Month: September 2015

Why did Fasken Martineau lawyer Gerald Ranking not submit costs to the Supreme Court of Canada?

More evidence that Toronto lawyer Gerald ‘Gerry’ Ranking committed fraud upon the Supreme Court of Canada & Ontario courts

Money laundering question: Where did the million dollars go?

Faskens lawyer Gerald L Ranking

On September 4, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed my application for leave to appeal a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. I am informed that this doesn’t mean that the SCC thought that my appeal would not succeed or that it was without merit; it simply means that the SCC selects a very few cases out of hundreds of applicants. Apparently the SCC attempts to highlight cases that it believes have national implications, and for its own reasons the court did not choose to consider my case.

That’s life. As an aside, it also means that in some twenty appearances before the courts, no court, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, ever listened to or chose to listen to, the voice recordings that prove big law firm lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver fabricated evidence and lied to the Superior Court of Ontario to convict me in absentia of Contempt of Civil Court, and to put me in jail.

Again, that’s life. It is my hope that someday a jury of my fellow Canadians will listen to the voice recordings during the Best vs. Ranking civil case.

I can assure my readers that unlike the legal profession, ordinary Canadians have no reluctance at all to listen to the November 17, 2009 voice recordings of my telephone call with lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Sliver, and to compare those recordings with the false evidence the lawyers provided to the courts to convict and jail me.

(Readers can listen to the recording and examine documents here.)

Why did Gerald Ranking / Fasken Martineau not submit costs?

The rules and case law of civil procedure in Ontario are fairly simple; under normal circumstances it is usual that those litigants who bring actions or motions that are denied by the court might have some liability to pay the opposition for their legal costs.

Thus, when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to consider my appeal, the court awarded $20,364.79 costs payable by me to defendant Kingsland Estates Limited.

But the court awarded no costs payable to Gerald Ranking’s purported client ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’.

As the Supreme Court of Canada said in its reasons: “The respondent, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, has not submitted a bill of costs..” (SCC Costs decision here PDF 949kb)

A fraud upon the courts explained

Toronto lawyer Gerald L Ranking

Why would Gerald Ranking and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP law firm not submit a costs claim to the Surpreme Court of Canada as is normal? Why would Faskens and Ranking not attempt to recover costs for their purported ‘client’?

The answer is simple enough: Faskens senior lawyer Gerald Lancaster Ranking and his partners at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP knew that their purported client, ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ does not, and did not, exist at any time. Ranking and his law firm did not want to double-down on their fraud upon the Supreme Court of Canada and have the SCC issue another cost order to what the lawyers know is a false, phoney, criminally fraudulent, non-existent ‘client’.   Read more

Law Society of Upper Canada unlikely to win the Allard Prize for International Integrity

Allard Prize Integrity

by Donald Best

by Donald Best

Lawyers have significant influence in the shaping, drafting and enforcement of policies and legislation that protect critical checks and balances necessary for a healthy society.

But who regulates and oversees the lawyers? And what happens to a society if lawyers abandon ethics and societal accountability in the pursuit of money? What happens if greed, not justice and truth, becomes the primary motivation of lawyers?

Such has been our confidence in the legal profession that, to this time, Canadians have allowed lawyers to regulate and discipline themselves without independent civilian oversight, public accountability or any real transparency. That willingness of Canadians to allow lawyers to self-regulate is changing with revelation after revelation of serious wrongdoing by lawyers and coverups by governing legal bodies.

In Ontario, the Law Society of Upper Canada has time and time again covered up or ignored criminal activities by lawyers; especially if the lawyers are associated with any of Canada’s largest law firms. The recent ‘Broken Trust‘ series of articles in the Toronto Star looks into why over 80% of Ontario lawyers who commit serious criminal offences in relation to their law practice never face criminal sanctions.

My own case (‘Donald Best v. Gerald Ranking et al’. Superior Court of Justice, Central East Region: Barrie, Court File No. 14-0815) is just one of many where Law Society of Upper Canada ignored and covered up solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Ontario lawyers and protected members of ‘the club’.

Evidence filed in Best vs Ranking shows that members of the large law firm club receive unhealthy deference from the Law Society of Upper Canada and other regulators in matters of misconduct and discipline.

In my case, the Law Society of Upper Canada ignored and covered up evidence of serious criminal offences by lawyers from large law firms. The law society also refused to assist me, an unrepresented litigant, to find legal counsel in a special situation where the vast majority of lawyers were too intimidated and frightened to represent me before the courts.   Read more

Judge: Hidden video and audio recordings prove Ontario police officer committed criminal acts

Durham Police Corruption-private

“I hurt people… and then I make their cocaine fuckin appear…”

Durham Regional Police Constable James Ebdon threatens violence and to plant drugs on motorcycle gang associate.

by Donald Best

by Donald Best

Durham Regional Police officer James Ebdon was caught in a hidden video / audio recording threatening to plant drugs and commit acts of violence against a member of the public. (You can watch and listen to the hidden recording at YouTube)

Some people might be inclined to excuse or ignore the incident because the officer threatened an associate of Hell’s Angel motorcycle gang member Harley Guindon. We cannot let the fact that the police officer was threatening a criminal associate to allay our personal and societal fear of such behaviour by police. Fabrication of evidence and perjury by police is a very dangerous and slippery slope, indeed.

In her decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Laura Bird wrote:

“The evidence establishes that Constable Ebdon committed several criminal offences in the course of his duties. He has no appreciation for the seriousness of his conduct and continues to patrol the streets of Durham. Conduct such as that exhibited by this officer has no place in our society and it must be condemned by the court.”

Quoted in the The Star

Once police or lawyers fabricate evidence and lie to the court, where does it stop?

It is true that many law enforcement officers have at one time or another (even if for only an instant) thought of planting or fabricating evidence to take down gang members or other serious criminals.

I know from my experience as a Toronto Police sergeant and internal investigator that a number of factors stop police officers from fabricating evidence or committing crimes to obtain evidence: commitment to our justice system, personal values and character, risk of getting caught and the high penalties if they are caught.

Justice Bird knows that allowing, excusing or ignoring this criminal behaviour by police officers will undermine our justice system, and so Her Honour correctly condemned the officer using the most robust language.

Ontario’s legal community soundly condemns police officers who perjure themselves before the courts, but it seems that a different standard applies to lawyers.

But what if, as in my personal case, recordings prove that Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking (senior lawyers from two of Canada’s largest law firms) fabricated evidence and lied to the court to obtain my ‘in absentia’ conviction for contempt of court; but the courts refuse to listen to the recordings?   Read more

Some Canadian lawyers are too big to jail

Canada Lawyer SAN

How the corrupting influence of large law firms undermines Canada’s justice system and threatens self-regulation of the legal profession (Part 1 of a series)

“I see you as an embittered, vengeful, 82 year-old liar, stupid enough to espouse the desires of a venal Canadian backer, the pawn of totally incompetent counsel and of stupid and revenge-driven children.”

“Now, what happens if you die before the matter is resolved (as, at your age, you may)…”

“BITCH.
We will kill you while you are asleep. Lock your doors and windows real good.”

From a series of anonymous threatening emails sent to an 82 year old witness by unknown personnel from Miller Thomson LLP’s Toronto law office, and by other co-conspirators.*

by Donald Best

by Donald Best

This is the first of a series of articles that will examine the corrupting influence of large law firms, and how senior lawyers from some large Canadian law firms are Too Big to Jail; even when the evidence against them is devastating, irrefutable and uncontested.

Today we present an overview of concerns with the operations of large law firms. We also look at the financial pressures and greed that some lawyers and judges believe is motivating increased unethical and even criminal behavior by large law firm lawyers.

There have always been quietly discussed concerns within the Ontario legal profession, that large ‘mega’ law firms have become so powerful and influential that they dominate and skew trial outcomes, the justice system itself and the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) that is responsible for the self-regulation of Ontario’s lawyers.

Some time ago the law society adjusted its system of electing regional ‘Benchers’ in an attempt to mitigate to some extent the dominance of the large Toronto law firms in the governance of the legal profession.

The law society changes, however, did not even begin to address concerns that the operations of mega law firms:

  • Limit access to justice for ordinary citizens and small to medium businesses,
  • Cause and conceal conflicts of interest that can harm clients,
  • Undermine national and public interests, and the political process, in the pursuit of profits above all else,
  • Compromise professional integrity in the pursuit of money and in ‘winning at any cost’ to attract and maintain large top-tier clients,
  • Receive unhealthy deference from the legal profession and the courts, and
  • Receive unhealthy deference from the Law Society of Upper Canada and other regulators in matters of misconduct and discipline.

Concerns about the impact of large law firms upon society and the legal profession are universal in North American jurisdictions. Some twenty years ago, now Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Robert A. Katzmann published:   Read more