The Impersonal Cruelty of 2nd Class Citizenship
How Crossroads Credit Union Betrayed Its Own Mandate and Why Big Banks Never Have To Face The Music.
The “system” of regulators protects them from accountability through an artifact of hyper specialization. Even as individual regulators do their best to work in a system broken by design, they accomplish nothing because specialists are deliberately trained to avoid the margins where generalists dominate. Hence why real people get marginalized in spite of anyone’s best intentions.
This is why protesting and freedom convoys matter. They address marginal problems when the bureaucrats can’t/won’t. This is the natural response when people are tired of being shoved to the back of the line to make room for so-called “more important people”.
I am a second class citizen because I don’t have a bank account anymore and I don’t want one. I was planning to get one again when Trudeau is out of office. Now I’m not so sure given the way the credit union has treated me for the last several months. I am a second class citizen in a country where “essential” services like banking are denied non-account holders. Even to the point where they won’t cash cheques people write to me for a fee. The policies they cite change as fast as their excuses.
In the end they always end up cashing them, generally because I only bring in government cheques and someone eventually reminds them they have a legal obligation to cash government cheques. While they were more than happy to claim essential services status as a single provider in an under-served rural area to keep their doors open during the pandemic while other local businesses were forced to shut down; they refuse to provide basic services (cashing cheques and paying bills) to non-account holders.
Today( Dec. 9, 2022) I brought in my 500 dollars of Moe money and they again refused to cash my cheque saying managers (not in the building conveniently) told them not to. I reminded them we’ve been through this for 6 months with my dad’s pension cheques that I manage because he has Alzheimer’s like dementia. They always try to deny me service and then eventually cash the government cheque. If it’s a non-government cheque then I just endorse it to my mom who does have an account and she cashes it for me. Today was a little different. They refused to acknowledge that the provincial government was a government. Which is highly ironic(and offensive) because this credit union is provincially regulated. Refused to cash the cheque and lied to me claiming my mom specifically told them not to let me endorse cheques to her.
I went and got my mom who explained to them she’d said no such thing. Then they simply changed their position again and said they would use their discretion to choose not to let me endorse cheques even to an account holder. I asked if they are accusing me of fraud and they said no. That they would cash the 500 cheque today, still refusing to accept it’s a government cheque, calling it a “third party cheque” they are choosing as they have discretion I remind you to cash it… this time, but moving forward only government cheques will be cashed. Still not sure this applies to provincial cheques as they never admitted the provincial government is government. Now this is irritating, but it gets even better.
Before they agreed to cash the 500 they lied to me again. They said I should talk to someone at a bigger branch who had the authority to get this dealt with… well I get on the phone and rather than asking about the cheque cashing problem (an essential service they didn’t mind using to keep the doors open during the pandemic while my business down the street went under btw) the woman on the other end immediately accused me of harassing and bullying. Well before she even finished her sentence I switched her over to speaker phone so everyone in the room could hear what she was saying and then we really got into it as the till ladies looked stunned and confused at the claims she was making.
Talk about punching down. The power imbalance between the bank and I couldn’t be further apart. They hold all the power and I hold none. Yet they play the victim card. If they refuse to cash these cheques then I can’t pay my dad’s rent at the memory lane in Yorkton hospital. Dad has kidney dialysis 3 days a week. Where else is he supposed to go? They are literally holding my dad’s life hostage against me. All because I and my dad(back when he could still remember) refuse to have a bank account in a climate where PM’s are taking accounts away for our political beliefs.
The gas-lighting at this point got even worse as I told her she was on speaker now because I nolonger trusted that she would relay anything honestly about this conversation. One of the other till ladies came over and kindly sat beside me as we spoke, and tried to mediate at this point because Preeceville is a small town and accusing me of harassing people here isn’t gonna fly. The people in this town know me and have for a long time. I teach their kids music for Christ’s sake.
It was clear in the room, at least to me, that these ladies have no issue with me personally and this is just some kind of policy issue. Unless of course they’re lying, too. Maybe the kindness and sympathy are just an act. This has made me very cynical. After getting broadsided instead of helped this was now escalating again because the corporate leadership on the phone continued to gas-light, demand, accuse, and strong arm me into getting an account using all kinds of unethical strategies to do it. There is no reason for them to deny me basic financial services. At least offer me a fee option since I don’t have an account, but they refuse even that.
Well as the only financial institution in the town that happily played on their essential service status to stay open when my business had to close I think they should be at least obliged to a) acknowledge the provincial government is in fact government and b) cash all cheques government or not at least with a fee. This is reasonable. They refuse. They claim, for example, that these are fraud prevention measures. They know I’m not claiming to be someone else and the cheques are government cheques.
This is discrimination. Pure and simple. The same political corporate class that jumped to it when the PM illegally demanded they close accounts without court oversight are now the same people making life as hard as possible for those of us that stand up for our rights. The banks are not my government. Their policies are not the law. Their standards are not the charter. They can’t force me to maintain an account if I don’t want one and they can’t hold basic access to the economy hostage to force me to do something against my will.
They still have universal human rights standards to live up to. One of those standards is reasonable access to basic financial services. I have legal ID, I am a citizen, the cheques are valid, there is no evidence or even claim of fraud. Yet, policies designed for so called fraud prevention are being used as an excuse to deny me basic service and even when eventually provided only after severely diminishing and insulting me, accusing me of things like harassment and verbal abuse, lying to me right to my face and getting caught almost immediately, and ultimately conceded they are choosing not to cash them even though they give no clear reason for the refusal.
My name is Anthony Mountjoy. I have a local business. I own property. I have no debt. I pay my taxes. I have no criminal record. I have never been arrested or even accused of a crime. Yet, I am a second class citizen because of my political beliefs. Because I value freedom and am willing to fight for her I have no place in Canada’s new corporate order. Some day soon I may not have any place at all.
The Response From Jeff BissChop On Dec. 22, 2022
Let me preface my remarks by saying how difficult it is for me to evaluate a situation when conflicting reports are provided. My investigation revealed that the staff of the credit union have acted in accordance with reference to Section 627.25 of the Bank Act and have negotiated Government of Canada cheques that you have presented, drawn on the Receiver General, that are less than $1,750.00. Staff have refused to negotiate any item that you present that is not a Government of Canada cheque, drawn on the Receiver General, in accordance with reference to Section 627.25 of the Bank Act.
Notice how he doesn’t even address the Moe Money cheque. Again refusing to acknowledge the provincial government being government nor does he address the endorsement of non-government cheques to an account holder or their arbitrary denial even when the account holder wants to allow it.
Crossroads Credit Union is committed to providing a respectful work environment that is supportive of the physical and psychological safety of every employee, we will take all reasonable steps to prevent abuse and harassment towards our staff during performance of work duties. When our employees have not met your service expectations by following Crossroads Credit Union’s regulations and sound business practices, your comments and behaviour to them were perceived as abusive, aggressive and threatening towards our staff. As a result, we regret that we are no longer able to meet your financial service needs. We are informing you that you do not have permission to enter a Crossroads Credit Union branch, at any of our locations. If you violate this request, Crossroads CU staff will politely ask you to leave the premises. Refusal to do as requested, the RCMP will be contacted to remove you from our premises.
— — -
My final word before sending to regulators as I dust off my protest placard. :)
“I am not satisfied with this response and will be contacting the regulators. I expected better and now regret giving you the benefit of the doubt yet again. You are as self serving and dishonest as the staff you hired. I hope you kept all recordings and video of my presence in the bank because I’m sure it will be required at some point for evidence. I am more than happy to never set foot in your bank again. In fact I will never do business with a credit union again and if any of your staff tries to talk to me in passing as they’ve done many times I will ignore them as they ignored my concerns. If they try to lie to me again with insincere sympathy I will simply walk away in disgust. You’re a terrible boss and your organization’s behaviour is a reflection of that. Good day.”
— -
This is what happens when you stand up for your rights with this corporate class. They smear, lie, and deny access to basic services under the pretense of anyone who defies them must be a bad person. I’ve asked the Ministry of Justice to forward our correspondence to the appropriate regulators. Maybe if they send it the regulators will actually take it seriously. I don’t want to go down yet another run around of “authorities” just to discover they won’t listen, they don’t care, they’re just there to make it look like there are legitimate options when really big business is gonna win, they always win. They get to claim both essential service status and deny essential services because I am just a nobody that got justifiably frustrated with dishonest people jerking me around.
—
Had a call with the regulator today who very politely told me there isn’t anything she can really do beyond write notes and send those notes to the minister and archives. It seems this system is designed to document cautionary tales of trying to pursue justice through proper channels… that might at best be used one day in formation of new legislation. So I’ve made an appointment with my MLA to discuss pursuing new legislation regarding provincially regulated credit unions obligation to cash provincial government cheques with out an account. While simultaneously engage the [Ombunsman] to investigate the other elements of my complaint.
—
After meeting with the MLA and waiting a few months for any action I finally got an email that says this:
This letter is in response to the meeting and discussion you had with Mr. Terry Dennis, MLA, Canora-Pelly Constituency, and your concerns that provincial legislation should be amended to require credit unions to cash cheques issued by the Government of Saskatchewan. As the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I am pleased to respond. I am advised that officials at the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan (FCAA) have spoken with you, and that your concerns have been noted and will be kept in mind for consideration when the relevant legislation is next reviewed. Thank you for sharing your concerns. Yours very truly, Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
I can only assume this is more run-around as it seems the entire system is designed to give the illusion of accountability without actually having any. And just when I’m about to lose faith entirely I get an email from the Ombudsman’s senior investigator who after 5 months was finally assigned to my case. And can you guess what her email said? That’s right. She completely misunderstood my complaint. Deliberately I’m sure. She clearly didn’t read any of documents I sent and as is typical with this process she immediately tried to get out of having to investigate in the first place. 5 months to tell me there is nothing they can do about a complaint I didn’t make, while ignoring the complaints I did make.
So I finally lose my patience and send them an email:
“I hope your investigation is going smoothly. I ran into another incident recently. I sold a house here in Preeceville and the cheque the lawyer gave my dad and I is one of those highly secure, expensive cheques from his trust account at Crossroads Credit Union. It clearly has an endorsement line on the back and when I told him I don’t have a bank account he said my mom, who does have an account with Crossroads, should be able to cash it for me if my dad and I endorse it on the back of the cheque. Well Crossroads told my mom they won’t cash the cheque for her and they wouldn’t give her any explanation as to why they refuse. My only options now are to lose $550 paying some “cash” store to cash the cheque for me or get a bank account which I don’t want. Their obsessive desire to force me to have a bank account started all this. There is no escaping their abuse when they can so arbitrarily enforce the rules to their own benefit and deny basic services when it suits them. Such as refusing to cash their own trusted cheque when made out to my dad and I, even when endorsed to one of their own current members.”
And this is what I get back from the investigator. Notice she doesn’t address any specific thing… she probably had ChatGPT write her email for her. Get ready for that “transparent” process we keep hearing about.
Is it really so hard to understand that endorsing cheques to an account holder is not the same thing as wanting them to cash my cheques directly without an account?
So you see the system is bullshit. I’ve proven it. I went through the process. I did everything the right way. I followed the rules and it just circle jerked me as I said it would. We are cattle and I am still a second class citizen who is going to have to get another bank account if I want any sort of life at all. At least the pandemic is over so I don’t have to worry so much about the government stealing my property to punish me for my perfectly legal political activity.
My response to the investigator on May 13, 2023 (yes, this has actually taken this long to get almost nowhere):
“You have misunderstood my complaint. I don’t want them to cash personal cheques even though I don’t have an account. They refused to cash the government cheques. It was only after a bunch of embarrassing back and forth that they eventually did. And when I complained about the treatment they banned me from all locations. The facts are clear in that they eventually, after harassing me over not having an account, cashed every cheque proving they could have and should have cashed them all along without complaint or embarrassing me in front of other customers or banning me when I complained about it. Just the banning me from all locations alone should set off red flags given it was in response to my using the complaint form they are legally required to provide. Is this the consequence of applying my rights? Banned? I never once asked them to cash a cheque that required an account. And in the case of this recent cheque, my mom does have an account and they are simply refusing to let her cash it if I endorse it to her even though it’s a cheque from a trust account with them. This is as basic as it gets in banking that you can endorse a cheque and someone can cash it at the bank that made it. Bottom line. The bank claimed to be an essential service because they offer basic financial services to non-account holders and kept their doors open while other member only businesses had to close down for 2 years. They don’t get to have it both ways. They need to honour their responsibility to provide basic essential services to non-account holders. I want an apology and assurances from them in writing that they will honour their obligation to cash my dad’s pension cheques and respect endorsements that we make to other account holders. If you aren’t able to hold them to account for failing to do their duty as an essential service than who is?”
Can you guess what happens next? Did you hear that sound? Like metal bouncing along the sidewalk? If you guessed the Ombudsman Investigator kicked the can you guessed right!
No-one would blame you for thinking these responses are automatic given they lack any indication of investigation or knowledge of the situation. The only interest here is how to waste my time, cool the file, let time wash away the evidence so in the end we all just let it go because it’s too much work to bother with. All while conveniently keeping the storm well away from the person responsible for all this in the first place, the CEO of Crossroads Credit Union, Jeff BissChop. I think it’s clear this was all about getting me out of the hair of an important person. I’m not important, I’m 2nd Class.
My response:
Ombudsman Investigator
Its decision to ban me was not a commercial decision. It was retaliation for daring to use the legally obliged complaint process. And my complaint is not just because of the ban, it is primarily because of the discriminatory treatment for over a year trying to cash pension cheques for my dad. I see, as I suspected in the first place, the complaint process is just there to create the illusion of accountability and the acrobatics I see you now performing to avoid investigating is what I’ve come to expect when pursuing that vaulted fairness and justice that our political class loves to talk about on TV. If nothing else I have the proof of what I suspected all along, This system is corrupt and predatory. The Bank Lords do in fact enjoy a privileged position in society and can’t be held to account by the regular people whose lives they damage with their impersonal malice. Thank you for the runaround and wasting 5 more months of my time cooling the complaint so it wouldn’t go anywhere.
Premier’s Office
Well guys, it was a little more than a few weeks. What now? I did everything right. I followed the process. I followed the rules and everything happened as I said it would. Run around. All the things everyone looks sideways at me for turns out to be exactly the way it goes. Can I expect an apology? Can I expect change? Or will this and I be swept under the rug where clearly the system wishes I’d stayed with my fellow cockroaches in the first place? Can you contact Credit Union — Deposit Guarantee Corporation (cudgc.sk.ca) for me as they recommend and we spend another 5 months waiting for an investigator to be assigned just to kick the can to someone else? At least on the MLA side of things I got a nice letter from the ministry of justice saying they’ll consider my recommendations of explicitly stating on cheques that banks must cash provincial government cheques and not just federal. I assume you still have all the old emails and documents I’ve sent so please let me know what CUDGC thinks and if there is anything else to do beyond accepting the apparent reality that I am, as I suspected, a second class citizen who can no longer expect my government to protect the interests of people like me.
The Ombudsman’s Final Determination That The Bank Can Lie And Refuse Basic non-member services even as they claim to be an essential service during a pandemic. Staying open while my business and so many others went under. This is called “Commercial Discretion”.
And My Final Response To A Most Predictable Outcome
(Remember I tried to go to the SHRC in the first place, but they sent me to the ombudsman, to deter me and waste months of time in hopes I’d just let it go. This is how our system really works and who it really serves.)
Thank you for doing what you could. It does confirm my suspicions that the system is broken. Clearly a provincially regulated credit union should have to cash Government of Saskatchewan cheques. Refusing to and then banning me after staying open for years during a pandemic while claiming essential service status as a single provider in an isolated rural community is inconsistent with any common standard of justice in a modern democracy. I know of shoplifters in Preeceville who weren’t allowed to be banned from the grocery store during the pandemic because it was “essential” service, but I’m banned from every crossroads for demanding they cash my Moe Money cheque?
Seems pretty clear there’s a lower standard for businesses like mine that had to shut down and a much more comfortable standard for the banks where it’s business as usual. I assume your closing letter is what I’m to take to the SHRC so they know I’ve gone through the other channels they asked me to.
I hope you learned something from all this, too. You’re there to protect the banks, not the people. You’re part of a multi-organizational dilution of oversight designed to prevent accountability through its divided nature of specialized purview cleverly drawn so all participants can point the finger at someone else when they fail to achieve their mandate. Welcome to public service.
I assume the SHRC will take it from here. While I have no doubt they will, as you did, try their best, I expect it will fall short as clearly you don’t have the tools required to hold the powerful accountable. That isn’t your fault. They hide in the vague margins of information you simply don’t have access to. You have to rely on “their word versus mine”-ism as indicated in your conclusion which was not based on recorded evidence, though that does exist (it is a bank after all) and should clearly back my claim, but you never saw the video or heard the audio did you? You never contacted my witnesses did you? This is why common people have lost faith in the system… because the system no longer holds faith with the people.
Can you believe they sent an email asking for feedback? This is what I told them.
You either don’t have the tools or the will to properly investigate and if necessary challenge the banks. The fact you consider the bank lying to me and refusing basic service even while claiming essential service status to stay open during a pandemic (while my business had to close) to be a “commercial decision” says it all. I think taking 6 months to do no actual foot work, no actual interview of my witnesses, and purely taking the bank at their word shows how little oversight these banks can really expect. No wonder they act like nobles in the dark ages. We are but serfs in their corporate kingdom.
Bonus Fun As We Call A Lawyer
The characteristics protected under the The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018 are disability, age, religion/religious creed, marital or family status, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), sexual orientation, color, ancestry, race, nationality, place of origin and receipt of public assistance. Notice how personal political beliefs or non-religious creed isn’t included… what’s that all about?
Confidentiality Obligations
(June 20, 2023) Now after all is said and done I get this complaint from the Ombudsman about sharing quotes from our emails in this summary which is hilarious because I’ve been sending her links to my summary all along the process and she obviously never actually read it until the very end AFTER she had made her conclusion.
So I had to go back through the summary and redact the few quotes I had in there from the Ombudsman’s office and sent them this:
I’ve been maintaining this summary the entire time and have sent it to you several times throughout the process along with anyone else involved in the CCs. Is this the first you’ve actually read it? Did you investigate anything at all? After all is said and done all you care about is that I quoted some of your responses in my summary? Wow. I’ve gone through the summary and redacted the parts you’ve requested be removed. Censorship is now literally the only thing you’ve managed to accomplish in this case.
Lawyers Not Interested; Minster Of Justice almost ready to write an official response. All banks are the same.
(4th Of July, 2023) The first lawyer bounced for conflict of interest and those they recommended didn’t respond at all. The Minister Of Justice’s agent of interest contacted me today saying they’re a month or so away from a final response. So that’s nice. At least someone in this process other than me is taking it seriously.
Have you ever noticed giant corporations “never lie”? They just misapply policies and then throw employees under the bus when they refuse to back the policy they pushed. This morning I go over to the CIBC to cash my dad’s pension cheques for whom I have POA, the very reason I set the CIBC account up. I went over all this when I opened the account and specifically because I didn’t want to deal with anymore shenanigans trying to cash these government cheques for my dad as I had found in Preeceville at the Crossroads Credit Union. They PROMISED ME, that I would not have the same problems at CIBC that I ran into at Crossroads Credit Union… that CIBC had more “commercial discretion” than Credit Unions and that I wouldn’t have any problems at CIBC. Well today, the moment the regular ladies weren’t there, they railroaded me again just like Crossroads and refused to cash the cheques.
They refused saying the Power Of Attorney wasn’t “attached” to my account because my dad’s name isn’t also on the account. I reminded them we’d already confirmed when we set up the account that this wouldn’t be an issue. The manager was there today and he said they never should have opened the account. I pointed out they are all government cheques and that I don’t need an account to cash them so why would they refuse to cash them when I have an account, but not when I don’t have an account as long as I simply show the POA? They just said “that’s the policy”. So I closed the account and they gave me the POA back. I showed them the POA and they cashed the cheques.
These people are barely human anymore. This is what happens when people work for big corporate elites too long, they turn into robots.
To add insult to injury after closing the account and taking all my money the manager asked me why I didn’t want an account and I told him I supported the Freedom Convoy and didn’t like the PM threatening to take bank accounts away for my political beliefs. That’s when the till girl who’d refused to cash the cheques laughed in my face.
(July 14, 2023) The Day After CIBC Refuses To Cash GST Return without both dad and I on an account.
I’m sitting here on hold at Canada Revenue Agency because CIBC refuses to cash my dad’s GST return. Expected wait is 45 minutes. This is after already explaining the problem in detail to 1–800-O-Canada and having to trick the phone voice menu into actually giving me a real person by hitting the 0 over and over again. These banks do NOT want to let me cash government cheques with a Power of Attorney if we don’t have accounts. They are doing everything they can to pressure us into it. Refusing to cash cheques they are legally obliged to cash. Hiding behind the cost and inconvenience of anyone ever actually trying to hold them accountable for their abuse.
Remember how the other day they’d only cash the cheques if I didn’t have an account so I closed the account and they cashed them just fine? One visit later they’ve adapted and now they refuse to cash them at all. As predictable as the sun. If only they were as good at improving customer service as they are diminishing it.
Even as I sit here on hold I know it will go nowhere. I know it’s just another way to waste time and push come to shove I’ll just drive dad down to the bank and slowly walk him up to the counter where we’ll see if they deny him right to his face. Yet I persist… because I NEED to know how much money/time/attention all these people are willing to spend. How much is it worth to stop us from living our lives as independently as possible of their predatory financial influence.
I’ve sent a Freedom Of Information Request to the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan asking for anything related to the Ombudsman’s “investigation”… which I put in quotes because I’ve already demonstrated it was incomplete at best. Kinda hard to investigate if you don’t read the summary of the complaint or the background notes on the file. So I sit here listening to muzak while writing my cautionary tale of bureaucratic misadventure.
Where will all this go? I assume nowhere, but I’m having a lot of fun making them spend someone elses money getting there. Maybe whoever is paying the taxes they’re spending pointlessly dancing in circles with me will notice, the music will stop, and real change will happen… someday… NAAAAHHHHHH! LOL!
1 hour of waiting on hold and the CRA said they aren’t responsible for holding banks accountable for refusing to cash their cheques nor do they know who is. So now we call 1–800-O-Canada again. Round and round we go. Call clicks. Conversation ensues. Finally, getting somewhere. A new title has dropped. Receiver General Of Canada. Hmmmm. Seems the banks are scared witless of the RGOC… let’s pull on this thread and find out why.
Oh, wow. Finally a productive conversation with someone in government! The Receiver General Of Canada was incredibly gracious and respectful. And most importantly… helpful! She knew the law, she knew the options, she even had an answer. She told me exactly what to do to solve this problem. I need to snail mail her a letter explaining in writing what I already explained to her on the phone and request that my name be added to the cheques being sent for my dad. She will take it from there. She says the banks will honour either name when cashing the cheques! This might work. I’ll keep ya posted!
To: Receiver General for Canada / Receveur Général du Canada
From: Anthony Jon Mountjoy, Preeceville, Saskatchewan
Request:
I formally request that all government cheques sent to Frederick G[eorge] Mountjoy also include my name, Anthony Jon Mountjoy; as his Power of Attorney in accordance with the recommendations made during our phone call this morning (July 14, 2023). I am providing this summary of our conversation at your request and have attached a full summary of the struggles we’ve endured the last couple years dealing with the banks in general as background. It’s been some sort of Hell, actually.
This is in response to our difficulties cashing dad’s pension, GST, etc cheques without a bank account which these kind of cheques, by law, don’t require. From out right refusal of service, to arbitrary and ever changing policies adding undue burden at every step, the banks I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with have made the care of my disabled father, which is a difficult job at the best of times let alone during a global pandemic, much harder then it had to be.
Most recently we’ve been cashing the cheques at CIBC with no account just fine. For about a year we’ve been doing this and never a problem, which was nice after all the nonsense we dealt with over at Crossroads Credit Union. We showed the POA and some Photo ID, no account required, cashed. No problem. And they were nice people. Polite. Didn’t look down on us for our political views. Just did their jobs. So after losing trust in the banking system when our PM threatened bank accounts during the Freedom Convoy I was finally starting to feel comfortable with having a bank account again… so I set it up.
For 3 months everything is fine… and then one day I go in to cash the latest pension cheque and a new girl and the manager are at the tills. They look at the cheques and refuse to cash them. I say I have POA, they say, No I don’t, I say yes I do you have it on file, they say there is no POA attached to my account and that my dad’s name would also have to be on the account, I say we’ve been cashing these cheques for a long time with no account so why would you do without an account what you won’t do with one, they say that’s policy, I say so if I close the account will you give me the POA back and then let me show you it then cash the cheques? They say, yes. I close the account, they give me the money in the account and the POA back, I show it to them, they cash the cheques. I walk out with the money, but de-banked once again.
Fast forward a little bit and we stop in Canora CIBC to cash dad’s GST return and the bank, of course, has changed its policy again and refuses to cash the cheques saying they will only cash cheques for my dad if I set up an account in both names… and so here we are running in circles, because obviously now I’m EVEN MORE disinclined to do business with banks. We are NOT getting a bank account. My dad can’t sign for a bank account anyway. They say I can sign for him to set up the account, but can’t use the same signing authority to endorse then cash the cheque… this is absurd.
Anyway, the solution seems to be both our names on the cheques as you suggested in our call so if you’d kindly do that for us we’d really appreciate it!
— — — —
Sept 20, 2023, still no word from the Receiver General and Government Services tells me they see no record of any communication. So I guess that’s just another run around. Who knows maybe a year from now I’ll get a letter saying they’ve finally gotten around to it. Maybe after an election or two to really scramble any chance of a meaningful outcome.
I’ve gotten the first batch of documents from my Freedom of Information request to Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan relating to the Ombudsman’s investigation. So far it’s just copies of the email back-and-forths with me making the complaint. Will the other documents show any actual details of the investigation? When will the other documents arrive?
Either, way as I’m sure it’s been made clear by the time involved with sticking to this(10 months and counting) that the system is clearly designed to minimize direct interaction with citizens while covering its own ass. Bureaucrats feel more comfortable around their own kind and I bet they get the silky soft toilet paper in those tax payer funded bathrooms.
But at least I got it in writing clarifying that I was in fact lied to by businesses during the pandemic claiming they were not allowed to deny service while claiming essential status.
It turns out this basic hypocrisy was in fact perfectly acceptable for the government regulators at the time. Spitting in the face of small businesses like mine who were forced under by constantly changing rules and restrictions that apparently didn’t effect the big corporate players AT ALL as such restrictions were carefully drawn around their commercial interests! Not only were they allowed to stay open, they were allowed to REFUSE SERVICE as if it was just another business day in fair competition with every other business.
“Banking and financial services were designated as an Allowable Business Service during the pandemic, and thus allowed to continue offering public-facing services while other businesses were required to cease public-facing services. The various orders that were in place during the pandemic have been rescinded.
However, our understanding is that even during the pandemic, credit unions were never required to provide services to any specific person. We are not aware of any provisions in the health order(s) issued during that pandemic that required Allowable Business Services to be provided. The order(s) allowed these business services to be provided in a public-facing manner. This concludes our review of the concerns you have brought forward. Our review did not identify any regulatory issues and we are, therefore, closing our file.” — FCAA
I KNEW IT!!!!!! They were NEVER essential services. If you can refuse the service then it’s by definition NOT essential. Imagine a real essential service like a public defender refusing to represent an accused citizen or a doctor refusing to treat a sick person appealing to “commercial discretion”. A disgusting betrayal of their duty while deigning to hold an essential role in the first place!
My response:
“I was told by many essential businesses during the pandemic, most notably the local grocery store that they were told they HAD to serve known shoplifters as an essential service. This contradicts your conclusion, but obviously you are the authority on the matter so the grocery store and other essential services must have been mistaken and misinformed me.
As a basic conclusion I’ll never do business with a credit union again nor will I take any so called “official” statements during a pandemic seriously again, either, as obviously such statements are unreliable during such times.”
— — -
So that’s basically all there’s going to be to this story. Pending anything really interesting in the rest of the FOIR request, where I expect confirmation that the Ombudsman did essentially(pun intended) nothing. I got the proof I wanted about the true nature of essential services and the regulatory scheme designed to hurt “the little guy” while servicing the corporate elite. If another pandemic happens in my life time I’ll dust this off and re-read it to remind myself what’s real in this world.
That officials lie all the time, even as they convince themselves with adaptive frameworks of limited purview, that they are entirely honest… working in the interest of those most willing to accept their “help”. The few good actors who see the gilded cage digitized around them are generally helpless to even signal their sympathy.
Everything is a matter of record. Everything can be used against you. Imperfect people pretending to be perfect in a prison. You know I’d almost feel bad for them… if they didn’t get paid so damn much while I had essentially no income for almost 3 f*cking years!
— — — -
Sept 22, 2023 comes around and I open my email to the second batch of FOIR documents. What do I discover? Let me sum it up with the following quote from the email the lawyer sent.
“You will note that some information in some of the records have been redacted pursuant to certain statutory provisions.”
But, of course this is government we’re talking about here so what that really meant was LITERALLY EVERY PIECE OF NEW INFORMATION. I’m not kidding. This is not a bad joke and I have the “receipts” to prove it. Every document they sent me so far is a copy of the emails I already obviously have in my own personal inbox with the ONLY new documents, a few emails with the Director of the Consumer Credit Division at FCAA, being redacted. I’m still waiting for any evidence that ANY investigation of my complaint happened.
As predicted it looks very much like I was “bounced around… paper pushed” in the hopes I’d lose interest and f*ck off. That or the entire investigation happened in the redacted emails they won’t let me see. So should I trust them? Do I give them the benefit of the doubt that the redacted emails describe the hard work of making phone calls and interviewing a couple witnesses to get a sense of the situation… or do these rather short email exchanges describe a casual brush off?
“The reasons for the redactions will be stated in the formal response letter to your access request.”
Let’s see what the last batch of documents and their promised response letter have to say. I’m expecting it later today!
— — Oct.3, 2023
They redacted everything I didn’t already have and the lawyer handling it for FCAA gave me another acronym I can contact to review the decision. They claim several of the redactions are to protect ongoing investigation, but they won’t tell me who is investigating or what. So I forward the email chain to The Office Of The Saskatchewan Privacy and Information Commissioner.
“Hello Mr. Kruzeniski, can you please review the Index of Records for this FOIR request I made and provide unredacted copies of these documents? In the 3 batches of documents they redacted almost everything that wasn’t already in the open email back and forths. I see no evidence the FCAA or the Ombudsman did any serious investigation into my complaints. And if there is any evidence I assume it must be in the redacted parts. I presume my time was wasted and my concerns dismissed. Though the MLA in Canora and the Ministry of Justice both assured me they would consider changes in the future to prevent some of the problems from recurring. Some of the documents are redacted with the details claiming to protect an ongoing investigation, can you clarify which investigation this is? Is it possible some other department of the government has gotten ahold of this issue and is actually working to fix the problems I’ve raised?”
And this is what the intake officer said:
“Thank you for reaching out… our office is not able to provide access to records that have been withheld by public bodies. As the oversight body, our role is to review the decision of the public body… we would issue a public report with our findings and any recommendations we may have, but it’s important to note that our office does not have order-making powers, so we cannot force the public body to comply with our recommendations. Your MLA and the Minister of Justice are the contacts we would recommend reaching out to if you have concerns about the actual legislation and would like to propose changes. (Sound familiar?… this summary is starting to read like Ground Hog day.) If you would like to request that our office review the FCAA’s decision to withhold records, please forward the following documentation…”
Is anyone listening? Does anyone actually care? Do they not realize this can happen to them as easily as I?
I am indeed unsatisfied with the “exemptions” given they cover everything I didn’t already have, so on the face of it violating the definition of the word “exemption” I’d say. lol And I suspect it was no accident. Am I reading this correctly that you don’t have the power to get the documents I’ve asked for unredacted? It seems there is ZERO transparency to these processes, that they are in fact designed to waste everyone’s time and money as I’ve been saying. It means at the end of the day citizens are all fundamentally stuck behind this censorship/attention “trap” even if you determine they redacted documents inappropriately. Did I get this right?
If I send in the documentation you requested, will you at least be able to tell me what “ongoing investigation” FCAA claimed would be interfered with if they didn’t redact several of the documents? Can you at least confirm they(FCAA) and the Ombudsman actually investigated the way the banks treated my dad and I trying to cash federal cheques(beyond the straw that broke the camel’s back issue with the one provincial government cheque everyone fixated on), talked to witnesses, got legal opinions, etc, and provide that evidence? Cause I’m still betting they played email tag with my complaints thinking they could filibuster me into giving up and though I’ve given everyone involved plenty of opportunity to present evidence to the contrary all I get is purview bump to some new acronymed organization with document redux, redaction, censorship, and the ultimate excuse for all kinds of market abuse… the infamous all powerful “commercial discretion”!
The best I got out of FCAA is admitting, in writing, that the banks got to maintain commercial discretion to kick out customers during a pandemic in a limited service area. Even while claiming publicly to be an essential service as other businesses, including mine were forced to close. We all know real essential services don’t get to refuse service. Doctors don’t get to use commercial discretion to deny service. That’s the whole defining point of being designated essential! But the Ombudsman still hasn’t admitted they didn’t even read my summary until they’d already closed the investigation with their canned conclusion.
What can you actually do other than make a recommendation that gets ignored? What can I actually do to see justice here in your opinion? Cause I keep going through the “official” motions and the path they lead me on looks mysteriously like the runaround I’ve been trying to illustrate to anyone willing to listen all along. Convince me that the “system” is still the best way for regular Canadians to find equal justice with mega-corporations who seem to get all the exceptional benefits and none of the liabilities.
Oct 8, 2023 — GST replacement cheque comes with both my name and dads! Progress! Oops… new there’s also a letter saying they cannot put both names on the pension cheques (again with no explanation as to why they are refusing the Receiver General’s request even though they just did it on the GST cheque) and a form to fill out for doing direct deposit. Talk about brain dead bureaucracy.
Interesting development don’t you think?
“She said she had the advantage of being a media savvy academic whose case had already received national media attention… a private citizen is not going to have access to those same things,” Eaton said. “It effectively sort of renders the power of the legislation null if an authority can just simply say they don’t agree with the expert’s interpretation of the law.” - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/privacy-commissioner-power-make-government-release-documents-1.6990031
So I email the Privacy Commissioner again and this is what I sent:
“I just read a CBC story that the Privacy Commissioner wants legislative change to give the office the power to compel the government to release information. How can I help? Can my case be used as an example of why this new power is necessary? Can we delay our current engagement to get these documents unredacted until this new power is in place without the case expiring?”
Let’s see where this goes…
