Another complaint to “cjs”about unica insurance’s judge Irving Andre Brampton superior court of Justice

Erol ozdemir has made a complaint against insurance crooked judge Irving

1I have told the  judge at the beginning of the hearing that I have a previous complaint against him and I don’t want him to hear this case ,I requested from him adjournment and want different judge to hear this case.
He deny my request so he made a discrimination because I was self represent at the hearing.on the Decision this request hasn’t been mentioned.
2-Before the hearing Canadian judicial council principles for the self represent litigants booklet has been given him. I told him that he did not obey these principles at the last hearing.What I see he did not obey those principles again,
As we all see from his decision ,opposite sides lawyers bold accusations has been marked down and according the decisions it is like I have never spoken at the hearing.That means he did made a discrimination by not putting my words and proofs against those bold accusations on the decision.
3-At the hearing I requested trial date from this judge ,what I see on the decison my request has been ignored and it is like not even heard.There is nothing mentioned about my request.
Therefore this judge considered and listened insurance lawyers and as a citizen I have been 100% discriminated.It was like they did this hearing with out me.
4-This hearing has been set up by the insurance company and judge assigned by the insurance company ,this motion has been previously adjourned by different judge for looking at the materials,He is the one who supposed to  heard this case as a judge ,unfortunately I came cross with judge Andre some how ,what a consequence.That shows this hearing was set up hearing and insurance assigned this judge to the hearing.
5- chief of Justice is guilty for not doing his/her job by assigning judges to the cases.that means Chief of Justice also involved with this criminal activities or bribery.
Judge Andre credibility is zero and I don’t want this insurance judge on my trials or motions anymore,if see him again ,CJC council will be responsible and shared his criminal activities with the judge.
I know you are going to cover this judge and Chief of Justice again ,the reason I am making this complaint is a formality and will be shared on a web page belongs to friend of mine to show the reality how much fraud is going on with all of you.


Canadian government has been complained to the UN human rights council for violations of UN human rights laws


Pimg_1106img_1107United nation 1
CITATION: Sahinbay v. Da Silva, 2016 ONCA 333
DATE: 20160503
DOCKET: C59748
Laskin, Pepall and Brown JJ.A.
Arif Sahinbay and Dilek Sahinbay
Ricardo Da Silva and Isilda Da Silva
James Cooper, for the appellant, Arif Sahinbay
Joanne Blacklock and Nicholas Ajram, for the respondents
Heard and released orally: April 29, 2016
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Thomas R. Lederer of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 19, 2014, sitting with a jury.
[1]            The appellant is represented by counsel today.  Counsel argues that at the trial of the action, the appellant was self-represented, was taking unreasonable positions, lacked counsel due to factors beyond his control, and suffered a head injury.  He submits that given these circumstances, the trial judge, of his own initiative, ought to have adjourned the trial so that the appellant could confer with counsel.
[2]            We do not accept the appellant’s submission.
[3]            A reading of the transcript of proceedings reveals that the trial judge conducted a fair trial.  He repeatedly offered the appellant an adjournment of the trial but these offers were repeatedly refused.  He also pointed out the weaknesses of the appellant’s case in the absence of properly tendered evidence.
[4]            Moreover, we reject the argument, raised for the first time today, that counsel for the respondent was obliged to do more in the circumstances.  Again, a review of the transcript does not support such a complaint.
[5]            The appeal is dismissed.  Costs are awarded to the respondents in the amount of $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

“John Laskin J.A.”
“S.E. Pepall J.A.”
“D.M. Brown J.A,

My Complaint about Toronto divisional court ,court of appeal
Hearing date:2016-05-03
1-As a self represent litigant ,I have been discriminated by appeal judges,The lawyer James Cooper that I hired for the appeal also ignored by appeal judges.
2- Insurance company has assigned the judge Thomas Lederer to the case ,2 days before the trial ,judges have been switched and judge Lederer has come to the hearing as a judge.Original judge was judge Pollock who has been assigned to the case by chief of justice.
3-At the original hearing, even my submission has been cut by judge Lederer.
4-My lawyer has quit and I had to represent my self at the hearing so,I did not get fair hearing just because of being self represented litigants and I have been discriminated by judge Lederer for 3 days long hearing and I lost the trial.
5-I took the case to the appeal court and also lawyer James Cooper represented me at the hearing and unfortunately judges ignored him.
6- Judge Lederer was yelling and ignoring me while trial times and days.
7-Judge Lederer is a cocaine addict judge ,during the trial he was under the influence of cocaine.
8- I made my complaint to Canadian judicial council and they pulled this judge Thomas Lederer to Ottawa for 6 months then they brought him back to job 6 months later.They covered this mess and scandal up.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
… Article 7. Has been violated by Canadian government
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

I am adding the letter from the Arbitrator Robinson for supporting my allegation and also copy of complaint letters have been submitted previously many times to the Canadian judicial council ,government of Canada ,Members of Canadian parliament, ministry of finance Ontario etc.
Also there are many other hearings done with same or similar violations have been done on those trials I would like to send you the link of the court transcript where everything has started,
Arbitrator Robinson letter is here in this link shows and talk about my human rights,
Upon request I would like to send you more information ,results of my cases or appeals or any information you need.
– [ ]

United nation 2
CITATION: Ozdemir v. Economical Mutual Insurance Group, 2016 ONSC 5682 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-4963-00 DATE: 20160913
COUNSEL: Erol Ozdemir, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf
T. Hanrahan, for the Defendant, Economical Mutual Insurance
Harry Brown, for the non-party, Unica Insurance Inc. Arif Sahinbay, non-party
HEARD: July 11, 2016 at Brampton
[1] The defendant Economical Mutual Insurance Group (“Economical”) brings a motion for the following relief:
(a) an order compelling non-party Unica Insurance Inc. (“Unica”) to provide Economical with a complete copy of all hearing exhibits from a 2014 Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”) arbitration between Arif Sahinbay (“Mr. Sahinbay”) and Unica within 30 days;
(b) an order compelling Unica to provide Economical with a complete copy of all surveillance and investigation within 30 days; and
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
(c) an order compelling the plaintiff, Erol Ozdemir (“Mr. Ozdemir”) to attend a further examination for discovery on a mutually agreed date within 90 days.
[2] Mr. Ozdemir opposes the motion on the grounds that there is no evidentiary basis for it, and furthermore, that disclosure of the exhibits sought by Economical would violate International Law and his rights to privacy.
[3] For the reasons given, the motion is granted.
[4] On December 16, 2011, Mr. Ozdemir filed a statement of claim against Economical following a November 24, 2009 accident in which he claimed benefits for loss of income, attendant care, medical expenses, housekeeping and home maintenance.
[5] Specifically, Mr. Ozdemir claimed benefits for attendant care, housekeeping and home maintenance services provided to him by Mr. Sahinbay, who was similarly involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 9, 2010. Mr. Sahinbay claimed similar benefits as Mr. Ozdemir against his insurance company, Unica.
[6] Mr. Sahinbay pursued a FSCO arbitration with respect to his October 2014 accident. During the FSCO proceedings on October 14, 2014, Mr. Sahinbay
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
advised the arbitrator that Mr. Ozdemir was his care attendant. He received compensation for ongoing attendant care, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits for services provided by Mr. Ozdemir from April 10, 2010.
[7] Similarly, Mr. Ozdemir claimed $6,000 a month for services allegedly provided to him by Mr. Sahinbay.
[8] Counsel for Economical cross-examined Mr. Ozdemir during a discovery hearing on February 21, 2013. One year later, in March 2014, Mr. Ozdemir was found to be catastrophically impaired. At the time of the first discovery, Economical was unaware that Mr. Ozdemir had provided attendant care to Mr. Sahinbay.
Court Orders
[9] Justice Emery ordered production of the FSCO arbitration transcripts on June 16, 2015.
[10] This motion raises the following issues:
* (i)  Should production be ordered from Unica?
* (ii)  Should Economical be allowed to further examine Mr. Ozdemir?
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
Issue No. One: Should production be ordered from Unica?
[11] Mr. Ozdemir opposes production of any exhibits from Unica for a number of reasons. First, he submits that the exhibits sought include surveillance photographs which show his children. Disclosure of these photographs, he submits, would violate Canada’s Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21 and Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child. Second, he maintains that production is unnecessary given that Mr. Sahinbay has not provided him with any attendant care since April 2010.
[12] Mr. Ozdemir filed a letter, purportedly written by a person named Ganna Garovykh, who wrote that since March 26, 2009, she provided attendant care to Mr. Ozdemir at the request of Mr. Sahinbay. Specifically, the letter states that:
I have been available for him (re: Mr. Ozdemir) 24/7 because, Arif Sahinbay is involved with an accident on April 9-2010 (sic) since then I have been available for him 24/7 because, Arif was in terrible condition and he couldn’t help Erol for about 1 year.
[13] In my view, production from Unica is warranted given Mr. Sahinbay’s testimony in October 2014 that he received attendant care form Mr. Ozdemir and the latter’s claim that he received similar care from Mr. Sahinbay during the same period. Mr. Sahinbay denied to this court that he had provided such care to Mr. Ozdemir despite his testimony to the contrary during the FSCO hearings.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
[14] Similarly, Mr. Ozdemir denies receiving attendant care from Mr. Sahinbay despite claiming compensation for such care in his statement of claim. The letter from Ms. Gorovykh is not helpful to his position. It is clearly hearsay. However, counsel for the defendant, Mr. Hanrahan, consented to Mr. Ozdemir relying on it for the truth of its contents.
[15] If Ms. Gorovykh provided attendant care to Mr. Ozdemir 24/7 after April 10, 2010, then there is simply no basis for the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for the care he claimed to have received from Mr. Sahinbay. Furthermore, if Mr. Sahinbay received attendant care from Mr. Ozdemir as he claimed to have received, then it raises questions regarding the conclusion that he has been catastrophically impaired as a result of his motor vehicle accident.
[16] Mr. Ozdemir opposes production of the surveillance photographs because it would violate his privacy rights. The Privacy Act has no application in this matter given that s. 2 provides that the Act relates to personal information held by a government institution rather than by a private company. In any event, production would not violate Mr. Ozdemir’s privacy rights. The surveillance purports to show Mr. Ozdemir out shopping with Mr. Sahinbay. It apparently shows him engaged in what may be construed as normal outdoor activities which may be relevant to his claim of catastrophic impairment.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
[17] Mr. Ozdemir also opposes production because the surveillance photographs contain images of his children. There is no indication that the photographs depict Mr. Ozdemir’s children in any kind of private activity or that they violate their personal integrity. Second, the photographs are relevant to the litigation to enable Economical to respond to Mr. Ozdemir’s claims of catastrophic impairment. Economical is entitled to any evidence which may enable it to fully respond to Mr. Ozdemir’s claims.
Issue No. Two: Should Economical be allowed to further examine Mr. Ozdemir?
[18] Courts have generally made an order for further discovery of a litigant if such an order is necessary to fulfill the purposes of discovery. Further discovery is warranted where there has been an important change in the facts: see Benedetto v. Giannoulias, 2009 CanLII 29990 (ON SC), at para. 19.
[19] The purported change in Mr. Ozdemir’s condition between 2013 when he was first examined by Economical and 2014, when he was assessed as being catastrophically impaired, constitutes an important change in the facts. Economical is entitled to further question Mr. Ozdemir regarding the change in his condition. It is necessary that Economical be afforded an opportunity to question Mr. Ozdemir regarding his present medical condition and the attendant care, housekeeping and house maintenance expenses he now claims.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
[20] Mr. Ozdemir cannot, on one hand, make a claim for compensation based on catastrophic impairment and maintain that Economical should not be afforded full opportunity to test these claims, on the other.
[21] Based on the above, I order that:
1. Unica Insurance Inc. shall provide Economical with a complete copy of all hearing exhibits from a 2014 FSCO arbitration hearing between Arif Sahinbay and Unica (FSCO File A12-003908) within thirty (30) days of this order;
2. Unica shall provide Economical with a complete copy of all surveillance and investigation of Mr. Sahinbay within thirty (30) days of this order; and
3. Mr. Ozdemir must attend a further examination for discovery on a mutually agreeable date within ninety (90) days of this order.
[22] Economical seeks costs in the amount of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis while Mr. Ozdemir seeks costs in the amount of $100.
[23] In assessing what quantum of costs are fair and reasonable in this matter, I give consideration to the following:
* (a)  Economical has been substantially successful.
* (b)  The matter involved a fair amount of preparation including the filing of a factum and book of authorities.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
DATE: September 13, 2016
(c) The issues were not complex and related to settled issues of law.
[24] Based on the above, I order that Mr. Ozdemir shall pay costs to Economical Mutual Insurance Group fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive. This amount may be deducted from any benefits which Economical may be ordered to pay Mr. Ozdemir in settlement of his claims against the company.
___________________________ André J.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
September 13, 2016
CITATION: Ozdemir v. Economical Mutual Insurance Group, 2016 ONSC 5682 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-4963-00 DATE: 20160913
COUNSEL: Erol Ozdemir, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf
T. Hanrahan, for the Defendant, Economical Mutual Insurance Group
Harry Brown, for the non- party, Unica Insurance Inc.
Arif Sahinbay, non-party


André J.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)

My Complaint about Brampton superior court of Justice

JUDGE IRVING W. ANDRÉ From The Brampton superior court of Justice as a federal judge
,The motion has been heard on Monday July 11-2016
The decision has been made in September 13-2016

I have received the motion decision today after 2 months and the decision was favour to the insurance company.From this judge , I wasn’t expecting anything less.

At the hearing I told this judge that there are laws for protection of privacy and I have given those laws to the judge hands.

1- By giving such decision this judge is violating privacy act Canada 1980-81-82-83.

2-By giving such decision this judge is violating international laws.

Article 16 of the United Nations
THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD Participation rights: having an active voice
Article 4 (Protection of rights),article 12 -13-14-15-16-17
B)Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 7. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 10.has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 12. Has been violated by the Canadian government

3-this judge has made discriminations against self represent litigants by not obeying CJC (Canadian judicial council)principles for the self represent litigants.

4-This judge doesn’t obey laws by violating national and international human rights.
-This judge has been told that at the beginning of this motion ,he doesn’t obey CJC(Canadian judicial council) principles for the self represent litigants that is why I simply asked him to adjournment for different judge to hear this motion.He made discriminations by not listening my request.

6-This judge shouldn’t have heard this motion and somehow insurance company assigned this judge to this motion.
7-On the decision ,judge also marked down my name as Erol Ozdemir,he made this mistake.

United nation 3
CITATION: Sahinbay v. Unica Insurance Inc., 2016 ONSC 4031 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 227-15 DATE: 20160616
BETWEEN: ) ) ) Arif Sahinbay ) Applicant ) ) – and – ) ) Unica Insurance Inc. ) ) ) Respondent ) ) ) )
James Cooper, agent for the Applicant
Harry Brown, for Unica Insurance Inc. Michael Spagnolo, for The Financial
Services Commission of Ontario
) HEARD at Toronto: June 16, 2016

[1] The applicant, Arif Sahinbay, has brought an application for judicial review of the decision of Arbitrator Robinson dated March 9, 2015.
[2] By way of background, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 9, 2010 and as a result, he sustained injuries.
[3] The applicant claimed Statutory Accident Benefits (“SABs”) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents on or after November 1, 1996 R.R.O. 1990 O Reg. 403/96 under the Insurance Act R.S.O. 1990 c.I.8., from Unica Insurance Company (“Unica”).
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Page: 2
Specifically, he sought enhanced benefits due to being catastrophically impaired under s.2 (1.2), weekly non-earner benefits under s.12(1), payment for attendant care under s.16(1) and housekeeping expenses under s.22(1).
[4] The applicant also sought a special award against Unica under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act, which an arbitrator may grant when the insurer has unreasonably delayed or withheld payment.
[5] A dispute arose between the applicant and Unica regarding his entitlement to certain SABs.
[6] The applicant and Unica could not resolve their dispute and the applicant requested arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”). On March 9, 2015, after a lengthy hearing before Arbitrator Robinson, the applicant was awarded certain benefits and denied others.
[7] Section 283(1) of the Insurance Act, provides the applicant with a right to appeal the Arbitrator’s decision on a question of law only, to the Director. The applicant did not follow the direction of s. 283(1). Instead, he commenced an application for judicial review of Arbitrator Robinson’s decision.
[8] On September 29, 2015, Unica brought a motion before Justice Sanderson in the Divisional Court seeking an order that the applicant had no right to appeal the decision of Arbitrator Robinson.
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Page: 3
[9] She correctly noted that the applicant has an obligation to follow the review process in the Insurance Act. Specifically he must exhaust his right of appeal under the Insurance Act. As a result, she stayed the application for judicial review.
[10] The applicant then returned to FSCO and filed a notice of appeal dated November 30, 2015, seeking to appeal Arbitrator Robinson’s decision. The appeal was assigned to David Evans, the Director’s Delegate.
[11] In a letter to the parties dated December 7, 2015, the Director’s Delegate stated that the appellant had filed his notice of appeal, after the expiration of 30 day time period for appealing. The Director’s Delegate refused to extend the time for the appeal.
[12] The only reason given by the applicant for his extension request was the fact that he had elected to proceed directly to Divisional Court rather than following s. 283(1) under the Insurance Act.
* [13]  The Director’s Delegate dismissed the appeal and stated as follows in his letter: 
“The only reason for the delay is that Mr. Sahinbay elected to proceed in another forum. I do not find that a reasonable ground for providing an extension where Mr. Sahinbay was fully aware of our process and chose to ignore it. 
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected, and we will be closing our file.”
* [14]  The matter before us today is an application for judicial review of Arbitrator Robinson’s
decision and not the decision of the Director’s Delegate. The applicant’s right to review the
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Page: 4
Arbitrator’s decision is limited by s. 283(1) of the Insurance Act. It is the decision of the Director’s Delegate that he should be seeking judicial review of and not the decision of Arbitrator Robinson.
[15] This court has no jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review directly from the Arbitrator. As Sanderson J. explained, courts do not review administrative decisions until a final decision has been rendered in the administrative process.
[16] In this case, the applicant now has a final decision from the Director’s Delegate and it is that decision from which he should be seeking judicial review.
[17] In summary, we have no jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application that is before us and accordingly it is dismissed.
[18] I have endorsed the application record as follows: “For oral reasons, application is dismissed and there will be no costs.”
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 16, 2016 Date of Release: June 20, 2016
Page: 5
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
CITATION: Sahinbay v. Unica Insurance Inc., 2016 ONSC 4031 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 227-15 DATE: 20160616
Arif Sahinbay
– and –
Unica Insurance Inc.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 16, 2016 Date of Release: June 20, 2016
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)

My Complaint about Toronto divisional court of appeal

1-Agent who represented me at this hearing Lawyer James Cooper has been ignored.
2-As a self represent litigant I have been discriminated.
3-After 2 hours of hearing finally they have decided that they have no jurisdiction over arbitrator decision ,that is how they want to interpret the law.
4- They ignored the final decision that my appeal application has been rejected by FSCO and they haven’t ruled anything about that decision on purpose.
5-since I am not criminal their behaviour wasn’t nice at all during the appeal process.
6-There is a pool system at this divisional court that is how they share insurance bribes.

7-Universal Declaration of Human Rights
… Article 7. Has been violated by Canadian government
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
B)Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 7. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 10.has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 12. Has been violated by the Canadian government

Unites nations 4
1-I filled up private prosecutors particular against 2 insurance lawyer that they were involved with forgery and unfortunately they have been protected by other law society members which is Justice of peace.I made my complaint against 2 Justice of peace and they also have been covered by superior court of Justice Judge and attorney general.
2-Crown attorney at that hearing has been acting like an attorney of the accused lawyer and also I made my complaint against crown attorney to attorney general and what I see is another cover up.
3- Dog doesn’t bite dog ,garbage in garbage out ,I don’t get no where ,I made many complaint against many lawyers to the law society upper Canada who is responsible rule and regulate lawyers,unfortunately I did not get anywhere,either my complaint totally ignored not even 1 response or they closed the files with out proper investigations.
4 -I made many complaint against judges to Canadian judicial council(CJC) who is responsible to  rule and regulate judges ,again either I did not get any response or they simply closed the files with out proper investigations.
Note(copy of those complaint records will be attached.
5- I made many complaints against insurance illegal actions to Financial services commission of Ontario (FSCO)and unfortunately many complaint have been ignored and files are closed with out punishment and with out rule and regulate those insurance companies.
6- All this stories or attempts are on my web pages with proofed documents here is the example link.
7-I made many complaints against many insurance doctors for perjury or for their subjective reports.Unfortunately insurance doctors are protected either by Collage of physicians Ontario or Health profession appeal board .
8- These government agencies are controlled by Kathleen Wynne prime minister of Ontario ,who is serving and protecting insurance companies against citizens.
9-new Ontario ombudsman have been assigned by Kathleen Wynne and even ombudsman is only working for her ,not for citizens.
Here is the link of the Ontario ombudsman articles on my blog.

10-B)Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 7. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 10.has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 12. Has been violated by the Canadian government

Who should we blame for this mess?

1-Citizens,because they don’t question anything.
2-Provincial government,because they are the one who is behind this mess and corruption as a puppet of the real organization that they are the boss of everything.
3- Government of Canada,because they don’t move their finger or they don’t have enough power to do anything.
4-all of the above
Answers is 4 all of the above
1-We should blame the citizens,because they are so naive to believe and not questioning the title of others who are in power(judges,lawyers,politicians,prime minister,professors,doctors etc,) ,not questioning the system that has been created to protect only the people of the organization.
2-we should blame the Provincial government,because they are the one who is being puppet of the organization and serving the organization verywell as a good servant.(look at the Rob Ford who has been murdered by the organization ,just because he did not support enough casino in Toronto,organization has plugged him out and made him media monkey at first by drug video then poisoned him to become cancer.This is just a small example of what do they capable of)
3- Federal government because ,they are the one who assigned judges that working for the organization to manipulate law and system for the organization interest.Specially previous government ,Harper’s conservatives did place the people of this organization in to the every single level of the government.I can see these people In every single level of the government that they are ready to take order to cover up ,deny , ignore and manipulate.
My last step is against the Canadian federal government to human rights council,not the commission in here Ottawa,council in Switzerland UN human rights head office for the discrimination of ordinary citizens rights under the human rights laws.


Hired guns manufacture reality;Insurance monkeys doctors,judges,politicians etc.

Disgraceful authorities like Justice John McIsaac and Dr. Margulies make a total mockery of the judicial process. In particular, criminal court Justices like McIsaac and hired gun “experts” like Psychiatrist, Dr. Margulies routinely obstruct justice and drive people like Marc Rosenberg, the late Ontario Court of Appeal Justice, crazy.

It is no surprise that Justice Rosenberg was deeply affected from his involvement in the wrongful convictions that arose from unreliable testimony given by pathologist Dr. Charles Smith. Smith is the disgraced expert who prompted defendants to plead guilty to killing their children rather than to risk facing a trial.

We smugly assume that the judicial process is no longer coercive and abusive since he was disgraced but there is no evidence of that. As long as the people who empowered Dr. Charles Smith are not criticized, nothing has changed.

Dr. Charles Smith was not a “God.” He relied upon the people who hired him to formulate his opinions. When these hired guns pretend to be objective, they need to be exposed, not acknowledged. Their “evidence” which is tainted by a selective presentation is not evidence at all. Consequently, when judges like John McIsaac enthusiastically engage the unreliable testimony of hired gun experts, are they not equally culpable for the kinds of miscarriages of justice that were blamed on Dr. Charles Smith?

It is easy to misrepresent through hired gun testimony but how many people have the integrity and the capacity to be fair, reasonable and just? Justice Marc Rosenberg had it. Justice John McIsaac, Dr. Charles Smith and Dr. Margulies, do not.

Advocates like Dr. Margulies narrow and restrict inquiry to justify agenda-driven theories and it is quite astounding how they somehow manage to corrupt the enire judicial process in the same manner again and again and again. It is time to openly challenge their tactics because it is rather clear and obvious that in the civil law context, they mimick the abusive and coercive tactics of twin cousin Dr. Charles Smith, who corrupted the process again and again and again, until he was eventually disgraced.

In the civil law context, biased experts like psychiatrist, Alfred Margulies are still the darlings of a dysfunctional insurance industry that routinely discredits worthy accident benefits claimants through misleading and inaccurate reports.

For example, if you suffer chronic physical pain, Dr. Margulies will manufacture predictable spin, as he did in a case in 2001 wherein he labelled a victim prior to her accident, as “a personality disordered individual, needy of affection and neurotically prone to look for the love and caring which always eluded her in fundamentally unsatisfactory relationships”. He opined that although her actual depressive illness eventually resolved, her pattern of pain persisted and was repeatedly reinforced and perpetuated by factors which fulfilled her needs “which long antedated the subject accident” and that these factors “have played the major role in the perpetuation of her complaints of pain in sites initially traumatized in it”.

That is essentially this man’s routine gig.

In a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals tribunal Decision released on December 7, 2012, Dr. Margulies’s bizarre claim that it was not possible to determine whether workplace injuries aggravated what he called the worker’s pre-existing delusional disorder, dominated the hearing in question. The doctor found it “impossible to state the extent to which the right knee injury may have worsened what was clearly described as a pre-existing delusional disorder.”

According to Dr. Margulies, the worker’s left knee injury “may have been an exacerbating factor” and “may have exacerbated the pre-existing delusional disorder.” Is it appropriate to use this kind of sloppy language to evade the proper consideration of a physical injury?

Dr. Margulies also found that the worker’s disorder would have developed and become symptomatic even in the absence of his work injuries, which is the extremely cunning, cookie-cutter tactic Dr. Margulies commonly deploys to make light of the pain and the disability that physical injuries cause.

The lack of humanity of those who exploit personal, emotional and relationship difficulties should be scourned, there is no merit to this unfounded speculation that hired guns promote.

If you review the reports that Dr. Margulies routinely prepares to help insurance companies evade liability, you will find a clear and identifiable variation of a refrain like; “I said – to reiterate, I said that you were psychotic before the accident, and sadly, you remain psychotic, and the accident had nothing to do with the psychosis, that’s what I am saying.”

The following cases wherein Dr. Margulies essentially uses circular reasoning in effort to undermine the pain of physical injury are rather interesting but it is very difficult to suggest that Dr. Margulies actually proves anything beyond the capacity to profit from his “perfect gig”.

A sample of reports which illustrate the rather unsavoury tactics/gimmicks of Dr. Alfred Margulies:


How many lives has Dr. Alfred Margulies destroyed through his hired gun tactics?

CONCLUSION: Everybody struggles. Psychiatrist, Dr. Margulies exploits typical, human weaknesses -which is what psychopaths do. Consequently, please post your story right here. The length of the list of people Dr. Margulies has victimized is shockingly long.

Like psychopaths, who are keenly aware of the impact their behavior has on others, Dr. Margulies evidently exploits insecurities and vulnerabilities in a heartbeat and then make the conscious choice to use his influence to destroy lives. They know right from wrong and simply choose to steamroll straight through it because they derive satisfaction from making people suffer.

The following narrative by William Hirstein Ph.D., illustrates the character of the psychopath: In the early 1800s, doctors who worked with mental patients began to notice that some of their patients who appeared outwardly normal had what they termed a “moral depravity” or “moral insanity,” in that they seemed to possess no sense of ethics or of the rights of other people. The term “psychopath” was first applied to these people around 1900. The term was changed to “sociopath” in the 1930s to emphasize the damage they do to society. Currently researchers have returned to using the term “psychopath.” Some of them use that term to refer to a more serious disorder, linked to genetic traits, producing more dangerous individuals, while continuing to use “sociopath” to refer to less dangerous people who are seen more as products of their environment, including their upbringing. Other researchers make a distinction between “primary psychopaths,” who are thought to be genetically caused, and “secondary psychopaths,” seen as more a product of their environments.

Instead of being objective, the psychopaths who manipulate the judicial process are as credible as disgraced pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith. For example, Psychiatrist, Alfred Margulies routinely stigmatizes accident victims by blaming the cause of their pain on pre-existing mental illnesses, and the intelligence or the integrity of the people who accept this claim ought to be seriously challenged.

The following is the typical narrative that Dr. Marguiles advances:

“… Dr. Margulies considers that the worker had significant pre-accident emotional problems and was in the midst of a serious depressive episode (her second) at the time of her compensable accident. In his two reports, he sets out his reasons for considering that the worker’s pain disorder with psychological factors is related to her underlying personality disorders and the various supports she has received since her compensable accident, rather than to a reaction to the accident itself.”

In yet another case, Dr. Margulies predictably theorized that a woman who is incapable of employment because of a psychiatric condition will be miraculously cured of her psychiatric ailment, if her so-called safety net (support payments) is taken away. His “political views” are not exactly scientific or objective disclosure, but they certainly expose the workings of his mind.

On April 10, 2009, the New York Times wrote an article that exposed what lawyers who represent injured people have known for a long time; “The so-called ‘Independent Medical Exam’ is not at all independent because doctors are really hired to keep injured people from getting the compensation they deserve for their injuries.” Dr. Margulies claims objectivity and independence, but his reports are anything but and he should therefore not be testifying in any court of law because he is evidently as credible as Dr. Charles Smith was.

It is extremely easy to cherry pick facts to develop a false diagnosis in a field where nobody is perfectly normal and it appears that nothing has changed since ALAN M. MANN, M.D. (Associate Psychiatrist at Montreal General Hospital and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at McGill University) and ELLEN M. GOLD, MA., published the article titled, Psychological Sequelae of Accidental Injury -A Medico-Legal Quagmire:

Current methods of evaluating psychological sequelae of accidental injury are inaccurate and unsatisfactory, partly because of the protagonists’ conceptual, motivational and semantic differences. In addition, there is no really satisfactory method of (a) determining and quantifying minor but significant degrees of brain damage, (b) distinguishing these from “post-traumatic neurosis”, or (c) determining the relationship between the trauma and subsequent disturbance of function. Increasingly “expert” advice is solicited but owing to the nature of the data and conditions of examination, such advice does little to clarify the underlying problems. Furthermore, doctors are often unable to communicate effectively to the judiciary just how the trauma has affected the patient. Even though certain suggestions for improvement are advanced, the need for comprehensive, longitudinal research is inescapable.

Dr. Margulies has been exploiting the quagmire long enough and it is time for him to retire.

Objective experts who are professional, compassionate, caring and donate their time without the expectation of compensation, are reliable. The reports of hired guns that mirror the agenda of the people who fund them manufacture evidence.

According to Dr. Jeanne King, Ph.D, who earned her doctorate degree in Psychology from Northwestern University, we need to guard against the predictable, legal psychiatric ploys which are very common amongst abusers who use the Courts to control their victims/adversaries. Jeanne King calls the work of people like Margulies, “Crazy Making Legal Psychiatric Ploys” and they do not belong in any court of law.

According to Thomas Stephen Szasz, psychiatrist and academic who has been Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center since 1990; “Psychiatric diagnoses are stigmatizing labels phrased to resemble medical diagnoses and applied to people whose behavior annoys or offends others.”

Dr. Szasz is a well-known social critic who has dissected the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry and strongly implies that even if labels are “appropriately” imposed, they are more detrimental than useful.

As Dr. Szasc indicates, psychiatric disorders are essentially prescriptive, not descriptive. They do not really describe anything, they prescribe a course of action.

It is consequently clear and obvious that Dr. Margulies should not be using the courts to promote his fiction.

Dr.Charles Smith and Dr. Alfred Margulies,

The truth is very clear but you have to dig to find it. For example, the trail of devastation left by a once acclaimed forensic pathologist wound its way yet again through Ontario’s top court on February 1, 2016 with the exoneration of a mother wrongly convicted of manslaughter on the basis of his evidence.

The brief hearing, which set aside Maria Shepherd’s guilty plea in the death of her three-year-old stepdaughter in 1991, came after Crown and defence said Dr. Charles Smith had made numerous errors in the case.

“Charles Smith was like a god,” Shepherd said in explaining her plea. “Who am I? I’m just a little person.”

Smith was once Ontario’s highly regarded chief forensic pathologist. His opinions on the causes of death, considered unassailable, were frequently the underpinning of convictions that, like Shepherd’s, were ultimately found to have been a miscarriage of justice.

Shepherd is right. Smith was like a god, but he was merely the symbol of a corrosive problem that is still responsible for miscarriages of justice. The “Smith God” exists because we have judges and lawyers who use hired guns to mirror their prejudices and ultimately corrupt the judicial process. Charles Smith was not unique.

Catastrophic misrepresentations of findings are very frequent and all you have to do is to review the biases and prejudices of hired guns like Psychiatrist Dr. Margulies, to understand the fact that Dr. Smith’s so called serious errors were in fact predictable, identifiable prejudices -nothing more and nothing less.

Today, hired gun experts like psychiatrist, Dr. Alfred Margulies will fight toothe and nail to protect their stellar reputations, but like Dr. Charles Smith, they will ultimately be publicly exposed.

Dr. Charles Smith did not act alone.

Keep plugging away, the entire truth is still buried.

scotiabank or bank of Nova Scotia head of the corruption in Canada

1. Having been completely denied due process/access to justice, if the rule of law is meaningful, it is difficult to suggest that our case is not one of national importance which warrants the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada.

2. The troubling aspect of the Bank’s “response” is that it reads like a Motion without Notice, asking the registrar to trigger summary procedure and to dismiss our application even before it reaches any Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Indeed, that is not an unusual expectation when a powerful corporation like the Bank of Nova Scotia seeks to evade liability and exploits its resources in effort to dictate the outcome.

3. Is it a surprise to realize that corporations like the Bank of Nova Scotia act like they are above the law? Not in our experience. Moreover, people who obstruct justice are very predictable because their advocacy is agenda-driven and they consequently “adjust” every inconvenient fact to dictate an illegitimate outcome.

4. The Bank would evidently like to rely on the registrar to trigger summary procedure, we would like to be able to rely on the Supreme Court of Canada to reaffirm the simple fact that due process is a right that cannot be compromised.

5. We filed our Supreme Court of Canada application on February 1 2016 and the Bank did not even acknowledge it until March 18, 2016 when it wrote, “We acknowledge receipt of your materials for an Application seeking leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision of December 4, 2015 to the Supreme Court of Canada. If deemed necessary, we will be delivering responding materials on behalf of our client in due course.”

6. For some reason, the Bank evidently thought it would not even be necessary to file a response and then it changed its mind (sort of) because it essentially filed a “non-response response”, which is what corrupt corporations do.

7. The Bank even had the audacity to file its response on March 30, 2016 without proper service. According to their sworn affidavit, the Bank served us by regular mail on March 29, 2016. (Reference: Tab 2A)

8. We received the Bank’s response to our application in the mail on April 5, 2016 and that was clearly late service.

9. We are not trying to be trite. Out of context, it is an insignificant indiscretion, but when it becomes a pattern, this kind of prejudicial filing assumes a life of its own and has the potential to dictate the entire outcome, as it did before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

10. The purpose of serving documents on time is to notify us of the steps the Bank was taking. Late service of the sort the Bank practiced prejudiced our ability to reply in another, unrelated circumstance and that is the reason we believe the Bank of Nova Scotia corrupted the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

11. Delay in opening our file had already granted the Bank of Nova Scotia twice the time than what is generally available to most respondents yet the Bank still failed to serve us as the rules prescribe. We hope that the Bank will be forced to account for disregarding the strict guidelines of the Supreme Court of Canada.

12. The response of the Bank of Nova Scotia is offensive on many levels. In particular, paragraph 30, which is in fact the Bank’s key theory, claims that we are operating under the misapprehension that “access to justice” means entitlement to a favourable result.

13. We have been denied due process every step of the way and at every level and we seek no entitlement beyond fair access to justice. The Bank is operating under the misapprehension that it is above the law and makes no distinction between winning and cheating. Consequently, when it brags about having achieved a favourable result, it brags about having cheated to dictate an outcome which has no factual foundation.

14. We do not believe our complaints are unique and think it rather odd and prejudicial that miscarriages of justice, which are well acknowledged by Canada in the criminal law context, are relatively ignored in the civil law context.

15. Despite the fact that the common law appears to be underdeveloped with respect to acknowledging the abuse we speak of, no miscarriage of justice should stand.

16. The Bank’s argument that our application to grant leave to appeal does not involve a constitutional issue is interesting but unconvincing.

17. If we are not directly raising constitutional issues in our Supreme Court of Canada Application, it is nonetheless clear the judiciary is obligated to apply and develop the principles of the common law in a manner consistent with the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution.

18. Moreover, the Bank has replied to our application for leave through exclusive reliance on endorsements that are, upon analysis, as reliable as the decision in New Brunswick v. Ryan, wherein Supreme Court of Canada Justice Iacobucci said, “A decision that is patently unreasonable is so flawed that no amount of curial deference can justify letting it stand.”

19. When discretion is abused, civil law, it appears, is proving to be as capable at concealing as it can be at exposing the truth and the reason for that is quite understandable. Corporations are very good at exercising their considerable power and influence to exclude the consideration of relevant evidence and it is consequently not uncommon for them to frustrate justice.

20. Is it is possible to advance the interests of access to justice and to simultaneously ignore the abusive tactics of those who deliberately block it?

21. We need a new doctrine of public policy that recognizes and takes miscarriages of justice as seriously in the civil law context as the government of Canada is currently treating miscarriages of justice in the criminal law context because the impact of the abuse can be the same under both systems. ( Reference: Tab 2B)

22. The Bank’s exclusive reliance upon the circular argument endorsements of justices who are not credible is not acceptable. ( Reference: Tab 2C)

23. The Supreme Court of Canada has concluded “the courts should be prepared to change their practices in order to facilitate access to justice” and it is evidently time to better apply the principles that are necessary to achieve that.

24. In our respectful submission, it is not possible to obtain an adequate outcome when misrepresentation and the suppression of the truth is tolerated. In particular, there do not appear to be enough checks and balances in the civil law context to effectively oppose the tactics of corporations that use their resources to evade liability and if we do not do a better job acknowledging miscarriages of justice in the civil law context faith in the judicial process will collapse.

25. Tab “2D” illustrates how the miscarriages of justice that impacted the criminal law process are still cause for concern.

26. Tab “2E” illustrates how the same sort of misrepresentation that impacted the criminal justice system is currently impacting the civil law process.

27. We respectfully submit that miscarriages of justice are the consequence of the systematic denial of fair and reasonable access to justice and that it is time for Canada to better recognize such abuse in the civil law context.

28. If access to justice is a meaningful right, it is our respectful submission that the Supreme Court of Canada has the obligation to acknowledge the public importance of our application for leave to appeal.



Louis Kakoutis and Effie Kakoutis


Are Judges above the rule of law? Justice Gone Awry Who is the psychotic?

On June 23, 2012, writing for the Toronto Sun, lawyer Alan Shanoff posed an interesting question: Who pays when judges screw up? In his words, litigation is unpredictable because, “A witness may fail to appear, or lie, or forget key evidence. The judge may choose not to believe a witness.It’s also possible one lawyer may be out-gunned by the other side’s lawyer.” His follow up question: “But who should be bearing the risks where judges make inexcusable errors?”

What prompted the lawyer to ask these intriguing questions is the 19 day trial before Justice McIsaac. At the commencement of trial the judge was asked to recuse himself, or step aside, for another judge to sit on the trial. The request appeared to be reasonable. The judge and his wife owned waterfront property in the same township. The judge’s wife was a real estate agent specializing in waterfront properties in the same township and two of her clients had a connection to the case, with one of them anticipated to be a witness at the trial. The two clients were daughters of a woman whose estate owned property abutting the property in dispute. The wife’s clients had “an obvious interest in the litigation.” It was obvious Justice McIsaac ought to have stepped aside, but he didn’t, and he put the parties through the wasted time and expense of a 19-day trial.

The liability of the trial judge for the massive legal costs was never addressed because judges have judicial immunity and bear no liability for their judicial errors. Litigants harmed by judicial errors should receive redress and compensation. According to Alan Shernoff, “Perhaps it’s time for a Judicial Errors Compensation Board.”

Indeed it is, and given the fact that the errors of people like Justice McIsaac tend to be serial in nature, why is this man still a judge? Is it not time to make it clear to the people of Ontario that judges are not above the law. John Stuart Mill essentially described this common human flaw which makes men unfit fotr the bench when he said, “it is, by universal admission, inconsistent with justice to be partial; to show favour or preference to one person over another, in matters to which favour and preference do not properly apply.

A three-member Court of Appeal panel found that Justice John McIsaac erred when he did not recuse himself from the trial in question so why is he still a judge?


Canada Is Corrupt When it Comes to Choosing Judges Investigative News Report


O TTAWA, December 18, 2013 – The Honourable Peter MacKay, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Central Nova, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, announced the judicial appointment of Jamie K. Trimble, a lawyer with the firm Hughes Amys LLP in Hamilton.

Mr. Justice Trimble received a Bachelor of Laws from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1987 and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1989. He has since practised with Hughes Amys LLP in Hamilton. His practice focus is insurance defence litigation. In other words, he was in the business of evading liability for powerful corporations. He has no other skills.

He is also a Certified Risk Manager by the Global Risk Management Society. Again, his only interest in his life has been to protect corporate interests at the expense of ordinary, hard working people.

When Judges and lawyers are merely cliquey committees dominated by members of the federal and provincial bar associations, all they are is a muscular assertion of special interest control and they act like they are unaccountable and above the law. Canada’s lawyer-judicial complex understands itself to be entirely self-governing, self-regulating, and self-perpetuating. They have no ethics and no agenda beyond protecting corporate interests. All they care about is feeding their habits at the expense of ordinary, hard-working Canadians.

Has Justice Trimble ever worked a single day in his life or does he merely follow the will of his corporate masters?

Canada’s closed-door, special interests-driven system of judicial appointments is too unaccountable, cliquey and fundamentally at odds with the substantially more important legal principles of transparency and impartiality.

Canada’s judicial branch does not exist to uphold the interests of lawyers’ guilds or bow to their esoteric groupthink. It exists to ensure that justice is done, and monolithic, corporate interests should never conspire to destroy honest, ordinary, hard working people.

It is time to put sacred cows who act like they are above the law out of business. If you are an honest, ethical, hard-working Canadian who expects and deserves justice and you are asked to appear before a sacred cow like Jamie K. Trimble, ask him to recuse himself.

Let’s expose all of Canada’s “welfare judges” so that people can get the justice they deserve.

These appointed, corporate lackeys who act like they are above the law and are making a total mockery of the entire judicial process ought to be opposed and shamed into retirement because they invariably impose their will without justification, and by definition, that is called a miscarriage of justice.

Intellectually lazy judges suit the agenda of corporations that routinely manipulate the process to deliberately exclude evidence that cannot be opposed. Consequently, it is not uncommon for them to “win” by abusing the process for the sake of evading liability. To the common man, this means they frequently win by cheating.

People who are demonized through this process are not losers, they are merely the victims of miscarriages of justice.

Conscientious people understand and oppose this corruption.

To be brief, a competent Judge acts like the instructive, celebrated American jurist, Learned Hand, who understood the fact that justice was not attainable unless bias was consciously rejected, and that is because every case study is potentially as flawed as it is instructive. Consequently, if we do not perceive weaknesses and limitations as well as strengths we fail to be objective and judicial endorsements are not adequate.

In context, the inappropriate and rather predictable abuse of judicial power that Judges like Jamie Trimble practice is not new and must never be tolerated.

Finance minister Charles Souza and Fsco fiasco

Fsco has told me last week ,they would be assigned new arbitrator to my case ,previous one;Arbitrator Robinson has been removed from the case by insurance company and seniour Arbitrator Macy was involved in this corruption and mess,I want my case to be finalized ASAP.I know you guys are all working for the same organization like Wynne does.Still I am making this complaint as a formal complaint.Here is the article that you can learn

Another complaint to puppet of the Cathelen Wynne’s Ombudman who has Zero credibility.

Reashme” Is the name of the new case admin of my file at Fsco and I have spoken with her today on the phone at 10:15 am October 7-2016

I want ombudsman to confirm the name of the new arbitrator and how long will it take to finalize my case.Since 2010 I have been waiting for this case to be finalized.

Fsco is delaying Justice,arbitrator should have been assigned to my case long time ago ,I struggled to get answer today and they told me ,new arbitrator is Arbitrator King,at first they said no arbitrator assigned yet ,after 2 minutes of argument over the phone ,they told me the new arbitrator name.
I don’t trust if this is right or wrong ,I don’t trust Fsco anymore.I want ombudsman to do their job instead of being puppet of the Cathleen Wynne.
FSCO is delaying Justice for about a year now ,delaying Justice means that they are not doing their job properly.I want my case to be finalized as soon as possible.
My case has first opened there in 2010 now it is 2016 and I am still dealing with this bullshit.Fsco is working for the insurance company ,not for the citizens.
The last time one of your stuff closed my file inappropriate way.I just wonder what will happened this time ,if the new ombudsman will do his Job or not.
This complaint will be published on my web page along with your response ,just like I did the last one.Here is the link of my article about my last complaint to the ombudsman

As an Ombudsman ,your credibility is zero.We are looking for real ombudsman just like the previous one.
Again your response will be published on the same web page under new article.

Ombudsman response:started waiting