Canada Federal Court refuses to release judge from Judicial Review of misconduct complaint

In an unprecedented decision the Federal Court also ordered the Ontario Superior Court Justice to personally pay the legal costs of a man he sent to prison.

The Federal Court of Canada has refused a motion to release a judge as a party in a Judicial Review of a Canadian Judicial Council ‘CJC’ decision concerning his alleged misconduct.

At issue is a CJC decision about the actions of Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy after a civil case hearing where the judge sentenced Donald Best, an unrepresented litigant, to three months in prison for civil contempt of court.

Judge secretly created new warrant of committal in a backroom. Secretly increased prisoner’s sentence off the court record.

Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy ordered to pay legal costs.

After court had finished on May 3, 2013 and the prisoner had been taken away to serve his three month sentence, Justice Shaughnessy went to a backroom and secretly created a new warrant of committal that increased the prisoner’s jail time by a month. Justice Shaughnessy did this off the court record, out of court, without telling the prisoner and without placing the new warrant of committal into the public court record.

The judge gave the only copy of the warrant to prison authorities and ordered that the prisoner was not to have knowledge of the creation of the court order.

Senior lawyers shocked by Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct

Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct shocked many members of Ontario’s legal profession. Several senior lawyers, including a retired Crown prosecutor, examined the evidence against the judge and made comments such as…

“In all my years of practicing law, this is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen a judge do.”

“Reprehensible misconduct by a judge that undermines the very foundations of justice.”

“Shaughnessy’s misconduct is worthy of his removal from the bench.”

When the Canadian Judicial Council summarily dismissed a complaint against Justice Shaughnessy without an investigation, the complainant Donald Best filed an Application for a Judicial Review of the CJC’s decision – and named Justice Shaughnessy as a party.

Justice Shaughnessy then filed a motion asking the court to:

  • Release Justice Shaughnessy from being a named party to the Judicial Review.
  • Strike the majority of Donald Best’s affidavit evidence filed in the Judicial Review.
  • Strike parts of Best’s Application for a Judicial Review and modify the Judicial Review procedures.
  • Order that Donald Best, the Applicant for the Judicial Review, pay Justice Shaughnessy’s legal costs in the motion.

Condensed Order – click for large

Costs order against judge unprecedented in Canadian Legal History

The Federal Court of Canada denied every part of Justice Shaughnessy’s motion, and in an unprecedented decision in Canadian legal history, ordered that Justice Shaughnessy should personally pay $2,500 in legal costs to the complainant Donald Best: a man the judge had sent to prison.

Although this writer is open to correction, research to date indicates that this is the first time ever in Canadian, British and USA legal history where a judge has been ordered to personally pay the legal costs of anyone – let alone a person he sent to prison.

Justice Shaughnessy did not appeal the order of the court, which is now confirmed.

Nobody acting for the Public Interest

Lawyer Paul Slansky

In a move that many legal professionals find surprising, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General is not acting for the people of Ontario and the public interest, but instead is the personal lawyer for Justice Shaughnessy. The Attorney General of Canada apparently represents the Canadian Judicial Council and sided with Justice Shaughnessy in the hearing of his denied motion.

As Toronto defense lawyer Paul Slansky is acting for Donald Best, it appears that the public interest is unrepresented in an important matter concerning serious misconduct by an Ontario Superior Court Justice.

The date for the Judicial Review of the CJC decision has not yet been set, but is expected to take place sometime in 2017.

Written by Donald Best

Court Documents in the Public Record

January 17, 2017 Federal Court of Canada Order and Reasons (PDF 250kb)

April 14, 2016 – Notice of Application (PDF 711kb) by Donald Best for a Judicial Review of CJC decision.

April 27, 2016 Affidavit of Donald Best in two PDF files: Vol 1 (10.4mb) and Vol 2 (11.7mb)

December 2, 2016 Memorandum of Fact and Law (PDF 436kb) – Paul Slansky for Donald Best


February 11, 2017: Shocker: Police Secret Investigation collected evidence of misconduct by Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

March 31, 2016: Canadian Judicial Council refuses investigation of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy. CJC says “No misconduct”

Feb. 9, 2016: Judge J. Bryan Shaughnessy under investigation by Canadian Judicial Council

Dec. 2, 2015: Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy secretly increased prisoner’s jail sentence; in a backroom meeting, off the court record, without informing the prisoner.

March 9, 2016: Canadian Judicial Council remains silent on investigation of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Public domain photo of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy has been modified to remove others in the background and is a new work by Donald Best. The photo has been included to put context to the article. It’s use is the same as many Canadian news outlets that continue to publish photos of many Superior Court Justices who were or are under investigation by the CJC and other authorities.


If any person disagrees with anything I’ve published or wishes to provide a public response or comment, please contact me at [email protected] and I will publish your writing with equal prominence.

Readers can also use the Comments Section for each article. Comments are moderated and are published about once a day.


  • By my experience, the same kind of judicial misconducts are very common in Canada. If you see all the CJC decisions during so many years, only 14 were getting the attention. None of the complaints from unrepresented people succeeded. Justice Robin Camp’s misconduct is not the worst comparing to above cases, but he was removed because the complaint was from the AG instead of the common people. The discrimination is obvious. If Canadians want a justice in our legal system, I believe there is a long way to go by standing up and fighting for the justice. We need an association of above good and brave citizens to watch the judges.

  • Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy should be charged with kidnapping and forceful confinement. Hopefully he will be heard by an honourable judge.

  • Surely Donnie you must know that costs “in the cause” are only payable if you ultimately succeed. Which is highly unlikely given your track record.

    Hope you enjoyed your time in jail, it was well deserved for the scam you and Billiegoat McKenzie tried to pull (and got caught red handed to the tune of a few million bucks).

    I’m sure you won’t publish this but I know you’ll read it 😉 Enjoy the rest of your miserable, broke life.

    At least some people are foolish enough to give you undeserved pity, I’m sure you almost believe some of your lies.

  • No name please

    Dear Mr. Best,

    Please don’t publish my name because I am representing myself in court and I don’t want the judge to use my comments against me.

    Thank you for standing up for all self represented litigants. The difference between your story and so many others I’ve heard is that you have the evidence to prove what the crooked lawyers and the judge did to you. This is what makes your writing so powerful. You collected all your evidence in a professional manner as your case progressed in the courts. This is why the courts will eventually vindicate you and why they cannot let the judge or the lawyers go. You will be victorious at the end.

    Could you teach the rest of us self represented litigants to collect evidence in a professional manner as you did? You were a police officer but their must be some basics we SRL’s could use?

    I could arrange for you to give an evening lecture at the library and promote it. I know you could fill the public meeting room. Many SRLs would attend in a flash. It would be standing room only!

    • Lundy's Lane 1812

      Good idea to teach #SRLs how to identify and collect evidence in the proper way.

      Donald, Shaughnessy didn’t giv you a fair chance at your trial. He favored the lawyers and took their word over yours but he had to know the lawyers were lying to him. His loyalty is to his profession, not to Canadian laws and Canadians.

  • Steve. (from ICPB)

    Nothing back yet from the Attorney General Mr. Best. Have you heard anything regarding the emails and letters about the AGO acting for a misbehaving judge?

  • Dear Mr. Best:

    My friend posted about you on Facebook and then I saw this story repeated on Justice Forum and I followed the link to your website. Would you be interested in speaking to law students at Western University in London, Ontario? I would like to suggest your name to one of my profs who mentioned your case. Thank you.

    • Hello Debra,

      Yes, I am happy to travel to London and speak with you and your fellow law students. Please email me at [email protected] with some potential dates and a little bit about what part of my case or advocacy work might be of interest.


    • What an excellent idea for educating the next generation of lawyers about corruption in the courts and on Bay Street. Mr. Best, there will be other interested law schools. You should start contacting law faculties and professors!

  • Hello Donald, just read this article. Are you happy with this lawyer? Seems like he is doing a good and diligent job.

    • Hi Dave,

      Thanks for taking an interest in my blog and my case. Yes, my lawyer Paul Slansky is an excellent lawyer, with integrity and courage.

      If anyone needs a criminal lawyer, Paul is one of the best and has been successful all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

      Here is Paul’s public contact information:

      Paul Slansky
      Slansky Law Professional Corporation
      1062 College Street, Lower Level
      Toronto, Ontario
      Canada M6H 1B2
      Phone: 416-536-1220


  • Yes as the senior lawyer said “Shaughnessy’s misconduct is worthy of his removal from the bench.”

  • Why Justice Shaughnessy's case should put fear into the hearts of Canadians

    To all those people comparing this case to Justice Camp “KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER” case, you are so wrong.

    Justice Camp’s over the top comments are viewed by the legal profession in the same way as judges who become alcoholics, get drunk and drive, use cocaine or in the words of Donald ‘Tiny hands’ Trump, grab a female colleague by the pussy with out permission.

    All that kind of misbehaviour is wild enough and visible so that it doesn’t threaten the public’s respect for the courts.

    Shaughnessy’s misconduct is something else. It is at another level.

    In Shaughnessy we have a rogue judge who in the best tradition of dictatorships and despots ignored the rules and the laws and the rule of law. He went to a backroom. He sentenced a Canadian in secret by himself or in a meeting with the other side of a civil dispute. Who else was there? Not the accused or anyone representing him! Then Shaughnessy kept his increased sentence from the court record. He only gave the warrant with the increased sentence to the prison authorities! He did not put it in the court records!

    What an evil thing for a judge to do.

    Any Canadian reading the evidence must be disgusted and fearful of the courts. That Attorney General of Ontario is backing this rogue judge? WTF!!! What does that say about the Attorney General and the legal profession? They want this covered up!

    Why do judges, the government and the legal profession want Shaughnessy’s despotic actions covered up ???

    Because Shaughnessy’s misconduct shows how protected and unaccountable our judges are. When they are caught going rogue as Shaughnessy is caught, they shake the public’s faith in the courts to the core.

    If the system gives Shaughnessy a pass this story will grow and grow and grow. Best was a cop, a detective. He has real evidence because he is an expert at collecting evidence like cops are. If the justice system is wise, it will do what is necessary, condemn Shaughnessy’s misconduct and use him as an example for other judges who may think they can go rogue.

    • I agree that the evidence against the judge is 100% credible. He did it and it was premeditated. He also covered up his tracks by not putting the secret warrant in the court records. 100% planned and 100% rogue.

      When the CJC director said the judge did no misconduct he and the CJC lost all my respect. What a mouthpiece for unaccountable judiciary. If what Shaughnessy did isn’t misconduct then what does it take to be misconduct? Murder? The CJC would find a reason to excuse Shaughnessy for that too.

      If I can’t trust the CJC to keep rogue judges in line then I can’t trust any judge or the justice system. If back room secret sentencing isn’t misconduct then why should Canadians trust the CJC or the judges? What a f’ing mess.

  • Steve. (from ICPB)

    I wrote to the provincial AG on Thursday. Snail mail at the Ministry in Toronto. Respectful but strongly worded. Wen I get to work today I’ll copy you Mr. Best.

  • Emitchell, they are all in it together so don’t hold your breath. Why do you think only the crooks get appointment to these special positions? Come on people wake up. Judges get recommended and/or pushed forward (mentioned then) by lawyers and only the ones who will do their dirty work such as happened with this judge and those crooked lawyers in this case. Stop fooling yourselves. Most law schools now only graduate crooks into the mix. The first time I said this I was chastised by a certain “movement” whose members by now have started to listen to me. It is a mafia styled crime ring in operation and the court centres are centres of organised crime

    BTW let me just say, this would be the first case I know where the judge refused to release a defendant (imagine this is his/her brother judged) for any good reason: Usually it is so that defendant can empty the pocket of the targeted plaintiff/ appellant and even if you get a lawyer once you were an SRL, as far as these crime bosses are concerned you are an SRL when you do get a lawyer. To them we are enemy combatants for having the nerve to take one of them to court. Any judge who goes up against another judge regardless of how corrupt that other judge is, will definitely be ostracised and can expect to be booted off the bench. That said I am waiting to see the outcome. I hope someone tells me the outcome either way

    • Remember the maffia likes to hide in the shadows—continually putting forth the stories of corrupt judges and corrupt lawyers and corrupt government eventually puts them in the limelight for which they do not like–its a snowball effect like someone stated-this judge is under investigation for judicial misconduct-this leads to the investigation of the lawyers involved in Mr. Best case and then on to the corrupt cop and then on to the Judge that allowed the libel lawsuit against Mr. Best for which these lawyers sought but wont advance on.

      A chain reaction that started out because Mr. Best refused to be silenced. He was not intimidated. Now his website is gaining national attention and perhaps worldwide. There is so many ways to put this mainstream and not through the media only.

      The MAG has put themselves in a precarious position with the spotlight on them as well. Then from this website flows more links of other stories occurring in Canada. Its called one step at a time to clean up corruption. Do you know that if just one judge gets removed for being corrupt and a couple of lawyers of the big boys club get caught that is a huge step in the right direction.

      Then it might give those with inside knowledge more courage to whistle blow. Remember people can be oblivious to corruption until they are faced with what Mr. Best went through or the English family in Tofino, BC or the mother and her kids who were subjected to sub par dentistry with a huge cover up.

      Its time for the citizens of Canada to say enough is enough and put the spotlight on those who are not being held accountable. Like Mr. Best who prefers to hold out hope that he can find honest and upright people in the judicial system I think all Canadians who hold out this hope too would give their support to those who expose corruption.

      Allen I see you must have close contact to the justice system and as such it looks like corruption is King. Its only King if its kept in the shadows.

  • I have to agree with others that if the judge secretly added a month to a sentence in a backroom he almost certainly intentionally screwed Best during the trial. For whatever reason the judge acted like some Stalinisk apparatchik sending an innocent man to jail to protect the honor of the party or in this case, the big shot lawyers from Bay Street.

    Could Shaughnessy have added the extra month to make an appeal impossible because for a self represented person an appeal is impossible from jail. You have to wait until you get out.

  • I really like the links that I find on this website. I saw a link to and it really is quite interesting and the ones that created that website certainly were whistle blowing on corruption in the ontario government and that union

  • Email to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi

    Dear Mr. Best,

    Last Tuesday I sent this letter in an email to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi. I have not received a reply but I followed up with a call on Friday.

    Attorney General Yasir Naqvi
    109 Catherine Street
    Ottawa, ON
    K2P 0P4
    Email: [email protected]
    Phone: 613-722-6414
    Fax: 613-722-6703

    February 28, 2017

    RE: Attorney General acting as personal lawyer for accused Judge

    Federal Court Docket: T-604-16 (Donald Best, Applicant. The Attorney General of Canada and The Honourable Mr. Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy, Respondents.)

    Dear Sir,

    I am writing to express my deep discomfort with the fact that the Ministry of the Attorney General is acting as personal defence lawyer for Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in a judicial review of a Canadian Judicial Council decision concerning Justice Shaughnessy.

    According to a report at the website,

    ‘In a move that many legal professionals find surprising, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General is not acting for the people of Ontario and the public interest, but instead is the personal lawyer for Justice Shaughnessy. The Attorney General of Canada apparently represents the Canadian Judicial Council and sided with Justice Shaughnessy in the hearing of his denied motion.

    As Toronto defense lawyer Paul Slansky is acting for Donald Best, it appears that the public interest is unrepresented in an important matter concerning serious misconduct by an Ontario Superior Court Justice.’

    Many persons including myself are questioning the propriety of the Attorney General defending a judge who apparently acted very badly. Shouldn’t the Attorney General represent the people of Ontario?

    This was work-related misconduct and the judge should have a lawyer at the public expense but not from the Attorney General at the expense of the public interest.

    Please investigate this matter and respond to me with your decision.

    Yours truly,

  • Read it and Reddit

    Donald, Charles here.

    Make sure you get the hearing date to everyone as soon as you know it. You can count on seven to attend for certain and then a few more depending on night shift.

  • David Edelton

    Dear Mr. Best,

    I saw your Tweet to the Attorney General of Ontario Yasir Naqvi and I wrote an email to him expressing my disappointment that the AGO was supporting a judge who was so obviously over the line. I have not received an answer. Did you receive an answer to your tweet to Mr. Naqvi? Have you written to him?

    Keep up the good work fighting against corruption!

  • Not only judges but also whole law society is mafia.As a SRL I have seen too much. Majority of the Canadians don’t know what is going on,they think that they can trust the law in Canada,the truth is they can not,I saw a judge cocaine addict,I let the CJC knows and everyone else know,that judge has been pulled the Ottawa for 6 months then they covered him up and brought him back to the Toronto.CJS dismissed my complaint as usual.
    Even lawyers admitted what has been going on with the judges or law society,they can not speak up freely ,they have many things to loose,the first one is their licence ,second one is they will have no chance to survive as a lawyer anymore.You may see a a few honest lawyers ,out of 100.000 maybe 10 of them are honest ,the rest of them part of the same illegal mafia illegality.
    I have been fighting against them for approximately 8 years before the mr.Best.
    My blog is my witness when I started writing against this corruption.
    There were no other single writings against this corruption.I have started it.

    • Arif, I figured them out since 1999 but never wrote anything about them until 2011 but all my writings have been to Chief Justices and politicians. Off course except in a few minor instances not one of them has done anything about the crooks in robes. Any SRL who has not figured out that the judicial and law society mafia are all in the scam together will come to a rude awakening sooner than later.

      I find it quite disheartening when anyone, let alone a SRL makes it seem crooked judges are few and far between. I have seen them involve themselves in stealing people’s houses, stealing welfare cheques, turn blind eye to rape and kidnapping (and one even smerked now it is edging up to get appointed to court of appeal), abuse of children (this happened all the way to the SCC), elder abuse and I need not talk about the handling of sex assault claims (civil and criminal) and on and on I could go. Trust me when I tell they are nasty and they operate as a gang As far as I am concerned they are the biggest crime ring operating in this country and that is not what I think. It is what I know

      On another note, I think John Carten a BC lawyer has beaten everyone to creating a blog and web site about these scammers. His website is waterwarcrimes website. He really let them have it and they prevented him from renewing his licence and ran the man aground. He is a fighter though and has stood up to them well. a few others’ website have links on Then there is the Kelly-Marie Richard story and blogs see Canary in the Coal Mine and Corruption Unlimited. These are all on the internet and all doubters please go have a read

      • jackson brown

        your right Allen…remember Ghomeshi and his lawyer Marie Heinnen–she told lawyers about how to circumvent the system so you could question a victim of sexual assault and her past even though supposedly they are not allowed to…. crooked…you bet….and the fact that in our judicial system the defendant in a sexual assault or rape does not have to be cross examined is ludicrous…. the fact that the victims do not have a lawyer in court to do the cross examining is ludicrous as lets put it this way—by not allowing an victim to have their own lawyer in court they are having their constitutional rights against many of the defense lawyers and subjected to rigorous attack but no one is there to help them to attack back properly. Most rape and/or sexual assault victims have no proper pre trial preparedness. That is another travesty of justice in our court system and it starts with slimy lawyers who are proud of circumventing the laws and rules in court…

      • jackson brown

        Thanks for directing us to the case of the English Family and John Carten-I read on one website that they cant call Mr. Carten a lawyer and forbidden to write that he is a lawyer—well we can write that but I would say to Mr. John Carten-you would rather be called a para legal who will fight for your rights instead of having the lawyer credential after your name. The word lawyer brings up lying. No offence to the honest ones though. You know who you are. Mr. Carten appears to be one of the very few with the guts to stand up. To all lawyers reading this who are afraid to come forward and whistle blow because you might be blacklisted. Follow the example of this lawyer Mr. John Carten in BC. Then you can look at yourself in the mirror.

        • @jackson brown, the law societies control both lawyer and para-legal accreditation so Mr Carten cannot use para legal title either. He needs their permission to call himself para legal just as it is for keeping his lawyer title.

          Although Mr Carted was a well respected and well known lawyer for decades before he dared to stand up to the judicial mafia and they prevented his licence renewal. The whole plan is to prevent the English family and that other family he is helping from getting legal help. The mafia wants that property. and they are doing everything to keep it. They have no intention of allowing MR Carten to get in their way so they will not even allow him to call himself para-legal. He was and still is a well trained lawyer but since he is not sticking with the code of corruption they are keeping him at bay. Only those who will do their bidding will be allowed. Those who dare break rank will be dealt a terrible blow to their profession and they get away with that because those of us in the know let them. Right now Alberta is set to hire judges, crown lawyers and court staff yet SRLs do not see this as the opportune to write to the authorities and block all the crooks they know from getting appointed to these positions. They are there running around like chicken without head and making a lot of empty noise and even turning on each other. Mass protest letters should be filling up the Attorney General’s office protesting all the named crooks (which is all of them). Alberta SRLs know them. They are bold in their bad courtroom conduct yet not a peep out of the darn SRLs. Alberta is even about to appoint Chief Justices and SRLs there should be flooding the AGand their MLAs with protest about certain crooks not getting the job. This is the opportune people write and name them.

          See they are trying to force the governments hand by claiming lack of resources and throwing out cases. Trying to cause panic and fear. Yet SRLs sit there and have no sense to act. SRLS in Alberta you need to block the crooks now from getting on the bench and in those other positions

    • jackson brown

      I was googling Kelly Marie Richard and her story and I went to one site and every time you try to read a link she gave–it doesnt exist…hmmmmmm cover up I did see she wrote about how our civil liberties are at stake as our personal information is stolen to the highest bidder…..I say to all Canadians–you have nothing to hide—then play with those who steal your stuff–and then challenge them to try and hurt you…they steal your google searches—have fun with that—steal your identity and medical records …..let them know your not intimidated….fight back…they can stop you from reading a certain link thats important—the cover up makes you know its important and they had to hide it—so then what Kelly Marie Richard had to say was true…..its a never ending list of corruption—but by everyone standing up and having the courage to write their comments that is what is important….when the Hearing for the Judge goes ahead be at the Hearing to show your report…lets have more people at this hearing then were at the Ghomeshi trial…

      • Oh yes. the same thing happens with Mr Carten’s website too. He has links to many others that can point to how wide spread the judicial mafia is.There is one bout the corruption at the harbour and an esteemed veteran wrote about the corruption he encountered at federal court. If the links are broken google search the stories.

        The number of stories should be enough to make the government at all levels aware of the widespread corruption but they still skin their teeth and talk about lack of training. So they go with our tax dollars and train the crooks to be better crooks to abuse us even more. we have really dumb politicians or they are just as crooked

    • Canada is listening in more ways then one

      Arif your right about calling them a judicial maffia-an organized crime ring is made up of three or more people engaging in acts that are criminal—from this website I have read many stories of crooked lawyers and judges therefore your bang on right with your observation. That would be my observation based on all links given here. Perhaps others share that same observation. By the way the judge that allowed the Ranking lawyer to file a lawsuit against Mr. Best and this website is now under fire too– the Judge is now in the hot seat for what he did which then leads to the cover up by the judge of crooked lawyers- a chain of events-it takes only one right decision to snowball the effect. To the lawyers that have the ok to sue Mr. Best. Where are you with your lawsuit? Or does the decision of the Canada Federal Court not to release the Judge cause a real problem in covering up your actions by intimidation of a lawsuit against Mr. Best for allowing Canadians to read his story and decide for themselves who is telling the truth.

    • Most people do not have a clue about what is going on in oour Supreme courtrooms and Im sure they would find it very hard to believe that BC Supreme Court judges disobey the rules of the court and the law and work side by side with crooked lawyers and corrupt government corporations to take property from innocent citizens….and they don’t seem to care about the devastation they inflict on their victems.

      I think Mr English and his family deserve medals for their courage to stand up to these people and Mr Carten is HERO for helping them bring these criminals to justice

      But it is a hard battle to fight alone and they need and deserve our help



  • Mr.Best ,if you still be pessimistic about judges or law society that means you are so naive,I have seen only one honest judge out of 15.
    Most of them crooked and that is the reality,wether you accept or not,I am sure you already know that reality but maybe you don’t want to see it that way.This is not your shame nor others ,this shame belongs to the judges.

  • How can the attorney general defend a judge who did what this one did? The evidence looks solid. The AG should be howling for Shaughnessy’s resignation as the AG did with Justice Camp. Camp’s comments were non-politically correct but he got the decision right.

    What Shaughnessy did was not a slip of the tongue but was premeditated, extra-judicial and illegal. The Attorney General should be as disgusted as anyone. How can the AG defend a judge like this?

  • Attennnn SHUN. Forward: HARTCH!

    It is bollocks for the Attorney General to represent any judge. How very cozy! It shows how the backroom boys are trying to stick-handle this obviious case of a rogue judge.

  • Questions about a hateful spiteful Judge Shaughnessy

    This Shaughnessy character sounds like he went rogue. What he did is the act of a despot.

    You ever notice that thieves always get caught ‘the first time’ ? The court treats them like it’s the first time but everybody knows it is not. Nobody gets caught the first time they steal. Once a thief always a thief and someone who is caught brazenly breaking into a home has done it before maybe dozens of times.

    The same with this judge. How many other times did he go rogue? What else has he done?

    Think of this: If Judge Shaughnessy was hateful or emotional enough to do this to Donald Best in a back room and hide it from the court records, do you think he gave Mr. Best a fair trial in the first place? Shaughnessy didn’t allow Best to cross-examine the lawyers who lied to the court that was the basis for the conviction for Contempt of Court!

    Why did Shaughnessy do this to Best? To protect the lawyers who lied.

    • Vindictive little Hitler

      I agree with “Questions about a hateful spiteful Judge Shaughnessy” that the judge went rogue big time.

      Shaughnessy probably screwed Best over during the trial and secretly increasing his sentence was just an extra little kick in the groin at the end. Everything that Shaughnessy did and every decision he made during Best’s contempt trial is now in doubt. What a vindictive little Hitler.

      Would the Attorney General defend Shaughnessy if instead of secretly extending a prisoner’s sentence, the judge secretly let him out of jail but didn’t tell the Crown prosecutor or the police?

    • jackson brown

      Your bang on ?s about a hateful spiteful Judge Shaughnessy. Mr. Best did not get a fair trial in the first place therefore his contempt of court charge was unfair as well. His constitutional rights to defend himself and not use a lawyer were trampled on and if he had a lawyer those lawyers would have been cross examined thereby bringing the possibility of charges of perjury against the lawyers and no contempt of court for Mr. Best and then imprisonment. This is a miscarriage of justice where so much money is involved in the civil lawsuit and Mr. Bests constitutional rights were compromised. The fact that Mr. Best’s lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment was denied proves that its a cover up.

      • george stevens

        The judge who allowed the Ranking lawyer to sue Mr. Best for libel for this website will now be under fire as well. Its quite obvious it was an intimidation tactic by the lawyers to silence Mr. Best and the cyber attacks on this website to shut it down were a failed attempt as well. Now that this Judge is under judicial review this should help to uncover the truth and those Bay Street big shots will be silenced.

  • Brian Chutskoff

    As a former Naval Air Flight Surgeon with the RCN, I hoist a most sincere Bravo Zulu [BZ] to Mr. Best for his perseverance & resilience on attempting to correct a miscarriage-of-justice inflicted upon him as a vulnerable SRL by Shaunghnessy J. of the ONSC., who on the 03.05.13 upheld the Court’s earlier Order [15.01.10] which cited Mr. Best for an alleged “civil-contempt” [the judicial-findings at paragraphs 25(f), 25(g) & 28 of the reasons that issued from the contempt-motion, suggest, to me, that Shaunghnessay J. was obliged by law to find beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that Mr. Best had, in fact, committed “criminal-contempt” {public-defiance}] of court & who subsequently through an egregious abuse of judicial contempt powers violated Mr. Best’s sec 7 & 12 Charter rights upon extra-judicially executing an unlawful warrant-of- committal as punishment. Mr. Best is assured that he is not alone in suffering the devastating collateral consequences from a wrongful conviction & unlawful incarceration of the ‘true-crime’ of “criminal-contempt”! See the intentionally misspelled – Chustoff Estate Re: 2014 ABQB 341 & the continuing miscarriage to follow at 2014 ABQB 389 & 2014 ABCA 444. As Mr. Best is moderating comments to this Blog, I leave it to his discretion to link the case-law on this matter as he wishes. I consent to the publication of my name as entered.

    • Brian Chutskoff

      Since posting this Comment, I have discovered that if the Alberta Queen’s Bench & Alberta Court of Appeal cases cited above are highlighted individually & then, if the highlighted case is “right-clicked”, one of the menu choices offered is to: “Search CanLII for the case”. Left-clicking this choice will bring the case up in a new-tab without having to close the Best Blog page. I added this “extension-option” to my Firefox Browser. The extension is offered at CanLII & adding it to your browser may be necessary to have the search option appear in the right-click menu. The authority which establishes “criminal-contempt” as a ‘true-crime’ with all the procedural-rights of ANY accused appearing before the criminal justice courts is R v Devost, 2010 ONCA 459, a judgment written by the highly-regarded Doherty J. of that court. A Guideline for superior court judges with regard to the “use”/”abuse” of (discretionary) Contempt-Powers is also published on the Canadian Judicial Council Web-Site. It appears from these authorities that Shaunghessy J & Dallas K. Miller J. of the ABQB irrefutably breached both – their judicial-ethical obligations & the procedural criminal (charter) rights of the alleged offenders – upon issuing warrants-of-committal against both Mr. Donald Best & Dr. Brian Chutskoff. I hold, that it remains a blight upon Canada’s criminal-justice-system to have the ONSC & ABQB cited-cases STAND as “PRECEDENT” – theoretically applicable against similarly accused persons not only in Canada as a mature democracy; but, throughout the common-law world where the ancient, democratic-value – that NO person innocent of committing a crime & unproven to the burden required must ever be incarcerated – may be less respected.

      • Dear Mr. Chutskoff,

        Thank you for directing my attention to the various cases you cite.

        There seems to be a growing public interest in the Canadian Judicial Council decisions and processes. The Justice Robin Camp matter attracted much attention from ordinary Canadians and some of that interest appears to have legs far beyond the Camp public inquiry – and is spilling over into interest in my conviction for contempt of court.

        People are usually shocked to learn that I was convicted in a hearing I was not told of, and that I was not allowed to crossexamine the witnesses upon their evidence that the court used to convict me. And then when people understand that the court refused to consider my evidence of voice recordings that prove the witnesses lied to the court – they naturally wonder how the system could have been so wrong.

        Thanks for your interest.

        Donald Best

        • Brian Chutskoff

          Mr. Best,

          Thank you for your reply Comment of 03.03.17. You cover in paragraph (3), in part, the expected legal-principles which the Courts MUST apply to the Law of Contempt in Canada.

          I recently came-upon an issued case of the Alberta Provincial Court (ABPC) wherein the Alberta Attorney General (ABAG) brought a “Citation” (Charge) against a non-lawyer, “alleged-court-agent” in which the ABAG [The appropriate Party, according to PRECEDENT, to bring such a charge [rather than a “Judge-on-his-own-motion” as is evident in the reasons at 2014 ABQB 341 – Chustoff (sic) Estate RE:)] sought a conviction of “criminal-contempt-of-court” on the factual basis that the “agent” failed to appear before the court to represent his Client on the scheduled trial-date.

          The “3-ISSUES” defined by the Honourable V.H. Myers as it relates to your attempt to have the dismissal of your CJC complaint subjected to judicial-review by the FCC appear following paragraph (7) of the decision cited as R v Montgomery, 2017 ABPC 6 (CanLII) released on 2017-01-18. The issues are stated as follows:

          1. WHAT IS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT of COURT? (my caps)


          The LEGAL-ANALYSIS of ISSUE #1 is at paragraphs (8) to (11) of the above decision.
          The LEGAL-ANALYSIS of ISSUE #2 is at paragraph (12) of the above decision

          Following paragraph (12) Myers J. provides 9-paragraphs of “FOOTNOTES” from which ALL of the extant, legal-principles of the ‘true-crime’ of criminal-contempt-of-court are reviewed & discussed from the cited PRECEDENTS.

          Regrettably, Myers J. cites most of his precedents from the “CARSWELL” database & thereby the number of citations arising from each precedent is less than the corresponding citations in the CanLII database:

          Example – one of the most cited precedents on the constitutional-rights of an accused under Canadian Contempt Law is R v Cohn, 1984 CanLII 43 (ON CA) which is cited a total of 83-times (CanLII) in all Provincial-Jurisdictions except NS & PEI; but, cited only x2 at the above citation of Myers J. – 2017 ABPC 6.

          Regardless, R v Montgomery, still provides one of the most extensive recent-reviews of Canadian-Jurisprudence for: Charging (citing), Prosecuting, Finding (By a Trier-of-fact), Convicting, Punishing & Sentencing an accused for the ‘true-crime’ of criminal-contempt-of-court as it remains preserved at sections (9) & (10) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

          FROM a review of the above Jurisprudence it appears, to any reasonable, disinterested, person reviewing this matter – that the following conclusions can be made:

          (1) Shaughnessy J. of the ONSC & Dallas K. Miller J. of the ABQB each independently, violated the fundamental (Charter) rights of the alleged-respective-accused Best & Chutskoff to be tried by a fair & impartial Court.

          (2) BOTH court-records prove, to the burden required, that BOTH Judges intentionally (and possibly with malice) wrongfully-convicted & unlawfully-incarcerated the aforementioned accused in the preceding paragraph;

          (3) BOTH accused appeared before the respective Courts supra, without appropriate Notice &

          (4) AS recognizable, vulnerable SRL’S;

          (5) BOTH of whom, under the factual-circumstances, were legally-entitled [as the CJC (SRL) GUIDELINES which you have elsewhere cited] to minimal JUDICIAL-ASSISTANCE;

          (6) RATHER than BOTH accused becoming VICTIMS to an alleged-egregious abuse of (discretionary) Judicial Contempt Powers;

          (7) FROM which BOTH Best & Chutskoff have suffered miscarriages-of-justice from the collateral consequences of unlawful acts under judicial-governance.

          THEREFORE, IT appears inconceivable, as a matter of public-interest;

          (8) THAT, the FCC, upon an appropriate judicial review from the decision of Mr. Norman Sabourin, as the ED of the CJC who summarily dismissed your complaint against Shaughnessy J.;

          (9) WILL NOT ORDER Directions and/or Declarations to the CJC which will further advance your complaint against Shaughnessy J. as entirely reasonable under existing Canadian Administrative Law Jurisprudence.

          THEREFORE, I suggest – that there are thousands of your fellow citizens who “have your back on this matter” Mr. Best;

          (10) On the established principle (See Arar) that an injustice inflicted against any-one of us, in this circumstance through an ABUSE of (discretionary – i.e. arbitrary) Judicial-Governance is an injustice against all;

          (11) IN our mature democracy which is proudly, celebrating its 150th B-Day in 2017!

          • @Brian Chutskoff,

            Thanks so much for your research and excellent summary. I’ve passed your work onto my lawyer Paul Slansky.

            You might also want to establish contact with the National Self-Represented Litigants Project out of the University of Windsor as they are putting together a database of cases relating to self-represented litigants – as an online resource.


          • I like your comment to Mr Best that injustice to him is injustice for all. If everyone felt this way then the MAG office wouldn’t be big enough to handle all the mail they would receive from people demanding justice be done for Mr. Best or yourself and the many other stories were reading.

      • Add all those illegalities to the fact that just about all-every last one of the vexatious litigant declarations in Alberta are unlawfully done and amount to Charter rights violations. I often wonder how come the Attorneys General Offices have not said a word yet about this judicial lawlessness. The legislation itself is unconstitutional and these AGs’ offices know. How I know this? I helped write the many letters and have seen the filed court docs that put these before the judges who have all turned a blind eye.

        Not one of those declarations up to year 2015 had the required notice served on the AGs. They were all told after the fact, if at all. That is contrary to the legislation. What is even worse I ma yet to see any AG show that they understand what’s going on or know what is required of them

    • jackson brown

      My question to you Mr. Chutskoff is –did anyone investigate your allegations of Fraud in the very beginning…. it would appear that if Fraud was committed then a police investigation should have been launched to verify if this occurred. It appears that police are not responding to allegations of Fraud like they should be and then the court is protecting those who might be involved in the Fraud. Being a vexatious litigant cant be used if no police investigation was done to uncover any fraud. Your right to try to prove that Fraud was committed in the very beginning and that someone is covering up for someone else appears to be the reason you continue to push this litigation and not because of any OCD as they try to picture here in these court documents. Anyone passionate to expose corruption will continue to push just like Mr. Best has done and now has shown that by not being intimidated you can be successful. We all await the Hearing and what is done to Judge Shaughnessy. I think this case is now bringing about real Canadian awareness of corruption in our judicial system regardless of the province you reside in and what is a province problem becomes a federal problem as well.

    • jackson brown

      I have been reading your case and I especially note where you as a Trustee stated from the beginning that Mrs. Ruskin was not a common law spouse at the time of death. The question I ask is did anyone investigate whether Mrs. Ruskin was indeed a common law spouse that had a legal claim to Mr. Chutskoff’s estate?? Did she file taxes as a common law spounse?? Was this investigated and dealt with properly at the pre trial conference where the Minutes of Settlement were created and were you Mr. Chutskoff coerce into signing those Minutes of Settlement by your lawyer at the time without this question being properly investigated.

      As respects your claim against the law firm for refusing to represent you I read their statement of defense where they state that they couldnt represent you because it would be a breach of ethics as you had exhausted all avenues and had no chance of success and they stated by representing you they would be in the same position-involved in frivolous, vexatious and abusive litigation however they also stated that you could retain another lawyer but then they in essence would be stating that its ok for another lawyer to breach ethics and its ok for another law firm to become involved in a frivolous, vexatious litigation process.

      • Jackson does it say anywhere there that this person was declared vexatious ans sent straight to prison? That is what the mafia does to people who insist on challenging their position that you keep quiet.

        I do not have to agree with the person’s position about the “facts” they take to court but I agree that the judge was abusive and should be removed from the bench. Such a judge is a danger to society for no person trying to seek justice in a civil case should be carted off to prison like that. And that is how far the judicial mafia in Alberta has descended in the pit of iniquity. Ordinary people seeking justice are treated worse than criminals and we have government?

        For the record every last one fo those vexatious litigant declaration in Alberta is illegal. They are not made in accordance with the law yet our AG sits snugly in her office and has not done a thing. To begin with no single person including a judge should have that power. It used to be power reserved for parliament/legislator (and AG) after a proper hearing but the conservatives were in power for too long in Alberta and they did as they pleased while the other useless MLAs sat and said nothing to the populace in 2007 when they quietly changed the law and gave crooked judges this power. It should NEVER have happened! They all ought to be ashamed of themselves

        • I agree with you Allen that it appears this vexatious approach seems ludicrous and is being done in Alberta for a reason. Judicial MAFFIA is a great term to describe an organization of corruption. If Mr best begins to speak at colleges and universities it might have a great impact on the future. Did you see in the USA Sessions is calling on the resignation of 48 DA ‘s who were approved by Obama. I wonder why?? Ever see the movie The pelican brief by John grisham— bought District attornies —those who were put in place to further corruption. Ask why a billionaire has been backing certain DA’S in certain states in the last year or so in the USA ??? Who did he back in this last US election. Not trump . Just an observation since I read there were homeland security agents who believed a real pelican brief has been brewing .

          • Sorry I meant bought supreme Court judges in the pelican brief. However same thought about those who are involved in corruption to further the interests of specific people and not for the common good of citizens.

      • Brian Chutskoff

        Mr. Brown,

        I apologize for my tardy reply to your reply-comment.

        The court-record discloses the following factual circumstances which resulted in the prolonged Estate-Litigation from which Michalyshyn J. eventually found [WITHOUT NOTICE to me which is the existing law in Alberta from the ABCA precedent Lymer v Johnsson, 2016 ABCA 32 which reversed Lymer (Re), 2014 ABCA 696 (CanLII) – Lee J., in the latter citation, relied entirely on the reasons of the decision of Michalyshyn J. at Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389] Dr. Brian Chutskoff to be a “Statutory Vexatious Litigant” [or if Michalyshyn J. was incorrect on that point on appeal] to have, in the alternative, committed an ABUSE of PROCESS of the Court & thereby permitting the Court to bring on it’s OWN-MOTION an Application to Strike my Legal-Profession Negligence Claim.

        (1) The Testator to the Estate was killed in a MVA on 22.08.01. I attempted to settle with Ruskin over any claim on 30.08.01. She chose to seek legal-advice.
        (2) I attempted to settle with her Counsel on 30.11.01. That failed.
        (3) As required by the Rules of Court; I was served with a “Petitioner’s Claim” & “supporting sworn financial & property statements” in Alberta on March 26, 2002.
        (4) A Full Grant of Probate from the ABQB issued 07.03.02 on the grounds that the Testator resided in Alberta. This fact was unchallenged.
        (5) On the advise of Alberta Counsel (Helen Ward) I acquiesced to the Sask. jurisdiction as a Trustee & thereafter I attended a compulsory, judicially-mediated, Pre-Trial Settlement Conference (PTSC) conducted by Wright J. of the SKQB on August 07, 2002, wherein I executed MOS on the alleged, as required by law, full-disclosure by the Claimant Ruskin.
        (6) The issue of a “spousal-relationship” was neither admitted nor conceded at the PTSC.
        (7) However, it was a common fact that the Testator resided in AB on his death & the Petitioner resided (wheel-chair bound from terminal, primary-progressive multiple-sclerosis) in Saskatoon.
        (8) ONLY AFTER the MOS were executed did I incidentally discover that Ruskin had concealed her part-ownership with her siblings (who remained active throughout the litigation) in land in Sask.
        (9) I understood my fiduciary-duty as a Trustee & therefore I RESPONDED by opposing an application to reduce the MOS to Judgment. Counsel correctly argued before Koch J. that:
        “Where there is Smoke; There is probably Fire” This prophecy unfortunately turned out to be very true.
        (10) Koch J. points to an “insufficiency-of-pleadings” for reducing the MOS to JDGMT.
        (11) A fraud-upon-the-court through the filing of FORGED PETITIONER’S INITIATING DOCUMENTS served upon me on 26.03.02 was only discovered & supported by an expert in hand-writing analysis in November 2009. I subsequently according to legal-doctrine referred to Ruskin as a “STRAW-PETITIONER” The fact is that Ruskin herself never executed any of the required documents to claim against the foreign Estate of Charles Chutskoff.
        (12) The concealment of this fraud-upon-the-court was perpetrated through an elaborate “cover-up” involving several court-officers, exclusive of me!
        (13) That the Claimant’s Documents are forged is readily discovered by any reasonable observer with concurrent knowledge of the alleged Claimant’s long-standing motor-disability due to MS & several examples of Exemplary- Signatures known to be Ruskin’s from witnesses to her execution of the exemplaries- including me!
        (14) I instructed Counsel, Nathan Whitling, before the SKCA to plead “fraud” although the forgeries were not suspected until after 2004 SKCA 107 issued, almost a year after the Appeal was heard.
        (15) The CJS found Ruskin to be a “spouse” on her assertions ONLY.
        (16) I instructed Eugene Meehan Q.C. Counsel before the SCC on LTA to plead fraud – he declined!
        (17) No CROSS-EXAMINATION of ANY AFFIDAVIT in the 13-year history of the Estate Litigation was ever conducted.
        (18) All Reasons to Decision were based on Summary Judgment ALONE.
        (19) NO TRIAL of an ISSUE ever fell.
        (20) INCLUDING NO trial on my allegations of Fraud which is the expected legal-principle to be applied.
        (21) As reasoned by Dallas K. Miller J. & Slatter J.A. at 2014 ABQB 341 & 2014 ABCA 444 my fraud allegations where allegedly:
        (23) However, THERE is NO court-record evidence to support that a just-hearing on the matter a fraud perpetrated upon the SKQB by the forged Petitioner’s Claim & sworn-statements was ever conducted by any Court, despite the misrepresented reasons entered at 2011 SKCA 10 which allege the contrary.
        (24) My legal Professional Negligence claim against BONORA should have been a “slam-dunk” since it was based on missing the limitation-period to oppose the reciprocal enforcement of the SK JDGT obtained by a fraud on the issuing court.
        (25) As a consequence of the delayed discovery of the forgeries through an elaborate cover-up Ms. BONORA’S advice to me in 2006 was NOT THAT I didn’t have a meritorious-case;
        (26) Rather Ms. Bonora advised me that I had: “TOO MANY JUDGES AGAINST ME!”
        (27) Major J. in Beals v Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, very succinctly directs the legal-principles to be followed when an enforcing foreign court is presented with compelling-evidence that the issuing court was under the influence of a judicially-undetected by fraud (in this case by a “STRAW-PETITIONER” a common term used in real-estate fraud)
        (28) The basic principle is for the enforcing court NOT to resile from the fraud because of embarrassment to the legal-system.
        (29) In 2014 ABQB 341 (which suspiciously issued nearly 2-years after Chutskoff was wrongfully convicted & unlawfully-incarcerated for alleged in-facie criminal-contempt of court WITHOUT NOTICE] & 2014 ABQB 389 & 2014 ABQB 628 & 2014 ABCA 444:
        (30) FINALLY, as a CONCLUSION to your inquiries, Mr. Brown:
        (31) THAT as an explanation to the controversies from the REASONS you have questioned:
        (32) I allege that the court-record discloses that the aforementioned Court’s – preferred in their Reasons to Decision to judicially-bully a vulnerable, mentally-ill, allegedly-incapacitated SRL contrary to the CJC’s GUIDELINES on this matter:
        (33) RATHER than to bring disrepute to judicial-governance from a failure to detect a fraud-worked-on-the Courts which is clearly apparent from the UNTESTED-EVIDENCE & transcripts to the various proceedings.

        • Thanks Mr. Chucskoff I was trying to get a full understanding of your case. I in no way attacking you. In fact the lawyer who refused to represent you in her statement of defence stated you could get other counsel but also stated that she couldn’t represent you as it would be unethical so that’s contradictory as then it’s OK for another lawyer to be “unethical” so I believe this lawyer wasn’t telling the truth in their statement of defence as to the real reason they refused to help you days before the time frame ended. It’s important we are able to.get a true picture of your story so we can understand everything that transpired.

  • jackson brown

    I noticed in the judges words to the review that he stated many of the legal issues raised by Mr. Best would cause the possibility of the Attorney Generals Office to be involved so this legal matter should be withdrawn—thats right the MAG would be involved to have to investigate the judge’s actions not to defend his actions………………….so we can use the judges own words to expose corruption and cover up…….

    The integrity of our judicial system is now under review………..and if the MAG continues to defend this judge it compromises it even more……the fact that it was the Canadian Federal Court that had to render this judgement in favour of Mr. Best and not the Ontario Court really makes them look worse………………………

  • Read it and Reddit

    Dear Mr. Best, please make sure you put out the date of court and directions as soon as you can. My brother and I and maybe a friend will be in the audience. My brother will write a news article for his Reddit justice group.

  • Name that tune!

    The relationship between the judge and the Attorney General is improper on its face: too cozy and against the public interest. The words that come to mind are coverup and setup. Why didn’t Justice Camp have the Attorney General as his lawyer? Why is Shaughnessy so special? Because he was once regional senior judge?

    How many other times has Justice Shaughnessy pulled this shit? What a little Hitler.

  • My heartfelt thanks to the many readers who sent me messages of encouragement via email, twitter and here on DonaldBest.CA.

    The story needs wider distribution to achieve change.

    A number of you have asked if you can attend the Judicial Review hearing to observe. The answer is yes, it is a public hearing. I’ll be posting the location and date as soon as I know the details.

    Thanks again!

    Donald Best

  • F. Gladman's friend.

    How can the ontario attorney general possiblity act in good faith as a personal lawyer for an accused judge? Doesn’t the attorney general appear daily before Justice Shaughnessy asking for warrants and adjournments and convictions and sentences?

    Will Shaughnessy give them special consideration because he needs the attorney general? How is a defendant or defense lawyer supposed to feel about that?

    This whole thing stinks from the get go.

    Good for Donald Best for not giving up in the fight to expose corruption.

    • G.R. Flin Flon, Manitoba

      This business of the MAG Ontario representing a judge accused of serious wrongdoning is plain and simple corrupt. Judge Robin Camp (Why didn’t you keep your kness together? to rape victim) had his own lawyer probably paid for by the government but that is okay. The government Attorney General etc represented the people.

      If what Judge Shaughnessy did was so terrible (and it was) how can the MAG Ontario defend him but also be the agency that would charge the judge criminally if warranted?

      The whole thing does stink, Mr. Best. Stinks to high heaven!

  • Thank you for the work you have done on behalf of the truth and ultimately in the best interest of all Canadians Mr. Best.

  • How fantastic that finally the Judges misconduct has been acknowledged Donald! It’s sad that this injustice was done, and that there have been parties attempting to keep this case from being public knowledge Mr. Best.

    I am hopeful that an inquiry will assist in having Ont Min of Attorney General wake up, and start acting for the people, the public and the law, and stop supporting the legal professionals only and their jobs.

    Good luck to you Sir!

    • Jenny, who says the judge;s misconduct has been acknowledged? LOL

      All the decision/order means is the judge remains a defendant. It means nothing more than that. They can still strike later

  • This may be a new day dawning in our justice system and at the Federal Court but I am not holding my breath. Good for you to get this out of them Mr Best

    There are so many more crooked judges taking up seat in out courts. They all need to go. I wonder if this embarrassment will give this “judge” the nudge to get the decency to demit office? I am not holding my breath though.

    • Hello Allen,

      Unlike you, I don’t believe that ‘there are so many more crooked judges’. I believe that the vast, vast majority of judges are doing their utmost to deliver the best justice they can within our imperfect system. There are, of course, systemic problems that need attention.

      Justice Shaughnessy’s reprehensible backroom misconduct is egregious but, fortunately, exceedingly rare – so rare that no one I’ve spoken with has ever heard of any other judge doing what Justice Shaughnessy did.

      The evidence of his misconduct is so irrefutable, that when the Canadian Judicial Council dismissed my complaint without an investigation it really was a self-indictment of the CJC’s processes and decisions. Within the legal community, the CJC’s decision produced disdain and contempt for the CJC – not to mention guffaws and comments of “If this isn’t judicial misconduct, then nothing is.”

      It is hoped that a Judicial Review of the CJC’s decision will provide Canadians with answers about how this happened and result in directions to the CJC. I’m probably not stating it very well legally, so please look at the Notice of Application, Affidavit and other legal documents attached to this article.

      Thanks for your interest.

      • Mr Best the widespread crookedness among our judiciary is not something I believe, it is something I know. I have seen much of it and I have seen the evidence of much more. I also know that too many judges are NOT doing anything that can be considered “best anything” by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe you should try talking to as many SRLs in Alberta as you can for I do not believe you will fins 20% (or even 10%) that will tell you differently from what I say here. The judicial corruption transcends all our courts – right up to the SCC. That is not what I believe it is what I know.

        You are not the only SRL I know of to be thrown in prison illegally and with similar barefaced corruption. I should also tell you that you lucked out at Federal Court but then you had a lawyer. Maybe if you had made the mistake of going there without one you would know.

        Too many SRLs believe their bad experience is a rare experience. It is the norm!! Once I talked to an SRL who was declared vexatious by one of Alberta’s incapable (and dishonest) judges and he let me know “some of those people who were declared vexatious are really vexatious”. I was shocked because of all the people I know of he was the most deserving of the declaration (despite his being unlawful as the others). I immediately dropped the idea I was about to pitch to him. Another friend of mine used to say to “but my case is different. Then every time she went to court and came back she would say to me it was just as you said it would be.

        Mr Best I am on record writing to more than one Chief Justices telling them about the crookedness in their court as I have done to the legislature and City Hall. Yes City Hall. You will be shocked at some of the things done by judges in this country. I am sure John Carten (A lawyer in BC) will not question my position that too many incapable and dishonest judges are taking up seat in our courts. Mr Carten calls it the judicial mafia. I invite you to go and read water war crimes website and all the other websites linked there from

      • Mr. Best your website is written perfectly without all the mumble jumble thrown around in court by those who perceive themselves to be of such great intelligence that gives them a hefty pay cheque (over priced for what they do-and certainly overpriced for lying) .

        Your doing a great job to expose corruption and giving us great links to follow. That is how a website should be set up to be successful in getting the story out to as many people as possible. Then when people comment and provide other links that really helps us to link the whole of Canada together with a greater picture of corruption. I would never have read the story of the English Family in Tofino BC without this website. That shows people that there is a real need to give their opinion. Dont be afraid of ever being sued for your comments. Its your opinion based on what you read and your opinion cant be taken issue with.

        • Thanks so much for your kind words. I am surprised at the recent increase in traffic and public interest in some of the issues connected with my case: Access to justice, the Canadian Judicial Council, the abuse of self-represented litigants by the legal profession and the courts, and the reluctance of the mainstream news media to effectively cover what are foundational issues with our society.

          I think that the Justice Robin Camp case sparked some interest. In any event, my website traffic is up over 500% from six months ago with visits from government, law firms and law faculties all across Canada.

          Donald Best

          • glad to see your getting visits from government, law firms and law faculties across Canada. Perhaps they will help to clean up corruption. They cant read your website without realizing there is a real problem going on. So for those reading you better start stepping up to the plate and cleaning up corruption as the justice system has been compromised. We expect a speedy resolution to the English Family in Tofina BC who had their family property and business stolen from them. With 500% traffic coming to your website then I would expect that the English Family will get back what is rightfully theirs and the culprits put where they belong. So to the law firms reading this who have morals and are honest you can do tremendous work to clean up the justice system by exposing corruption too. Thats the oath you took and lying isnt part of that oath. I think as Canadians we are sickened when we hear a senior civil lawyer stated to Mr. Best that all lawyers lie. Very disheartening. To government officials who are paid by tax payers to do your job competently we expect you to take action as well. To the police forces who protected a corrupt cop who was breaking the law. Shame on you and smarten up.