Court to consider case involving disgruntled Shaw customer adjudicating proceeding

The Federal Court of Canada will hear May 4 in Toronto the matter of Shaw Communications Inc. v. Craig Paquet. In the proceeding that began two years ago, Shaw is attempting to have the Human Resources Development Canada adjudicator in a labour dispute removed from the case. Craig Paquet is an independent contractor who brought a non-payment action against Shaw in 2001. During a hearing, adjudicator Richard Bourassa didn’t impress Shaw staffers attending the proceeding. The company argues that the adjudicator is a disgruntled Internet service customer with a bone to pick with the company. In an affidavit filed with the court, Tammy England, now director of business at Shaw and who at the time was responsible for overseeing the relationship with Paquet, notes: "During the examination of the Shaw witnesses, Mr. Bourassa appeared to be paying no attention. He gazed out the window, focusing on fixed objects for long periods of time, blinked very slowly, rested (with his head down and his eyes closed) and did not ask questions or take many notes. His facial expressions seldom changed throughout the examination...He did not even notice that I was aware of and paying attention to his absolute lack of attention to the case or the evidence. "Contrarily, during cross-examinations of Shaw’s witnesses, Mr. Bourassa was alert and attentive. He maintained eye contact and looked at the person who was speaking, asked questions, took notes and did not gaze out the window or rest head down with his eyes closed. His facial expression indicated that he was paying attention. He sat upright in his chair. Shaw’s objections were overruled quickly, apparently without any consideration." Affidavits by other employees and company records show that Bourassa had made dozens of complaints prior to the hearing against Shaw related to his cable Internet service. Noted one employee in an affidavit: "I am advised by two of Shaw’s installers, Darren Babitzke and Keith MacDonald, and do verily believe, that the Bourassas were extremely angry with us and blamed Shaw for problems relating to their P.C.s, which were not caused by Shaw. Most of the customer’s issues were as result (sic) of defective hardware Richard Bourassa owned or from their son’s games and then his attempting to fix some of the problems of his own creation. Specifically, the Bourassas had problems with their RAM and CMOS battery, which were not caused by Shaw and created many of the difficulties resulting in the many service calls. "I have 300,000 subscribers in our system. There are few subscribers in the entire system with as many complaints as the Bourassas. The records and my discussions with my technicians establish that the Bourassas were very unhappy and disgruntled with Shaw. The letter of complaint further establishes this. It explained why Mr. Bourassa showed such hostility to us from the beginning of the case." Shaw’s lawyer, Lang Michener legalist Howard Levitt, finally wrote to Bourassa on Jan. 22, 2002, to say: "As I noted, I am uncomfortable making this application but cannot envisage any practical choice. It appears to everyone who was present from Shaw that you were, at best, going through the motions and the result is pre-ordained. "In discussing this with our client, we wondered what could possibly have motivated your behaviour. I asked that our client review its records to determine whether you had any previous dispute with Shaw. That review indicated a highly unusual number of complaints against Shaw on the part of you and/or your wife. One such notation noted that you were ‘angry’ with Shaw. Mr. Harvey recalls your having written a letter of complaint as well." "We would ask that you agree to remove yourself and request that Labour Canada appoint a different adjudicator. I cannot imagine that you would wish to proceed when one of the parties lacks confidence in your objectivity and is uncomfortable appearing before you. We do not wish to embarrass you and will not publicize this request or its reasons in these circumstances."

Court to consider case involving disgruntled Shaw customer adjudicating proceeding

News | 04/08/2004 4:00 am EDT

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us