Court staff deletes Justice Shaughnessy’s name from list of parties – public can’t locate courtroom

Open Courts Principle abused

At least three members of the public report that they attended at the Federal Court in Toronto but were unable to find the courtroom where my judicial review against the Canadian Judicial Council was being held. Even the front desk and security staff were unable to direct them to the courtroom – so they went home after being falsely informed that no such trial was taking place in the building that day.

This happened because Federal Court staff deleted the name of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy from the list of parties and cases used to direct persons to the various courtrooms.

Justice Shaughnessy’s name appeared as an involved party on the list at all prior motion dates – but disappeared from the list at the main event, the Judicial Review itself. Neither did the words ‘Canadian Judicial Council’ or ‘CJC’ appear on the public list. This action – whether deliberate or accidental – violated the ‘Open Courts Principle’. (see Wikipedia and CCLN)

Over the two days about a dozen members of the public, all strangers to me, did manage to find the courtroom on the 7th floor and attended to listen to the proceedings and/or to wish me well. Some of the persons attending on the first day, Monday November 20, 2017, found the courtroom by going to every floor in the building and asking each security guard about the case. They then posted the location on Facebook for others to find.

This is incredible: in a case that is ultimately focused upon the disgusting actions of Justice Shaughnessy violating the Open Courts Principle by his secret backroom actions, members of the public were prevented from attending at the Judicial Review because Federal Court staff deleted Justice Shaughnessy’s name from the daily courtroom listings.

Julian Fantino intervention blocked

Another interesting happening in relation to this Judicial Review is that Julian Fantino, former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, applied to intervene in the case – filing an application and supporting affidavit sworn September 28, 2017. On October 25, 2017, Prothonotary Mandy Aylen rejected Fantino’s application.

Fantino then filed an appeal of the rejection, to be heard on November 20, 2017 prior to the Judicial Review – however on Thursday afternoon, November 16, 2017, effectively one day prior to the court date, Justice Keith M. Boswell issued an order that Mr. Fantino’s appeal would not be heard and would be scheduled for General Sittings. But – the Judicial Review would go ahead anyway without Mr. Fantino’s intervention or waiting for another court to hear his appeal.

This is puzzling to an ordinary person like myself who always thought that when something is appealed by anyone, the main case is put on hold until the appeal is heard. Perhaps one of my readers with a legal background can explain this as Justice Boswell issued no reasons to accompany his decision.

Judicial Review finished – Decision to come

The Judicial Review was heard over two days, Monday – Tuesday November 20-21, 2017. My lawyer Paul Slansky took the first day to state my case that, among other issues, the court should send the Shaughnessy complaint back to the Canadian Judicial Council with instructions to do their job properly according to the laws that govern the CJC. On Tuesday, Mr. Peter Wardle (representing Justice Shaughnessy) and Mr. Victor Paolone (Attorney General of Canada) made their presentations trying to defend the indefensible actions of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

At the end of Paul Slansky’s reply comments on Tuesday, Justice Boswell said he will be issuing his decision later.

My sincere thanks to everyone who came out to show support and to monitor and report on the proceedings.

Donald Best
November 22, 2017
Barrie, Ontario





  • My guess is they feared a large gathering so they hoped to confuse the public who couldnt find it and left. I think this once again shows the stir that Donald Best has created in exposing corruption and cover up. They have to stoop to such tactics. The Julian Fantino affidavit and his appeal being heard later is another tactic to suppress the truth.

    We all read Mr Fantinos affidavit and can agree on all his points. If we the public can read it and understand it then our courts certainly can and thats the problem. Then they are forced to admit a cover up.

    Once again to push for accountability Justice Susan Healey stated that that she believed Donald Best lied about not knowing he was personally responsible for costs. His letter to OShaughnessey attests to him believing the company was responsible not him personally and for a Judge to call Mr. Best a liar in her summary is breach of public trust.

    The only liars here appear to be the lawyers. When listening to Mr. Bests taped conversation the secretary states that to have a tele conference you need advanced warning but the lawyers state that this is not done in Toronto. Really I am sure most lawyers had a laugh at that one. Therefore when the lawyers scheduled meetings later that day or a few days later then they had ample warning to prepare a teleconference. Thus Justice Susan Healey should have been smart enough to see through this sham of the lawyers and call them the liars. O wait she wouldnt do that. She was covering up for corruption. Covering up for criminal acts. The only vexacious and friviolous people here are the Judge herself and the lawyers and Judge. Call black when it is black. My guess is the reason they refused the teleconference was because they knew Mr. Best was out of the country compliments of Van Allen a crooked cop moonlighting as a private investigator,

  • “Martin stressed the need for judges to treat litigants with respect”….First of the first things is the judge shall respect laws, respect litigants is better than not. As a judge need respect laws, not think the judge is the god who can do whatever they like.

  • Thanks for the update.

    I’m not surprised by your observations about people being unable to find the courtroom and the fact that the CJC wasn’t identified as a party. Issues of that sort may in fact be fairly common and those of us who are challenging the system itself are more attuned to spotting them. But I suspect that for cases that are challenging the system there’s a bias at play.

    I’m wondering how long the judge will take to issue a judgment. I just checked my sole (judicial review) success in litigation – the record on CanLII is found at . At the end of that hearing the judge made a comment about how long he would likely take (given that we were approaching Christmas). Based on what he said (I don’t recall his exact words) I was satisfied when the judgment was issued just over a month and a half later. The manner in which I prevailed is what I assume you are hoping for. But my victory was a Pyrrhic one, and that would have been so even if the other parties hadn’t immediately appealed it. So if you are fortunate enough to achieve as much as I did, you can assume your fight is far from over.

    BTW, I went to CanLII to examine the record of Federal Court cases involving the CJC. Then I decided to search the Federal Court record for instances of the string “Norman Sabourin”. It returned eight decisions, the first two of which didn’t involve the CJC. Of the other six only the latest one actually names the CJC as a party. That decision – – is part of the very long record of the litigation resulting from the complaint(s) against Justice Michel Girouard. It looks like it may be a decision worth a thorough examination.