Liberals quickly pay Dinwall $420,000.00 severance etc for a job

[fixer1]

Well it seems that the out going liberals have one more scandel before they leave office tommorrow. It was about the "Dingwall case where he said he was entitled to his entitlements" It seems a third party judical review say he was fired and was due this money. Now everyone remembers Dingwal himself told parliament that he quit his job at the mint voluntarily, and so did the Martin Liberals. Now we find out that it is said he was fired and gets this severance. This also was known to Martin 3 days before the elections and he covered it up until writing the cheque last friday. Also there is one other thing of paying many millions to the harbour commission in Toronto for the Island airport, that the public does not want etc. This was also paid out last friday.

I guess it is just two more reasons why the liberals need to be out of power. If the Dingwal report was not covered up, until after the election, I beleive you would have seen majority government instead of the minority. I guess this is also why the leadership race is like a game of hot potatoe and no one wants the job. It is going to be a long long time before the Liberals will be able to rebuild, and if my feelings are right on this you will see the NDP supplant the liberals in seats come the next election, but the CPC will get the majority they are looking for, as all they need to do now to get Canadians respect is live up to the promises made, and that will be all people need to again feel like they are backing an honest winner.

[geoffrey]

Already covered here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5032

[shoop]

Very interesting how the Liberals withheld the information of the payout in the dying days of the election.

CTV News has learned the deal to pay the former president of the Royal Canadian Mint $417,780 along with associated pension benefits was approved Jan. 20, three days before Canadians voted in the federal election.

Random CTV link.

[Spike22]

Good ridence. To Dingnoutz. Let's see how many patronage appointments the conservatives make once their butts are in the power seat.

[geoffrey]

Good ridence. To Dingnoutz. Let's see how many patronage appointments the conservatives make once their butts are in the power seat.

I heard I'm getting a senate seat, but I don't know if I'm supposed to say.

[Bro]

DISGUSTING

[tml12]

DISGUSTING

Completely agreed.

I hate the Liberals. $420,000 plus benefits... :angry:

[Kincora]

DISGUSTING

Completely agreed.

I hate the Liberals. $420,000 plus benefits... :angry:

Hello boys and girls. I ran into this political forum, and after reading, had to register an account and add my voice. I don't often see boards as dominated by Conservative minded people as this one.

Anyhow, here's a different perspective on the Dingwall scandal.

Dingwall resigned his post because he felt it was important for the mint in order to maintain itself as a profitable organization. Before he took over, the mint was in horrible shape.

He was forced out of his position because Conservative MP Brian Pallister accused him of gross misspending. He made these accusations quite public and two inquiries were ordered as a result fo these accusations.

What I don't see mentioned by the Conservatives is that Dingwall was exonerated by two, strenuous audits. These audits were independant and not disputed by the Conservatives at their release.

The Liberals merely payed out the balance of his contract, which is what any employer should do if they are found to have wrongly dismissed an employee.

That's all it is folks. Another point, the accusations by MP Dingwall were found to be utterlybaseless. The cost of the two inquiries was 418,000 dollars... a number very close to the balance of Dingwall's contract that the Liberals payed out....so, Dingwall seems to ahve doubled the cost to taxpayers. And all for unresearched, unintelligent accusations whose only purpose was to create another scandal where none existed.

I don't mean to spoil you fun. But this was not a scandal of any kind. If anything, I would look at Dingwall and accuse him of political grandstanding.

[geoffrey]

He quit. You don't get severance when you quit.

If he was 'forced out' then he should say so. Instead he blabbers on about 'I'm entitled to my entitlements'. You don't get your contract paid out when you walk off a job.

Welcome though Kincora.

[Kincora]

He quit. You don't get severance when you quit.

If he was 'forced out' then he should say so. Instead he blabbers on about 'I'm entitled to my entitlements'. You don't get your contract paid out when you walk off a job.

Welcome though Kincora.

Geoff, he did complain about being forced out, during the inquiries themselves. He was found to have been forced out of his job by the public inquiries.

That's why he was payed the balance of his contract.

So no, he didn't quit.

[shoop]

Uhhh, say what you will but this place is no FreeDominion.

Hello boys and girls. I ran into this political forum, and after reading, had to register an account and add my voice. I don't often see boards as dominated by Conservative minded people as this one.

[geoffrey]

He quit. You don't get severance when you quit.

If he was 'forced out' then he should say so. Instead he blabbers on about 'I'm entitled to my entitlements'. You don't get your contract paid out when you walk off a job.

Welcome though Kincora.

Geoff, he did complain about being forced out, during the inquiries themselves. He was found to have been forced out of his job by the public inquiries.

That's why he was payed the balance of his contract.

So no, he didn't quit.

Yes, he tendered his resignation. He quit. There is no other way to see it. He resigned, over done and over some more.

I can complain all I want about being forced to quit. At the end of the day I still quit. If he felt so abused he should have stayed their until he was fired and then sued.

[Kincora]

Uhhh, say what you will but this place is no FreeDominion.

Hello boys and girls. I ran into this political forum, and after reading, had to register an account and add my voice. I don't often see boards as dominated by Conservative minded people as this one.

All I was saying was that there are alot of people posting here who see things from a right of center perspective, as I do myself.

Don't ruffle your feathers and take insult where there is none.

[Kincora]

He quit. You don't get severance when you quit.

If he was 'forced out' then he should say so. Instead he blabbers on about 'I'm entitled to my entitlements'. You don't get your contract paid out when you walk off a job.

Welcome though Kincora.

Geoff, he did complain about being forced out, during the inquiries themselves. He was found to have been forced out of his job by the public inquiries.

That's why he was payed the balance of his contract.

So no, he didn't quit.

Yes, he tendered his resignation. He quit. There is no other way to see it. He resigned, over done and over some more.

I can complain all I want about being forced to quit. At the end of the day I still quit. If he felt so abused he should have stayed their until he was fired and then sued.

But the point of this is that an independant inquiry held that he was forced out, not just Dingwall himself.

Sure, it's debatable whether or not he was really forced out, but thats irrelevant.

The Liberals payed him out because of the recommendations of an independant inquiry. What else would you have them do? Thumb their noses at the inquiry? Give it the finger and say " screw you Dingwall!"

This wasn't a random, pay out for a Liberal supporter, it was just paying off the contract of a wrongfully dismissed employee. That's what I am trying to show since this thread was posted with the intention of showing this payout as scandalous behaviour.

[shoop]

Good to hear ... I guess. But my post wasn't all *ruffled feathers*...

All I was saying was that there are alot of people posting here who see things from a right of center perspective, as I do myself.

Don't ruffle your feathers and take insult where there is none.

[Kincora]

Anyways Shoop, what do you think about the Dingwall payout?

[shoop]

I am sickened by the fact that it took place a couple days before the election and it wasn't announced until after.

It is truly sad that Dingwall get any money as severance. I think the Government could very well have won its case in court. However, court costs alone could have pushed the cost over the half million range so this was likely the most cost effective outcome for the Government.

Anyways Shoop, what do you think about the Dingwall payout?

[RB]

I am sickened by the fact that it took place a couple days before the election and it wasn't announced until after.

It is truly sad that Dingwall get any money as severance. I think the Government could very well have won its case in court. However, court costs alone could have pushed the cost over the half million range so this was likely the most cost effective outcome for the Government.

Anyways Shoop, what do you think about the Dingwall payout?

If a choice is given to resign - resignation is not voluntary - its that simple.

The test is: would a reasonable person believe that Dinwall would resign from a government post?

A person can allege that they resigned from their job ... for a reason that some changes occur - thats a breech, in this case a person becomes entitled to damages for constructive dismissal.

I don't think the government would have won.

[fellowtraveller]

I am sickened by the fact that it took place a couple days before the election and it wasn't announced until after.

It is truly sad that Dingwall get any money as severance. I think the Government could very well have won its case in court. However, court costs alone could have pushed the cost over the half million range so this was likely the most cost effective outcome for the Government.

Anyways Shoop, what do you think about the Dingwall payout?

If a choice is given to resign - resignation is not voluntary - its that simple.

The test is: would a reasonable person believe that Dinwall would resign from a government post?

A person can allege that they resigned from their job ... for a reason that some changes occur - thats a breech, in this case a person becomes entitled to damages for constructive dismissal.

I don't think the government would have won.

Huh???

A choice is given to resign - it is not voluntary - what does that mean???

If you're implying that Dingwall was given a choice to resign or be fired - he certainly had that choice, not an uncommon one on termination anywhere. He knew that if he was fired, he'd get compensation as per his contract. if he quit, he wouldn't. He would have to prove that he resigned under duress, something that has never been mentioned, but more importantly soemthing he knew would cost him a half milion bucks.

All he had to do to get the money was allow himself to be fired.

[RB]

I am sickened by the fact that it took place a couple days before the election and it wasn't announced until after.

It is truly sad that Dingwall get any money as severance. I think the Government could very well have won its case in court. However, court costs alone could have pushed the cost over the half million range so this was likely the most cost effective outcome for the Government.

Anyways Shoop, what do you think about the Dingwall payout?

If a choice is given to resign - resignation is not voluntary - its that simple.

The test is: would a reasonable person believe that Dinwall would resign from a government post?

A person can allege that they resigned from their job ... for a reason that some changes occur - thats a breech, in this case a person becomes entitled to damages for constructive dismissal.

I don't think the government would have won.

Huh???

A choice is given to resign - it is not voluntary - what does that mean???

If you're implying that Dingwall was given a choice to resign or be fired - he certainly had that choice, not an uncommon one on termination anywhere. He knew that if he was fired, he'd get compensation as per his contract. if he quit, he wouldn't. He would have to prove that he resigned under duress, something that has never been mentioned, but more importantly soemthing he knew would cost him a half milion bucks.

All he had to do to get the money was allow himself to be fired.

OK - generally if a person gives a resignation notice and it is accepted by an employer - then only outstanding wages and vacation pay is due.

If an employer gives someone a "choice"

- you either resign

- or be fired

The courts usually find that this resignation is not voluntary

There is a constructive dismisal that occurs under common law - where there is a fundamental breech of contract by the employer that entitles the employee to resign in response and claim damages

I brought up the reasonable person believe because

- I don't believe that a person would resign from a job if he did not have another job to go to

- plus the fellow worked at a top job

- if someone is found to be dishonest in their jobs - the courts usually look at the person history, age, position, level of compensation, availability of a similar job, length of service and work record - and find that the person needs discipline instead of dismissal McKinleyv. BC Tel [2001] 2 SCR 161, Litster v. British Columbia Ferry Corporation, [2003] BCJ no. 817 (SC)

In this case I think Dinwall might have been able to capitalise further and held his employer liable for further damages such as

- aggravated damages - like mental stress

- punitive damages

- extended wallace-type notice

What I mean is that a resignation must be unequivocal - nothing lingering, in order to be treated as a resignation

[fellowtraveller]

What I mean is that a resignation must be unequivocal - nothing lingering, in order to be treated as a resignation

Interesting discussion but don't you overlook a very pertinent point that is present in Dingwalls case, and not in an ordinary termination.

The money. Follow the money.

This isn't about two weeks pay.

[geoffrey]

What I mean is that a resignation must be unequivocal - nothing lingering, in order to be treated as a resignation

Interesting discussion but don't you overlook a very pertinent point that is present in Dingwalls case, and not in an ordinary termination.

The money. Follow the money.

This isn't about two weeks pay.

The amount is no higher than average for an executive in a company that size, if its the "severance" your talking about.

[Montgomery Burns]

That $420,000 deal happened on Jan 20; 3 days before the election. The Liberals kept it hushed--along with their cohorts in the media--and might have cost the Conservatives a majority victory. Once again, the left subverts democracy.