Court hears of Donald Best story as mobster jailed for threats to murder former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino.

Former federal Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino “Abuses in the Donald Best case could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.”
  • Mobster Delio Manuel Pereira jailed for 18 months for credible threats to murder former federal Cabinet Minister and Police Chief Julian Fantino.
  • Pereira, 66 years old, is a career thug who previously spent years in prison for his role in the 2001 murder of mafia enforcer and boxing champion Eddie Melo.
  • Ontario Judge Elaine Deluzio heard evidence that Pereira tacked news articles about  Julian Fantino on his wall, including one from a December 2017 edition of the Star.
  • That article, headlined “Fantino takes aim at judge, police and lawyers,” described Fantino’s allegations that a Canadian judge, lawyers and several polices forces acted improperly in the conviction of Donald Best on contempt of court charges.

Story of corruption, coverup by Canadian lawyers, police & judges in the news again.

by Donald Best

The ongoing Donald Best case concerning how corrupt lawyers, police and a corrupt judge acted improperly to convict and jail Best received a brief mention in a recent Toronto Star news article by crime journalist and author Peter Edwards.

The Toronto Star article ‘Man sentenced to 18 months for threats to kill former Toronto police chief Julian Fantino’ relates how mobster Delio Manuel Pereira threatened to murder former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino.

The court heard how Pereira had a December 2017 Star news story tacked to his wall – ‘Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers’. That article told of Julian Fantino’s legal efforts to intervene in the case of Donald Best.

Judge Elaine Deluzio

After hearing all the evidence, including about the Toronto Star article pinned to Delio Manuel Pereira’s wall, Ontario Judge Elaine Deluzio sentenced the mobster to 18 months in prison.

The Toronto Star report of Pereira’s trial and sentencing makes no mention of what Judge Deluzio said or thought about Fantino’s accusations of corruption by lawyers, police and judges in the Donald Best case. Here is an excerpt from that article…

Former Federal Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino alleges wrongdoing by Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy, lawyers & police

Former Conservative cabinet minister and provincial police commissioner Julian Fantino has accused a Canadian judge, lawyers and several police forces of acting improperly and even illegally in the conviction and jailing of a man for contempt of court.

In his submission, Fantino maintains that Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy convicted Donald Best “upon the presentation by lawyers of provably false evidence.” He also argues that “disturbing” evidence suggests police resources and personnel were “improperly retained, used and co-opted” to help one side in the private civil dispute.

“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,” Fantino states. “Had I known about it at the time, I would have immediately ordered an investigation to gather all evidence … with a view to possible provincial and/or criminal charges.”

Fantino, who could not be immediately reached for comment, explains in his 33-page affidavit filed along with 100 exhibits why he wanted to get involved. The “abuses,” he said, could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

“I notice that, in this matter, no one represents the people of Canada,” Fantino states. “No one speaks for me and other Canadians who believe in and rely upon fairness, courtesy and honourable treatment within the justice system.” 

… Above from the Toronto Star article Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers’.

Donald Best story gaining traction in the mainstream & online news media.

With increasing frequency in the mainstream media, the story is being told to the public of how corrupt lawyers Gerald Ranking, Lorne Silver, Sebastien Kwidzinski, corrupt OPP officer Jim Van Allen and corrupt Federal Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy convicted and knowingly sent an innocent Donald Best to prison for Contempt of Court – to protect the corrupt Bay Street lawyers (Ranking, Silver, Kwidzinski) who fabricated provably false evidence and lied to the court.

Donald Best’s story has now been covered by every major Canadian newspaper. His interview on The Jimmy Dore Show attracted international attention by both the public and the news media.

Watch for more public exposure in the coming weeks as Donald Best appears in more video interviews and mainstream press articles.

Further Reading

Summary of Julian Fantino’s September 28, 2017 affidavit.

January 1, 2018 News Media censorship of Julian Fantino’s Canadian Judicial Council intervention crumbles.

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.

Readers are also encouraged to thoroughly study all the evidence available here at DonaldBest.CA, to perform independent research on the Internet and elsewhere, to consider all sides and to make up their own minds as to the events reported on DonaldBest.CA.

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

Donald Best is a former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) who is now an independent journalist, documentary filmmaker and an anti-corruption advocate. He is the recipient of the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award, and has been called “One of Canada’s most methodical and well documented whistleblowers.”

Did Superior Court Judge interfere with St. Michael’s College School sex assault investigation to protect his football coach son?

St. Michael’s College School teacher & football coach Kevin Shaughnessy with his father Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in promotional video.
  • Legal experts say an Ontario Superior Court Justice should not have involved himself in the ongoing sex-assault investigation at St. Michael’s College School.
  • Judge’s son is a teacher & football coach of students charged with gang sexual assault & making / distributing child porn video of the attack.
  • Two sources say that in November 2018, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy attended St. Michael’s College School meetings during the sexual assault investigation where he called for the firing of principal Greg Reeves and school president Father Jefferson Thompson. The two school officials subsequently resigned on Thursday, November 22, 2018.
  • A source states that one of the meetings was ‘open’, but the other was a small private meeting that included various school board members, respected senior alumni and advisors who discussed with Justice Shaughnessy options in handling the scandal.
  • Justice Shaughnessy’s son Kevin Shaughnessy is a ten-year teacher at the school and was one of the teachers / coaches of the now-dismantled football team whose students were videoed in the school locker room (allegedly) sexually assaulting a boy with a broom handle.
  • Justice Shaughnessy is a St. Michael’s College School alumnus (1968) who has remained heavily involved in school affairs including law classes and mock trials. He founded and donated two longstanding student awards. His three sons also graduated from the school where one, Kevin, is employed as a teacher.
  • In May 2018 Justice Shaughnessy appeared in a promotional video for the school, associated with his receiving the ‘Order of St. Michael’. The video makes revelations about his involvement with other organizations, some of which are also involved with the courts and law enforcement in Durham Region where the judge sits on the bench – raising further questions about potential and/or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Did Justice Shaughnessy have any contact whatsoever with law enforcement personnel concerning the St. Michael’s College School matter?
  • In an unrelated civil case, there are four known improper police involvements associated with Justice Shaughnessy. This raises strong suspicions of Shaughnessy’s improper use of, and relationship with, law enforcement. In 2017 Durham Regional Police launched major investigation into Donald Best immediately after Best’s lawyer filed legal documents about Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct in a civil case. In 2009, a Durham Regional Police officer assigned to Justice Shaughnessy’s courthouse improperly conducted a secret investigation into Donald Best “in aid of the court”.
  • Justice Shaughnessy is already embroiled in separate litigation concerning his corrupt behaviour in a matter outside the St. Michael’s investigation. In the Donald Best civil case, Justice Shaughnessy – in a backroom after court closed – secretly and illegally doubled Best’s prison time for Contempt of Court without informing Best or placing any record of the judge’s secret order into the court record. Only the prison was notified of the increased sentence.
  • In the same Donald Best civil matter Justice Shaughnessy also backdated a court order by ten days to assist the opposing lawyers – and then convicted and imprisoned Donald Best for failing to deliver business records to opposing lawyers two days before Shaughnessy made and signed the backdated order that required Best to present the business records. (Yes, you read that correctly.)
  • Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney call Justice Shaughnessy’s behaviour in the Donald Best civil case “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.” His corrupt actions earned Bryan Shaughnessy the monikers ‘Backroom Bryan’ and ‘Canada’s Backroom Judge’ with both the public and (quietly) in the legal community.
Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in May 2018 promotional video for St. Michael’s College School.

How Involved is Teacher & Football Coach Kevin Shaughnessy?

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

The scandal at St. Michael’s College School exploded in November 2018 and is only partially about the horrific behaviour of some members of the school’s football team who (allegedly) sexually assaulted a fellow student with a broomstick, videoed the attack and then distributed the child pornography.

Seven students now stand criminally charged involving multiple incidents on school property over a number of months.

In a breach of professional ethics and perhaps even the criminal code, for at least two days senior school administrators (and probably some teachers, board members and parents) failed to report the horrific sex attack and existence of the child-sex video to the police or Children’s Aid. Some possessed copies of the child-sex video during this time and distributed it to others.

It was not until the police were notified by the news media and came to the school that principal Greg Reeves surrendered the video to the police and informed them of the sexual attack – some two days after he knew and first possessed the child-sex video.

Why did so many senior members of the St. Michael’s College School community fail to report the existence of the child-sex video and horrific sex-attack to the police? 

Were the school staff and board members honestly just overwhelmed and unprepared to deal with such events? Were they naïve about their duty to protect a child at risk?

Or… was it an attempted cover-up? Were the staff and board trying to find some way out to protect the international reputation of the school? Did the worldwide revelations about child sexual abuse and coverups by the Catholic Church and clergy influence the St. Michael’s College School individual and corporate decisions?

Roster showing Kevin Shaughnessy as a football coach with St. Michael’s College School. From the OFSAA Team Rosters – St. Michael’s vs Cardinal Newman

What did Justice Shaughnessy know and when did he know it?

It would be only natural for Justice Bryan Shaughnessy and his son Kevin Shaughnessy to discuss the sexual assaults the moment either of them learned of the events. 

As a ten-year St. Michael’s teacher and football coach, Kevin Shaughnessy might have been worried about the school image and about his own career. He would naturally inform and ask advice of his father who is both a senior justice in the Ontario Superior Court and a respected member of the St. Michael’s College School community.

“(There should be) a full accounting of coaches, clergy and staff members assigned to sports teams. Where were they when that kid was screaming for help?”

Toronto Sun journalist Joe Warmington November 23, 2018

Both Justice Shaughnessy and his son Kevin would have known that public questions were bound to be asked about the school’s athletic and football team culture, why the assault was not prevented and when each staff member became aware of the assaults and videos. The public and parents would also want to know if anyone had knowledge of this type of behaviour happening in the past and what the response of the school was at the time. (Note: At least one former student has gone public claiming that hazing and assaults at the school have been part of the school culture for decades.)

Justice Shaughnessy should have recused himself from any involvement whatsoever.

In this situation, it would be a natural instinct for senior school officials, staff, board members and parents to contact Justice Shaughnessy for advice – perhaps not even considering that contacting a senior judge during a criminal investigation was improper. 

Bryan Shaughnessy, however, is no ordinary person, no ordinary alumnus or parent – ‘Bryan’ is Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy whose public and private statements on anything carry real influence and the heavy credibility of a senior judge. 

Further, Justice Shaughnessy’s son Kevin is a teacher and football coach and therefore directly involved at the very least as a witness – and potentially as the subject of investigations into the school’s staff and football culture.

“It was up to Justice Shaughnessy to recuse himself from the picture, but instead he deliberately chose to become involved.

Upon learning of the sexual assault at the school, as a sitting Ontario Superior Court Justice who is the father of an involved teacher and football coach, Bryan Shaughnessy should have immediately recused himself from any discussion, communication or any role at all in the school.

Further, he had a duty imposed by law to report any incidents himself unless he was absolutely sure they had already been properly reported.” (Senior Law Society of Ontario lawyer to Donald Best.)

There are recognized limitations on what a judge may or may not do both officially and in private life. According to several senior lawyers and a law professor I consulted with during the writing of this article, Justice Shaughnessy crossed the line when he made recommendations to the school in the middle of a criminal investigation – whether he made those recommendations in public at the general meeting or in private with school officials.

As a senior Ontario Superior Court Justice, Bryan Shaughnessy should not have involved himself in any way in a criminal matter likely to go before the courts.

According to the senior lawyers, Justice Shaughnessy’s actions during the criminal investigation crossed the line even before considering the obvious conflict of interest created by his son’s employment as a teacher and involved football coach at the school. 

Parents, staff and members of the public would naturally wonder if Justice Shaughnessy’s recommendation that St. Michael’s College School fire principal Greg Reeves and president Father Jefferson Thompson was intended to take the heat away from Shaughnessy’s son and his son’s fellow teachers and football coaches.

Too many unanswered questions.

Did Justice Shaughnessy’s teacher-son have a copy of the video or know of it and not report it to the police? Did anything that Kevin Shaughnessy do or failed to do influence his father to call for the firing of the school principal and director?

Exactly when and how did Justice Shaughnessy learn of the sexual assaults and of the existence of the video? Did he immediately call the police to report the crime himself? Did Justice Shaughnessy see or possess a copy of the child-sex video?

When sitting judges insert themselves or allow themselves to be inserted into criminal investigations – at the very least this causes public doubt about the judiciary and the rule of law. At worst, such actions bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Add to that the fact that Justice Shaughnessy’s own son is at the very best a potential witness and at the worst an involved teacher and football coach.

Justice Shaughnessy made a deliberate choice to insert himself into an ongoing criminal investigation despite his obvious conflicts of interest.

He knew or should have known that his involvement had the potential to cause doubt about the integrity of both the internal and police investigation and to bring both his personal judgment and the administration of justice into disrepute.

Yet, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy chose to become involved in the St. Michael’s College School scandal.

Coming in Part II…

  • Update on the St. Michael’s College School criminal charges, including known timeline.
  • Analysis of the Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy promotional video for St. Michael’s College School.
  • Discussion of what public activities are permissible for sitting judges. Is fundraising for organizations permitted? What if the organizations have an acknowledged role with the police or the courts in the judge’s jurisdiction?
  • Details of all police involvement associated with Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in the Donald Best civil case.

Further Reading

CBC Toronto, Nov 22/18 St. Michael’s College School principal and president resign amid student sex assault scandal

Toronto Star, Dec 19/18 What we know and don’t know about the scandal at St. Michael’s College School — and what we can’t report

Dec 2/15 Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy secretly increased prisoner’s jail sentence – in a backroom, off the court record, without informing the prisoner.

Jan 1/18 News media censorship of Julian Fantino’s Canadian Judicial Council Intervention Crumbles as Toronto Star Publishes bombshell article.

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.

Readers are also encouraged to thoroughly study all the evidence available here at DonaldBest.CA, to perform independent research on the Internet and elsewhere, to consider all sides and to make up their own minds as to the events reported on DonaldBest.CA.

Photos have been included to put context to the article. Their use is the same as with other Canadian news outlets. With the exception of Kevin Shaughnessy who is a legitimate subject of this news article, all other members of Justice Shaughnessy’s family have been edited out of the photos.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Donald Best is a former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) who is now an independent journalist, documentary filmmaker and an anti-corruption advocate. He is the recipient of the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award, and has been called “One of Canada’s most methodical and well documented whistleblowers.”

Donald Best receives 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award

Scandal, Cover-up by Federal Court of Canada Exposed.

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Toronto Police

I’m surprised and deeply honoured to receive the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award – announced this morning.

Today (and in my recorded acceptance speech – transcript here) I am calling upon the Law Society of Ontario and the law societies in every province to cease investigating complaints against their own members. This most serious conflict of interest undermines the profession’s credibility and the public’s trust in our legal system.

Self-investigation by the lawyers’ unions is a real conflict of interest that is unacceptable by any modern standard and cannot be resolved – except by the establishment of independent organizations in each province to receive complaints against lawyers, to perform professional unbiased investigations and to lay charges where appropriate. The retention of investigative functions by the law societies is indefensible.

Today, I also reveal details of an ongoing major scandal and active cover-up by the Courts Administration Service and the Federal Court of Canada that impacts every Canadian who has appeared before that court for any reason in the last few years.

This documented misconduct by Federal Court of Canada personnel throws into question every recent decision of the Federal Court of Canada. Dozens of lawyers and litigants have already contacted me about this revelation and I am aware of several lawsuits / legal motions that are imminent. At least one will be filed within days.

Regarding my personal legal battles, both the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (in their news media release) and University of Windsor law professor Julie Macfarlane in her introduction speech for my award – openly declare that I was unjustly convicted of contempt of court and imprisoned based upon false evidence fabricated by senior lawyers from some of Canada’s largest law firms. (Former OPP Commissioner of Police Julian Fantino said the same thing last year in a sworn affidavit and said that if he knew then what he knows now, he would have launched a criminal investigation against named Ontario Provincial Police officers and lawyers.)

To my friends and family who believed in me during the darkest times and gave me strength – thank you. This is your Ontario Civil Liberties Award as much as it is mine. To the legal profession and the courts… We want our justice system back.

Ontario Civil Liberties Association announcement…

http://ocla.ca/ocla-civil-liberties-award/

My acceptance speech…

https://youtu.be/AWUcVtnec9A

Professor Julie Macfarlane’s introduction…

https://youtu.be/trPU2uwUzOM

Donald Best Receives the 2018 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

(Ottawa, December 4, 2018) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) presents its 2018 Civil Liberties Award to whistleblower and anti-corruption activist Donald Best.

Donald Best is a former Sergeant (Detective) with the Toronto Police responsible for investigating Canadian police, lawyers, and politicians involved in organized crime, and a leading Canadian anti-corruption whistleblower and activist.

In his ongoing legal cases and public advocacy, Mr. Best has exposed corruption in the Canadian legal profession including secret orders and investigations by judges, the submission of false evidence in court by lawyers, and the failure of disciplinary bodies such as the Law Society of Ontario and the Canadian Judicial Council to investigate complaints against judges and lawyers.

Mr. Best’s tireless efforts to create integrity and accountability in the Canadian legal system make him an exemplary leader in the fight for equality before and under the law of all Canadians, including self-represented litigants.

Embedded at the OCLA’s award website (link HERE) is a video of Donald Best’s acceptance speech for the 2018 OCLA Civil Liberties Award, following a video introduction of Mr. Best by law professor Julie Macfarlane, Director of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project, University of Windsor.

Background Articles available online

https://donaldbest.ca/faqs-about-best-v-ranking/

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ex-federal-cabinet-minister-julian-fantino-takes-aim-at-judge-cops-lawyers

https://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/internet-research-by-jurors-and-judges-during-cases-challenged-julius-melnitzer

https://donaldbest.ca/broadcaster-jimmy-dore-interviews-donald-best-the-lawyers-lied-to-the-court-and-as-a-result-you-were-convicted/

Broadcaster Jimmy Dore interviews Donald Best: “The lawyers lied to the court and as a result you were convicted…”

Jimmy Dore Show names corrupt Toronto lawyers Gerald Ranking, Lorne Silver, Sebastien Kwidzinski – plus corrupt judge and cop.

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

For years the Canadian news media put a ‘kill’ on my story and shadow-banned my comments on their websites. Many supportive mainstream journalists informed me that their editors refused to publish any part of my story due to ‘libel chill’ – their fear of being sued by the corrupt lawyers who proveably lied to the court to convict and imprison me for contempt in a civil matter.

On those rare occasions when Canadian outlets did write about my case, the stories were invariably agenda-driven, inaccurate and obviously sourced from the opposition. To this day no Canadian news media has published a story comparing the provably false court testimony of the Toronto lawyers with the truth as shown in the forensically-certified secret voice recordings of our conversation.

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Things started to change late last year when the Toronto Sun, Toronto Star, National Post and other outlets published Colin Perkel’s article Ex-cabinet minister Julian Fantino suggests judge, lawyers and cops part of conspiracy to convict man. Then on June 5, 2018 the Financial Post carried Julius Melnitzer’s story Internet research by jurors and judges during cases challenged: Julius Melnitzer.

Now the US news media is picking up the story with The Jimmy Dore Show out of Los Angeles being the first to publish a video of my guest appearance on the show. (YouTube video above or here: Cop Whistleblower Targeted by Canadian Court)

“There were secret recordings you made of your telephone conversations with the lawyers involved. I read the official court records showing what those lawyers told the court. They lied to the court, and as a result you were convicted for Contempt of Court while you weren’t even in the country.” (Jimmy Dore to Donald Best at about 10:30 into the interview.)

Jimmy Dore is the first journalist with the courage to publicly state that he compared my secret recordings with the corrupt lawyers’ testimony and finds that the lawyers lied to the court to convict me.

Corrupt Ontario lawyers Sebastien Kwidzinski, Gerald Ranking & Lorne Silver lied to the courts.

Jimmy Dore Show also names Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy, Police Officer James ‘Jim’ Van Allen

At about 18:41 into the interview, I name and the Jimmy Dore Show names the three Ontario lawyers, Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy and retired Ontario Provincial Police officer Jim Van Allen – all of whom Jimmy Dore refers to as “corrupt”.

“Donald Best, we wish you all the best in getting to the bottom of this, getting justice in your case and exposing these corrupt lawyers and judges…” (Jimmy Dore to Donald Best at about 25:00 into the interview.)

Jimmy, his staff and presumably his legal team studied my case in detail prior to making his production decisions and final edits.

Viewers know exactly what it means when a citizen like me and a journalist like Jimmy Dore openly name lawyers and a judge as “corrupt” and they do not sue. The lawyers and the judge don’t dare because they would have to expose themselves to cross-examination for the first time – and they know they are guilty of corrupt acts.

Sometimes it takes a while to break through the news media gatekeepers. It looks like that time is approaching.

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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 on articles are moderated about 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.

Readers are also encouraged to thoroughly study all the evidence available here at DonaldBest.CA, to perform independent research on the Internet and elsewhere, to consider all sides and to make up their own minds as to the events reported on DonaldBest.CA.

Donald Best
September 29, 2018
Barrie, Ontario
Canada

 

For lawyers (and everyone else) Integrity is easy – Courage is the hard part.

There will always be some lawyers and even a few judges who embrace greed, ignore the Rule of Law and engage in corrupt acts in support of powerful clients and cabals.

It is a part of the human experience that some individuals yield to temptation and forsake what is right and lawful.

The real danger though, is when the legal profession and its regulators turn a blind eye to lawyers and judges who choose to become “servants in the architecture of corruption.”

When this happens, corruption thrives and the Rule of Law soon withers away.

As shown in the circumstances of my case, Canadians deserve much better from the Law Society of Ontario, the legal profession and the courts. The Law Society of Ontario, the Ontario legal profession and the Canadian Judicial Council obviously fear transparency and accountability.

In this, Ontario lawyers and judges are little different than the policing organizations of 30 years ago who assured Canadians that they were capable of self-oversight with the public trust foremost in their agenda.

That was an absurdity and so the citizens of Ontario through their government established the Special Investigations Unit (‘SIU’) to take civiliian oversight of serious incidents involving police.

Why should the legal profession be allowed to investigate itself? There must be independent civilian oversight of investigations into wrongdoing by lawyers.

After almost 40 years spent interacting with ordinary people, the police, the legal profession and the courts in one way or another, I truly believe that most people are good at their core.

Really evil people are a minority in our society, and, I firmly believe, are a minority in any society.

Most people have integrity. They know in their heart – they feel in their heart – what is right and wrong and they try to do the correct thing; but… only when integrity is an easy choice.

Having courage is to act rightly despite your fears. 

Courage is where most good people fail the test.

To do what is right when the pressure is on, when your employer or a powerful group wants you to compromise or ignore what you know is right, takes more than integrity. It takes courage.

Most of us do not have that kind of courage. That is a hard truth and one of the reasons why groups of corrupt people can sway societal systems and exert influence totally out of proportion to their numbers and actual strength.

Yet, sometimes all it takes is one courageous person to stand firm and declare that they will not do this or that for their employer. They will not deliver false evidence or ignore the truth in the face of powerful government officials.

But such decisions carry a price.

Sometimes the price of integrity is relatively modest: Professor John Knox of the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill in Barbados was warned to stop testifying in a certain court case or he would be fired. Professor Knox testified and soon found himself unemployed – fired from the University. Then he was abducted from the family home at gunpoint and beaten severely… but at least he still lives.

Sometimes the price of integrity is high: Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky refused to ‘confess’ to crimes and to falsely implicate others. For his defiance, corrupt police imprisoned him and then beat him to death in his solitary confinement jail cell. As corrupt as the murderous police were, they were only the instruments of a larger corrupt cabal that extended high into the Russian government.

And lest my readers receive the impression that serious corruption only happens ‘over there’, I clearly state that in Canada and in the United States, just like everywhere else, integrity is sometimes rewarded – but most often is punished when ruling groups are exposed or threatened.

Integrity is easy. Courage is the hard part.

Federal Court of Canada secretly uses internet to investigate people and cases appearing before judges

Dr. Eric Cole – former Commissioner on CyberSecurity to President Obama – confirms secret investigations by Federal Court of Canada

Financial Post article reports stunning new development in Canadian Judicial Council case.

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Toronto Police

Judges and/or employees of the Federal Court of Canada (‘FCC’) conducted extensive secret online investigations into my case, my witnesses, my lawyer and me during the over a year and a half that my CJC Judicial Review case was before that court.

Even during the November 20, 2017 final hearing as my lawyer was in court speaking to Justice Boswell – the FCC staff and/or Justice Boswell himself were googling about the case and downloading evidence, information and exhibits from the internet. 

As reported by Julias Melnitzer in the Financial Post, the above has been forensically confirmed by US computer networking expert (and former commissioner on cybersecurity for President Obama) Dr. Eric Cole in a sworn affidavit filed in Ontario courts. (Available here as a .pdf: without exhibits 2.5mbwith exhibits 33mb)

Secret evidence is prohibited in our courts.

So what’s the problem with judges and their staff secretly collecting information online about the cases, litigants, accused persons, witnesses and lawyers appearing before the judge?

That’s easy – this secret and unlawful court activity strikes right to the heart of our standards for a fair and open trial process.

Persons before the court have a right to see, examine and challenge all evidence considered by the court and to do so in public. This standard goes back over eight hundred years to the Magna Carta and is what differentiates English-based judicial practice from so many other countries and cultures.

Thus in the British, American and Canadian courts, jury members and judges are not supposed to do independent research into the cases they are considering. This is to ensure that all the evidence the court or jury members consider is on the record and in public so the prosecution and defence are aware of the evidence, can test it for accuracy and make submissions as to its value and interpretation in the case.

If the judge or jury members consider evidence that nobody else is aware of, they are conducting a portion of the trial in secret.

The issue of no secret evidence in the courts is so important to justice and fair trials that in the United States and Britain jury members are regularly jailed for violating this prohibition. Recently in Canada two lengthy criminal proceedings were declared mistrial when jurors were caught independently researching the case.

Jurors are usually caught when another member of the jury finds out and alerts the court staff. As one can imagine though, catching judges secretly investigating cases is exponentially more difficult although there have been a few recent instances in the USA and Canada.

Federal Court Justice Keith Boswell

Federal Court of Canada in full cover-up mode

It is apparent in the sworn affidavit of Dr. Eric Cole that the Federal Court of Canada was caught red-handed using the internet and google searches to secretly gather information about my case and the involved parties and witnesses for over a year and a half.

Further, Dr. Cole confirms that the Courts Administration Service that operates the computer network for the Federal Court of Canada knows exactly which judges and court staff are involved.

In a series of letters between Chantal Carbonneau, Deputy Chief Administrator of Judicial and Registry Services and my lawyer Paul Slansky, Ms. Carbonneau…

  1. admitted that court personnel conducted the investigations,
  2. indicated that she had knowledge of the people involved, but…
  3. refused to identify the judges and/or court staff who conducted the secret investigations into my case, and my lawyers and witnesses – and me.

There is much more to come regarding this story. The main takeaways are the following…

  1. For over a year and a half, Federal Court of Canada judges and/or their staff used the internet to conduct secret investigations and to gather information and evidence about the Donald Best – Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy case before the court.
  2. Expert witness Dr. Eric Cole, former Commissioner on CyberSecurity to President Obama, confirms the misconduct of the Federal Court of Canada personnel, and that the Courts Administration Service and the FCC know everything about which FCC judges and court personnel secretly researched the Donald Best – Justice Bryan Shaughnessy case before the court.
  3. The Courts Administration Service and the Federal Court of Canada refuse to release information about which judges and court personnel secretly researched the Donald Best – Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy case and the involved persons.

How many other cases did Federal Court of Canada judges secretly research on the Internet? Did the judge consider secret evidence in YOUR case before the Federal Court of Canada?

Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy desperate to avoid public hearing into Canadian Judicial Council

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Toronto Police

Last Monday was a 20-hour day for yours truly and two friends as we printed, sorted and bound ten full sets of my legal response to tactical legal motions by Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy and the Attorney General of Canada.

Justice Shaughnessy launched a tactical legal motion demanding that I pay a security deposit to continue with my public interest case bringing accountability and transparency to the Canadian Judicial Council.

The Attorney General of Canada, abandoning the public interest, also filed a tactical motion to end our campaign to bring public accountability to the CJC.

Unbelievably the Attorney General of Canada is supporting Justice Shaughnessy – whose misconduct is described by several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney as “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.”

And so two friends and I worked in a cold garage until 1am Tuesday morning to put our legal response together.

Here is what this latest filing meant in materials alone:

  • Appeal Book 4 volumes per set = 1487 pages x 10 sets = 14,870 pages
  • Responding Motion Record 3 volumes per set = 1441 pages x 10 sets = 14,410 pages
  • Factum = 34 pages x 10 copies = 340 pages

29,620 pages in 80 bound volumes that had to be created because Justice Shaughnessy and the Attorney General of Canada want to keep public attention from the Canadian Judicial Council.

After about five hours sleep I was up again at 7am and drove from Barrie to downtown Toronto where I personally served the Attorney General of Canada and Justice Shaughnessy’s lawyer. (No professional document server hired as I did it myself.) Then I met with my lawyer Paul Slansky at the Federal Court building where we filed the materials on time.

Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy (r) & his lawyer, Peter Wardle

Justice Shaughnessy’s legal costs fully covered with no limit.

The court costs of both Justice Shaughnessy and the Attorney General of Canada / CJC are paid by the Government. Not a penny of the judge’s legal costs comes from the his own pocket. The Attorney General and the judge’s lawyers snap their fingers and assistants draft their legal motions, and then print, bind, serve and file everything with not a thought about the costs.

Even the Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council, Norman Sabourin, confirmed in a Toronto Star news article that there is no limit on the publicly-paid legal costs when Federal Court justices are defending misconduct allegations. Judges sometimes run up over a million dollars in legal fees and there is not a thing that anyone can do about it.

This is what we are up against in this public interest case. The only way we can compete is by working harder and keeping costs to the absolute minimum. That’s why you’ll find my friends and me printing and binding court documents in a cold garage at 1am. 

Lawyers especially are concerned with Shaughnessy’s misconduct as his actions strike right to the foundations of our justice system and society. Every lawyer I’ve spoken with is concerned that the Canadian Judicial Council dismissed my complaint against the judge without an investigation or even reading the court file. Background story here.

Public awareness is starting to grow. National Self-Represented Litigants Project director Dr. Julie Macfarlane just declared that our CJC challenge is necessary, and another five professors at major law schools also contacted me offering support. Several lawyers regularly send me case law references that they think might assist my lawyer.

Canadians just might make this happen!

Justice Shaughnessy and the Attorney General are also trying desperately to have the next court hearing held privately – not in public.  No wonder!

Coming Soon

I’m busy redacting Identity Information from my latest legal documents and will probably start to post them tonight.

I’ll also be posting breaking news on a strange turn of events. It is confirmed that Federal Court judges and / or court staff performed improper and unrevealed investigations of me, my lawyer and witnesses throughout the 18 months that the case was before that court. 

We have forensically proven, and the court administration has basically admitted in writing, that during the original judicial review hearings in the Federal Court of Canada, employees and/or judges of the FCC conducted extensive private online investigations of me, my witnesses and my lawyer. Even during the actual hearing as my lawyer was speaking to the judge, FCC staff or the judge himself were googling about the case and downloading evidence, information and exhibits from the internet. This is a huge deal in the legal community. 

More coming!

Please contribute $25, $100 or whatever you can to support our 2018 legal challenge to the Canadian Judicial Council. >>>

GoFundMe Donald Best CJC Public Interest Campaign

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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 on articles are moderated about 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.

Readers are also encouraged to thoroughly study all the evidence available here at DonaldBest.CA, to perform independent research on the Internet and elsewhere, to consider all sides and to make up their own minds as to the events reported on DonaldBest.CA.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

 

Dr Julie Macfarlane, NSRLP Director at Windsor Law: Donald Best’s CJC Challenge necessary

by Dr. Julie Macfarlane, National Self-Represented Litigants Project

The National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP) of which I am the Director has been extremely concerned – and made this concern clear – for many years about the process for reviewing and adjudicating complaints brought against a member of the judiciary by a member of the public.

Many of the complaints brought to the CJC each year are now brought by self-represented litigants. The “mandate” of the CJC excludes most of these complaints as written.

In order to rebuild public confidence in the judicial system, a robust overhaul of the complaints process – including assistance for members of the public who wish to bring forward a complaint – is essential.

Mr Best’s judicial review claim is an example of the extraordinary lengths to which it is presently necessary to go to draw attention to this flawed system and the lack of public accountability that the CJC reflects.

Yours truly,

Dr Julie Macfarlane
Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law

(Editor’s note: Don’t forget to support the Donald Best CJC Challenge with a small donation at GoFundMe.)

More from Dr. Macfarlane…

Its out! The fully revised 2nd edition of The New Lawyer: How Clients are Transforming the Practice of Law (UBC Press).

https://www.amazon.com/New-Lawyer-Second-Transforming-Practice/dp/0774837071

Named one of Canada’s 25 Most Influential Lawyers

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/6513/The-Top-25-Most-Influential-2017.html

For information on my research and continuing work on self-represented litigants, including my Blog on Access to Justice and the SRL Phenomenon, go to https://representingyourselfcanada.com/

Follow me on Twitter @ProfJulieMac

Our podcast Jumping Off the Ivory Tower downloadable here https://representingyourselfcanada.com/podcast/

 

Help fund the public inquiry into the Canadian Judicial Council

As standard CJC practice, Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismisses complaints against judges without investigations or providing reasons.

To the benefit of all Canadians, we need your financial support to force modern standards of accountability, transparency and performance upon the Canadian Judicial Council – the organization mandated to investigate and discipline Canada’s federal judges.

The Canadian Judicial Council summarily dismisses the vast majority of complaints against judges without investigation or even talking with the complainants. Now Canadians have the one perfect case with which to challenge the CJC’s performance and arbitrary standards, but we need your help to cover court costs.

Donald Best, his legal team and their supporters are challenging the Canadian Judicial Council’s wholesale dismissal of misconduct complaints against judges. The CJC summarily disposes of the vast majority of complaints against judges without investigations, public accountability or transparency.

The Donald Best case is perfect for this challenge. That’s why Canada’s Attorney General and the Canadian Judicial Council are fighting tooth and nail to keep this from going to a public trial.

The person bringing this challenge, Donald Best, is acting in the public interest for all Canadians and gains nothing personally from bringing or winning this legal action which is currently before the courts.

Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

Donald Best is a former Toronto Police Sergeant and business person who, while traveling in Asia, was found guilty of contempt of court in a civil business matter in Ontario, Canada. While Best was out of the country and unaware of the court hearing, corrupt lawyers placed provably fabricated evidence before a Federal Court judge – Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy – falsely claiming that Best had informed the lawyers during a phone call that he had received a certain court order.

In fact, during the phone call Best clearly stated over a dozen times to the lawyers that he had not received the court order and asked the lawyers to please send him a copy. After the call, the lawyers lied to the judge in writing and orally on the court record, falsely saying that Best had ‘confessed’ to receiving the court order. Based upon this false evidence, the judge convicted Best of contempt of court ‘in absentia’ (while Best was not present) and sentenced him to three months in prison.

Fortunately, Best had recorded the phone call and returned to Canada to place evidence before the court that proved the lawyers lied to the judge to obtain his conviction.

“In an obvious effort to protect the Bay Street lawyers, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy refused to listen to Best’s recordings, refused to consider the new evidence of his innocence and refused to allow him to cross-examine the very lawyers and witnesses that the judge relied upon to convict and sentence Best at the secret hearing.”

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Justice Shaughnessy upheld Best’s original conviction and three month prison sentence. Court ended, Justice Shaughnessy left the courtroom and Mr. Best was taken away to prison. Then, secretly, in a backroom and off the court record with no transcript and no endorsement on the court record, the Judge illegally created a new Warrant of Committal and increased Best’s prison time by 50%. Mr. Best had no lawyer, wasn’t present and the backroom judge never told him what he had done.

This new secret Warrant of Committal was given only to the prison authorities and was not placed into the court records. The prison warden informed Best about the increased sentence when he arrived at the prison – saying that he had never seen such a thing before in 30 years with the Correctional Service.

Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney call Justice Shaughnessy’s behaviour “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.” Lawyers especially are concerned with Shaughnessy’s misconduct as his actions strike right to the foundations of our justice system and society.

Nonetheless, when Best complained to the Canadian Judicial Council about Justice Shaughnessy’s serious misconduct, the CJC didn’t even investigate, saying that the judge’s actions were not ‘conduct’ under the CJC’s mandate.  

Without published standards and rules, the CJC arbitrarily defines what is and is not ‘judicial conduct’ in a self-serving manner on a case by case basis so they can reject any complaint. Donald Best is challenging this in court.

Outrageously, the Attorney General of Canada is defending and condoning the corrupt judge’s backroom misconduct – and is using every procedural trick in the book to delay and derail Mr. Best’s case.

Former Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino

Who Supports Donald Best?

In the past few years, hundreds of ordinary Canadians contacted Donald Best with messages of support. Lawyers volunteered to provide legal research in support of his lawsuit. Peter A. Allard Q.C., founder of the Allard Prize for International Integrity, praised Donald Best as “One of Canada’s most methodical and well documented whistleblowers.”

Julian Fantino, former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, former federal Cabinet Minister and current member of the Queen’s Privy Council, swore a comprehensive affidavit supporting Donald Best and documenting illegal conduct against Mr. Best by police, lawyers and a judge. Mr. Fantino launched his own ongoing court motion to gain Intervenor standing in Mr. Best’s CJC judicial review case.

Donald Best’s story has been told in the Toronto Star. Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper published his article ’Solitary confinement is pure torture. I know, I was there.’

The University of Windsor law school and the National Self-represented Litigants Project told Donald Best’s story on their website article ’The client most lawyer fear – and won’t represent at any price’. The NSRLP Director Dr. Julie Macfarlane recently commented on the necessity of the Donald Best CJC court challenge.

Please contribute $25, $100 or whatever you can to support our 2018 legal challenge to the Canadian Judicial Council.

Contribute anonymously to the Donald Best CJC Challenge GoFundMe campaign.

Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella speaks on Judicial Independence, Access to Justice and an angry Canadian public

Newly revealed off-the-record speech

On July 7, 2011, Justice Rosalie Abella gave a lengthy address at University College, London titled ‘Constitutions and Judges: Changing Roles, Rules and Expectations.”

According to the Supreme Court of Canada’s then Executive Legal Officer Owen Rees, the speech was never published and further – Justice Abella never shares her speaking notes with anyone.*

Well… despite Mr. Rees’ information, somehow Justice Abella’s speech was scanned and published online by University College and is still available for download at the University College website here. (pdf 4mb) I posted a copy on my website that has been OCR’d (optical character recognition) so the speech is now searchable. You can download that OCR’d copy here.

Justice Abella’s speech is a good read both for the public and the legal profession not only because of the insight into the thinking of one of our Supreme Court Justices but also because the judiciary is falling into a state that Justice Abella warned against in her talk.

The public’s trust in the judiciary is failing. A large part of that is due to the refusal of the judiciary as an institution to hold wayward judges accountable in any meaningful manner. Further, at the Federal level, the organization tasked with investigating and disciplining Federal judges, the Canadian Judicial Council, is so obviously nothing more than a whitewashing bureau with as little transparency as it has accountability.

Like every profession empowered to oversee itself, the judiciary ended up placing its own interests before the public trust. And transparency? What a joke…

Let’s talk Judicial Accountability and Transparency. The Canadian Judicial Council’s annual reports went from seventy-two pages in 1996 to TWO PAGES in 2016 – a clear message from both the judiciary and the CJC that the Canadian public can go to Hell for all they care.

You can access the CJC’s annual reports at their website here: CJC website annual reports.

Justice Abella on Judicial Independence… and on judges like Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

It is interesting that in her speech Justice Abella cautioned that judges should be vigilant that their judicial independence and impartiality are not cauterized by controversy. She also said that judges must keep the public confident that no matter what, rights and freedoms will be pursued and protected.

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

But what happens when, as in my case, a judge like Federal Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy so obviously abandons even the appearance of impartiality and adherence to rule of law? And further, what happens when the Canadian Judicial Council and Attorney General of Canada openly defend and side with a judge whose conduct some lawyers have called ‘reprehensible’?

I submit that it is not the rogue acts of a handful of judges that undermine our justice system – it is the cover-ups that do the most damage to the public’s trust and confidence in our courts.

On reading her speech, I think that Justice Abella probably gets that point.

“Justice may be blind, but the public is not.” Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella.

Access to Justice

Starting at the bottom of page 19 of her speech and continuing for some time, Justice Abella talks about how important it is that judges retain the trust and confidence of the public and that the public is becoming angry over the lack of access to justice and the fixation of the justice system on procedure instead of a focus upon justice.

“So what’s the noise our profession can’t ignore? The sound of a very angry public. And it’s a public that’s been mad at us for a long, long time. Like the character from the movie Network, I’m not sure they’re going to take it anymore. And frankly, I’m not sure they should.”Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella.

“I’m talking of course about access to justice. But I’m not talking about fees, or billings, or legal aid, or even pro bono. Those are our beloved old standards in the “access to justice” repertoire and I’m sure all of you know those tunes very well. I have a more fundamental concern: I cannot for the life of me understand why we still resolve civil disputes the way we did more than a century ago.”Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella.

“I think it’s finally time to think about designing a whole new way to deliver justice to ordinary people with ordinary disputes and ordinary bank accounts. That’s what real access to justice needs, that’s what the public is entitled to get, and that’s what our professionalism demands. Justice must be seen to be believed. And getting people to believe in justice is what the legal system is supposed to do.” Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella.

Photo of Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella courtesy of the Supreme Court of Canada.

TEXT RECOGNIZED COPY BELOW – May have inaccuracies. Check against .pdf copies…

CONSTITUTIONS AND JUDGES: CHANGING ROLES, RULES, AND EXPECTATIONS.

University College London

The Constitution Unit The Supreme Court London, England

July, 7, 2011

Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella

Supreme Court of Canada

In 1929, overturning the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision that “Persons” in the constitution excluded women, Lord Sankey, on behalf of the Privy Council, directed the Court to interpret the Canadian constitution as a “living tree capable of growth and expansion”, and in a “large and liberal”, not a “narrow and technical” way. The Supreme Court of Canada has, in recent years, taken this direction very seriously in its interpretation of the Charter ofRights and Freedoms and has, as a result, reminded us of Isaiah Berlin’s aphorism that there is no pearl without some irritation in the oyster, since there is no doubt that this large and liberal interpretation has by now produced some large and liberal irritation.

Read more

1 2 3 6