All posts by The truth nothing but the truth

The truth about the Canadian law and law society how much destroy ordinary citizens life,What is behind the Canadian government liberals conservatives and law ;illegal organization,mess,money,bribery.

Judging judges ,who made you judge Lucille Shaw past insurance lawyer presently judge

There you go ,another fucking monkey business in law society and Canadian justice system  ,insurance lawyer became judge in 2017 April and come and cross with insured in a motion ,what a wonderful monkey business this government has.

If you make insurance lawyer to a judge ,there is no fucking way of being  independent-judge, conflict of interest is a big issue.

I am just asking what kind of brilliant brain appointed her as a judge ,are you fucking kidding me, she has ties with insurance companies  ,it was obvious and I  have been witnessed even in a single motion ,she was getting order from the insurance company,phone calls has been made during the motion,requests of this motion is violating Canadian constitution  acts as well as privacy act.

Motion was violating and create conflict

a-)The Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms
b-)Fundamental freedoms
c-)Enforcement
d-)Equality rights
e-)Legal rights

Look at the brain of the Canadian government appointed insurance lawyer as a judge and she was ready to give orders to violate laws and she was ready to humiliate self represent insured ,she was bias and made discrimination against insured.

Very nice to see this kind of bullshit from the government ,very nice to see how much  corruption in Canadian justice system,that makes me right and proved one more time To write on this blog to give and show the citizens and the world; corruptions,laws,government ,the truth of the justice system ,bullshit society upper Canada ,justice of bullshit.

Canadian Citizens have no rights nor protected by law in Canada,world must know the king is naked.

Is there any conflict of interest,yes there is.

 

 

Advertisements

2017 stats of the blog

2017 Articles hasn’t been advertised ,shared or tweeted like previous years ,stat still satisfactory and 2017 articles will be shared with the world ,tweeted and advertised in 2018.To show the world justice system and the reality of Canada

28BC661E-75DB-43D3-85F5-36E35DD47A88683A5E45-BAEF-454E-9406-71F5D7886E139C2AF04E-F8FE-401A-8735-B3104EE34F0B98762F3F-B406-4B42-88E2-249AAD24A0B2E4F01973-D89F-4884-9AEE-A6CE33D87DE4278B1621-18FC-4F39-BC25-CB627A95C6D7AD57321A-7F93-41A2-8679-4FB61BC94606BAEBBA84-8206-4645-B7B2-101A5E4DAEBA2017 Articles  hasn’t been advertised ,shared or tweeted like previous years ,stat still satisfactory and 2017 articles will be shared with the world ,tweeted and advertised in 2018.To show the world justice system and the reality of Canada

Madam justice Shaw Brampton Superior Court has been complained to CJS

The reason of the complaint:

1-She was bias against self represent litigants
2-She gave her decision before she heard us at the hearing by saying there is a reason to granted order of this motion.
3-She did not accept previous judge endorsement(pre trial judge endorsement) as a material related to the case ,her denial of admission the material shows she is not aware of CJC principals on Self represent litigants.
4-She was not capable of judging on civil case and she doesn’t have knowledge of jurisdiction of judgement on civil case,matter was conflict with the Canadian constitution act 1982
a-)The Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms
b-)Fundamental freedoms
c-)Enforcement
d-)Equality rights
e-)Legal rights
5-She did not accept nor consider my request of objections in motion while the insurance lawyer giving wrong information to the judge.
6-)She did not want to hear Mr.Ozdemir response because it has been sent written for the motion how ever she should have let him talk and read the his motion response.

D1777210-869B-4BE6-9503-92296899499A066E7267-E477-44C6-9136-10CFD88B0448D2374EAA-416A-4BA6-9DB0-D98362F5F80670891F89-FD6A-41A3-A6E6-247AB90137049A34FC98-C771-43A6-B631-D09D057ADADF

This is my comment of the judicial review of Mr.Best case

Sadly I have to tell you this truth ,they don’t let one of their kind down,there is no justice nor law in Canada when the time comes against these crooks.Court staffs are part of the crooks,I would like to remind you that judicial review in appeal court that they have pool system to share the bribes and they won’t let one of them down,the law doesn’t work for them ,the law works for ordinary citizens only ,once you make any single violation let’s say traffic violation; ticket and punishment comes right away.These crooks don’t hesitate of anything any nor one ,they are owner of Canada and other citizens,how many of them has oversees bank accounts ,how much money that they are keeping at their home in their safe or in those offshore accounts,let’s reveal these first.No one is going after these dirty business and no one is investigation this dirty business.Every Judge every low society members including law enforcement officers should declare every year their assets to the government and Canada revenue ,then we can find out and ask where these money comes from,and every judge houses should be searched for illegal cash money and their safe should be searched as well.
Let’s come the properties ,how did they get these properties ,they must answer these questions first.There are many thing to investigate,one of them is judge Drug Addict Lederer house and office for cocaine,I am sure that they have already revealed and found out the drugs in his blood and in his office they they covered this mess.Evey single judges law society members and law enforcement officers should give random blood sample to check wether that they are using any drugs or not,if they are doing their job under the influence of any kind of drug.
If I have got the power I will get all these revealed less the a month and result will be published with society.

Illegal motion shows canadian justice system

I am Ganna Gorovykh

This is My Written and only response of the motion which has been scheduled on December 14 2017 at 10am
1-Bringing this motion is violating the Canadian constitution Act and subsections of this act has been written below.Therefore bringing this motion is a criminal action and making courts or judges to be involved with this criminality.
2-I refused to be part of this criminal action which is against Canadian constitution act and my freedom.
3-No one can force me to participate in any discovery under this act as I am witness of the plaintiff and I refused to talk or give any testimony before the original hearing date and also I refused to give testimony to other then judge and the jury of the original hearing.
4-Bringing this motion for the self represent litigant’s witness to try to interrogate or contact with out the knowledge of the self represent litigant and with out getting self represent litigant’s permission is ;odd,far away from credibility and violation ethics of the lawyer who is behind this motion.
5-I am making my complaint to the LSUC against this lawyer who ever is behind of this motion.
6-Even though at the end of the motion if the judge decides for me to participate in a discovery(that makes the judge is giving illegal decision);participation and giving information at the discovery is still up to me ,
And I can simply refuse to talk. Rule says for the discovery they can only mark my refusal down and bring this refusal to the front of the judge at the original hearing and the judge at the trial only have right to question me the reason of my action.
7-For all of the reasons above, bringing this motion is nonsense and abusing court system and laws. I am suggesting from the judge of this motion may order against this lawyer not to bring any motion for any hearing from now on and for all of her career because of abusing the court system and the law.

 

 

Constitution Act, 1982: Document
Part I, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
Enforcement
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

 

 

Legal Rights
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

mother fucker justice Andrea from Brampton Superior Court of Justice to stay away from the case Canadian Judicial Council and Chief of Justice Heather Forster smith

0F8120C5-B78B-4F80-8ADC-D1864D0AF28B9F0B2D10-EA0E-48F6-A2AC-D0AAD87184E6C42E8908-3E83-47EC-9CFE-637D22FE8865CED26C42-06BB-40B4-8EE7-A6D8584212AF6B89AA14-4563-49F3-8157-CE33B2AC43D7DF6F71B2-7CB1-4A05-9194-D16A3E546A89D3EE68CE-26DB-4FAF-A25C-7E400D25A8ED

To Chief of Justice Heather J. Forster Smith. November 14 2017

I Erol Ozdemir
Previously I made 2 complaints against this Andrea guy,who is performing as a judge at the Brampton Superior Court of Justice.
This judge is going to be the judge on upcoming motion and I want him to stay away from my cases and my files.
Cv-114963-00 and Cv-113609-00
Perevious motion hearing I asked him to recuse himself from the hearing as a judge due to my previous complaint against him to CJC and his credibility of judgement,unfortunately he decided to refuse my request and he continued on that hearing.
He is the only judge who is giving illegal decisions and receiving bribes from the insurance company ,therefore I would like to ask you to make him stay away any cases related to me.
Up coming motion is against Canadian constitution
Constitution Act, 1982: Document
Part I, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
Enforcement
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Legal Rights
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

This is the reason that I am afraid the judge has been hired by insurance company one more time and will be assigned to upcoming motion by the insurance company.
Justice Andrea is the only judge at The Brampton Superior Court of Justice who is capable of giving illegal decisions or rule over previous judge decision,I already made written request from the chief of justice and I am requesting one more time from you and chief of justice Heater ,most likely chief of justice is involved with this criminal link and this is the reason that I am requesting from you to make this judge stay away from me or any cases related to me.
Copy of this letter will be also send to the chief of justice beside Canadian Judicial Council

Slut lawyer Tripta Sood and Bullshit Society Upper Canada

Mother fucker David Cass is still protecting Lawyer’s ass in LSUC

2E4ED2DB-1A2E-4EDF-9FEA-6C4C1E10F05B0C31438B-71A6-4B5C-8B8C-26DCA35AB23618E8D71B-9FB5-4383-BBE9-D9097917AD54AF744258-F52E-4EE7-97E9-A475658A5C06548CDC49-FBBF-474A-847D-466A03BFE2B2B1DA373A-917A-48D2-B853-F20885A26028

http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/newest-developments-blog—breaking-news—follow-ongoing-developments-here/former-rcmp-officer-testifies-against-criminal-networks-of-judges-lawyers-and-court-operating-throughout-canada

 

Former RCMP Inspector Admits RCMP and Department of Justice Know of Payoffs, Bribery and Case Fixing by Criminal Judges, Lawyers and Court Registry Officers Operating In Canada’s Courts

 

In a sworn affidavit that is will soon rock Canada’s political and legal system, former highly decorated and highly respected RCMP Inspector William Majcher provided sworn evidence in the Supreme Court of Canada that there exist criminal networks of judges lawyers and court officials throughout Canada who accept “bribes and payoffs” in exchange for fixing the outcome of law cases. (See paragraph 4)

Inspector Majcher also testifies, under oath, that the senior RCMP and Department of Justice officials “refused to investigate or prosecute the judges lawyers and court registry officials involved in the corruption” See paragraph 5.

READ INSPECTOR MAJCHER’S AFFIDAVIT BELOW AND please circulate this information especially to anyone you know who is being or has been screwed in Canada’s Corrupt Courts.

The link is here:Hi there, I’m reading filed affidavit of ex-rcmp officer william robert majcher – supreme court of canada july 19 2017 on Scribd and thought you might like it. filed affidavit of ex-rcmp officer william robert majcher – supreme court of canada july 19 2017 by api-28868571 https://www.scribd.com/book/354540177/filed-affidavit-of-ex-rcmp-officer-william-robert-majcher-supreme-court-of-canada-july-19-2017 Scribd gives you monthly access to books, audiobooks, and more – for less than the cost of a paperback. Join today and read free for 30 days. Find out more at: http://www.scribd.com/

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IMPLICATED IN COVER UP
Inspector Majcher’s affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court of Canada to assist the English family persuade that Court to grant leave to the English family so they could appeal the outcome of a case that they claim was fixed by crooked lawyers, judges and court registry staff operating in the British Columbia courts.

On July 22 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada, in case number 32379 refused to allow the appeal thereby deciding to protect the obviously crooked judges in British Columbia and assist a crooked lawyer escape going to jail.

Click here to go to Supreme Court of Canada Judgment

0 Comments
Chief Justice McLcahlin Forced to Resign in Amid Corruption Probe of Canadian Judiciary.
6/14/2017 0 Comments

Another Dirty Judge on the Run

 

Canada’s Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin began her career as a judge in Canada in 1980 and she has been a major player in case after case of judicial corruption as one of the first woman judges in Canada, Bev proved that women are equally as capable as men when it comes to corruption.

On June 13, 2017 Beverley McLachlin suddenly announced she was retiring – but not for six months – December 2017 – so she can continue to receive a salary of $370,000 while she continues to cover up crimes carried out by other judges on the bench in Canada.

Bev McLachlin was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1988 by Brian Mulroney and was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1989 by Brian Mulroney the same year that Brian Mulroney made Brian Smith ( shown in photo in left with Bev) the Chairman of Canadian National Railways.

Smith had no railway experience but he did have good credentials in the corrupt administration of public assets, and his directorship was believed to be a reward for services rendered when he was Attorney General of British Columbia where he was responsible for the conduct of the dirty lawyers at the BC Ministry of the Attorney General who were secretly and illegally giving a water export monopoly to W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. The key lawyers were Robert Edwards and Jack Ebbels and they both died by sudden heart attacks……in 2007 and 2010 in what looked like deliberate murders…. to cover up crimes …..

Here is the another and latest prove of the corrupted justice system In Canada (written By Donald Best)

 

COURT DENIES FORMER ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE COMMISSIONER JULIAN FANTINO INTERVENTION IN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CJC

Julian Fantino’s ‘bombshell’ evidence.

A Federal Court prothonotary has denied a motion by Julian Fantino, former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, to intervene in the judicial review of a Canadian Judicial Council decision.

Mr. Fantino, who is also a former Federal Cabinet Minister in the Stephen Harper government and a lifetime member of the Queen’s Privy Council, had sought intervenor status in a Judicial Review scheduled for November 20, 2017 in Toronto at the Federal Court of Canada. The review is brought by Donald Best, a former Toronto Police sergeant, concerning the Canadian Judicial Council’s decision not to investigate his complaint about the conduct of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

 

Justice Shaughnessy (r) & his lawyer, Peter Wardle
Opposing Fantino’s intervention were Victor J. Paolone of the Attorney General of Canada and Justice Shaughnessy’s lawyer, Ontario Law Society bencher Peter Wardle. Mr. Fantino was represented by K. W. McKenzie. Paul Slansky represented Donald Best.

While the October 25, 2017 written decision by prothonotary Mandy Aylen covers many of the issues addressed in Mr. Fantino’s application, it does not mention some of the most stunning parts of Fantino’s sworn affidavit, nor the controversial statements made by each of the lawyers during oral submissions.

Initial reactions from police officers, lawyers and ordinary Canadians range from shock to embarrassed acknowledgement that some of the activities revealed in Fantino’s affidavit are nothing new to insiders in the justice system and law enforcement.

(Fantino’s application, affidavit, written submissions and Prothonotary Aylen’s decision are public documents and are attached at the end of this article.)

Julian Fantino Affidavit Bombshells

Here, complied by your publisher Donald Best, is a list of selected passages from Mr. Fantino’s 33 pages of sworn affidavit. (With attached exhibits, the full affidavit is 461 pages.)

NOTE: The verbatim quotes and summarized excerpts below are selected from various affidavit pages. They obviously cannot be presented in context in this short summary article and may be out of order.

Canadians are urged to carefully read and consider Mr. Fantino’s full affidavit and other source documents and to make up their own minds as to the full import of Mr. Fantino’s sworn testimony.

Evidence in Julian Fantino’s sworn affidavit includes (summarized except verbatim excerpts in quotes):

General

No one is representing the public interest of Canadians at this judicial review. The Attorney General of Canada represents the CJC, not the public.
“Mr. Best was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to prison in absentia (while he was not in Canada) upon the presentation by lawyers of provably false evidence during a private prosecution in a civil trial costs hearing.”
“This prosecution and eventual imprisonment of Mr. Best was being carried out in the name of a purported client that did not exist. The CJC should investigate how this offshore non-person received substantial funds in court costs (over 1 million dollars) which raises questions about possible money laundering and currency control violations.”
“The court also convicted Mr. Best based upon affidavit evidence that was the product of illegal actions by a serving officer of the Ontario Provincial Police at the time that I was OPP Commissioner.” The officer, now retired Detective Sergeant James (Jim) Arthur Van Allen, was manager of the OPP’s elite Criminal Profiling Unit under Commissioner Fantino.
Improper Police Involvement in Civil Cases & Secret Investigations

“There are four general incidents in the (Donald Best) civil case, CJC record and in the current Judicial Review where police resources and personnel were improperly and even illegally and secretly used and coopted.”
“There is disturbing evidence, some strong and apparently irrefutable, and some circumstantial, that in four groups of incidents in the civil case and even during the present Judicial Review, police resources and personnel were (or appear to have been) improperly retained, used and coopted to assist one side of a private civil dispute in the Ontario courts.”
Involved police organizations include the OPP, Durham Regional Police, Peel Regional Police and the Toronto Police Association.
Durham Regional Police perform undocumented (secret) investigations of civil case litigants “all the time” and “most likely in assistance to the Court.” This was done in the Donald Best civil case and perhaps in respect of the current Judicial Review of the Canadian Judicial Council decision regarding Justice Shaughnessy.
“There is also evidence of involvement by other police forces before the finding of contempt by the court and later who have been involved in this civil court matter. Some of it with the apparent intent of using the investigation results to influence, impact or derail this Judicial Review.”
“If left to stand, these abuses in total would result in the undermining of public confidence in the police, the judicial process, the CJC and the Rule of Law. My background and experience is such that I can assist the Court in determining the truth about what appears to be significant abuses of police resources to improperly influence the justice system in the civil case and perhaps even in this Judicial Review.”
Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Justice Shaughnessy backdated a court order ten full days that immediately put Donald Best into contempt for failing to deliver certain documents to opposing lawyers two days before the order was created. Best was jailed for this ‘failure’ to comply with an impossible court order.
Certain court documents and orders that were said to have been delivered to Donald Best were, in fact, not delivered and Justice Shaughnessy knew this. Nonetheless Justice Shaughnessy validated service of these documents.
Justice Shaughnessy allowed the court process to be used on an extra-jurisdictional basis and “improperly delegated his judicial power to the prosecuting lawyers in order to interfere with and impact legal proceedings in other countries.” The lawyers told Justice Shaughnessy that they were pursuing Donald Best for contempt charges in order to force Best to provide evidence for use in a Florida legal case, and to force settlement upon other litigants in civil cases in Florida and Barbados courts.
“The record shows that after Best requested a review of his conviction and sentence, the Judge (Shaughnessy) refused to consider his fresh exculpatory evidence including but not limited to secretly made and forensically certified voice recordings of a telephone call with the lawyers that showed they placed false evidence before the Judge, refused to allow Best to cross-examine the lawyer-witnesses, their clients and ‘private investigator’ James Van Allen, who together provided the false evidence that the court used to convict and sentence Best.”
“I cannot recall any other case where a Canadian was convicted and sentenced in absentia (when the accused was not present) upon provably false and/or illegally sourced evidence, and was then refused the basic right to cross-examine the witnesses and accusers that the court relied upon to convict and sentence.”
“Court ended and the Judge (Shaughnessy) left the courtroom. The courtroom staff ended their duties and Mr. Best was taken away to prison. Then, in Mr. Best’s absence, in a backroom and off the court record with no transcript and no endorsement on the record, the Judge secretly created a new Warrant of Committal and increased Best’s time to be served in prison by 50%… this new secret Warrant of Committal was given only to the prison authorities and was not placed into the court records.”… “There is no justification for this which appears to be a vindictive and punitive act and it needs to be closely scrutinized.”… “The CJC did not address these actions by the Judge, but rather summarily dismissed the issue by ruling that it was not ‘conduct’.”
OPP Detective Sergeant James Van Allen

 

“Had I known of his transgressions, I would have acted immediately as OPP Commissioner to deal with his rogue conduct.”
“The prosecuting lawyers hired and submitted an affidavit from Mr. Van Allen. They claimed that he was a private investigator and failed to disclose that he was a serving police officer with access to police resources. This police officer obtained confidential information not available to the public which was then used by the Judge to convict, sentence and imprison Mr. Best for contempt.”
“Although the lawyers regularly referred to Van Allen as a ‘private investigator’ in their legal documents and on the court record in verbal submissions and discussions with the Judge, Jim Van Allen was not a licensed private investigator. James ‘Jim’ Arthur Van Allen, was in fact a serving Ontario Provincial Police Detective Sergeant and manager of the OPP’s Criminal Profiling Unit who was working secretly and illegally as an unlicensed private investigator.”
“From my examination of the evidence that is already filed in court and was easily available to the courts and the CJC had they examined it, it is reasonable to conclude that OPP Detective Sergeant Jim Van Allen’s inappropriate employment as a private investigator, his access to confidential information and the distribution of the same, and the very creation of his affidavit in order to benefit private parties in a civil lawsuit, represents a flagrant violation of various Provincial and Federal laws including the Police Services Act, the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, the Criminal Code and the Freedom of Information Act.”
“In no small way, Detective Sergeant Jim Van Allen violated his oath of office.”
“Detective Sergeant Van Allen’s conduct and behavior in relation to this case occurred while I was OPP Commissioner. Had I known about it at the time, I would have immediately ordered an investigation to gather all evidence to determine the details, extent and duration of his activities with a view to possible provincial and/or criminal charges against Van Allen and, potentially, charges against other involved persons.”
“It is inconceivable that all the involved lawyers and Judge were unaware that ‘private investigator’ and expert witness Jim Van Allen was an OPP police officer. Considering many factors, including Detective Sergeant Van Allen’s high public profile, the rules and normal vetting practices by lawyers and judges concerning Expert Witnesses, and the fact that Van Allen’s affidavit and redacted invoices were clearly suspect on their face to any ordinary person let alone lawyers and judges, it is unbelievable that nobody in that courtroom knew the truth about Van Allen or otherwise cared to find out.”
“I notice that Van Allen’s two redacted invoices are numbers 11 and 12 for the year 2009, which to me raises serious questions about how many other illegal investigations he had performed and which lawyer clients might have retained him previously. Had I known of his transgressions, I would have acted immediately as OPP Commissioner to deal with his rogue conduct.”
Self-Represented Canadians and the Canadian Judicial Council

“I have no reason to believe that Mr. Best’s complaints to the CJC were handled any differently than those of other Canadians. I have no reason to believe that the CJC’s apparent arbitrary standards, lack of investigation, lack of transparency and absence of support to an unrepresented person in Mr. Best’s case is unusual for the CJC. I believe that the CJC’s handling of Mr. Best’s case is representative of the standard CJC treatment of unrepresented persons – with one important difference which in Mr. Best’s situation merely supported the imprisonment of an apparently innocent man and that is simply unacceptable and wrong.”
“Judicial independence is an important principle in the Canadian Justice System. That is all the more reason why Canadians must feel secure that the Canadian Judicial Council properly performs its function in dealing with complaints. The CJC was created by Parliament to serve the people of Canada and to maintain the integrity and high standards that people expect in their Justice System. It follows that full professional investigations and transparency should be the norm. Publicly defined standards for the CJC that are easy to access and easy to understand are of paramount importance to the mandate it received from Parliament, and for which it is accountable.”
“This would include ease of access by all Canadians and, where necessary, assistance by CJC staff trained to accommodate the different cultural, linguistic, and educational factors that are the hallmarks of our multi-faceted Canadian society. Not all Canadians have the skill set, educational background, or writing ability to properly compose a complete account of their concerns and complaints about their experiences in Court and how they are treated by Judges. Accordingly, I wish to contribute to this Court proceeding in evaluating and resolving the matters raised in regard to Mr. Best’s Application.”
“While the CJC guidelines as to how Canadians can expect to be treated in Court when they are unrepresented litigants, the CJC does not extend those same considerations to Canadians who complain about their treatment in Courts by Judges. The CJC’s response to (Donald Best’s) complaint emphasizes that this type of assistance and proactive treatment is not extended to complainants to the CJC.”
“The lack of assistance and guidance for the complainant adds a layer of mystery and lack of transparency to an already oblique arrangement where it appears that one person, Mr. Sabourin, whose credentials are not known, is the filter for all information that is assessed. This appears incongruous with the very specialized and unique knowledge that are required to review the jurisdiction and actions of judges.”
“Other tribunals which are in place to serve the public in specialized benefit from the assistance of fully trained assessors who can assist the aggrieved person and be certain that the full import of the complaint is fairly presented. This type of assistance is all the more important when it comes to Courts and Judges which may be the most important factor or bulwark in the preservation of democracy.”
“The CJC did not fully take into consideration that its function is to serve the people of Canada. Not all Canadians are able to fully understand let alone report about the nuances of what happens in Court and the CJC has decided it will give them no guidance. Whereas other tribunals engage investigators and information gatherers who are well versed in the areas under consideration that will interview, review, and generally help a complainant make a full and focused complaint the CJC does nothing of the sort. Apparently, Mr. Sabourin and the Judge are of the view that the CJC can reject a complaint arbitrarily.”
At the time of publication there is no word if Mr. Fantino will appeal the prothonotary’s decision.

Court Documents – Redacted Identity Information (signatures, etc)

In .PDF format for downloading. Size indicated.

1/ Affidavit of Julian Fantino sworn September 28, 2017, Notice of Motion, Written Submissions NO EXHIBITS (72 pages – PDF 8.7mb)

2/ Order of Prothonotary Mandy Aylen released October 25, 2017 (22 pages – PDF 241kb)

To be added after redacting (probably a day or two this coming weekend):

3/ Julian Fantino: Full affidavit including exhibits.

4/ Justice Shaughnessy: Submissions on Fantino Intervention Motion

5/ Attorney General of Canada: Submissions on Fantino Intervention Motion

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in this article

As always, if anyone disagrees with anything published at DonaldBest.CA or wishes to provide a public response or comment, please contact me at info@donaldbest.ca and I will publish your writing with equal prominence. Comments left on articles are moderated at least once a day. Or, of course, you can sue me and serve my lawyer Paul Slansky. You can find Mr. Slansky’s information here.

Photos have been included to put context to the article. Their use is the same as with other Canadian news outlets.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada