Belgique
12th Nov 2002, 12:41
I am not well informed on these matters. Perhaps someone here is.
I have a Canadian buddy (a Celt) who's a QC in Ottawa and an ex Minister of the Trudeau Govt - as well as being an ex RN Fleet Air Arm Pilot (James T Lyon by name). He’s also Chair of Canada’s Air Passenger Safety Group (APSG).
He's currently in a skirmish with the Canadian TSB over the non-release/inadmissibility of an accident’s R/T record into civil or criminal accident litigation (i.e. even though it may be verified copy and in the public domain, on a web-site say, he’s not allowed to introduce it into evidence – or even base questioning of witnesses upon it).
He's trying to establish what the actual Aust/NZ/UK/French/German/US laws are that apply to this scenario (possibly with the view of convincing the responsible Minister [and/or the Canadian Information Commissioner] that Canada’s philosophy, proscriptions and practise is wholly out of kilter with best practise elsewhere). I believe that he's contesting (or at least “reviewing”) a particular accident finding on behalf of a client (maybe the pilot, I'm unsure) - yet running into departmental obstructionism. James' email is [email protected] if you'd like to email him direct. I'm best reachable at [email protected].
I’m hoping that someone might be able to point him in the right direction with respect to existing legislation here, there and or everywhere…..on this subject. Failing that, anecdotal examples of particular instances may assist. He would also benefit from any info on FOI as it might apply to the subject in OZ, NZ and the US. To assist understanding of the problem, I quote from an affidavit:
9. “Interim reports issued by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (“CTAISB”) are sent to selected persons or entities that have a direct interest in an accident. They are issued on a confidential basis, and it is forbidden to quote from them. It is therefore not possible to cite examples, save to say that those involved in advising or representing such persons are frequently told that information relevant to an accident has been denied them. This greatly inhibits their efforts to defend their own actions or to establish the truth of events.
The adversary processes of civil litigation to discover, question, and establish facts, and to make deductions or draw inferences from those facts is effectively denied to many involved in an aircraft accident. This denies them the ability to protect their own interests, and the text of the reporting is wholly controlled by the CTAISB, which is thus protected from criticism, because an observer cannot get at the original evidence nor make a public analysis of conclusions that may be drawn from the evidence, and even worse, from no evidence, or no evidence that is cited, at all.
I have a Canadian buddy (a Celt) who's a QC in Ottawa and an ex Minister of the Trudeau Govt - as well as being an ex RN Fleet Air Arm Pilot (James T Lyon by name). He’s also Chair of Canada’s Air Passenger Safety Group (APSG).
He's currently in a skirmish with the Canadian TSB over the non-release/inadmissibility of an accident’s R/T record into civil or criminal accident litigation (i.e. even though it may be verified copy and in the public domain, on a web-site say, he’s not allowed to introduce it into evidence – or even base questioning of witnesses upon it).
He's trying to establish what the actual Aust/NZ/UK/French/German/US laws are that apply to this scenario (possibly with the view of convincing the responsible Minister [and/or the Canadian Information Commissioner] that Canada’s philosophy, proscriptions and practise is wholly out of kilter with best practise elsewhere). I believe that he's contesting (or at least “reviewing”) a particular accident finding on behalf of a client (maybe the pilot, I'm unsure) - yet running into departmental obstructionism. James' email is [email protected] if you'd like to email him direct. I'm best reachable at [email protected].
I’m hoping that someone might be able to point him in the right direction with respect to existing legislation here, there and or everywhere…..on this subject. Failing that, anecdotal examples of particular instances may assist. He would also benefit from any info on FOI as it might apply to the subject in OZ, NZ and the US. To assist understanding of the problem, I quote from an affidavit:
9. “Interim reports issued by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (“CTAISB”) are sent to selected persons or entities that have a direct interest in an accident. They are issued on a confidential basis, and it is forbidden to quote from them. It is therefore not possible to cite examples, save to say that those involved in advising or representing such persons are frequently told that information relevant to an accident has been denied them. This greatly inhibits their efforts to defend their own actions or to establish the truth of events.
The adversary processes of civil litigation to discover, question, and establish facts, and to make deductions or draw inferences from those facts is effectively denied to many involved in an aircraft accident. This denies them the ability to protect their own interests, and the text of the reporting is wholly controlled by the CTAISB, which is thus protected from criticism, because an observer cannot get at the original evidence nor make a public analysis of conclusions that may be drawn from the evidence, and even worse, from no evidence, or no evidence that is cited, at all.