the destruction of evidence or the protection of clients?

Throughout the criminal pretrial much was said by the Crown, witnesses, the Police, and even the Judge, that Colin Grieve and Paul Atkinson were attempting to obstruct just by suggesting to their clients to destroy their WSIB records after their claims were successfully won. Grieve and Atkinson even sent letters to some of their clients telling them to destroy these records after their claims were successful. A few witnesses even testified to this in court. Is this proof that Grieve and Atkinson were trying to cover up a fraud or were obstructing justice?

Certainly, this is the picture the OPFFA (SANTORO, HYNDMAN, AND NOW BRYANT), the Police, and the Crown are trying to paint. The OPFFA know all too well exactly why Colin and Paul were telling their clients to do this. They were telling their clients to do this because they received direction from the OPFFA and the OPFFA’s lawyers to do just that. This was the policy, and every executive at the OPFFA was aware of this in 2004. How exactly do I know this? Well, there are still some good and honest people in this world, and one of them is from within the OPFFA and has provided me with a document that was prepared for the OPFFA by their retained lawyers back in 2004.

President LeBlanc had requested a review of the OPFFA WSIB committee which was representing retirees at the WSIB. President LeBlanc wanted to be sure of all the implications and legal ramifications that could stem from representing non paying retired, or deceased members, and what would result from this action. It’s a very thorough four-page document, shedding light on many of the contested issues pertaining to this civil suit and criminal trial. I would bet the OPFFA hoped this document would never see the light of day.

In regards to the WSIB records held by the OPFFA and by the clients, the law firm stated this information should only be retained for as long as it was useful and needed. And the information should only be released or disclosed to the extent permitted or authorized under the consent. And to the extent possible, the information should be kept in an anonymous fashion where it is not necessary to
access the names of the individuals concerned. It’s possible that the Crown, the Police, and the Judge were not aware that this was the policy, nor aware of the data base the OPFFA still keeps. However, it begs to question what are the ramifications of not disclosing this document before the court and wasting the Court’s time on this matter when the OPFFA and their lawyers knew that this document/ policy existed. I don’t know much about the law and court proceedings, but I think this would support a charge of perjury, mischief or knowingly providing a false testimony/statement.

Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on telegram
Share on email
Share on print
Close Menu