of law. In other words, was the hearing procedurally correct and fair? The evidence presented at the hearing can only be reconsidered if it was so weak as to constitute a violation of the fundemental principles of justice.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:31 am

That's the theory, Wilbur (you can only appeal on a matter of law, not evidence) but what Transport does when it appeals a decision it doesn't like, is to claim that there is a "mixture" of the two.

W0X0F · Post by **W0X0F** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:32 am

The Chairperson of the Tribunal is Faye Smith. In her former employment at Transport Canada she deceived and mislead the Tribunal. At the Tribunal she has conducted herself in an unethical and unfair manner. She can not be trusted. With Smith at the head, the Tribunal is just a TC rubber stamp. Avoid it. If you need advice, PM me.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:10 pm

"We're sitting here fat, dumb, and happy, if you like, and then all of a sudden we get this spate of stuff going on on the Pacific Coast," Preuss said. "We have no conclusions yet."

So, tell me WOXOF is she a crony of this guy or the fromer DGCA?

W0X0F · Post by **W0X0F** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:31 pm

Cat,

Faye Smith's business card of the day ('93) read

Manager, Appeals Division
Regulatory Compliance
Transport Canada AARBG

Could have saved ink by writing just another f#c*ing liar, I mean lawyer.

ajet32 · Post by **ajet32** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:46 pm

Went to one in 1999. I was the charged, Transport came in force. Three Inspectorsa, tow ATC witnesses and an observer. Be prepared and if it is serious bring a lawyer to protect your rights.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:42 pm

Quote:

" Be prepared and if it is serious bring a lawyer to protect your rights. "

Having a lawyer will not protect your rights when dealing withTCCA.

They could care less about your rights and are unacountable unless you are very, very rich and can afford to spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers.

Once again under its present management TCCA can and will if they choose do anything they want....rights in the mind of some of these people mean nothing.

You would be wise to treat them (TCCA) as more dangerous to your rights than the lowest of criminals.

Because criminals sometimes get dealt with by the courts....

Cat

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:29 pm

What happens if you just don't show up???

t34ag · Post by **t34ag** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:49 pm

if your to busy that day (working,flying,etc,etc, Case Dismissed.

Eagle Eye · Post by **Eagle Eye** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:33 pm

The crown still has to present it's full case and attempt to prove the violations occured. There is no need to show up....but of course if you don't present evidence to support your side, then your chances of success are limited.

170 to xray · Post by **170 to xray** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:09 pm

Also "been there, done that". Despite what some may say I found it to be very much a kangaroo court. Plenty of pomp and cerimony with very little substance, in my opinion.

I had the pleasure of listening to a TC inspector lie to my face and the chairman (judge) regarding the allegations. Their whole defence revolved around "it is proposterous to think that a Transport Canada inspector would act in such an unprofessional manner."

Long story short. They protect their own. You are very unlikely to win, or for that matter receive any satisfaction.

But I did watch that fat shit squirm in his seat during the proceedings and that still makes me smile.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:48 pm

" Their whole defence revolved around "it is proposterous to think that a Transport Canada inspector would act in such an unprofessional manner."

The reality is they will lie and screw over in a heart beat.

Do you believe politicians?

These people ( TCCA upper management ) are politicians that can't make it in politics.

wingtip · Post by **wingtip** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:22 pm

170 to xray wrote:Also "been there, done that". Despite what some may say I found it to be very much a kangaroo court. Plenty of pomp and cerimony with very little substance, in my opinion.

I had the pleasure of listening to a TC inspector lie to my face and the chairman (judge) regarding the allegations. Their whole defence revolved around "it is proposterous to think that a Transport Canada inspector would act in such an unprofessional manner."

Long story short. They protect their own. You are very unlikely to win, or for that matter receive any satisfaction.

But I did watch that fat shit squirm in his seat during the proceedings and that still makes me smile.

Been there as well and found nearly identical. I was pitted against a rather deceptive TC inspector from YHM and his Case Presenter from YOW that were most pathetic and were adverse to speaking any form of the truth.

Funnily enough they presented no evidence other than a twisted bunch of lies.

Would I recommed the process? Absolutely! If nothing else just to let them know you won't stand for the abuse!

Will you win? I would like to think the chairman is unbiased but they and the case presenters are all commrades. I think success is unlikely.

Advise? Get very familiar with the precedings and do get full disclosure. Call as many coroberating witnesses as possible. Seek legal advice!

The plus for me is the knowledge that I will never again deal with the TC Inspector...maybe....

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:05 am

Amen to all the above.
Perhaps there may be something coming down the line. Standby for further.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:07 pm

Interesting reading on this subject, seven people gave their first hand opinion on the tribunal and mine was the only positive experience...but could that be because I was a witness for TC?

Anyhow it does confirm that I relate things as close to the truth as I can and am not as biased as some here paint me to be.

Cat

Sasquash · Post by **Sasquash** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:21 pm

you're right CAT.

I checked the outcome on some of the Tribunal cases and TC does not win all the time. Which means it's not one sided, which means somebody must have done something wrong sometime !!!