Breaking a promise is not good Ms. Clark

[maryjane48]

Turpel-Lafond filed a notice of civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court Friday, accusing the province of breaking a verbal agreement to provide her with one-and-a-half years of pension credit for every year of service as the representative for children and youth.


Turpel-Lafond filed a notice of civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court Friday, accusing the province of breaking a verbal agreement to provide her with one-and-a-half years of pension credit for every year of service as the representative for children and youth.

She claims she took a leave of absence as a provincial court judge in Saskatchewan based on that verbal agreement, waiving her right to contribute to the judges’ pension fund.

In part, the claim states: “The plaintiff pleads that the defendant’s failure to either provide or acknowledge the enhanced pension entitlement owed to the plaintiff is motivated by malice and bad faith. The defendant has demonstrated a history of animosity and hostility toward the plaintiff in her role as RCY [Representative for Children and Youth].”

[maryjane48]

this will be a test of clarks integrity . will she admit being wrong and honor the agreement or like a true corrupt politician be forced into it by a judge again hmmmmmm . getting kind of silly having to see my tax money going out the door wasted by a egotistical so called leader . embarrasing really

[alfred2]

Has she any one to back up her verbal agreement>. This smells a judge would know better then to work without a contract,if she did she is not very smart.

[maryjane48]

the case isnt based on anyones intelligence . it is black and white . will clark be honest and h9nor a agrrement or cost us taxpayers yet again more money ?


by the way alfred since this seems to evade you . the office she held was non partisan . she wasnt ndp or bclib or any party in her role .

[Veovis]

Verbal contracts tend to be worth the paper they are written on.

A judge well versed in law is quite unlikely to agree to any verbal terms of pension.

[flamingfingers]

Canadian Contract Law - What Constitutes a Contract

Contract:
An oral or written agreement between two or more parties which is enforceable by law. In order to be valid, a contract requires an offer, an acceptance of that offer and, in common-law jurisdictions, consideration.

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/contracts.htm#b

[alfred2]

the case isnt based on anyones intelligence . it is black and white . will clark be honest and h9nor a agrrement or cost us taxpayers yet again more money ?


by the way alfred since this seems to evade you . the office she held was non partisan . she wasnt ndp or bclib or any party in her role .

What are you smoking i never said anything about her politics.

[vegas1500]

the case isnt based on anyones intelligence . it is black and white . will clark be honest and h9nor a agrrement or cost us taxpayers yet again more money ?


by the way alfred since this seems to evade you . the office she held was non partisan . she wasnt ndp or bclib or any party in her role .

It's not black and white, it's someone's word against another. Why someone that is smart enough to be a judge would agree to a verbal agreement, especially regarding a pension payout, is beyond me.

[maryjane48]

why you support breaking contracts or not honoring them is beyond me

[flamingfingers]

A verbal agreement IS a legally binding contract and considering the parties involved should be of the highest integrity and honesty as exemplified by one of parties, Judge Turpel-Lafond, it would be quite shocking that the other party(ies) may renege on their verbal bond.

[Veovis]

A verbal agreement IS a legally binding contract and considering the parties involved should be of the highest integrity and honesty as exemplified by one of parties, Judge Turpel-Lafond, it would be quite shocking that the other party(ies) may renege on their verbal bond.

100% verbal agreement are binding. The issue is with proving them. The "he said she said" isn't proof. If there are credible people that can back this up, then the pension payment should occur, if a judge well versed in law didn't manage to get any sort of email or writing or recording and now brings this issue up right before an election, it looks bad.

Court deals with proof, a judge knowing what is needed didn't get any of it. It sounds unlikely she gets much out of this other than to hurt the Liberals. However if I was owed what she claims, I'd want a little pay back myself.

[flamingfingers]

^^It's pretty shaky to say that a judge would rule against another judge's sworn statement. It would be interesting to see what 'the other side' might say if called upon to testify under oath, eh?

[GordonH]

Lot of suckers are born then, expecting a politician to honour a promise. lol

[flamingfingers]

Lot of suckers are born then, expecting a politician to honour a promise. lol

Yes, I agree. Rather ridiculous of us to call them "The Honorable Speaker". "The Honorable Christy Clark", "the Honorable Minister ___" isn't it?

[GordonH]

Lot of suckers are born then, expecting a politician to honour a promise. lol

Yes, I agree. Rather ridiculous of us to call them "The Honorable Speaker". "The Honorable Christy Clark", "the Honorable Minister ___" isn't it?

All Politicians