The Black Sheep

I filed a human-rights complaint against Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia—EGBC—in approximately May 2019.

The complaint arose from EGBC’s handling of disciplinary proceedings initiated after a decision by my former professional association outside British Columbia. I will not name that association here because this story is about what EGBC did after the matter reached British Columbia—and what happened when I sought protection under British Columbia’s human-rights system.

Nearly five years after I filed the complaint, the BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed it without a full hearing.

The decision was issued on April 18, 2024, by Tribunal Member Andrew Robb:

Drover v. Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia and another, 2024 BCHRT 121

PTSD Was Not an Afterthought

I have been unable to work and receiving disability benefits from my private disability insurer since 2018. During the relevant period, I was being professionally assessed and treated by a psychiatrist. I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as part of the medical process supporting my disability claim.

Those are facts—not something invented years later to excuse my conduct or obstruct EGBC’s proceedings.

EGBC knew about the PTSD while its disciplinary process was underway.

The Tribunal’s own decision records that, on February 13, 2019, a lawyer with whom I had consulted advised EGBC’s counsel that I had PTSD connected to previous experiences with regulatory organizations and that receiving communications could be harmful to me.

Two days later, I personally told counsel for the adjudicative panel that I had PTSD and that receiving direct emails could trigger stress, anxiety and panic.

The decision also acknowledges that medical records produced in the human-rights proceeding showed that I was exhibiting symptoms of PTSD during EGBC’s disciplinary process.

The existence of the disability was therefore not seriously disputed. Paragraph 41 of the decision says the respondents accepted that there was evidence capable of establishing that I had a disability—specifically PTSD.

The real dispute was whether EGBC adequately accommodated it.

What I Said EGBC Did Wrong

My complaint was not simply that EGBC communicated with me.

My position was that EGBC and the people acting for it continued a disciplinary process while knowing that certain forms of communication were aggravating a medically recognized psychiatric disability.

I believed EGBC failed to meaningfully adapt its procedures to account for that disability. I asked that communications be handled indirectly and in a way that did not repeatedly trigger my PTSD symptoms.

EGBC argued that it required a reliable means of communicating with me so that its disciplinary proceeding could continue fairly. It maintained that it accommodated me by sending communications through an intermediary or by registered mail where proof of service was required.

Tribunal Member Andrew Robb accepted EGBC’s position at the preliminary dismissal stage.

He concluded that EGBC was “reasonably certain” to establish that its conduct was justified and that it had accommodated me to the point required by law. He consequently dismissed my complaint under section 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code for having no reasonable prospect of success.

That meant there was no full hearing at which witnesses could testify, credibility could be tested and the complete factual history could be examined publicly.

The EGBC failed to even notice me of the EGBC disciplinary hearing .. a year after I resigned by EGBC membership in good standing. I was unable to attend the hearing and defend.

The September 2019 EGBC Decision

There is another critical part of this history: I had already voluntarily resigned from EGBC on August 12, 2018.

My position is that I resigned while in good standing in British Columbia. EGBC had not independently found that I committed professional misconduct in British Columbia, and the allegations underlying the matter did not concern deficient geological work, public-safety failures or technical incompetence in this province.

One year later, on September 16, 2019, EGBC issued its disciplinary determination. On September 18, it notified me that my membership had been cancelled—even though I had already resigned from it.

The published determination is available here:

EGBC’s September 16, 2019 determination concerning David Drover

EGBC relied on section 33.1 of the former Engineers and Geoscientists Act. That provision permitted the BC regulator to impose an order equivalent to one made by another Canadian professional regulator.

In practical terms, EGBC did not conduct a new evidentiary hearing to determine whether the underlying allegations were true. It relied heavily on the findings and record generated by my former professional association outside British Columbia.

EGBC’s written process included submissions from its counsel dated February 11, 2019, together with material from the earlier proceeding. I provided written arguments on August 15, 2019. I therefore cannot accurately say that I had no notice whatsoever of the written process.

What I can say—and what matters—is that there was no fresh oral hearing in British Columbia at which I or my lawyer appeared. There was no new examination of witnesses, no cross-examination of the people behind the allegations and no independent evidentiary determination of whether those allegations were actually true.

EGBC nevertheless converted the other association’s decision into a British Columbia disciplinary result.

In my view, that was not meaningful natural justice. Written notice that a regulator intends to rely on another organization’s findings is not equivalent to receiving a genuine opportunity to confront the allegations through a complete and independent hearing.

What Did EGBC Actually Decide?

EGBC’s determination was not a finding that I had performed incompetent geological work.

It was not a finding that one of my geological interpretations endangered the public.

It was not a finding that I had falsified technical data, signed a deficient professional report or designed something unsafe.

Instead, the decision adopted findings made by my former professional association concerning my communications and allegations of wrongdoing. Those earlier findings characterized my communications as reckless, speculative, damaging and unprofessional. They also characterized me as “ungovernable.”

I categorically reject those allegations and findings. I maintain that they were fabricated or fundamentally distorted and that the conclusions drawn from them were untrue.

That is my stated position, and it should not be confused with EGBC’s published version of events.

The September 2019 panel referred to serious concerns about whether I should be permitted to remain a member of the profession in British Columbia.

But what, precisely, were those “serious concerns”?

They were not concerns about my competence as a geoscientist.

They were not concerns arising from geological work performed in British Columbia.

They were not tied to a failed technical project or an identifiable danger to the public.

The concerns were principally about my communications, my allegations against other people and organizations, my rejection of the legitimacy of the earlier regulatory process, and the conclusion that I was unwilling to be governed by a professional regulator.

That distinction matters.

EGBC was not protecting the public from dangerous geological work. It was deciding whether my challenges to institutions, my manner of communicating and the findings of another regulator made me professionally unacceptable in British Columbia.

Resignation Was Not the End

EGBC acknowledged that I voluntarily resigned effective August 12, 2018. It nevertheless relied on provisions allowing disciplinary proceedings involving a former member to continue.

EGBC also knew that I applied for reinstatement on January 10, 2019. That application was held in abeyance while its disciplinary process continued.

The September 2019 determination then cancelled my registration, effectively replacing my voluntary resignation with a published disciplinary cancellation.

That distinction continues to affect me today.

If my resignation had simply remained a resignation, I could have approached reinstatement as a former member seeking to return to practice. Instead, EGBC created a disciplinary cancellation that remains published indefinitely and now hangs over every attempt I make to rebuild my professional life.

The Same Day EGBC Cancelled Me, Its CEO Blocked Me

The timing of another decision cannot be ignored.

EGBC’s disciplinary determination was dated September 16, 2019. On September 18, 2019—the day I was notified that my membership had been cancelled—then-CEO and Registrar Ann English emailed me to announce that EGBC was blocking my email address. This is a true copy of the email it has to be read to be believed: (note that Ann English was retired from the EGBC I believe because of this matter – I believe she was “fired” actually… retired as the excuse. She is now on the Board of Engineers Canada!

Her message was blunt:

“Accordingly, as of September 18, 2019 your email address will be blocked from transmitting emails to recipients at the Association. Any emails you send to the Association (including in reply to this notice) will not be received.”

English gave two principal reasons.

First, she cited the volume and distribution of my communications:

“You have continued to send a large volume of emails to numerous recipients at the Association (dozens since my February 12, 2019 request and hundreds over the past several years).”

Second, she objected to the substance and tone of a September 4, 2019 email in which I attempted to draw connections among people associated with Acapella Holdings, politically connected individuals, and figures linked through lawyers and business relationships to Jeffrey Epstein.

English wrote:

“The inflammatory, unsubstantiated and false allegations in your email below regarding the purported cover up of a pedophilia sex ring are defamatory, utterly inappropriate and will not be tolerated by the Association.”

She further characterized my communications as containing:

“Aggression, bullying, harassment and abusive conduct.”

Those were EGBC’s descriptions. They were not findings produced through an independent investigation of the subjects I was attempting to raise.

English did not prohibit every conceivable form of contact. She said future communications to EGBC had to be sent by physical mail. She also said the block would not prevent me from emailing EGBC’s discipline counsel or the Discipline Committee’s independent legal counsel about the disciplinary proceeding.

Nevertheless, the practical and symbolic effect was unmistakable: on the same day EGBC notified me that my professional membership had been cancelled, its CEO also shut down my ordinary email access to the organization.

What Was I Trying to Report?

The September 4 email was addressed primarily to an RCMP officer, with English, numerous EGBC employees and other parties copied.

In it, I wrote:

“I have reason to believe as a result of my multi-year investigations that the EGBC is also protecting and covering up a pedophilia sex ring linked to the now dead Jeffrey Epstein case.”

I attempted to explain a chain of associations involving one of Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers, an alleged $100-million mining fraud, and individuals connected to the professional complaints, civil lawsuits and criminal allegations made against me in Alberta and British Columbia. The alleged mining fraud had attracted the attention of both the RCMP and the Alberta Securities Commission who were investigating same back in 2014/15. I was a shareholder, considered myself a victim of the alleged fraud, and was compelled by the ASC to provide documents and answer questions under oath without protections of my identity and or retaliation protections. I maintain that the professional complaints arising from these events were fabricated and were used to discredit me and damage my professional standing.

I also wrote:

“This is likely the reason why the EGBC is relentless in their quest to see my membership in the EGBC cancelled and my credibility respecting my truthful witness testimony to [redacted] crimes crushed and oppressed.”

Some of the language I used was accusatory, speculative and personally insulting. Looking back, parts of that email were expressed in terms that weakened my message and gave EGBC an obvious basis to focus on my language instead of investigating whether any underlying information deserved scrutiny.

That does not mean every concern I raised was fabricated. It means allegations must be separated from proven facts—and that my way of expressing those allegations made that task considerably more difficult.

Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal conduct and extraordinary network of wealthy and politically connected associates are now matters of extensive public record. However, those later revelations do not, by themselves, prove that EGBC or any of its employees participated in or covered up Epstein’s crimes. Nor does a chain of professional, legal or shareholder relationships establish criminal complicity without additional evidence.

The fair question is narrower:

Did EGBC make any effort to distinguish potentially verifiable information from speculation, or did it dismiss the entire subject because my language was inflammatory and my communications were excessive?

PTSD, Communication and the Decision to Silence Me

The September 18 email block must be viewed in its medical context.

By then, EGBC had known for approximately seven months that I had PTSD and that communications associated with its disciplinary process could trigger stress, anxiety and panic. I was unable to work, receiving private disability benefits and undergoing professional psychiatric assessment and treatment.

EGBC viewed the frequency, tone and intensity of my emails primarily as aggression, harassment and evidence of unprofessional conduct.

My position is that it failed to consider adequately whether those same communications were being affected by psychiatric distress, hypervigilance, perceived threat and other manifestations of PTSD.

That does not mean PTSD excuses every statement. It does mean that a regulator claiming to accommodate a psychiatric disability should consider whether troubling communication is partly a symptom requiring a structured, disability-informed response.

EGBC had options. It could have established a designated contact person, a documented communication protocol, reasonable frequency limits and a process for identifying specific allegations requiring supporting evidence.

It had begun moving in that direction in February 2019 when English identified four recipients for four categories of communication.

Instead, seven months later, EGBC imposed a general email block on the very day it notified me of the most consequential professional decision of my life.

From my perspective, that was not accommodation. It was institutional exclusion.

Where Was the Disability-Informed Process?

By February 2019, EGBC had been expressly advised that I had PTSD and that its communications could trigger serious symptoms.

I was undergoing psychiatric assessment and treatment and had been unable to work. I was receiving benefits through my private disability insurer. This was not an abstract claim of stress made after the disciplinary decision—it was a disabling psychiatric condition affecting me while the process was unfolding.

Yet EGBC continued toward its September 2019 determination.

The regulator viewed my communications as evidence of unprofessionalism and ungovernability. My position is that it failed to examine adequately whether the tone, frequency and emotional intensity of those communications were connected to PTSD, trauma responses and the extreme psychological condition for which I was being assessed and treated.

That produces a disturbing circularity:

A person experiencing PTSD reacts intensely to a process perceived as threatening.
The regulator treats those reactions as evidence that the person is ungovernable.
The resulting disciplinary action further aggravates the PTSD.
The regulator then relies on the escalating communications as additional justification for its actions.

That is not a disability-informed process. It risks turning symptoms of a recognized disability into the very evidence used to exclude the disabled person from their profession.

Natural Justice Cannot Be Inherited

EGBC may say that section 33.1 entitled it to rely on the other regulator’s order.

Legal authority to impose a reciprocal disciplinary order does not eliminate the obligation to act fairly.

EGBC should have asked whether the underlying process was reliable, whether I had received a meaningful opportunity to defend myself, whether my psychiatric disability affected my participation and whether reproducing the harshest possible result in British Columbia was necessary or proportionate.

Instead, EGBC relied on a record I dispute, accepted allegations I maintain were false and converted them into a permanent British Columbia disciplinary cancellation.

The result was devastating: a professional career built over approximately 25 years was effectively ended without a fresh hearing examining my technical competence, the truth of the underlying allegations or the role PTSD played in my conduct and participation.

That is why the September 2019 decision belongs at the centre of this story—not buried as a procedural footnote.

The Man Who Dismissed My Human-Rights Complaint

Andrew Robb was appointed as a member of the BC Human Rights Tribunal on November 1, 2023. See his profile on the HRT Website: https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/tribunal/organization/members/#robb

He issued the decision dismissing my complaint on April 18, 2024—approximately five and a half months after joining the Tribunal… after my complaint had been with the Tribunal for month shy of 5 years untouched and not invesitigated… just outright dismissed!!

That timing deserves public scrutiny.

A complaint originating in 2019 remained in the system for nearly five years. A newly appointed Tribunal member then took responsibility for the file and, within the first six months of his appointment, decided that it should never proceed to a full hearing.

Robb was not a person without legal or disability-rights credentials. The Tribunal’s official biography says he holds:

A law degree from Dalhousie University;
A master’s degree in political theory from the University of Western Ontario; and
A bachelor’s degree in sociology from Dalhousie University.

Before joining the Tribunal, he was managing lawyer of the Disability Law Clinic at Disability Alliance BC. He had also worked at community legal clinics in Alberta and Ontario.

His official biography can be found on the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s members page.

That background makes the decision more—not less—worthy of scrutiny.

A lawyer who managed a clinic devoted exclusively to disability-rights law should have understood the real-world effects of PTSD, the vulnerability of an unrepresented complainant and the difference between nominal accommodation and accommodation that actually works.

The issue is not whether Robb possessed a law degree. He did.

The issue is how someone with his disability-law background concluded, without permitting a full hearing, that a complaint involving documented PTSD had no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

A Low Threshold That Somehow Became an Impassable Wall

The decision itself acknowledges that the threshold for allowing a complaint to proceed to a hearing is low.

Paragraph 39 states that a complainant does not have to prove the entire case at the dismissal stage. The evidence only needs to take the complaint beyond the “realm of conjecture.”

My PTSD was not conjecture.

My communications describing the effects of direct contact were not conjecture.

The medical records showing that I experienced PTSD symptoms during the disciplinary proceedings were not conjecture.

EGBC’s knowledge of my disability by February 2019 was not conjecture. It was documented in the decision itself.

Robb nevertheless concluded that EGBC was reasonably certain to establish its defence. He found that there was insufficient evidence that my disability prevented me from participating in the disciplinary process or that staying the process was the only reasonable accommodation.

That framing is troubling.

A person should not have to establish total incapacity before a professional regulator is expected to take a psychiatric disability seriously. Accommodation is not limited to cases where a person is completely unable to participate.

The question should include whether the process could have been adjusted to reduce a disability-related injury while still allowing the regulator to perform its legitimate functions.

The fact that I continued communicating does not prove that the communications were harmless. People experiencing PTSD can respond repeatedly, emotionally or defensively to a perceived threat. The response itself can be part of the trauma reaction.

Treating continued communication as evidence that no meaningful disability-related harm occurred risks misunderstanding the very condition that required accommodation.

The Questions Ann English’s Email Leaves Behind

The September 18, 2019 email thread creates questions that remain relevant to my present reinstatement application:

Why was the email block imposed on the same day I was notified of the cancellation?
Was that timing connected to the disciplinary outcome?
Did EGBC obtain medical or disability-informed advice before blocking a person it knew had PTSD?
Did it consider a less restrictive and more structured communication protocol?
Did anyone separate the factual components of my concerns from the speculative conclusions and inflammatory language?
Were any objectively verifiable concerns referred to an appropriate authority?
Why did EGBC treat my communications primarily as a staff-management problem when it already knew those communications could be connected to psychiatric disability?
How does EGBC now propose to communicate with me fairly during the reinstatement process?

Ann English’s email does not prove that my underlying allegations were correct.

It does prove that EGBC responded by blocking my ordinary email access on the same day it notified me that my professional membership was cancelled.

That fact belongs in the public record.

What Happened Afterward

Years passed while I tried to rebuild my health, career and life.

Then, on January 22, 2026, my family home was firebombed while occupied.

That attack was an entirely separate event from the professional disciplinary process, and I am not suggesting that EGBC caused it. But it profoundly changed my personal circumstances and intensified the importance of rebuilding some professional stability.

After the firebombing, I again communicated with EGBC seeking reinstatement as a member.

EGBC knows about my PTSD.

It knows that I have been unable to work and receiving private disability benefits for years.

It knows about the human-rights complaint.

It knows the complaint was dismissed without a full hearing.

It knows about its September 2019 disciplinary determination and the same-day decision to block my ordinary email access.

It now also knows about the catastrophic circumstances through which I am attempting to rebuild my life.

My request for reinstatement is not a demand that professional standards be abandoned.

It is a request that EGBC assess the person who stands before it today—fairly, individually and with genuine consideration of disability, rehabilitation, proportionality and the passage of time.

The Timeline the Public Should See..and members of the EGBC should know about:

2018: I stopped working and began receiving private disability insurance benefits in connection with PTSD.
August 12, 2018: I voluntarily resigned from EGBC. My position is that I resigned in good standing in British Columbia.
August 2018: EGBC advised that it intended to commence a reciprocal disciplinary process based on the decision of my former professional association outside British Columbia.
January 10, 2019: I applied for reinstatement. EGBC held that application in abeyance.
February 2019: EGBC and counsel for its adjudicative panel were expressly advised that I had PTSD and that direct communications could trigger serious symptoms.
Approximately May 2019: I filed my complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
August 15, 2019: I provided written submissions to the EGBC panel.
September 16, 2019: EGBC issued its determination adopting the other regulator’s disciplinary result.
September 18, 2019: EGBC notified me that my membership had been cancelled.
September 18, 2019: At 9:30 a.m. that same day, then-CEO and Registrar Ann English advised that my email address would be blocked from sending messages to EGBC’s ordinary recipients. She cited the volume and distribution of my emails, their effect on operations, and what she characterized as inflammatory, false, defamatory and abusive allegations.
2021: Medical records were disclosed in the Tribunal proceeding. The later Tribunal decision acknowledged that they documented PTSD symptoms during EGBC’s process.
November 1, 2023: Andrew Robb was appointed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
April 18, 2024: Approximately five and a half months after his appointment—and almost five years after the complaint was filed—Robb dismissed it without a full hearing.
January 22, 2026: My occupied family home was firebombed.
2026: I renewed my efforts to obtain reinstatement with EGBC while continuing to live with PTSD and rebuild my life.

What Accountability Actually Requires

This is bigger than one membership application or one dismissed complaint.

Professional regulators wield extraordinary power. They can end careers, destroy earning capacity and permanently alter reputations. When they exercise that power against someone with a documented psychiatric disability, accommodation cannot become a procedural box-checking exercise.

Human-rights tribunals also wield extraordinary power. A decision to dismiss a complaint without a hearing may be procedurally preliminary, but for the complainant it can be final and devastating.

The public should be entitled to ask:

Why did a complaint filed in 2019 remain unresolved until 2024?

Why was this long-running file assigned to a Tribunal member appointed only months earlier?

Why was documented PTSD insufficient to justify examining the evidence through a full hearing?

Was my continued ability to send communications interpreted without adequately considering how PTSD can affect perception, emotional regulation and responses to perceived threats?

Did EGBC examine whether its accommodation was actually effective, or merely whether it had adopted a method it considered administratively workable?

Why was there no fresh evidentiary hearing in British Columbia to determine whether the underlying allegations were true?

Why did EGBC transform a voluntary resignation into a permanent published disciplinary cancellation?

Why was I blocked from ordinary email communication on the same day I was notified of that cancellation?

And as I now seek reinstatement, will EGBC evaluate my application with an open mind—or will a disciplinary process rooted in events nearly a decade old continue to function as a permanent professional sentence?

I am not asking anyone to accept my interpretation without examining the record.

I am asking people to read the decisions, study the dates and recognize what happened: a documented disability, a disputed reciprocal disciplinary process, a same-day email block, a human-rights complaint that remained unresolved for nearly five years, and a dismissal issued by a recently appointed Tribunal member without the evidence ever being tested at a full hearing.

That is the record.

Now EGBC has another decision to make: whether my reinstatement application will be considered through a fair, humane and genuinely disability-informed process—or whether the past will be used indefinitely to prevent any possibility of professional rehabilitation.

I intend to document that process publicly.

Addendum: Andrew Robb Was Asked to Reconsider—and Dismissed That Too

There is a second BC Human Rights Tribunal decision that belongs in this record.

After Andrew Robb dismissed my human-rights complaint on April 18, 2024, I applied for reconsideration on May 2, 2024. I argued that the Tribunal process had been unfair, that relevant evidence had been overlooked or excluded and that new evidence should be considered.

On June 4, 2024—only 33 days after I filed the application—Robb dismissed my request for reconsideration:

Drover v. Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia and another (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 173

The respondents did not make submissions on my reconsideration application. Robb reconsidered his own earlier decision based on my materials and concluded that the interests of fairness and justice did not require the complaint to be reopened.

What I Asked the Tribunal to Reconsider

My application raised several concerns:

EGBC’s lawyer in the human-rights case had also represented EGBC during the events forming part of my complaint.
Some of that lawyer’s communications with me were themselves relevant to my allegation that EGBC failed to accommodate my PTSD.
I questioned whether counsel was effectively defending her own conduct while representing EGBC in the human-rights proceeding.
I raised the extraordinary delay in the Tribunal process and concerns about how my file had been managed.
I argued that evidence concerning my complaints to the RCMP had been overlooked.
I asked Robb to consider an affidavit containing additional history and evidence.
I submitted information concerning other official complaints, inquiry decisions and developments at EGBC that I believed provided important context.

Robb rejected each of these grounds.

The Same Lawyer Defending the Same Conduct

Robb acknowledged that EGBC’s Tribunal counsel had also represented EGBC in other proceedings against me, including the disciplinary process that resulted in the cancellation of my membership.

He also acknowledged my argument that the same lawyer was among those whose communications allegedly aggravated my disability.

I argued that this created at least a serious concern about whether counsel was defending not only EGBC, but also her own actions.

Robb found that this did not necessarily create a conflict of interest. He said it is not uncommon for a lawyer who advised or represented a client during the events giving rise to a human-rights complaint to later represent that client before the Tribunal.

He concluded that nothing about counsel’s dual involvement suggested I had been deprived of a fair process.

That was his determination. I continue to question whether the arrangement was appropriate in the particular circumstances of my case.

Nearly Five Years of Delay Was Not Considered Unfair

Robb acknowledged that the delay had been frustrating, but found that I had not sufficiently explained how it caused unfairness or prejudiced my complaint.

Think about that.

I filed the complaint in approximately May 2019. It was not dismissed until April 2024. During those years, memories faded, circumstances changed and I remained outside my profession while living with PTSD and receiving disability benefits.

Yet the delay itself was not considered enough. I was expected to demonstrate precisely how a delay largely beyond my control caused legal prejudice.

The human impact of waiting almost five years for a preliminary dismissal received little meaningful consideration.

Evidence Mentioning the RCMP Was Deemed Irrelevant

Robb acknowledged that evidence concerning my complaints to the RCMP had been before him when he made the original decision. He also acknowledged that his first decision did not mention the RCMP at all.

He nevertheless concluded that the evidence was irrelevant.

According to Robb, the original decision assumed that I might establish an adverse impact connected to my disability. He dismissed the complaint because he found EGBC was reasonably certain to prove that its communications were justified by the need to maintain procedural fairness.

On that reasoning, the fact that I had complained to police about communications I perceived as harassment—and that police did not lay charges—did not affect the legal question Robb decided.

I understand the distinction between criminal harassment and discrimination under the Human Rights Code. They are different legal issues.

My concern is that the RCMP complaints were part of the factual record showing how severely I was reacting to EGBC’s communications and how serious the psychological impact had become. Even if the complaints did not prove criminal conduct, they provided context concerning my mental state, perceived threat and requests that direct communications stop.

Robb decided that context would not have changed the result.

The Missing Affidavit

I also argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider an affidavit I submitted in 2021.

Robb said he reviewed the Tribunal’s complaint file but could not find a record showing that the affidavit had been submitted before my reconsideration application or that the Tribunal had refused to consider it.

He then reviewed the affidavit and concluded that nothing in it would have changed his original decision.

The affidavit, he said, repeated allegations I had made against EGBC and raised concerns about conflicts involving EGBC’s counsel and other parties.

This illustrates the procedural wall I repeatedly encountered: evidence I believed supplied vital context was treated as repetitive, irrelevant or incapable of affecting the outcome.

New Evidence Was Also Rejected

My reconsideration application referred to other complaints, proceedings and official decisions that I believed formed part of the wider context surrounding my interactions with EGBC.

Robb concluded that none of this evidence related closely enough to the specific question of EGBC’s communications with me during the disciplinary process.

I also raised staff turnover at EGBC and argued that it could support concerns about suppression of information or avoidance of accountability.

Robb called that argument speculative. He found there was no evidence connecting staff departures to a coordinated effort involving my case.

To be clear, turnover alone does not prove misconduct or a cover-up. But I believed the timing and circumstances deserved examination rather than summary rejection. Robb disagreed.

The Tribunal Defined My Complaint Narrowly

Perhaps the most revealing passage appears near the end of the reconsideration decision.

Robb wrote that I wanted the Tribunal to examine all my interactions with EGBC and the events leading to those interactions to determine whether EGBC and other parties had treated me fairly.

He characterized this as a misunderstanding of the Tribunal’s role.

According to Robb, the Tribunal could consider only the comparatively narrow question of whether EGBC discriminated against me based on disability.

That narrow framing explains much of what followed.

I viewed the history, the disciplinary process, my PTSD, my communications, the actions of EGBC’s lawyers, the email block and the resulting professional consequences as interconnected.

The Tribunal separated those events and asked a much narrower question: Were EGBC’s communications during the disciplinary process justified?

Once the case was confined to that question, much of the evidence I considered essential was declared irrelevant.

A Significant Error in the Decision

Paragraph 5 of the reconsideration decision describes me as an “engineer” and says I could no longer work as an engineer in Alberta or British Columbia.

I am not an engineer. I am a professional geoscientist.

This may appear minor, but it matters.

This proceeding concerned the destruction of my professional status and ability to work in my chosen field. A decision addressing that career should identify the profession correctly.

The error raises an obvious question about how carefully the history and professional context of my case were reviewed.

Reconsideration Was Never a New Hearing

Rule 36 gives the Tribunal only limited authority to reconsider its decisions. Robb explained that reconsideration is exercised sparingly and that it is not intended to let a party reargue a case merely because the party believes the original decision was wrong or unreasonable.

He said a challenge alleging that the decision itself was wrong would ordinarily have to proceed through judicial review in the BC Supreme Court.

That meant my reconsideration application was not a new hearing. It did not allow witnesses to testify, credibility to be tested or the complete evidentiary history to be examined.

It was a request asking the same Tribunal member who made the original decision to decide whether fairness and justice required him to reopen it.

He decided they did not.

The Complete 2024 Sequence

The complete sequence should therefore read:

April 18, 2024: Andrew Robb dismissed my human-rights complaint without a full hearing.
May 2, 2024: I applied for reconsideration, alleging procedural unfairness, overlooked evidence and new evidence.
June 4, 2024: Thirty-three days later, Robb dismissed the reconsideration application.
No submissions were made by the respondents on the reconsideration application.
No full evidentiary hearing was ever held on my human-rights complaint.

Why This Addendum Matters Today

This second decision reinforces the central concern raised throughout this article.

EGBC knew that I had PTSD during its disciplinary process. The Human Rights Tribunal accepted that evidence existed capable of establishing the disability. Medical records documented that I was experiencing symptoms during the relevant period.

Nevertheless, my complaint was dismissed without a full hearing. My attempt to have that dismissal reconsidered was then rejected by the same Tribunal member approximately one month after I applied.

None of this proves that every allegation I made was correct. It does show that the broader factual history I wanted examined was repeatedly narrowed, excluded or characterized as irrelevant.

Now, in 2026, I am again seeking reinstatement with EGBC while continuing to live with PTSD and rebuild after the firebombing of my occupied family home.

The question facing EGBC is no longer simply what happened between 2018 and 2019.

The question is whether a professional regulator believes in rehabilitation, proportionality and genuine disability accommodation—or whether disputed events from nearly a decade ago will be used as a permanent barrier against any possibility of returning to my profession.

The two Tribunal decisions should be read together:

Read them.

Examine what was considered.

Examine what was dismissed as irrelevant.

Examine the dates.

Then decide for yourself whether justice was actually served.

Black Sheep Blog
September 12, 2026

recent posts

Like this:

Leave a ReplyCancel reply