Did Buckley compromise student safety? Yes, in a kindergarten class she used and mixed chemicals without identifying them first. She also did not fix unsafe items in the school.
Did Buckley break the law by allowing the WHMIS binder to remain obsolete and pose a danger to staff and students for months & months? Yes.
Did Buckley allow the Head Custodian to cross contaminate the washrooms by taking the urine and feces from the toilet up to the sinks and counter tops? Yes.
Did Fisher on the other hand, use his own money to purchase cleaning cloths, sterilized them at night on his own time and keep the sink & counter top cloths separate from the toilet cloths. Yes.
Did Buckley ensure that the Head Custodian sterilized his cleaning rags? No. Buckley permitted the Head Custodian to use the same rags day after day without sterilizing them which cross contaminated his entire area with germs.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
17
Did Lownsbrough, as she ridiculously claimed, conduct a complete and thorough investigation? No, a thorough investigation would not have excluded Fisher from being interviewed and having a hearing before being fired, nor would it contain so many errors, lies, false accusations, distortions and the investigation report would not have disappeared, but been available if it had ever existed.
Did Lownsbrough give the false impression in the dismissal letter that she had met and interviewed Fisher prior to firing him? Yes, because Buckley actually wrote the letter.
Was Buckley a source for accurate information? Absolutely not ! She outright lied, misrepresented events, made false accusations and distorted the truth in misleading Administrators and Trustees.
Did Lownsbrough operate a double standard when she would not permit Fisher to talk about the Head Custodian without him being present to defend himself, yet she allowed all to talk about Fisher behind his back, without him being present to defend himself? Yes.
Was Buckley in a blind rage to get Fisher fired? Yes.
Did Buckley distort versions of events? Yes.
Has Buckley lost all credibility in this matter? Yes.
Did Buckley mislead Human Resources Akehurst , Superintendent Rubadeau, Director Lownsbrough and the Board of Trustees? Yes repeatedly! Up to 9 months later, on Nov 15/99, Buckley was spreading misleading information to administration about Custodian Fisher that she knew to be false and inaccurate.
Did Buckley conceal her backup figures for the total minutes that she accused Fisher of leaving work early? Yes, even after being asked for them several times.
Did Fisher leave work up to 1 hour and 45 minutes early as Buckley claimed? No, the alarm printout proves that he did not leave early, he actually worked 2 hours extra on his own time that night.
Long after being given the accurate facts, did Buckley continue to spread her false accusations, to Superintendent Rubadeau? Yes, on Nov 15/99, 9 months later, she spread false and inaccurate information to Rubadeau, misleading the Superintendent of Schools and Trustees.
Were Buckley's times in the dismissal letter accurate and complete? No, the alarm computer printout proved her times false & inaccurate.
Did Fisher ever set the alarm in the main school before the portables? Yes, the alarm printout proves that to be true.
Did Buckley authorize Fisher to leave early? Yes.
Did the poor training of Buckley as on-site custodian supervisor cause problems that took her time? Yes. Did Buckley blame some of that time on Fisher. Yes.
Did SD #23 set up a Fraudulent Layoff which blocked Fisher from receiving regular employee status with rightfully due health benefits? Yes.
Did SD #23 make false entries on the Revenue Canada Record of Employment? Yes, SD #23 admitted on tape, to entering a false shortage of work on the ROE, which was used in setting up a fraudulent layoff and later it was discovered that SD #23 recalled laid off workers on July 1/98, yet on July 10/98 some 9 days later it entered a false recall date of Sept 8/98 on the ROE.
THANK YOU....YOUR VISIT IS APPRECIATED
SCARECROW
MAEVE BUCKLEY
truly Scary.
Did Buckley instruct Fisher to steal time from SD #23 and to balance out times? Yes at two schools.
Did Buckley allow Fisher to see, discuss and sign the Custodian Evaluations as SD #23 required? No, Buckley hid them from Fisher who was never given a chance to see them, discuss or sign them as SD #23 required.
Did SD #23 ensure that Buckley followed the Custodian Evaluation Report procedure? No.
NOTE:
The government found that SD #23 did make false statements on Fisher's Record Of Employment,
but not knowingly.
Hogwash, SD23 has been playing this paper shuffle knowingly for a long time to prevent workers from reaching regular employee status with benefits.
Did Buckley write the Feb 25/99 letter that Lownsbrough signed? Yes, proof exists that Buckley wrote the letter & Buckley is less than honest when she denied that she wrote It.
Did Lownsbrough just rubber stamp the letter? Yes.
Here is proof that Buckley actually wrote the letter that Lownsbrough claimed as her own. This torn up draft letter written by Buckley was found.
PRINCIPAL MAEVE BUCKLEY Feb 24/99
The Canadian Government has told SD #23 to STOP entering false and misleading information on ROE's
SCHOOL DISTRICT #23 MALFEASANCE
17
By entering false information on the Record of Employment, are SD #23 administrators subject to a punishable offence under Canadian Employment Laws? Yes up to $12,000 for each administrator that was aware of the false entries.
Did the Fisher family's health deteriorate because SD #23 denied him benefits? Yes, the Fishers suffered severe dental problems and pain.
Did Fisher legally become a regular employee entitled to benefits on July 24 / 98? Yes.
Was Fisher covered by the union collective agreement? Yes.
Did SD #23 have the right to extend Fisher's probation? No Fisher had legally served the probation.
Did SD #23 have cause to fire Fisher? No, SD #23 Buckley, Lalonde & Lownsbrough lied, made up false accusations, distorted facts, slandered and defamed Fisher.
SD 23 was “malicious, high-handed, outrageous, reckless, wanton, entirely without
care, intentional, deliberate, callous, disgraceful, willful, exploitative, and in disregard
of Custodian Fisher's rights and indifferent to the consequences.”
SD #23's claims against Fisher are groundless & fabricated. SD #23 colluded & conspired to discredit Fisher.
J.A. Dixon
SD #23's claims against Fisher are groundless & fabricated.
SD #23 colluded & conspired to discredit Fisher.
J.A. Dixon
SD #23 colluded & conspired to discredit Fisher. SD #23's claims against Fisher are groundless & fabricated.
J.A. Dixon
**********
