ADR

ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution. It is a process when properly implemented, designed to resolve conflicts and concerns, that a member or members of any organization, Association, Society etc, may have against another member or members. These are the 8 stages in the ADR process:

1. ADEQUATE NOTICE: must be given to the member being complained of, and must include details of the complaints or concerns being alleged. Preferably in written, signed and dated statement(s).

2. IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER: It is very very Important that whomever is appointed as the Hearing Officer is totally unbiased. WHEN you find yourself in an ADR and it becomes obvious that the self appointed hearing officer (Chris Gainor) is the very definition of biased, then you know you’re not in an Alternative Dispute Resolution process, but a Kangaroo Court.

3. RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED: Everyone involved in an Alternative Dispute Resolution process, has the right to be represented (if they wish) by the person of their choice. An accused must not be unfairly prejudiced and most certainly should not be told, that if you do not fire your representative, matters are not going to go your way, harm is going to come your way AND THEN carry out on those threats. And very troubling is when one of the rescrenegades conveying those threats is the Legal Counsel for the RASC Michael Watson.

4. RIGHT TO CONFRONT PARTIES & WITNESSES: There can be no Kangaroo Courts.

5. RIGHT TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE: Everyone has the right to have any evidence produced in this process, to be held up to the highest scrutiny. If a person in this process, either the complainant the witnesses or the member being accused, produces evidence, such as a witness statement, and they then refuse to clarify or substantiate what is  within that statement, then the Hearing Officer should compel them to. If they still refuse the Hearing Officer should dismiss said statements with prejudice. UNLESS the Hearing Officer is the very definition of biased (Chris Gainor), who rather than follow the ADR process and the rule of law, outright refuses to dismiss the written statements of the complainants (his fellow rascrenegades) and just stops the entire process altogether.

6. RIGHT TO HAVE FINDINGS OF FACT: The Hearing officer must make findings of fact. Stopping the process and refusing to follow the Hearing to it’s conclusion, is not a finding of fact. It’s a cover up.

7. RIGHT TO HAVE EXPLICIT REASONS FOR A DECISION: See number 6.

8. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: If either party in this process, the complainant or the accused are not satisfied with the Hearing Officers decision, they have the right to go to the Courts. Unless both parties prior to the start of the process, agree to abide by the Hearing Officers decision.

This website is a work in progress::

NOTE: I can be reached via e-mail at:   johnkelly475@yahoo.ca