Lawsuit: Dismissed End v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 39

End said:

Objection

The commonwealth has had 4 days. I appreciate that the AG has just resigned but this does not warrant an extra three days.

Click to expand...

juniperfig said:

Your honour,

I would like to offer my deepest apologies for the lack of response in this case. I was not anticipating having a new job so soon, and as the (very short-lived) former presiding officer in this case, I'm unable to continue it as the Attorney General.

I humbly request a 48 hour extension from the time of this posting to file an Answer to Complaint.

Click to expand...

aubunny said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The plaintiff lists P-005 as a list of continued activity within the department, yet it is actually a list of dead links.

The plaintiff lists under P-015 "No evidence of assigned project because it doesn't exist," which is inappropriate evidence submission and just conjecture and fluff.

Click to expand...

End said:

Objection

OBJECTION
Perjury



The links are active, you need to join the Department of Construction and Transport to view them. They are in public channels.

Click to expand...

End said:

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance, Narrative

The Defendant introduces irrelevant information that does not pertain to the specific allegations of unfair dismissal in this case.

Specifically, I was fired for inactivity and lack of progress.

Any broader commentary on departmental expectations, unrelated policy justifications, or generalised remarks about workplace conduct are immaterial to the core issue: whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and lawfully executed under the applicable standards.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court strikes the additional material and confine consideration to the conduct and circumstances directly surrounding the dismissal.

Click to expand...

End said:

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

The Defence’s interpretation of s.13.1(a/b) of the Commercial Standards Act is not relevant to the issues properly before the Court.

The Defence misrepresents these provisions by treating them as a blanket justification for dismissal based on perceived inefficiency alone. In fact, both clauses require a necessity for continued operation and must be applied in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including fair warning, and procedural fairness.

The Plaintiff’s case does not dispute the existence of s.13.1, but rather challenges whether its requirements were met in this instance, specifically whether the dismissal was necessary, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The Defence’s hypothetical reading of the Act is irrelevant to the factual and procedural failures at the heart of this matter.

Click to expand...

Dr_Eksplosive said:

The Objection to P-015 is Sustained. I shall give the Plaintiff 24 hours to defend this piece of evidence, and shall subsequently strike it if it fails to meet standard.

Click to expand...

Dr_Eksplosive said:

It is quite silly to assume that departmental expectations, departmental policy modifications or remarks about workplace conduct do not relate to your disputed dismissal.

Click to expand...

End said:

Response

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I acknowledge the Court’s view that departmental policies and expectations sometimes help explain the context of a dismissal. However, I maintains that the Defendant’s comments go well beyond relevant background and instead introduce broad, narrative claims that:

• Were not cited at the time of the dismissal (inactivity and lack of progress),
• Appear to be after-the-fact justifications rather than reasons actually relied upon.

These statements risk distracting from the real issue and legal question at hand: whether the Plaintiff’s dismissal followed fair procedure, and whether the Department genuinely applied s.13.1 of the Commercial Standards Act in a lawful and transparent way.

The defence is trying to impugn my character by introducing irrelevant context into the question and the case. Again, I emphasise this case is not about unfair dismissal on the grounds of being belligerent or insubordinate, this is about my activity in the department and that alone.

Click to expand...

End said:

Interrogatories

1. State the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made and the reasoning relied upon at that time.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Identify the exact date you first considered the Plaintiff inactive, and explain why no warning or inquiry was issued at that time.

4. Admit or deny: At no point did the Department formally request the Plaintiff to clarify, revise, or withdraw their communicated leave of absence.

5. Admit or deny: The Department does not have a written or public policy requiring estimated return dates as a condition for accepting leave of absence notifications.

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

Click to expand...

End said:

Interrogatories

1. State the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made and the reasoning relied upon at that time.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Identify the exact date you first considered the Plaintiff inactive, and explain why no warning or inquiry was issued at that time.

4. Admit or deny: At no point did the Department formally request the Plaintiff to clarify, revise, or withdraw their communicated leave of absence.

5. Admit or deny: The Department does not have a written or public policy requiring estimated return dates as a condition for accepting leave of absence notifications.

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

Click to expand...

End said:

View attachment 55051

P-015 is separate to the comment made at the bottom of the thread.

I have noted that I cannot provide evidence of project assignment because I was not assigned anything. Strike the comment if you wish, but it's unrelated to P-015.

Click to expand...

End said:

Response

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I acknowledge the Court’s view that departmental policies and expectations sometimes help explain the context of a dismissal. However, I maintains that the Defendant’s comments go well beyond relevant background and instead introduce broad, narrative claims that:

• Were not cited at the time of the dismissal (inactivity and lack of progress),
• Appear to be after-the-fact justifications rather than reasons actually relied upon.

These statements risk distracting from the real issue and legal question at hand: whether the Plaintiff’s dismissal followed fair procedure, and whether the Department genuinely applied s.13.1 of the Commercial Standards Act in a lawful and transparent way.

The defence is trying to impugn my character by introducing irrelevant context into the question and the case. Again, I emphasise this case is not about unfair dismissal on the grounds of being belligerent or insubordinate, this is about my activity in the department and that alone.

Click to expand...

aubunny said:

Your honor, may the defense submit a response?

Click to expand...

aubunny said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Compound Question:
Questions 1, 2, and 3 are all compounding questions, including multiple questions within the same Interrogatory submission, and the defense requests that they be struck from the record.

Click to expand...

aubunny said:

Response to 4 AND 5: The Defense Denies both statements.
There was never an LOA. If there had been, the Plaintiff would have posted it properly in the relations channel, as he has done multiple times before. Simply DMing someone that "I can't help a lot right now because I'm busy, but I will help again soon" [paraphrased] does not constitute filing an LOA for over a month, and claiming that it does is completely unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Dr_Eksplosive said:

I'll allow this.



Denied.

I am quite capable of remaining focused on the disputed matters. I find that their arguments remain somewhat relevant. If you feel they are ignoring your arguments, their loss. This decision is final.



It is not required.



Sustained.

Questions are hereby struck. The Plaintiff may separate them into smaller questions and resubmit them if they so choose.

Click to expand...

End said:

Objection

OBJECTION
PREJUDICE

Your Honour, I respectfully submit an objection to the continued reliance on context which falls outside the scope of this dispute.

The matter before the Court concerns a dismissal for alleged inactivity and lack of progress. That is the basis on which I was terminated, and accordingly, it is the basis on which I have brought this claim.

Repeated references by the Defendant to my broader stance on departmental policy, or prior unrelated conduct, do not address the specific grounds for my dismissal and risk introducing irrelevant and prejudicial material into these proceedings.

With respect, I request that the Court limit consideration to the lawfulness and procedural fairness of the dismissal itself, rather than matters that were not contemporaneously raised or relied upon in the decision to terminate my employment.

Click to expand...

aubunny said:

Your honor, the defense requests a response if it pleases you.

Click to expand...

End said:

I am willing to break these questions down into smaller parts as directed. However, I respectfully request approval to exceed the five-question limit set out in the court rules to ensure clarity.

Additionally, I submit that asking a witness to state the time and reason they decided to terminate an individual, for example, is very reasonable as a compound question.

Click to expand...

End said:

Objection

OBJECTION
PREJUDICE

Your Honour, I respectfully submit an objection to the continued reliance on context which falls outside the scope of this dispute.

The matter before the Court concerns a dismissal for alleged inactivity and lack of progress. That is the basis on which I was terminated, and accordingly, it is the basis on which I have brought this claim.

Repeated references by the Defendant to my broader stance on departmental policy, or prior unrelated conduct, do not address the specific grounds for my dismissal and risk introducing irrelevant and prejudicial material into these proceedings.

With respect, I request that the Court limit consideration to the lawfulness and procedural fairness of the dismissal itself, rather than matters that were not contemporaneously raised or relied upon in the decision to terminate my employment.

Click to expand...

End said:

This does not answer question 5. If you deny it, please produce it.

Click to expand...

aubunny said:

Response

Response to Objection

1) "Prejudice"
Prejudice is not a valid objection and should be ignored by the court accordingly. Alongside the fact that there has already been a motion to reconsider on the same points presented by the Plaintiff, who is simply just restating what has already been said in said motion, but with different conjecture around it.


Given the fact that the Plaintiff will most likely just refile under a different format, for the sake of a speedy trial, we have presented a counterargument regardless.

2) "Scope"
In the claims for relief, the Plantiff lists under each given claim the violations of the CSA "Employee Protections", as such the defense has been responding to the case filing with all provisions of the Employee Protections act in mind, as the list for reasons behind termination being valid in the given act go beyond activity as the sole blame. The Plaintiffs' badgering of the judge to limit the scope of a case revolving around the Employee Protections section of the CSA in its entirety to just the notions of inactivity would be misrepresenting the law as written, which doesn't even list activity as a given reason for sustained employment within its clauses.

For the sake of clarity, the defense will list the provisions within the Employee Protections that the defense submitted in their claims, and then show how limiting the scope to just activity would be an act of ignorance on behalf of the defense.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(a)

Section 13.1(a) if the employee’s termination made financial sense given the regular business activities and necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party (such as in the case of normal company downsizing);
This section is listed within the Plantiffs Claim for Relief at number 2, Under no circumstances would an interpretation of this law to relate to activity and activity alone make sense under the current definitions of "necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party", as this clause very much also refers to actions such as sabotage of the terminating party, or other harmful activities for the terminating parties operations that may be done while maintaining full activity.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(b)

whether or not the employee’s continued employment would have been a detriment to the workflow, reputation, or legal standing of the business;
This one is the most obvious to rebuke as relating to more than just standards of activity, so I will keep it short and simple for the sake of clarity.

It would be stupid to consider inactivity as the only way for somebody to be a detriment to workflow or reputation.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(d)

other metrics that courts find necessary to consider in accordance with what may be considered unfair dismissal by any reasonable person and is consistent with the previous language and intent of this section. Courts may not construe this section in any way that creates a result that is odd, absurd, or otherwise inconsistent with this section or the intent thereof.
This clause, the final one mentioned by the plantiffs claims of relief, is very open in the fact that it allows for the courts to interpret what is and isnt related to an allegedly unjust termination, I cannot add much else to it as it argues for itself

The Plantiff has accused the Defending party of violations of these acts in its claims for relief, and as demonstrated we are using the acts in their full definition to show the accusations of an unjust dismissal as being false.
To paraphrase, there is no "Inactivity law" that the plantiff is using as grounds for fighting their dismissal, the protections afforded to employees are an open book of allowing termination of employees that are active yet still harmful to the work enviornment, even though in this case the Plantiff was both simultaniously. As such, the notion of striking anything not related to solely activity would create an imperfect picture of the definition of the laws this case is standing on.

The statement made was to dismiss the relevance of question 5, as you did not submit a LoA in any official capacity in the relations channel that extended to the length that you were inactive for. But I will give you a very clear answer if so requested, in the interest of cooperation in speeding up this trial.

The Commonwealth denies that there is a requirement for inputting dates; however, through the recommendation of former CM Endeavor [D-07] and examples given in other people's LoA [D-04], it is commonplace to do so where possible.

D-07 attached.

Motion

Motion to Amend Complaint

The defense would like to make the following amendment to our answer to complaint;

The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was terminated from the Department but DENIES that it was solely on the basis of inactivity.

Click to expand...

End said:

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

The Defence appears to be deliberately expanding the scope of the case to include speculative or unrelated provisions of the Employee Protections clauses, none of which were cited at the time of termination. Their reference to sabotage or reputational harm, for example, is unsupported by any factual allegation or disciplinary record against the Plaintiff. These are post-event justifications, not lawful grounds contemporaneously invoked.

To be clear:

• The cause of termination was explicitly stated to be inactivity and lack of progress.
• The issue before the Court is whether that cause was valid, procedurally fair, and compliant with Section 13.1 of the CSA.
• The Defence's attempt to interpret broad provisions as if they were operative in my case — when no such rationale was ever cited — is legally immaterial.

Misapplication of Justification
The Plaintiff does not deny that Section 13.1 provides for various justifications for dismissal. However, the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that those justifications were the actual basis for termination — not merely that they hypothetically could have been.

The Court must assess:

• Whether the Department, at the time of termination, cited lawful and relevant reasons under the CSA;
• Whether the process was fair and transparent;
• And whether the Defence is now introducing alternative rationales that were not contemporaneously communicated to the Plaintiff.

This is a fundamental distinction between a lawful dismissal and a post hoc rationalisation.

On the LoA and Relevance of Questioning
The Plaintiff maintains that Question 5 — regarding the Department’s policy on leave of absence (LoA) and whether estimated return dates are mandatory — is directly relevant. The Defence now acknowledges that dates are not formally required, despite previously relying on the absence of an end date to support the claim of inactivity. That inconsistency matters.

I urge the Court to refocus on the essential legal question:

Was my dismissal for inactivity and lack of progress lawfully justified under the CSA as applied at the time — not retroactively interpreted through unrelated provisions.

Anything extraneous material to influence the outcome is, respectfully, to risk prejudicing the case.

Click to expand...

End said:

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

Click to expand...

End said:

Interrogatories

Here are all questions broken down into non-compound questions:

What was the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made?

What was the reasoning relied upon at the time of the Plaintiff’s termination?

What Department policy governs leave of absence requests?

How must leave of absence requests be submitted according to Department policy?

Does the Department policy require estimated return dates for leave of absence requests?

On what exact date did you first consider the Plaintiff inactive?

Why did the Department not issue a warning at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?

Why did the Department not make an inquiry at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to clarify their leave of absence?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to revise their leave of absence?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to withdraw their leave of absence?

Does the Department have a written policy requiring estimated return dates for leave of absence notifications?

Is the Department’s policy on estimated return dates publicly available?

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

Click to expand...

aubunny said:

Objection

OBJECTION

Relevance

The Secretary of the DCT has not been in office for 12 months, and policy and standards between then and now has changed. As such, terminations before that point would not have any relevance to the actions taken by Secretary Vroomba.

If the plaintiff wishes to amend their production to include only from the Secretaries induction, The defense would be more then happy with the compromise.

Click to expand...

End said:

I will agree to 6 months, as the terminations made were based on activity prior to the leadership change as well.

Click to expand...

End said:

Objection

OBJECTION
PREJUDICE

Your Honour, I respectfully submit an objection to the continued reliance on context which falls outside the scope of this dispute.

The matter before the Court concerns a dismissal for alleged inactivity and lack of progress. That is the basis on which I was terminated, and accordingly, it is the basis on which I have brought this claim.

Repeated references by the Defendant to my broader stance on departmental policy, or prior unrelated conduct, do not address the specific grounds for my dismissal and risk introducing irrelevant and prejudicial material into these proceedings.

With respect, I request that the Court limit consideration to the lawfulness and procedural fairness of the dismissal itself, rather than matters that were not contemporaneously raised or relied upon in the decision to terminate my employment.

Click to expand...

End said:

Your honour, I've requested the last date that no more than 15 people did something in the last six months. This is a five minute job with the access that the Department has to the Discord.

If you feel it should be limited to Constructors and Construction Managers that's fine, but I stand by my request that six months is acceptable and reasonable.

The defence claims conjecture and estimation and won't provide me the evidence which would allow me to make an informed analysis.

Click to expand...

End said:

requesting an additional 24 hours due to irl commitments over this period

Click to expand...

Was I unfairly dismissed based on the reason given?

I assert that I was. The facts support that conclusion. And I trust the Court will too.

Click to expand...

Hamilton City
Reveille City
Government House
Court Complex
Transport Network
Mount Rushvert
Willow
Reveille Yacht Club
The Esplanade
Greenscaping
Reveille Park
North Business District
University Hospital
University Beach
Enclaves
Reveille Hospital Redevelopment
Animal Shelter Redevelopment
Revcatraz
All Police Stations
Olympic Park
Impeachment Museum
State Department Redevelopment
United Nations Chamber
Racetrack
Sampson Hills
Reveille Heights
Reveille and Hamilton Zoos
Exhibition Centre
Private Pharmacies
Reveille Museum
Reveille and Hamilton Capitol
Light Rail
Black Market
Industrial Area
Hamilton and Reveille Airport

Click to expand...

Plura72 said:

stop lying End

is the most untrue statement i ever heard


most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so u are wrong

YOU HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS RECENTLY AND NO PROJECTS SO STOP LYING THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!!!!!

Click to expand...