Lawsuit claim: Faskens lawyer Gerald Ranking knowingly represented a phoney business entity, lied to the Supreme Court of Canada

lying lawyers Canada Barbados 5-SAN

Why would a lawyer name a non-existent business entity as his client in official court documents?

According to a recently filed lawsuit there are reasons why persons might use a phony business name in court; and strong evidence showing that this happened in the Nelson Barbados and Donald Best court cases.

A lawsuit and evidence filed in Ontario courts says that senior lawyers and their major Canadian law office fraudulently claimed to represent a fictional non-existent business entity they said was ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ (PWCECF). None of the allegations has yet been proven in a court of law.

According to the Statement of Claim in the Donald Best v Gerald Ranking lawsuit, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP lawyers Gerald Ranking and Sebastien Kwidzinski “fraudulently claimed to represent this non-entity and in the face of accusations to that effect, refused to provide proof to contradict clear evidence that (PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm) did not and does not exist. Instead, they repeatedly bluffed, misled and lied to the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada, insisting that (PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm) did and does exist.” 

(See page 11, line 7 of the Best v Ranking Statement of Claim PDF 1.3mb)

Lawyer Gerald Ranking, Faskens law office and accountant Marcus Hatch have never been able to provide the official registration documents for ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’, despite seven years of requests, demands and accusations made on the court record by plaintiffs and their lawyers in various legal actions from 2007 to 2014.

Barbados lawyer Alair Shepherd Q.C. confirms Ranking’s purported client doesn’t exist, never has.

“Neither I, nor my staff, nor staff of the Barbados Government found any Government or other records indicating that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ exists, or has ever existed, as a legally registered entity in Barbados.”

(January 4, 2013 Affidavit of lawyer Alair P. Shepherd Q.C. PDF 794kb)

Where did the million dollars go?

Further, in 2010 almost a million dollars in court-ordered costs was paid to this purported business entity ‘in trust’ through lawyer Gerald Ranking and Faskens law office. If the business entity was and is phony as the plaintiff says, that money must have gone elsewhere. Would that be money-laundering by Ranking and Faskens law office? If the costs order was obtained by fraud upon the courts using a phony company, does that mean that the million dollars is ‘proceeds of crime’ as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada?  

One naturally hesitates to give credibility to such serious allegations against senior lawyers from a major Canadian law office such as Faskin Martineau DuMoulin LLP. A person might also doubt that anyone associated with the major worldwide brand PricewaterhouseCoopers could have anything to do with a phoney business that used that brand’s name. 

But if we just look at the evidence and put aside our hopeful expectations that are based upon our brand recognition trust of Faskens and PWC, what do we see? What is the evidence, and what does it tell us?

The January 10, 2013 affidavit of the plaintiff Donald Best states:

“As we now know, Mr. Ranking should have called his purported client ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ a “sham corporation” because it is a fraudulent, phony non-entity that perpetrated a fraud upon the court and even received about a million dollars in costs payments. Who or what entity received that money? It is a certainty that Mr. Ranking’s phony non-entity sham client did not.”

(Above from page 34, paragraph 190 of January 10, 2013 affidavit of Donald Best, PDF 4.1mb)

On January 11, 2013 during cross-examination, Donald Best said under oath:

“I would like to know who Mr. Ranking paid the million dollars costs to because it sure wasn’t any client named ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’.”

(See page 34, lines 10 – 18 from Excerpts pages 31 – 35 Cross-Exam transcript Jan 11, 2013 (PDF 29kb)

The response from Cassels Brock lawyer Lorne Silver on January 11, 2013 was to threaten to walk out of the cross-examination. No answer was ever provided about where the money went, and no business registration documents were ever produced for ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’.

As a self-represented litigant before the Ontario Superior Court, plaintiff Donald Best said on the court record on January 25, 2013:

“Now Mr. Ranking has also continued to avoid answering questions about the purported entity he represents and how and when he realized that Price Waterhouse Coopers East Caribbean Firm is a non-entity. I – you know, he admitted this effectively during a cross-examination last Wednesday. I’d like to ask him questions about this issue and the affidavit and cross-examination of his witness Marcus Hatch in 2007.

I consider this issue to be very important to my presentation to the Court because Your Honour, everything flowed from that foundation…”

(See page 22, lines 17-31 from Excerpts pages 21-29 Court transcript Jan 25, 2013 PDF 1.8mb)

According to court records, Mr. Ranking refused to be cross-examined by Donald Best, did not appear for his scheduled cross-examination, and never produced the business registration documents for his purported client.

What is the truth?

Does ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ exist as a real, legal entity as claimed by lawyer Gerald Ranking and his witness, accountant Marcus Hatch; or is it a ‘phony non-entity sham client’ as the plaintiff Donald Best says in sworn court documents?

Did this purported business entity actually exist in 2007 through 2010 when lawyers Ranking, Kwidzinski and others filed legal papers in that name and told courts that this was a real entity, legally registered in Barbados? Did it exist as a real registered entity in January 2010 when lawyers Ranking, Kwidzinski, Lorne Silver, Andrew Roman and others used the purported entity to petition a judge to convict Donald Best of contempt of court and sentence him to jail?

Did ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ exist as a real registered entity in 2012 through 2014 when lawyers Gerald Ranking, Lorne Silver, Colin Pendrith and their law offices again assured the courts in writing and orally on the record that the entity really existed in 2007 and still exists now?

Did ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ exist as a real registered entity in 2013 and 2014 when the Ontario Superior Court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario sent Donald Best to jail at the behest of the purported ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’?

Did ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ really exist when Ranking and Silver filed legal documents in that name before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014?

Did Ranking, Silver, Kwidzinski and others commit fraud upon the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada? Did witness Marcus Hatch commit perjury and obstruct justice in his 2007 affidavit and 2008 cross-examination?

Why can’t Ranking (or anyone) present the official registration documents for ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ ?

The Evidence? Judge for yourself  

Evidence filed in Ontario courts indicates that in 2007 the plaintiff’s Ontario corporation, Nelson Barbados Group Ltd., launched a lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court against a number of defendants, including one named ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers (Barbados)’.

After Nelson Barbados sued ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers (Barbados)’, Faskens lawyer Gerald Ranking filed an Ontario Superior Court motion and sworn affidavit from accountant Marcus Hatch saying that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers (Barbados)’ was not the proper name of the involved entity.

2007: Gerald Ranking first assured the court that his client ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ was a legally constituted partnership under Barbados law

According to Ranking and Hatch in 2007, “The correct firm name for the entity named in the title of proceeding as ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers (Barbados)’ is ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ … a partnership duly constituted and subsisting under the laws of Barbados.” (See Hatch affidavit, page 2 para 3 of 20070518 PWCECF motion and Hatch affidavit PDF 1.8mb)

Then on October 30, 2008 during cross-examination, Marcus Hatch said “PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm, you know, is a separate legal entity…”

Lawyer Gerald Ranking, who represented Mr. Hatch at the October 30, 2008 cross-examination, said on the court record: “Let me make myself clear, Mr. Hatch has indicated in his affidavit the proper legal name of the Barbadian partnership.” (Excerpt 20081030 page 10 line 22 PDF 16kb. Full 20081030 Hatch transcript PDF 389kb)

According to court documents, in 2012 and 2014 Mr. Ranking and Faskens law office were still claiming to the Superior Court, Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ is and was a legitimate business entity, legally registered with the Barbados government. (20121126 Notice of Appearance PDF 1.2mb, 20140528 Supreme Court excerpt PDF 74kb)

Evidence: ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ does not exist

Producing the official business registration documents for ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ shouldn’t be a problem. Gerald Ranking, a senior lawyer from a major Canadian law office, stated many times on the court record (both in writing and orally as an Officer of the Court) that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ existed and exists as a legitimate registered business entity in Barbados at least from 2007 to the present day.

But lawyer Gerald Ranking, Faskens law office and accountant Marcus Hatch have never been able to provide the official registration documents for ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’.

“Why should such a simple issue as producing official registration papers showing ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ to be a legitimate Barbados legal entity be a problem for Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Mr. Ranking and their purported client?”

From page 23, paragraph 158 of the Dec 10, 2012 sworn affidavit of Donald Best. (Page 23 excerpt PDF 86kb, PWC excerpts 56 pages PDF 5.6mb, Full 20121210 Best affidavit here soon!)

Barbados lawyer swears ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ does not exist

From 2007 through 2013, Barbados lawyer Alair Paul Shepherd Q.C. made investigations into the purported entity called ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’. On January 4, 2013, Mr. Shepherd swore an affidavit wherein he states that the purported Barbados-registered entity does not exist now, and has never existed at any time in the past.

Mr. Shepherd’s affidavit included the following:

I, Alair Paul Shepherd of Barbados, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I have been an attorney at law in Bridgetown, Barbados since 1974.

2. I am highly familiar with the laws, procedures and government records in Barbados concerning the creation and registration of business entities. Over the years I personally have dealt with and researched these issues countless times, as have my staff members under my direction and supervision.

3. I have read the affidavit of Donald Best, sworn December 10, 2012.

4. Since 2007 and most recently on December 14, 2012, I have personally made, and caused to be made, diligent enquiries and official searches with the Government of Barbados concerning the purported Barbados-registered business entity ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’.

5. Neither I, nor my staff, nor staff of the Barbados Government found any Government or other records indicating that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ exists, or has ever existed, as a legally registered entity in Barbados.

6. As a result, I verily believe that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ does not now exist as a genuine legally registered entity in Barbados, nor has it existed at any time in the past.

The plaintiff Donald Best included Mr. Shepherd’s affidavit as an exhibit in Mr. Best’s affidavit sworn January 10, 2013. (Jan 4, 2013 Affidavit Alair Shepherd PDF 794kb)

Response from Faskens lawyer Gerald L. Ranking

In the sections of plaintiff Donald Best’s December 10, 2012 and January 10, 2013 affidavits concerning the issue of the illegitimacy of the purported ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’, Mr. Best detailed each of the legitimate Barbados registered entities he found having anything to do with the names ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers’ or ‘PWC’.

As with Barbados lawyer Alair Shepherd Q.C., Mr. Best found there was no ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ registered with the Government of Barbados either at the time of Best’s January 2013 affidavit or prior.

Mr. Best did find, however, that in 2011, long after the 2007 start of the Nelson Barbados litigation, and almost a year and a half after his January 15, 2010 conviction ‘in absentia’ (in his absence) for contempt of court, an existing Barbados-registered partnership changed its name to ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean’. Note the fact that this is close to, but not the ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ that Faskens lawyer Gerald Ranking told the court was his client in 2007. Note that this not-quite-the-same name change happened in 2011.

Was this 2011 name change a belated but poorly-done effort to cover-up the fact that neither ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’, nor ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean’ existed from 2007 to 2010: contrary to what Ranking, Kwidzinski, Silver and Hatch swore to the court?

In any event, this not-quite-the-same name change happened on June 23, 2011; over four years after Gerald Ranking and his witness Marcus Hatch had sworn on the court record in 2007 that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ was a legitimately registered business partnership with the Government of Barbados.

On January 23, 2013 during the cross-examination of Donald Best, lawyer Gerald Ranking introduced documents showing the 2011 ‘not-quite-the-same name’ change, (according to court documents) apparently to belatedly try to cover-up the fact that his purported client ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ did not exist in 2007 through 2010. The document that Ranking placed onto the record was actually one of the documents from Donald Best’s earlier affidavits proving that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ was not a legally registered business entity at any time.

When introducing the document showing the June 23, 2011 name change to ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean’ (no ‘Firm’), Ranking verbally and falsely inserted the word ‘Firm’ into the court transcript even though the document he was holding did not have the word ‘Firm’ on the end of ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean’. Mr. Best spotted this and called Ranking out for his deceit, saying (according to the official court transcript):

Ranking: I’m now handing across to you a business names registration

Best: Yes.

Ranking: titled certificate of registration

Best: Yes.

Ranking: for the name Price Waterhouse Coopers East Caribbean Firm

Best: No, it doesn’t say that, sir.

Ranking: Excuse me.

Best: It doesn’t. It doesn’t say that. It says

Ranking: Excuse me. I’m not asking you to interpret the document.

Best: Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Ranking: You’re laughing and that’s very I don’t know what you find to be humorous but this is my crossexamination, I’ll ask the questions. I’m going to mark the certificate of registration which states and I’d ask you to read for the purposes of the record the capitalized letters under the introduction which certifies the firm of and I take it that I’m correct Price Waterhouse Coopers East Caribbean; is that not correct, sir?

Best: Okay. It says…

Ranking: Excuse me, sir. I didn’t ask you to read the document, I asked you to confirm that what I read is accurate.

Best: It says Price Waterhouse Coopers East Caribbean.

Ranking: Don’t answer the question. Don’t answer the question because you’re not being responsive. I’m going to now ask can I have that copy back? Actually mark that 32. We’re going to mark the certificate of registration with respect to Price Waterhouse East Caribbean Firm as Exhibit No. 32.

(January 23, 2013 transcript excerpt pages 406 – 408 PDF 26kb)

Ranking’s Exhibit No. 32 showed the name change happened on June 23, 2011 and actually proved that Donald Best was correct: ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ did not exist at any time and ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean’ only existed from the name change on June 23, 2011.

According to the January 23, 2013 transcript, Ranking had verbally and deceitfully inserted the word ‘Firm’ at the end of the real business name, and into the transcript as if it actually appeared on the document he was tendering as evidence!

Here is Mr. Ranking’s Exhibit No. 32. Note on page two how the name of the partnership was changed on June 23, 2011 from ‘Pricewaterhouse Coopers’ to ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean’. There is no ‘Firm’ in that registered name, yet Mr. Ranking twice read it into the record as if it was there on the official registration papers.

(20130123 Exhibit 32 SAN PDF 610kb)

What would be gained in a lawsuit by the use of a fictional non-existent business entity?

“PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm” is a false entity, the use of which in business confers potential benefits to its users such as obfuscating liabilities and confusing evidence production in actual or potential lawsuits.

(From page 22, paragraph 151 of the December 10, 2012 sworn affidavit of the plaintiff Donald Best.)

I make the observation that Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. paid costs to “PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm”, but that costs could have, and may in the future just as easily be ordered against “PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm” in favour of Nelson Barbados Group Ltd.

In the event that Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. had to pursue ”PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm” to recover unpaid costs, and “PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm” was not a genuine legal entity, any costs award by the court would be virtually useless.

(From page 25, paragraphs 171-172 of the December 10, 2012 sworn affidavit of the plaintiff Donald Best)

As seen in the exhibits attached to Donald Best’s December 10, 2012 affidavit, the head office of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Network explains on its PWC.com website that each of the hundreds of PWC offices is an independent legal entity, and is only responsible and liable for their own work. Thus, the use of a phony business name is an effective shield against judgements, liability and lawsuits.

Donald Best’s December 10, 2012 affidavit indicates that there are five (5) Barbados-registered business entities using some variant of the PWC / PricewaterhouseCoopers brand in their name. None of these are the purported ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’.

A lawyer’s duty in law: Know your client

Like banks, lawyers have a duty to ‘know your client’. The Law Society of Upper Canada and other legal regulators have implemented standards and procedures so that lawyers and law offices will know that their clients are legitimate entities. This prevents money laundering, mortgage frauds and other crimes and is meant to protect the public.

As a senior and experienced lawyer, Gerald Ranking should be familiar with the ‘know your client’ requirements. His own law office’s website explains the standards and reasons for concern, and indicates that Mr. Ranking should have a copy of his purported client’s official business registration documents.

Bearing that in mind, why have Faskens, Ranking and their purported client not been able to provide the official registration documents for ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ for seven years?

Faskens Know your client

Here is what the Faskens website states:

“The various Canadian Provincial Law Societies have adopted these “know your client” requirements as part of the global fight against money laundering, fraud and other criminal activities. These requirements apply to matters or engagements on which the firm is retained to act on and after December 31, 2008, whether for a new or an existing client.

There are two distinct aspects to the requirements: client identification and client verification.

Client Identification Information: At the time we are retained on a new matter, we will require the following basic information:

For clients who are individuals, your full name, business address, business telephone number, home address, home telephone number and occupation

For clients that are organizations (such as corporations, partnerships, trusts or incorporated associations), your legal name, business address, business telephone number, and with some exceptions, your incorporation or business identification number, the place of its issue, and a description of your business activities. The full names, positions and contact information of those individuals authorized to instruct us on your behalf is also required

If you are acting for or representing a third party, we will require similar information about that third party.”

Fasken website ‘Law firms now subject to new “know your client” requirements

As always, DonaldBest.CA reminds our readers that as of the publication date none of the allegations has yet been proven in a court of law, and to our knowledge none of the defendants has filed a Statement of Defence. Visitors are encouraged to examine the legal documents and other evidence posted here, to do independent research and to make up their own minds about the civil lawsuit known as ‘Donald Best v. Gerald Ranking et al’. (Superior Court of Justice, Central East Region: Barrie, Court File No. 14-0815)

Court Documents referred to in this story

(In order of document date YYYY-MM-DD)

20070518 PWCECF motion and Hatch affidavit (PDF 1.8mb)

20081030 Hatch full transcript (PDF 389kb)

20081030 Hatch transcript page 10 only (PDF 16kb)

20121126 Notice of Appearance (PDF 1.2mb)

20121210 Best Affidavit PWC Excerpts (PDF 5.4mb)

20121210 Best Affidavit page 23 only (PDF 86kb)

20130104 Affidavit of Lawyer Alair Shepherd (PDF 794kb)

20130110 Best Affidavit without exhibits (4.1mb)

20130111 Excerpts Best cross-examination pages 31-35 (PDF 29kb)

20130123 Excerpts Best cross-examination pages 406 – 408 (PDF 26kb)

20130123 Exhibit 32 (PDF 610kb)

20130125 Excerpts court transcript pages 21-29 (PDF 1.8mb)

20140528 Supreme Court excerpt (PDF 74kb)

20140718 Statement of Claim ‘Best v. Ranking et al’  (PDF 1.3mb)

22 comments

  • The very fact that the costs were settled for Nelson Barbados and they went after Mr. Best personally for costs which ended up with a contempt of court charge and imprisonment proves such a stink of corruption and pure fabrication all done to stop any further lawsuits in the future. Any further judges in ontario that continue with the cover up will continue stinking up our province.

  • The affidavit of Jim Van Allen is dated Oct 21/09. He was hired it says on Oct. 7/09 to locate Mr. Best and he gives a brilliant resume of his career in his affidavit. Thus if he lectured frequently at U of T he would have been known there as a police officer would he not? What a cover up of a police officer owning an investigation company illegally. If Mr. Van Allen was truly a remarkable investigator he would have requested a copy of the registered business of the client who would pay for his services would he not? He would make sure the law firm was on the up and up. Being a police officer and/or investigator would make him aware that sham businesses exist therefore have to make sure that there are no sham clients here paying his bill now would he? his instincts as a police officer would make him check all credentials since this was an out of country business thus his resume as an OPP officer is even worse. Crooked is a better word to describe him.

  • Here in the Yukon Territory where I live, Law society do nothing to protect the public, they protect their member to do crimes and they also altered transcript specially if you are self-represented litigant. I notice since I am in and out in the court house, I find lots of people represent them self instead of hiring a lawyer or they hire outside but even though, it is better to represent your own case as long as you follow the law and please research your case.

  • My case is exactly the same “Fraud Upon the Court”. Judges, lawyers, court registry staff, Crown counsel conspired with one another and violate their own oaths of office. How can a person marry another person when he is legally married?, Divorce her and he was awarded everything including the pension of a Canadian citizen and left her nothing, when a functus judge was able to continue his crime by altering transcript, commit plagiarism,destroyed documents. Can he get away his crime to the Canadian Judicial Council?

    • kangaroo court seconded

      Very simple question to ask and to prove Was this a properly registered Business and if so here is the official court documents that prove it was

      So where are the official court documents to answer a very simple question that doesnt require a law
      degree and why have these documents not been produced to date.

    • Legal secretaries reading this website especially those who work in corporate etc. isnt it true that in all files there is a copy of the business legally registered so that it can be referenced whenever needed?

    • Isnt it amazing Evageline Ramirez how you have had the same fraud upon the court with so many co conspirators involved. Obviously the person got away with it with the help of the co conspirators. How sad.

      I was reading about how the CRA can freeze your bank account to get your attention if you owe taxes and do not pay up but I was wondering how come mobsters get away with all their crimes and the CRA doesnt feel they need to get their attention. In fact many of their assets were obtained by crime therefore the government could seize all their assets but do not. Ask why not? They seem to have no problem going after the little guy with small taxes owing and seem to like to audit whistle blowers and their family but these tax evading criminal organizations go untouched. Why is that?I think all people reading this story of Donald Best probably wonder the same thing. So I decided that we could ask this question in public. Why be afraid of an audit-I hear they are auditing a single mom with five kids struggling to work and take care of her kids. Such a great candidate for an audit-no its absolutely more like a time waster so as not to follow all the links of the Panama papers and other tax evasion schemes. The CBC was really focused on the Panama papers story and the Isle of Mann so perhaps they like these questions posed online. I would hope so.

      If you cant ask great questions in public without fear of a tax audit or have some corrupt people trying to cover up for others who want to search for who you are and silence your questions then you couldnt call this a great nation. A strong nation only comes because of freedom of rights and speech and to say otherwise goes against our constitution and then would make the founders of our constitution look like a bunch of hypocrites. Or actually anyone that tries to silence someone who asks great questions is the hypocrites. Newspapers who block comments follow the same path of being hypocrites. They believe in their freedom of speech to sell newspapers and make money but are afraid to step on the toes of those with power and money by denying the little guy his voice and opinions. They then shroud our constitutional rights in a cloud of secrecy and cover up. Thankfully for the internet we the people are able to read of the struggles of fellow Canadians trying to get justice and can give our comments. Thats what defines us from communist countries. Our civil liberties.

      • Hi Tim Weston, We exercise our Charter rights by expressing our feelings thru media that this justice system in the Yukon Territory is very corrupt and hypocrites specially judges, lawyers, court registry, RCMP, prosecutors and even law societies. They cover-up their members to continue the crimes.

        where on earth you marry a Canadian when you are married to somebody else, isn’t not “BIGAMY”? In Yukon, it is “not public interest” of bigamy and the divorce fraud is a law and fact even though you have sufficient evidence that this is actually “FRAUD UPON THE COURT” and this Chief justice did not even bother to stop the trial judge when he ordered the the trial judge is “FUNCTUS” instead he covered him up so now he is one of the “conspirator to commit the crime of “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE”.

        Shame to these politician we voted at the thought they promised to fix the justice system, where are they? I trusted that by coming to Canada I am embracing a land of equality and protection specially for women and for people’s right, In my case I do not see that my rights have been upheld. My only advice is that “the value of “freedoms” measured by the cost of “struggles” and if you need freedom, then you have to become a “fighter” as no other options. and you become a “champion” by fighting one more round. Thank you.

  • Pingback: Fasken Martineau Dumoulin staff read about misconduct by Toronto lawyer Gerald Ranking – DonaldBest.CA

  • Exactly the same as my case. FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY JUDGES, ATTORNEYS and CLERK OF THE COURT.

  • Pingback: Anonymous Companies: Global Witness undercover investigation shows 25% of lawyers will money launder | Donald Best.CA

  • Pingback: 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. | Donald Best.CA

  • Pingback: Body cameras only a part of the solution to re-building trust in the police | Donald Best.CA

  • Pingback: Allard Prize Winner: “Lawyers are servants in the architecture of corruption.”  | Donald Best.CA

  • Pingback: Why did Fasken Martineau lawyer Gerald Ranking not submit costs to the Supreme Court of Canada? | Donald Best.CA

  • Pingback: Lawsuits allege police and attorneys jointly fabricated evidence, lied to court | Donald Best.CA

  • 10,000 lawyers in Lake Ontario

    When are the police going to put the handcuffs on this Ranking lawyer? The evidence is right here right now for download.

    Hello? Toronto Police? Hello?

  • Burned in Barbados

    Barbados looks like a nice place on the surface and their banks say all the right things. All I can say is BEWARE because Barbados is as foreign a country as anything in Africa or the Middle East. Words don’t mean that same thing as in the USA. Verbal assurances and smiles are a dime a dozen and even if you have a contract it will be fought over for ten years in Barbados courts. No foreigner ever wins.

    Get that into your head: No foreigner ever wins a lawsuit on Barbados island.

  • This story is very difficult to believe, then I look at the documents etc. and I believe it. Why does the law society do nothing about this?

  • This would seem to be an easy thing to disrupt: bring on the government documents.

    After so many years where are the documents proving Ranking’s client is real? Frightening really that a lawyer would go rogue.

  • What does PWC say about their brand being used in a fraud? The materials say that “PWC (Barbados)” was a fraud too. It makes me wonder how many other “PWC” branches don’t exist.

  • Whew! That was a long read but I read every word and Mr. Ranking has a big problem because his client is a big phony.

    Is Ranking still a lawyer? What is the law society doing about this?

    It looks like Best went to jail at the request of a phony company that didn’t exist. This is unbelievable except the evidence is there and Ranking can’t produce a registration certificate for his “sham client”.

    “Sham client” says it. What a story!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.