BC Attorney General’s Unlawful Intervention

Blocking Access to Justice to Protect a Public Official

I recently refiled a petition for judicial review, accusing Jennifer Glougie, the Chair of the BC Labour Relations Board (LRB) of fraud when handling my Section 12 complaints (duty of fair representation).

I was recently notified by letter that the Attorney General will be intervening.

I am instructed to respond to your most recent Petition proceeding on behalf of the Attorney General of BC.

But not to intervene in the way that one would expect.

Under Section 122 of the Criminal Code, a public officer commits breach of trust if their actions meet the criteria established in R v. Boulanger, 2006 SCC 32, p58. The Supreme Court of Canada outlined five essential elements:

1. The accused is an official
2. The accused was acting in connection with the duties of their office
3. The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded by their office
4. The conduct represented a serious and marked departure from the expected standards
5. The accused acted with the intent to use their office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.

Sharma’s intended actions meet every element of the offence.

---

Now that I have your attention…

I know how this sounds to outsiders.

You’re probably thinking - what makes my Section 12 complaints so special that the AG would intervene and risk her own career? Why should you take what I say seriously?

Well, it’s not about me. It’s not about Dexterra or Unite Here Local 40. This is about the catastrophic consequences the government faces if Glougie’s misconduct is exposed.

Think About This.

If Glougie is found to have committed fraud—meaning she intentionally misrepresented facts to fit a predetermined outcome—it wouldn’t just be a wrong decision. It would be a removable offense that would trigger an immediate legal crisis for the government.

Not only is Glougie chair of the LRB she is also Chair of the Employment Standard Tribunal, double whammy for the government if she goes down. Glougie is responsible for hundreds of decisions - CanLII. If she is exposed, anyone who received an adverse ruling from her will want their case reviewed. If my Section 12 complaints are proven to have been manipulated, then every single case she has ruled on comes into question. This is why the government is desperately trying to prevent my petition from being heard. This is why they tried to discredit and silence me in 2022 by maliciously prosecuting me.

If Glougie’s misconduct is exposed, the legitimacy of her rulings collapses, triggering a crisis of confidence in the entire system. The chaos that would follow is unfathomable -which is exactly why the government has a strong motive to silence me.

Let me point out that this didn’t start with Niki Sharma.

Before becoming Premier, David Eby was the Attorney General. My accusations against Glougie were brought to his attention—but he ignored them. Now, his reputation is on the line, too. If my petition is heard, it won’t just expose Glougie—it will expose the fact that Eby failed to act when he had the chance.

This isn’t just about protecting one corrupt official. This is about protecting the entire government from a scandal that reaches the very top.

Let this serve as my public notice—if anything suspicious happens to me, you’ll know exactly why.

The Attorney General’s Own Admission of Improper Purpose

In the March 4, 2025 letter from the Attorney General’s office, Deputy Supervising Counsel Peter Ameerali explicitly states:

I have not yet received a copy of the materials on which you indicate you are relying.

He then further admits:

Until you have filed and served on the respondents (including the AGBC) all the materials upon which you intend to rely, your Petition is not complete and cannot be set down for hearing.

Yet, despite admitting that they have not reviewed the materials, Sharma’s office is already moving to strike my petition.

This is insane.

Ameerali states:

I intend to file an application that:
• strikes out your Petition as doomed to fail, vexatious, and an abuse of process; and
• seeks to have you declared a vexatious litigant.

If they haven’t reviewed the evidence, how can they claim my case is vexatious?
If they don’t know the merits of my petition, how can they argue it is “doomed to fail”?

They can’t.

The Attorney General’s office is not intervening to argue the law.
They are not ensuring due process is followed.
They are not ensuring a fair and transparent review of the evidence.

Instead, they are intervening to shut the case down entirely before it can be heard.

Don’t you think the Attorney General should be investigating serious complaints against her appointed officials before rushing to strike them down?

Or is this pure embarrassment—because just a few months ago, Sharma reappointed Glougie as Chair under an alleged "merit-based" process—all while knowing these accusations existed?

This is not just a conflict of interest—it is an outright abuse of power.

This is a preemptive strike against access to justice, designed to prevent the courts from ever seeing the truth.

This is an intended breach of trust.

Access to Justice? Not Under Niki Sharma’s Watch

The Attorney General is responsible for legal services including sheriff and court administration services, legal aid, prosecution services, administrative tribunals, civil and family justice services, protection and promotion of human rights, and providing legal advice to the government.

Nowhere in that description does it say that the Attorney General’s role is to shield public officials from legal scrutiny. Nowhere does it say the AG can prevent a citizen’s petition from being heard to protect a government appointee.

Yet here she is—actively working to prevent my case from being heard.

Instead of upholding the rule of law, Sharma is abusing her position to shut down a legitimate judicial review before the court even examines the evidence. This isn’t just a direct violation of the principles of fairness and due process - it’s an obstruction of justice.

Sharma is not intervening to make arguments about the law. She is not participating in the hearing to ensure fairness. She is not defending the government’s legal position on the merits.

Instead, she is filing an application to have my petition struck before it can even be heard. And in a further attempt to discredit me, she is also seeking to have me declared a vexatious litigant.

This is not just unethical—it is an assault on the justice system itself.

If my accusations were truly frivolous and had no merit, why is the Attorney General intervening at all? It’s not like there aren’t already other respondents opposing the petition. The truth is, they’ve absolutely reviewed the material—and they know there’s no denying the accusations. This isn’t about defending the integrity of the system; it’s about shutting the case down before the public can see the truth.

Niki Sharma Ought to Be Removed From Office

The Attorney General is supposed to be the guardian of access to justice—a champion of fairness, equality under the law, and the rule of law itself. Instead, Niki Sharma plans to use her position to do the exact opposite. Rather than ensuring that the legal system remains impartial and accessible to all, she is actively working to silence a legitimate challenge to government misconduct. Her actions show that she does not believe in fairness, nor does she uphold the ethical and moral principles required for her role. Someone who prioritizes protecting the government from legitimate complaints, rather than protecting the integrity of the justice system, is not fit to be Attorney General.

---

If you believe in accountability, transparency, and justice, this should concern you.

Because if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.

🔥 Share this. Expose this. Demand accountability. 🔥