Staff had the onus to bring valid, compelling evidence before the Panel. Wharram (who has no legal training) had Investigator Elizabeth Chan admit that she assumed vital details that caused the Executive Director to issue portion of the Notice of Hearing against Wharram…
Yet the same Panel ruled the Executive Director proved “on the Balance of Probabilities” that the allegations were accurate. How is the compelling evidence?
The following attachment are part of the written Submissions on Liability the Respondents wrote in defense of this portion of the allegations.
Click on the link… Chan Assumes