Justice Bryan Shaughnessy chooses conflicted lawyer as personal counsel in Judicial Review – #1 in a series

Law Society of Upper Canada senior bencher Peter C. Wardle is Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy’s new attorney in an ongoing judicial review of a Canadian Judicial Council decision. However, in a closely related matter Wardle also represented two lawyers who are almost certain to be called as witnesses in a CJC investigation or public inquiry into misconduct allegations against Justice Shaughnessy.

Complicating the conflicts of interest even further, lawyers Gerald Ranking (left) and Lorne Silver may not be just witnesses. Court transcripts indicate it is also possible that these lawyers assisted Justice Shaughnessy in carrying out his judicial misconduct.*

This change of counsel comes after a Federal Court refused to release Justice Shaughnessy as a party in the judicial review of a CJC decision about the judge.

The unprecedented January 17, 2017 Federal Court decision also ordered Justice Shaughnessy to personally pay the legal costs of Donald Best, a self-represented litigant that the Ontario Superior Court Justice sent to prison for contempt of court.**

No other judge in Canadian history has been ordered to pay legal costs.***

Did Conflict of Interest complaints cause Ontario’s Attorney General to resign as Justice Shaughnessy’s lawyer?

Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General (‘AGO’) no longer represents Justice Shaughnessy in the ongoing Judicial Review. The AGO had been acting as the judge’s personal lawyer for almost a year – since April 2016.

Justice Shaughnessy’s new lawyer filed a document in court indicating that Justice Shaughnessy and the AGO went their separate ways on March 1, 2017. This was a week after DonaldBest.CA published an article describing how, with the AGO acting as the judge’s personal attorney, nobody was acting for the public interest at the Judicial Review.**

Readers complained to Ontario Attorney General

Yasir Naqvi, MLA AGO

Following publication of that DonaldBest.CA article, at least half a dozen readers reported that they had written to Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi expressing disapproval that the AGO was acting as personal lawyer to a judge accused of serious misconduct, instead of acting for the people of Ontario and the public interest.

Readers questioned both the optics and actual conflicts of interest in having the AGO personally representing a judge before whom Crown Prosecutors appear daily asking for convictions, sentences, court orders and search warrants. Some readers who are also lawyers opined that Justice Shaughnessy should have hired independent counsel from the start, albeit paid for by the public purse.

Justice Shaughnessy’s latest choice of lawyer, however, only ramps up questions about conflicts of interest and the optics of the apparent relationships between big law firms, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, the Attorney General of Canada – and a Federally appointed judge accused of serious, premeditated misconduct.

Shaughnessy’s Judicial Misconduct

  • “In all my years of practicing law, this is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen a judge do.”
  • “Reprehensible misconduct by a judge that undermines the very foundations of justice.”
  • “Shaughnessy’s misconduct is worthy of his removal from the bench.”

The above comments were made by several senior lawyers, including a retired Crown Attorney, upon examining evidence proving that on May 3, 2013 in a backroom after court had finished, Justice Shaughnessy secretly increased Donald Best’s jail sentence and secretly created and substituted a new warrant of committal – off the court record, without informing the prisoner and in contravention of the sentence and order the judge himself delivered earlier in court on the record.****

Judicial Review of Canadian Judicial Council’s summary dismissal of Best’s complaint

While Donald Best was in prison, another Superior Court Justice, apparently horrified at what Justice Shaughnessy had done, released Best after his newly hired lawyer Paul Slansky filed a writ of habeas corpus. Best spent a total of 63 days in prison, with every day served in brutal solitary confinement as he is a former Toronto Police sergeant/detective.*****

Best later filed a complaint against Justice Shaughnessy with the Canadian Judicial Council. After CJC Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed the complaint without an investigation and without providing reasons, Best’s lawyer filed an Application for a Judicial Review of the CJC’s actions.

It is this Judicial Review that is now making its way through the Federal Court of Canada.

New Series: ‘Abandoning Public Trust: Conflicts of Interest by Ontario’s legal profession’

This is Part 1 of our new series exploring conflicts of interest in Ontario’s legal profession. The series starts with examples noted by former Toronto Police Sergeant Donald Best during his eight-year journey through Ontario’s justice system after being convicted of contempt of court and imprisoned on provably fabricated and false evidence.

As the series progresses, we will broaden our view to examine how the legal profession’s unenforceable ‘rules’ and standards about conflicts of interest are designed to ease public and client concerns while actually providing as much latitude as possible to lawyers and law firms in their quest for profits.

Abandoning Public Trust: Conflicts of Interest by Ontario’s legal profession

The series…

Part 1: Justice Bryan Shaughnessy chooses conflicted lawyer as personal counsel in Judicial Review.

Part 2: Ontario’s Bay Street Cabal and law society circle the wagons to protect judge; Ignoring conflicts of interest and the public trust.

Part 3: Did Lawyers Ranking and Silver know of Justice Shaughnessy’s intentions and actions? Did they assist in his judicial misconduct?

Part 4: Should conflicted lawyer Peter C. Wardle resign from representing Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy?

Part 5: Abandoning the Public Interest. When Canada’s legal profession, regulators and government circle the wagons to save club members, who looks after the interests of Canadians?

Part 6: Previous incident – How Justice Shaughnessy backdated a court order for lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver.

… Additional articles in this series will be added later.

Notes and Links   

*See Parts 2 & 3 of this series.

**See Canada Federal Court refuses to release Judge from Judicial Review of Misconduct Complaint

***No other judge in Canadian history has been ordered to pay legal costs.

Although this writer is open to correction, research to date indicates that this is the first time ever in Canadian, British and U.S. legal history where a judge has been ordered to personally pay the legal costs of anyone – let alone a person he sent to prison. Justice Shaughnessy did not appeal the order of the court, which is now confirmed.

****Background, supporting court documents and details of Justice Bryan Shaughnessy’s May 3, 2013 misconduct can be found in the following artlcles:

February 22, 2017: Canada Federal Court refuses to release Judge from Judicial Review of Misconduct Complaint

May 23, 2016: Affidavit filed in action against Canadian Judicial Council, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

April 30, 2016: Federal Court Proceeding commenced against Canadian Judicial Council, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

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

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

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

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

*****Read Donald Best’s article published in The Globe and Mail: Solitary confinement is pure torture. I know, I was there

Notice from the Publisher

If any person 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.

Public domain photo of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy has been modified to remove others in the background and is a new work by Donald Best. 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


  • Why isn’t the news media covering this story? Why don’t they let Best comment on stories on the National Post? Why did the Canadian Press do a story about Mr. Best and his lawyer but refuse to interview Best.

    • Bay Street Cabal runs judges too

      The news media don’t cover this story because the leader of the Law Society of Upper Canada Paul Schabas is in this case up to his eyeballs and he is the media lawyer for Toronto Star, National Post, CBC etc etc etc.

      The Bay Street Cabal are powerful and they are protecting the rogue Judge Shaughnessy and the crooked lawyers Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking.

  • Dear Mr. Best,

    A few of us at Ryerson want to cover the story and the hearing. Do you know the date and address of the court?

    • CollegesandUniversities

      Lets put a competition between all universities to see who can bring the most people to the hearing in order to cover the story. Maybe the newspapers want to pick up on this friendly race for coverage of a really important issue facing our judicial system.

  • front page stories

    At the hearing I encourage all those attending bring with them printed pages of their stories of corruption against members of the judicial system so they can be handed out to.journalists police feds and everyone else.

    • The Fool on the Hill

      YES! Let’s have every crazy person with an axe to grind line up to take the news media’s eyes away from the one masterfully proven case that could change how the Canadian Judicial Council abuses self-represented litigants. YES! Let’s have a mob scene in the court room that will take the judge’s concentration from Shaughnessy’s misconduct and turn it upon Best’s supporters.

      If you want to send your story to a reporter then email it. Don’t try to piggyback your crazy outbursts upon Mr. Best’s professional credibility as a police detective who collected evidence that cannot be explained away or denied.

      YES! Go ahead and bring fifty stories to the reporters on trial day instead of one proven abuse. Shaughnessy will LOVE YOU FOR IT. FOOL.

      • CollegesandUniversities

        Fool on the hill did you realize that one story affects everyone in one way or the other. Nothing will take away from Mr. Best story and the miscarriage of justice that has been seen here. If our media cant focus on the story that is at hand which is this case and the great case about Judge Shaughnessy then they cant be very good journalists because journalists need to link one to another to prove a true problem in the justice system. In fact a comment like yours fool on the Hill would prove to be an intimidation tactic to stop stories flowing of corruption in the judicial system and to call people with stories crazy people then you have missed the point of this very important case that affects us all. The whole problem in life that allows corruption to go on is that people go about their lives and might read something and then they forget. It doesnt affect them personally so they forget. However as I stated earlier one mans injustice is also another mans and in our judicial court system it affects us all especially when a clean decent cop was imprisoned under false pretense. Then a judge decided to go forwards on those fabricated evidence thereby compromising the justice system. Doesnt have to be a mob scene it can be done in a reasonable and very mature way to hand out stuff. That way stories that get buried cant be buried. The judge is supposed to be impartial and not affected by mature people who come to observe it. Is anyone attacking Mr. Bests personal credibility as a police detective here. Perhaps you didnt find humor at the person who stated make a video game. I found it rather hilarious myself. That is peoples personal opinion how to deal with corruption. So who are you attacking as crazy on here? Someone’s opinion of how to bring attention to something. It would be rather sad to see a small amount of people come to a very important hearing but attend a court action that is sensational because it involves sex assault of a high profile person.

        I rather not see anyone attack any ones comments on here because its everyone’s opinion how to expose corruption or attack corruption. Anyone that attacks ones opinion on here is nothing but an intimidator. I hope your not a journalist The fool on the Hill I know just because I had a story from a number of people it would not detract me from the one that I was attending. I believe David Semetic on here has talked about his story, Im sure its just as important as well. I believe most posters on here are mature and know how to conduct themselves in public and not be a mob.

        Care to come on The fool on the Hill and comment on this. I read everyones posts and I can see peoples maturity, anger and other emotions. All to be expected in such a high profile case as this with so much evidence that cant be covered up. Should be interesting how it is done. I would believe that you Mr. Fool on the Hill wouldnt want lots of college and university students covering such story maturely either. Mr. Shaughnessy will not love the huge publicity. Not one to end a career with as this important case not only involves Mr. Best but many of the judge’s decision prior to Mr. Best. Thats what is at stake and they know it and we know it. Thus the legal wranglings going on there will be enlightening.

        So I suggest that you stop imputing bad motives on people and how they conduct themselves because that would be embarassing to you.

  • Mr. Reprehensible Misconduct

    I invested an hour reading every post and downloading all the legal documents. There is no defense or excuse for Justice Shaughnessy’s actions on May 3, 2013.

    Hiring Mr. Wardle was not a smart move on Justice Shaughnessy’s part, it is more of an expression of panic because if he is found guilty this and this alone defines his legacy.

    Nothing else he did will matter stacked up against Justice Shaughnessy’s reprehensible misconduct.

  • The doctor is out.

    Mr. Wardle is in several conflicts of interest on several levels. Shaughnessy hired him because he represents the witnesses that should testify against Shaughnessy. Shaughnessy hired Wardle because he is a law society bencher, a senior bencher at that and very influential in the organization.

    Shaughnessy hired this Wardle guy because of the conflicts, not in spite of them. Shaughnessy hired Wardle so that Wardle could pull some strings.

    Once you understand that Mr. Best you will understand that the end game of the judicial review is already determined.

    • Spookingthecrooked

      Hey the doctor is out-thanks for informing us exactly the game play of these individuals for which we already can figure out. So lets see how we check mate these guys so that we use their own game play to put them where they belong.

      Pulling strings will get very difficult here and that means that all people reading and commenting should fill the seats just like the Ghomeshi trial did. Start writing emailing and faxing and calling all the various departments well in advance of this Hearing to help the strings get cut. The power of the people can be stronger. So use the voice you were born with.

      The doctor is actually in so call your doctor, email your doctor, fax your doctor and make that appointment to be at the Hearing. Remember a lawsuit can be launched on behalf of all citizens of Ontario against any strings being pulled to interfere in justice being served for Mr. Best and for the rest of the public. Yes we can launch a public lawsuit against these corrupt individuals.

  • Hubris and contempt for Canadian citizens has no bounds

    Am I missing something?

    Doesn’t the July 2014 side bar have Saint Paul Schabas, as a named defendant?

    Hopefully, he will have the good sense to recuse himself at any convocation and stay away from
    back room meddlings or influence?

    The LSUC should lock the doors, clean house and reopen as “The Law Society of Ontario”.

    Justice first and then tradition especially when a society invokes the arrogance of George the Third.

  • 5th Estate Watcher

    I read using another electronic device and there was 14 comments made but now on this electronic device there are no comments so imagine that. Thats called Stealth Banning I believe and cyber terrorism is alive and well at this site and the site of many other whistle blowers. You bet. Lets figure out who is involved in that cyber terrorism with their pros.

    By the way the public trust that the OMAG is supposed to provide for the citizens has been broken and it requires a representative to represent the rights of the citizens so Mr. Best and your lawyer please write a letter to the Judicial Hearing committee and the OMAG asking for your office to appoint a representative for the people at the hearing. This is a very good legal tactic to use because the OMAG decided to represent this judge for over a year isnt that correct. Someone needs to protect the public’s interest which thereby protects your interest as well. When we see serious allegations of corruption and then we see a government entity break the public trust this has created a very interesting situation that requires a representative for the people.

    For all readers of this website, lawyers who support Donald Best please feel free to post yours comments regarding the need for a representative for the public trust. Just having the OMAG stop representing the judge does nothing to regain the public trust. In fact it just exposes that the OMAG committed a serious error and now trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

    The fact that now we have a lawyer representing the judge and the other two lawyers again calls into question the way the judicial system runs. It is definitely conflict of interest-one ignored on many occasions. The two lawyers based on the evidence of Donald Best here on his website have committed serious offences making them hostile witnesses as one poster has written and they are definitely correct. The matter of the cover up for so many years indicate that this has occurred and that even in the beginning the Judicial Counsel refused to investigate it properly and the Judicial Counsel of Canada has seriously broken the public trust as well.

    The 5th Estate needs to pursue this story at the point we are now at. They need to follow this website and keep the story up to date. It needs to be an ongoing series-like a weekly series bringing in all the links that have been posted on here that the readers have followed.

    So please let us know Mr. Best if your lawyer will push for a representative of the people that is independent of the OMAG. We hope you will be successful as this will set a huge precedent for the future and help to redefine the justice system we now have in place and a system that is governed by apparent corruption.

  • The Law Society of Upper Canada should pay attention to benchers’ conflicts of interest.

    What are the rules about this? There must be some rules? Is Wardle violating any?

    • That’s a good question ICPB. What are the rules for benchers re conflicts of interest because of their position?

      Can anyone weigh in on this subject?

  • PS. Put the facial photos of your crooked lawyers and bad judge on the characters. Simple cutmouth like early South Park.

    • paint not for sale to whitewash

      N a rather sad Yes your so right about how the pubklc loves sensational stuff like the farce of the.ghomeshi trial . A you tube satirical expose can also help to shed light on a very sad pathetic justice system but can also help to make a laughing stock of the players involved in the public eye as they try to whitewash their corruption. I believe in adding humour to out how serious matters are not taken seriously when money and power is involved.

  • Corrupt lawyers and judges are not sexy enough to attract the interest of people who work every day and that is why they get away with what they do. We expect lawyers to be crooked. What are judges except lawyers with a steady job running courts that are the playing fields where the crooked lawyers make their money?

    Your donaldbest.ca articles are well-written and accurate with evidence uploaded. They are true because some of them have been up for years with outrageous accusations naming lawyers and publishing their photos. That doesn’t survive online unless it is true but still no big response like if Shaughnessy had told some rape victim it was her fault for wearing a short skirt.

    Here is an idea for free.

    Make a simple video game. Call it Crooked Lawyer or Bad Lawyer. There are lots and lots of simple programs available to do this, Construct 2, Game Maker Studio, Unity and Godot Engine. Godot Engine would be a good choice and you can publish to every platform with one button. With a talented young artist this could work.

    The Bad Lawyer would start in his office and go from scene to scene ripping people off, lying to them and going to court. The lawyer has to complete a series of crooked tasks for his or her reward. When the lawyer gets caught lying the judge helps out to save him. When he gets caught stealing from the trust fund the Law Society of Upper Canada helps him out of trouble. When a judge gets caught helping a bad lawyer, the lawyers and the Attorney General work together to help him avoid being fired.

    It could be a cool game with good art and some good plots and subplots. Mr. Best’s story would serve as a main story line.

    What do you think? It could be done and have all the millenials and teens playing CROOKED LAWYER.

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

    I agree that it stinks something rotten that Mr. Wardle is representing both the accused and the witnesses. “There is no property in a witness.” is often said when one side of a court case tries to control or limit witness testimony.

    What are Canadians to think when Justice Shaughnessy hires the same lawyer as the witnesses?

    Justice must be seen to be done. The Law Society of Upper Canada should not allow Mr. Wardle to represent an accused and witnesses in the same case. Wardle and Shaughnessy should and do know better but they obviously don’t care about justice being seen to be done.

    I will be at the trial Mr. Best. Please give us lots of notice.

    • FredDouglass said “What are Canadians to think when Justice Shaughnessy hires the same lawyer as the witnesses?”

      That’s a great quote Fred.

    • paint not for sale to whitewash

      Intimidation tactic by the crooked. One to certainly backfire as they are indeed hostile witnesses. Can members of the public push to be a witness for the public interest for the citizen of ontario to protect our rights too. I say this as the OMAG has compromised it for one year and cleary shows he was not serving the publics interest and can’t b trusted to.do it now. Public trust has been compromised and eroded in OMAG.

  • Congratulations to Donald Best on his historic first of a court ordering a judge to pay his legal costs. That is something. The judge who ordered that must have been disgusted with Shaughnessy as all Canadians should be.

    What the f*ck does Mr. f*cking law society bencher Peter C. Wardle think he is doing representing a corrupt judge and corrupt lawyers that got caught and have to be witnesses against the judge? That is CORRUPT with all caps.

    Good for the people that wrote AG Naqvi.

    WE SHOULD ALL WRITE TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO PRESIDENT that the law society should divorce themselves from Wardle.

    • The Law Society of Upper Canada does not have a president, it has a CEO and a Treasurer. The CEO is an administrative position, the Treasurer is elected first as a bencher (representing the rank and file) and then as Treasurer by the benchers. Treasurer is a highly political position awarded sometimes upon merit and other times on connections and time invested.

      Paul B. Schabas is Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

      Public email: Contact the Treasurer at [email protected]

      There is a convocation meeting next on April 27, 2017 and after that on May 25, 2017.

      The Convocation is a meeting of all the benchers.

      People could write to all the benchers before each of the next meetings.

      Robert Lapper is the CEO. I can’t find an email address for him, but here is his twitter account:

      Follow Robert Lapper on Twitter at http://twitter.com/wlap

      About Paul B. Schabas, Law Society Treasurer: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/treasurer/

      Paul B. Schabas is the Treasurer of the Law Society.Treasuer Schabas_Small The Treasurer is the highest elected official of the Law Society, which regulates Ontario’s 50,000 lawyers and 8,000 paralegals in the public interest.

      Treasurer Schabas is a partner and senior trial and appellate counsel at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto, where he handles complex commercial, regulatory and anti-corruption matters. Considered one of Canada’s leading media and constitutional lawyers, he has argued many seminal cases before the Supreme Court of Canada, developing new law in areas such as defamation, free expression, equality rights, judicial independence and access to justice. Treasurer Schabas is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers.

      Elected a bencher of the Law Society in 2007 and re-elected in 2011 and 2015, he served as chair of the Human Rights Monitoring Group, the Access to Justice Committee, and the Professional Regulation Committee and was a member of the Equity and Aboriginal, Tribunals and Finance Committees and the Articling and Mentoring Task Forces.

      An adjunct professor at the University of Toronto, Treasurer Schabas frequently writes and speaks on a variety of legal matters. He is past chair of the Law Foundation of Ontario and a past president of Pro Bono Law Ontario and the Canadian Media Lawyers Association. He was recently named Best Lawyers® 2016 Appellate Practice Lawyer of the Year for Toronto, and in 2011 was named one of Canada’s “most influential” lawyers by Canadian Lawyer magazine.

      Called to the Ontario Bar in 1986, he earned both his LLB and BA (Hon.) from the University of Toronto (1984, 1981).

      Contact the Treasurer at [email protected]

  • They are so open about the corruption!!! The law society leadership should have nothing to do with defending or prosecuting a judge. What? There aren’t enough lawyers in Canada that Shaughnessy had to hire a LSUC BENCHER? What a rogue! This is dirty. It stinks for the judge to have the same lawyer as some of the witnesses. I feel like I’ve been transported to some third world hellhole where the government and the lawyers and the judges are all one gang.

    Oh. Wait! That’s exactly it. We’ve been transported to Nigeria or the Congo or some godforsaken justice system.

  • John Grisham novelist reader

    Glad to see that public pressure forced the OAG to stop being the Judge’s lawyer and isnt it amazing that it was not our judicial system that forced the OAG to stop being a conflicted lawyer but rather private citizens. This to all readers prove that public pressure on the internet and then letters to the appropriate departments forces changes that are needed. So never think that your small comment or your letter or email doesnt accomplish anything. This case proves it does. It also proves the incompetency of our present Attorney General of Ontario. He knew better to act as the Judge’s lawyer but thought he could get away with it.

    Now as we read that the new lawyer representing the Judge also is facing conflict of interest with respect to the two lawyers involved in alleged fabrication of evidence thereby linking them to the disgraced Judge therefore they need to be separate from this Hearing and be considered hostile witnesses. Again public pressure and comments and emails and letters will accomplish what they are intended to do. If the Boys Club thinks they are going to continue to get away with corrupt practices think again. The streisand effect is working for Mr. Best and many others bringing forth stories of corruption. Keep your comments coming that is what is very important for success.

    I know I will keep reading and up to date on this proceeding which is supposed to be scheduled for June of this year. I am sure the hearing will be well attended with journalists, government, cops, lawyers and the every day citizen concerned with corruption in our midst. We feel for our honest and decent cops that have been treated this way for exposing hypocrisy and corruption both in the judicial system and the police force that is part of this story. Has the former police officer Mr. Van Allen been stripped of his medal of merit yet? Has anyone checked yet to see if this has occurred. Please let us know. Perhaps people working in that department of government would like to update us on what has been done or been covered up.

    The story of Donald Best has perked our interest in seeing what our government will do after public exposure has made it very difficult to cover it up. Will charges come against corrupt individuals. We wait to see. Its like a story unravelling before our eyes here on the internet both in Ontario, in Canada and across the world. I wonder if John Grisham would like to model a book after this story. It contains crooked individuals fictitious account possible money laundering cover up wrongful conviction outing of a former police officer to bring him harm. The list goes on and we will continue to allow the streisand effect to continue as well.

    Mr. Best your website is fantastic and please keep it going with relevant links which brings about a wider audience.

    • Hello John Grisham reader,

      Thanks for your detailed and very thoughful comments to this article. Part 2 will post probably next Monday.

      We’re not yet sure of the hearing date, but it seems that many people want to be there to observe what happens firsthand. I’ll post the hearing date just as soon as I know it.

      It would be most interesting to know the truth about why the Ministry of the Attorney General and Justice Shaughnessy split after almost a year. Those letters from my readers to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi might be the answer to that question.

      Once again, thanks to you and all my readers whose moral support keeps me steady on the course.

      Donald Best

  • I’m pleased to see my letter to Attorney General Naqvi helped!

    He never sent a response but Outlook tells me it was received and read by his office.

    The judge looks desperate to hire a lawyer with conflicts. Shaughnessy and the lawyers were thick as thieves when they screwed over Donald Best. They remain thick as thieves together in court. Where are the news media on this story?

  • Post Media survivor

    Dear Mr. Best,

    The amount of corruption uncovered by your stories is phenomenal and it is happening because you document every little piece of evidence. You must have been an excellent cop.

    “Justice” (I use the term for convention and out of no respect) Shaughnessy chose Peter Wardle as his lawyer because Wardle is influential with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Shaughnessy is riding on the back of a law society Bencher because he has to “go show, not go.” Shaughnessy is guilty as HELL!

    Does the Law Society of Upper Canada approve of what Shaughnessy did to an unrespresented person?

    It is a coverup. The law society should come out against rogue judges like Shaughnessy.

    Good luck with the judicial review but it sounds like the result is already arranged.

    • John Grisham novelist reader

      To post media survivor I do not believe that the result is already arranged just because Judge Shaughnessy is using an influential Law Society bencher in fact that really helps Mr. Best because it proves the corruption that Mr. Best has skillfully proven exists to all reading his website.

      If Mr. Shaughnessy believes he can use this upper back bencher to influence the hearing think again. Mr. Wardle will have a really hard time defending the Judge not the other way around and any attempts at trying to influence the result will bring about public outcry that is why all citizens if able need to attend the hearing to actually intimidate the lawyer and judge to say “hey no influencing will be accepted”. The truth is there and we the people know the truth and the truth cannot be covered up because of an influential law society lawyer and definately not because there is the possible Price Waterhouse Coopers ficticious account used by the lawyers since we all know Price Waterhouse Coopers has already been involved and charged in court for money laundering allegations-25 million I believe charge for a terrorist money laundering plot with a Japanese bnak –thus adding more weight to the phony account that these lawyers used so I would even expect the Feds to be there at the court hearing. If they are not why not????

      So yes private citizens this is a very intriguing case-please show up if you can when the Hearing is set. Then we can watch justice unfold as they cannot cover it up anymore.

    • How many lawyers are there in Ontario? Shaughnessy hired the one lawyer in Canada who represented the witnesses against him. Does that pass the smell test? Not even if you hold your nose!

      A rogue judge he is and Wardle isn’t any better to misuse his Law Society of Upper Canada bencher status.

      • Hello to FredDouglass,

        You asked how many lawyers are there in Ontario. According to the link and information posted by “LSUC sucks” above, there are over 50,000 lawyers in Ontario.

        “Paul B. Schabas is the Treasurer of the Law Society.Treasuer Schabas_Small The Treasurer is the highest elected official of the Law Society, which regulates Ontario’s 50,000 lawyers and 8,000 paralegals in the public interest.”