Author: SolidCase.CA

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

PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean and all Barbados defendants default: fail to file defence in Ontario lawsuit

Ontario Civil Procedure Rules SAN

Claim: Defendants disobeyed Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure as deliberate strategy to ‘game’ legal system, delay process.

According to documents filed with Ontario Superior Court in the Donald Best vs Gerald Ranking civil lawsuit, after being served with the Statement of Claim and Jury Notice, all defendants from Barbados failed to file a defence, jurisdiction motion or otherwise respond to the lawsuit according to the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Ontario Rule 19.02 (1) (a), each of the defaulting Barbados defendants is therefore deemed to have admitted all of the facts in Mr. Best’s Statement of Claim and has deliberately abandoned their right to defend before the Ontario Superior Court in a $20 million dollar lawsuit.

The defaulting Barbados defendants include:

  • Kingsland Estates Limited
  • Richard Ivan Cox
  • Eric Iain Stewart Deane
  • Marcus Andrew Hatch
  • Philip St. Eval Atkinson
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean (formerly ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers’).

To ignore a civil lawsuit in Ontario is serious business that has real consequences in law, including a legal presumption that the defaulters are admitting that everything in the Statement of Claim is true.

Mr. Mark Polley of Polley Faith LLP lawyers had been writing letters for five of the six the Barbados defendants starting only on the last day before they started to default, October 24, 2014. Mr. Polley did not file any defence or jurisdictional challenge within the 60 days allowed under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, or during eight weeks of courtesy time extensions. Presumably Mr. Polley acted upon instructions from each of his clients.

The Barbados defendants (with the exception of Mr. Deane, who has not been heard from since he was personally served in August 2014) recently brought a motion to have the court set aside their default, but this is apparently being contested by the plaintiff Donald Best as his lawyer Paul Slansky filed a counter motion.

Evidence filed with the court by the plaintiff states:

“From the start, Mr. Polley consistently, clearly and continually announced that his clients did not intend to respond to the Statement of Claim within the time allotted and in any manner consistent with the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite multiple warnings over an eight-week time extension, Mr. Polley’s clients advertently decided to not file a Defence or to bring a motion to challenge jurisdiction.”

“…an obvious attempt to game the judicial system by deliberate and contrived delay.”

“I verily believe, and include evidence, that the Barbados Defendants’ and Deane’s joint default and failure to file a defence and/or jurisdictional motion to my Statement of Claim was deliberate and strategic, and came after their extensive consideration, almost certainly in legal consultation with senior lawyers and other defendants, as to the possible benefits, consequences and risks of this strategy to default. The default of all of these defendants shows a unity of purpose and a considered strategy amongst these parties.”

Will the court set aside or uphold the default of the Barbados defendants? The hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2015.

Here are court documents newly posted on the Court Evidence page at DonaldBest.CA:

As always we remind our readers that none of the allegations has yet been proven in a court of law, and to our knowledge none of the defendants has filed a Statement of Defence. Visitors to this website are encouraged to examine the legal documents and other evidence posted here, to do independent research and to make up their own minds about the civil lawsuit known as ‘Donald Best v. Gerald Ranking et al’. (Superior Court of Justice, Central East Region: Barrie, Court File No. 14-0815)

Defendant Iain Deane admits all allegations in Donald Best vs. Gerald Ranking civil lawsuit. Iain Deane in default of Ontario Superior Court.

Lawyer Andrew Roman and his client Iain Deane (right)

Miller Thomson lawyer Andrew Roman and his client Iain Deane (right)

According to documents filed with Ontario Superior Court in the Donald Best vs Gerald Ranking civil lawsuit, after being personally served with the Statement of Claim and Jury Notice, defendant Iain Deane failed to file a defence or otherwise respond to the court.

Under Ontario Rule 19.02 (1) (a), Deane is deemed to have admitted all of the facts in Mr. Best’s Statement of Claim and has deliberately abandoned his right to defend himself before the Ontario Superior Court in a $20 million dollar lawsuit.

Default (failing to answer a civil lawsuit) is serious business in Canada. 

Because Iain Deane abandoned the court process, Mr. Best does not have to serve Deane with any further legal documents. Best’s lawyer Paul Slansky has petitioned the court for a ‘Default Judgement’ against Mr. Deane for 19 million dollars. The case will be heard in June of 2015. In the event of a positive decision for Mr. Best, all of Iain Deane’s personal assets would be at risk to the amount of $19 million dollars. According to some lawyers, even if Iain Deane transferred assets to his spouse or others those assets would still be at risk.

Why would Iain Deane place himself and his assets gained over a lifetime at risk in this manner?

Why would Iain Deane not defend the serious allegations against him?

Why would someone accused of gross violations of criminal law and civil wrongdoing not present themselves before the court? According to evidence filed with the Ontario Superior Court, the plaintiff Donald Best alleges that:

“Iain Deane’s default and failure to file a defence to my Statement of Claim is deliberate and strategic, and that his decision to default came after extensive consideration, almost certainly in consultation with his lawyers and other defendants, as to the possible benefits, consequences and risks of this strategy to default.”

Further, evidence filed with the court states that:

“Iain Deane is aware that he and his co-conspirators face strong evidence implicating them in the overall Campaign and other acts of wrongdoing.

Iain Deane is aware that filing a Statement of Defence or otherwise answering my Statement of Claim would expose him to cross-examination and the production of evidence for the court that would further implicate him and his co-conspirators in the Campaign of harassment, intimidation, violence and other criminal acts. He knows that he and his co-defendants cannot possibly refute the evidence against them,

Iain Deane knows that the evidence against him and his co-conspirators includes irrefutable voice recordings, business records, internet records, court transcripts and legal records showing the commission of various criminal acts in support of the overall Campaign. This knowledge is strong motivation for Iain Deane and other defendants to default, because they know that they have no viable defence, and they do not want to add evidence to the already strong case against them.”

A copy of the Motion Record for Default Judgment against Iain Deane is available at DonaldBest.CA: 20141222 Deane Default Motion (PDF 6.1mb)

As always we remind our readers that none of the allegations has yet been proven in a court of law, and to our knowledge none of the defendants has filed a Statement of Defence. Visitors to this website are encouraged to examine the legal documents and other evidence posted here, to do independent research and to make up their own minds about the civil lawsuit known as ‘Donald Best v. Gerald Ranking et al’. (Superior Court of Justice, Central East Region: Barrie, Court File No. 14-0815)