Court denies former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino intervention in Judicial Review of CJC

Julian Fantino’s ‘bombshell’ evidence.

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

(UPDATE: Fantino appealed this decision in Federal Court on Monday, November 20, 2017 – but in the end, the Courts acted to protect fellow members of The Club and killed the appeal on a procedural excuse.)

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

Justice Shaughnessy (r) & his lawyer, Peter Wardle

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

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

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

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

Julian Fantino Affidavit Bombshells

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

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

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

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


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

Improper Police Involvement in Civil Cases & Secret Investigations

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

Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

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

OPP Detective Sergeant James Van Allen

“Had I known of his (Jim Van Allen’s) transgressions, I would have acted immediately as OPP Commissioner to deal with his rogue conduct.”  Julian Fantino

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

Self-Represented Canadians and the Canadian Judicial Council

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

At the time of publication there is no word if Mr. Fantino will appeal the prothonotary’s decision.

Court Documents – Redacted Identity Information (signatures, etc)

In .PDF format for downloading. Size indicated.

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

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

3/ Julian Fantino: Full affidavit including exhibits.

Fantino Vol1 with exhibits sworn Sept 28, 2017 (344 pages – PDF 43mb) – very large, will fix soon.

Fantino Vol2 with exhibits sworn Sept 28, 2017 (245 pages – PDF 22.3mb) – very large, will fix soon.

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

4/ Justice Shaughnessy: Submissions on Fantino Intervention Motion

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

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada


  • Pingback: Canadian news media shuns award winning corrupt ex-cop. | DonaldBest.CA

  • Mischief? A conspiracy? No! never! not in Canada…Misconduct, abuses, police resources improperly retained,used co-opted! never! never! Never would they engage in such abuses. They would never follow you around to the other side of the world?(for real!!!) harassing, abusing you, cursing, laughing like some deranged person would do Treat one another like garbage and walking over each other, abusing you and get paid by the government for it too! Never!

  • Pingback: Justice Keith M. Boswell dismisses Judicial Review of Canadian Judicial Council’s ‘Backroom Bryan’ Shaughnessy decision – DonaldBest.CA

  • It’s time for Detective Van Allen to surrender his award from the GG. Has anyone written to the Governor General to complain?

    • OMAG is crooked through and through

      Please google the outcome of an application at the Labour Relations Board where ibew 353 members submitted an application that there was contractor interference in the election and that the ibew used lawyers as they acted as intervenors. Isnt that amazing how these guys were allowed to use an intervenor but this court is refusing an intervenor on behalf of all Canadians as all Canadians have had their charter of rights interfered with by corrupt individuals.

      Mind you the application of the ibew 353 to be intervenors was not truly legal since the ibew under its collective bargaining agreement is supposed to represent all members of the ibew 353 against the contractors so they broke their collective bargaining agreement as the representatives of the interests of the ibew 353 members. This clear contravention was allowed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Why are we seeing clear contradictions of the law here in both cases. In Donald Best case there needs to be an intervenor since the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General clearly and illegally trampled on the rights of every Ontario and Canadian Citizen by representing the rogue judge for more than a year and it was only public outrage that caused them to walk away. Not because they knew they should but because they were forced to. Then we saw the Judicial Council refuse to listen to the tapes and evidence of Mr. Best and it was only after an application to the Federal Court Judge that brought about this hearing. Clearly a cover up by another crooked department of government.

      Why then is it different here in a case of a corrupt and rogue judge, rogue lawyers rogue cop etc. One needs to do their homework reading the many links given on this website that help you to go from one story to another and link them together. I am.

  • I read Fantino’s affidavit. This should be national news all over. Not a whimper in the press and on the day that the Ontario Liberals announced big changes to the Police Act and increased accountability, expanded SIU still nothing.

  • I’m Backroom Bryan, Canada’s Backroom Judge!

    Are you tired of having to go through trials and hearings in the courts to attain a legal solution?

    Do you become exasperated when witnesses provide inconvenient answers that undermine your case during cross-examination?

    Does the thought of having to file paperwork, serve motions and generally inform the other side what you are doing in court get you down?

    Don’t despair! Backroom Bryan, Canada’s Backroom Judge ™ can help.

    Simply bring your court order to me after court is closed. No need to inform the other side. We’ll take care of it without all that bothersome court procedure and rule of law.

    We’ll meet in my beautifully furnished backroom office where you’ll relax as you sip from two-day old coffee while I take care of you as any fellow Club Member should be looked after.

    No need to register any new court order or inform the other side. I’ll just sign it and you’re good to go.

    Just imagine the surprise on the other side’s faces when they discover you have a secret backroom court order they never heard of before! Priceless!

    Backroom Bryan: Canada’s Backroom Judge ™. Come and see me today!

    • Sounds just about right description of Backroom Bryan. Only problem is, there are so many Backroom Bryan so which one are you?

      Trust me most of our judges in this country are backroom judges.

      There is another BOMBSHELL AFFIDAVIT at (could be ,ca). That affidavit lets it out about corrupt judges, lawyers and court office staff

      • This is amazing news ,thx Allen for getting this article up front ,I took the screenshot and published on my page ,I am tweeting articles on my page one by one to all over the world ,these crooks doesn’t hastate from Canadian citizens and they may be hasitate from the world.

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

        Sent from my iPad

        • According to this ex rcmp officer William Robert Majcher he was removed from the task force even though he was successful. Of course he was removed. He was far too successful in exposing corrupt lawyers judges with links to you know who.

          This is exactly like what happened to Mr. Paul Manning mob infiltrator ex cop -check out his story-its obvious he got too close to the police in bed with mobsters and they shut the task force down too. Same ole happening over and over again in Canada indicating corruption at the highest level.

        • This ex rcmp officer speaks of how the legal profession does not need to report suspicious financial transactions as its not mandated by the federal government to do so. Why not? I think we can clearly answer why there is no law in place to force the legal professional to do so. That is why the law firms are used to money launder and the federal government is the ones that are also profiting from the money laundering along with organized crime.

          Here in the Donald Best case of the lawyers and the phony business perhaps the lawyers were not under law to report a ficticious business but the government agencies that were sitting in a court room were under law to do so isnt that correct?

          Also Mr. Van Allen the OPP officer illegally acting as a private investigator would have been under obligation as a cop to report any suspicious activity and should have had if he was a competent cop had the instincts to ask for proof of a legally recognized company. But of course he did not. He was as corrupt as the lawyers were.

    • Mocking Moniker


      That is tight. BACKROOM BRYAN is ideal. O’Shaughnessy earned that moniker. Or is it ‘mockinger’ ?

    • Backstabbing Judge

      Why did BACKROOM BRYAN do what he did in that backroom? He must have hated Best to do that but why did he hate him so much? Judges are not supposed to be emotional. Why would any judge take a chance to do what he did? He must be so vindictive by his nature and never thought he would be caught. Best had no lawyer so the judge thought he could be a little Hitler and get away with it. This man does not deserve to remain as a judge!

    • Florips Bajouco

      Keep up the good work to expose this reprehensible display of clowns who earn massive wages on the back of the tax payers. They are the back room Bryans and there are too many of them for us to count. I have witnessed the first thing in am the lawyers who make the application hand deliver the judgement to the judge. The judgements are not made by the judges. The judgements are written by the lawyer who hand delivers the decision to the judge. This is a freak show in all of the courts in Toronto, Ontario. The court room scams are staged. The decisions are not based on the evidence in the documents or the evidence at the trial. Case law is a fraud upon the public. I am a witness of this scam happening in the Small Claims Court, Divisional Court, the probate court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. This is an abusive system of power and control. I had lawyers at the trials and my lawyers never drafted the judgements or hand deliver the decision to the judge. Even my own lawyers scammed me of massive legal fees. We are victims of prey to entertain the courts. The cases are not won by merits. The cases are won by who you know at the court house.

  • Mike from Cayuga Ontario

    I never liked Fantino as a politician. Christie Blatchford hates him for what the O.P.P. did at Caledonia. Half the newpapers hate Fantino and report if he sneezes the wrong way but they aren’t covering the former OPP Chief of Police when he names cops and lawyers as corrupt? WTF? What is the matter with the CBC, CTV? Why haven’t they reported this story? Aren’t they embarrassed enough yet?

  • I read the affidavit twice page by page. Waitng for the attachments. So far credible and insanely damaging to lawyers police judge CJC etc. How much longer can the news papers and broadcasters ignore this news?

  • All respect to Mr. Fantino. I am in awe of his strength of character. Some people are not going to be happy about his affidavit.

  • Now Mr Fantino has said nothing we have not said before. If only our politicians would listen to ordinary people when they are in office and not let their staff filter ordinary folk with complaints of wretchedness from their attention. I have been trying to get PM Trudeau’s attention for quite some time now but I am having no success.

    It should not be that a prothonotary (really a clerk in a robe) should have power to deny an application like this for it is not interim. The same thing is happening in other courts with Masters who are behaving like they are judges or have judge’s powers. When persons like Mr Fantino are in government they need to be very careful when laws come up for change for a lot is getting by to facilitate the crooks in our justice system. No clerk should have the power to deny access to the justice system

    I am currently dealing with a criminal at the Labour Board. They are all criminals and we need our par;liaments to tell us how so many criminals are getting appointed to these positions

    Mr Fantino you should bring all this to the attention of your colleagues in parliament and to the Privy Council that I hear is a most corrupt place more than any other

  • My goodness! This should be above the fold headline news across Canada. Why isn’t it?

  • I am not shocked and I wasn’t expecting any other decision then this one ,sleeping stupid Canadian citizens must wake up and act immidiately against this corrupted system.

    • @Arif, I have been saying this for quite some time. But selfish folk are waiting until they get bitten rather than be their brother’s keeper. Mr Fantino has my respect now because others in his position are selectively blind