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

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Toronto Police

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what this latest filing meant in materials alone:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadians just might make this happen!

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

Coming Soon

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

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

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

More coming!

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

GoFundMe Donald Best CJC Public Interest Campaign

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

Dr Julie Macfarlane
Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law

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

More from Dr. Macfarlane…

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

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

Named one of Canada’s 25 Most Influential Lawyers

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

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

Follow me on Twitter @ProfJulieMac

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

 

Help fund the public inquiry into the Canadian Judicial Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

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

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

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

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

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino

Who Supports Donald Best?

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

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

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

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

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

Contribute anonymously to the Donald Best CJC Challenge GoFundMe campaign.

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

Newly revealed off-the-record speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

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

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

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

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

Access to Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University College London

The Constitution Unit The Supreme Court London, England

July, 7, 2011

Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella

Supreme Court of Canada

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

Read more

Canadian lawyers must no longer investigate themselves and their friends.

Independent investigations of lawyer misconduct should be the standard.

It is no longer acceptable that the Canadian legal profession, that exerts vast influence and authority into every area of life, continues to self-regulate without transparency, independent civilian oversight and external accountability.

The powerful Canadian legal profession must be brought into compliance with modern standards of independent oversight and external accountability.

Are lawyers more honest than police officers… or are they also vulnerable to temptations and pressures?

For good reason, we don’t allow our police to operate without external oversight and accountability. The stories of police abuse, corruption and incompetence are legion – and in the last few years became a deluge as incidents are regularly documented with solid video and/or audio evidence from mobile phones, security and dashboard cameras.

Ontario and many other jurisdictions formed civilian investigative units to independently investigate serious police wrongdoing and to lay charges where appropriate.

And still, we have trouble holding the police accountable.

Unlike police officers, lawyers do not generally commit crimes in the street while surrounded by surveillance cameras and citizens wielding mobile phones.

Lawyer misconduct is often done in backrooms with a signature, a few words – or a wink and a nod that betray a small client in favour of a larger big-spending long-term corporate client.

The law societies across Canada are simply a group of friends investigating and ‘disciplining’ the same people they went to school with, socialize with and meet in the workplace and in court. That works out exactly as you think it would and it is never about the public trust no matter how many times the law society executives say the words.

The Law Society of Ontario covered up and whitewashed hundreds of crimes by lawyers who committed criminal offences against their clients – according to the Toronto Star’s Broken Trust investigation. I can’t think of why it would be different in any other province.

Canadians must demand laws that will force upon the legal profession real transparency, independent civilian oversight and external accountability to Canadians at large. Self-regulation of lawyers must end.

 

Law Society of Ontario calls for input into money laundering rules… Foxes designing hen house security

Money Laundering needs specialists

Lawyers are key to successful money laundering. That’s why the rules shouldn’t be left up to them.

During his acceptance speech as the co-winner of the 2015 Allard Prize for International Integrity, journalist Rafael Marques de Morais said “(unethical) Lawyers are servants in the architecture of corruption.”

Indeed they are. Lawyers are very necessary servants in the architecture of corruption for without lawyers willing to assist their valued clients, money laundering would be much more difficult for organized crime, crooked politicians, cheating corporations and others so inclinded to wash and conceal money here in Canada or offshore.

With Canadian banks and other named businesses having to report to the government large cash transactions (deposits or withdrawals over $10,000 cash) and also suspicious transactions – lawyers are the go-to people for weaseling around the laws because they are largely exempt from the reporting rules and constraints of non-lawyers. Plus, lawyers have a vast array of creative tools and strategies available – not to mention an international brotherhood that is experienced in working around inconvenient laws.

After 9/11, Canadian lawyers fought hard to keep from being more closely regulated and scrutinized over the issue of money transfers. They succeeded for a time, but the pressure is on again.

“The Law Society ‘solution’ for preventing money laundering is to rely entirely upon the integrity of individual lawyers – with no accounting or oversight by the law society or anyone else unless a complaint is made. Given that those involved in money laundering would never complain to the law society, that wraps things up quite nicely.”

Law Society of Ontario calls for input into money laundering rules

Canadian lawyers admit they are in fear of “the possibility of a renewed effort by the federal government to extend the PCMLTFA (Proceeds of Crime – Money Laundering – and Terrorist Financing Act) to members of the legal profession.” (See page 2 of the Law Society of Ontario’s Call for Input – download 1mb pdf here.)

As a result, the law societies across Canada have banded together with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada to present a little dog and pony show for the public and the legislators (who are primarily legal profession club members themselves.) The ‘club’ created a ‘Professional Regulation Committee’ and is calling for input from lawyers to the proposed amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Rules.

A few minor changes coupled with a public relations campaign should do the trick… anything to stave off effective regulations that would cramp the profession’s ability to creatively serve the needs of their big-paying clients that they don’t want anyone to look at too closely.

You will note how the LSO proposal deals with transfers of cash, identifying and verifying clients and the use of lawyer’s trust accounts. A closer read shows that the proposed changes still leave lots of leeway and discretion to individual money-laundering lawyers. The money laundering toolbox is still intact with private mortgages, property transfers, offshore corporations and lots more tools still viable as lawyers’ secret conduits for tainted money.

Focus on Cash is a red herring.

The focus upon cash is a red herring for Canadian lawyers. Most of the money-laundering lawyers in Canada are not involved with large cash transactions through their own hands. By the time money arrives in their law firm accounts, it is coming through banks and from other lawyers in the form of documented transfers, real estate sales to apparent arms length parties and staged business dealings that have just enough appearance of legitimacy to protect the involved lawyers and law firms.

A Global Witness undercover investigation showed that 25% of New York lawyers would money-launder for strangers walking in off the streets. That was for strangers, not valued and known clients. Do we think that proportion of crooked lawyers is any different in Toronto, London or Barbados?

LSO Treasurer Paul Schabas (left) covered up fraud and money-laundering indicators for corrupt lawyer Gerald Ranking.

Law Society of Ontario Treasurer Paul Schabas knew that lawyer Gerald Ranking fraudulently used a fake business entity in Ontario courts, and that Ranking received a million dollars in a trust account for this phony purported client.

Intruding into this Law Society of Ontario dog and pony show are some serious facts that destroy the law society’s credibility to deal with apparent money-laundering by legal club member lawyers.

For instance, Law Society of Ontario Treasurer Paul Schabas was co-counsel with corrupt Fasken lawyer Gerald L. Ranking on a civil case where Ranking went wild with criminal misconduct. Schabas at the time was a bencher and a member of the law society’s discipline committee. (See ‘Paul Schabas and Canada’s Corrupt Bay Street Lawyers‘ for details and supporting court exhibits.)

What did Paul Schabas do when he learned that Gerald Ranking’s purported client in a civil case was actually a non-existent fictional creation?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.

What did Law Society of Ontario bencher Paul Schabas do when he learned that Gerald Ranking had received about a million dollars in a trust account for his ficticious non-existent client?

Paul Schabas and his law society knew that lawyer Gerald Ranking of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP’s Toronto office fraudulently claimed that his purported client was a registered Barbados business – when in fact the ‘company’ was a phony non-entity conjured up to deflect liability from Ranking’s actual clients. Schabas and the law society also knew that Ranking received over a million dollars court costs payments in the name of the phony ‘company’ that Ranking knew didn’t really exist – a badge of money laundering.

What did Paul Schabas do when he knew that the million dollars could not possibly be deposited to the credit of the fake ‘business’ that the court awarded it to?

Nothing.

So you see… Law Society Treasurer Paul Shabas and the Law Society of Ontario cannot be trusted to administer, investigate and discipline lawyers who violate anti-money laundering rules, including the ‘know your client’ provisions.

And that was just one case. Here’s a few hundred more…

According to the Toronto Star’s Broken Trust investigation, in the last few years the Law Society of Ontario covered up and whitewashed hundreds of crimes by lawyers who committed criminal offences against their clients.

And now the Law Society of Ontario is proposing minor changes to the anti-money-laundering rules that will do little to stem the problem of money-laundering lawyers – the “servants in the architecture of corruption.”

It is time to bring Canada’s legal profession into compliance with modern standards of transparency, independent oversight and external accountability.

Attorney General of Canada desperate to stop Julian Fantino’s sworn testimony.

Former federal Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino

Federal Court of Canada rebukes Attorney General of Canada counsel Victor J. Paolone.

Attorney General of Canada counsel Victor J. Paolone apparently wasn’t happy with Julian Fantino filing an appeal in the case of Fantino’s application to intervene in the Best – Shaughnessy CJC matter. On January 24, 2018, over a month after the court accepted Fantino’s appeal notice, Paolone requested a case conference call with Madam prothonotary Aylen of the Federal Court of Canada – NOT the Federal Court of Appeal where Fantino had filed his case.

Madam Mandy Aylen is the Federal Court of Canada prothonotary (minor judge) who first denied Fantino’s application to internvene in the CJC Shaughnessy matter way back in October 2017. (See October 26, 2017 article here)

Paolone’s request to the Federal Court of Canada was unusual because the Federal Court of Appeal had a month previously accepted Fantino’s appeal – and now Paolone wanted to undo that – quietly in a little meeting and without a formal motion.

Paolone sent a letter to the other counsel saying he would write to the court to request a case conference call.

‘The Court’ … Paolone didn’t tell the other lawyers that he wasn’t writing to the Federal Court of Appeal where the case was now on file. He didn’t mention that he intended to try and get Prothonotary Aylen of Federal Court of Canada to hold the conference – even though that court was finished with the case.

What a slick move by Attorney General of Canada counsel Victor Paolone. Not quite in the ‘dirty tricks’ manual… but not the move of an upfront guy either! 

So how did Paolone’s slick move work out? Ha! The Federal Court of Canada delivered the following rebuke…   

“The Court is in receipt of a letter from the Attorney General seeking a case management conference in order to obtain direction from the Court as to the appropriate venue in which Mr. Fantino should pursue his appeal. The Court does not provide parties with legal advice. Moreover, there are currently no proceedings before this Court. Accordingly, the Court declines the Attorney General’s request for a case management conference.”

Julian Fantino’s bombshell affidavit

Both the Attorney General of Canada and Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy filed notice that they intend to fight Julian Fantino’s appeal and application to intervene in the judicial review of the Canadian Judicial Council’s summary dismissal of a complaint against Justice Shaughnessy.

One can understand how Justice Shaughnessy would be terrified of Fantino’s sworn testimony as it exposes the truth about Shaughnessy’s behaviour which several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney have called “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.”

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

The real puzzler is why the Attorney General of Canada should be siding with a judge whose ‘disgusting’ misconduct is proven by irrefutable evidence straight from the official court record and transcripts. One would hope that the Attorney General of Canada would have the broader interests of Canadians and the integrity of the justice system in mind…

But… perhaps Victor Palone and the Attorney General of Canada believe that it’s all about protecting fellow club members when possible – and the public trust and rule of law be damned.

Justice Keith Boswell

Julian Fantino files appeal in the Donald Best, Justice Shaughnessy Canadian Judicial Council case.

Julian Fantino, former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, applied to intervene in the CJC / Justice Shaughnessy case by 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 business 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.

Justice Boswell constructively dismissed Julian Fantino’s appeal – so Fantino’s lawyer, Bill McKenzie, filed an appeal which has yet to be scheduled. You can read Fantino’s notice of appeal here.

Here are some of the recent documents filed in the case…

January 26, 2018 – Direction of Madam Prothonotary Aylen refusing Victor Paolone – AGC request for case management conference call. (pdf 182kb)

January 8, 2018 – Attorney General of Canada – Victor Paolone Notice of Appearance in Fantino appeal. (pdf 508kb)

December 15, 2017 – Julian Fantino Notice of Appeal of Justice Boswell decision. (pdf 723kb)

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Court decision “An affront to all victims of crime or misconduct.” Appeal filed in Dismissal of Canadian Judicial Council ‘Backroom Bryan’ Shaughnessy review application

Lawyer Paul Slansky filed Best’s appeal

Victims’ Rights advocates mobilizing.

Donald Best has filed an appeal of Justice Keith M. Boswell’s dismissal of Best’s application for a judicial review of a Canadian Judicial Counsel decision.

Mr. Best had complained to the Canadian Judicial Council alleging serious misconduct by Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy during a 2013 hearing where Best had asked Justice Shaughnessy to set aside his 2010 conviction obtained in absentia (in Best’s absence) for contempt of court in a ‘trial’ that Best had not be informed of and therefore did not attend.

Best had been convicted in 2010 in his absence upon the provably fabricated evidence, deliberate written and oral lies placed before the court by corrupt Toronto lawyers Lorne Silver and Gerald L. Ranking of the Cassels Brock and Fasken law firms.

Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct on May 3, 2013 is described by former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Julian Fantino in a sworn affidavit:

  • “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.” (Summary of Fantino’s bombshell affidavit and full copy here.)

Best complained about Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct to the Canadian Judicial Council, but CJC lawyer Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed Best’s complaint without an investigation, without examining court records and without interviewing Best or any witnesses. Best then filed an application with the Federal Court of Canada for a Judicial Review of Sabourin’s decision.

After a two day hearing on November 20 and 21, 2017, Justice Keith M. Boswell dismissed Best’s application and issued his decision and reasons on December 14, 2017.

Best’s lawyer, Paul Slansky, now filed an appeal that can be downloaded and read in full here. (Best Appeal 20180115 pdf 2.3mb)

Victims’ Rights advocates rip into Justice Boswell’s decision

While Mr. Best’s position is that Justice Boswell’s decision was seriously flawed in many areas, victims’ rights groups are focusing on one issue:

Some victims’ rights advocates are mobilized by Justice Boswell’s declaration that the rights of a victim or complainant are not at stake in a criminal trial or complaint of misconduct.

Paragraph 9(e) of lawyer Paul Slansky’s appeal application for Donald Best says the following:

“It would be an affront to all victims of crime or misconduct to say, as the application judge (Justice Boswell) has said, that the rights of the complainant are not at stake in a criminal trial or complaint of misconduct. The finding of wrongdoing and the sanction flowing from such a finding engage the rights of the complainant. While one focus of a criminal trial is the rights of the accused, the right of the complainant, who seeks vindication and sanction for the wrong done to him or her cannot be ignored. The same applies in respect of complaints of misconduct against any professional (lawyer, engineer or judge, etc.).”

The Canadian Judicial Council’s whitewash of Justice Bryan Shaughnessy’s misconduct is not being left unchallenged, and now it appears that Justice Boswell’s written decision has also caused grave concern among victims’ rights advocates.

Although it has been only a few weeks since Justice Boswell released his decision that denigrated victims of crime, several victims’ rights advocates contacted Donald Best expressing interest in his case and the appeal. There is more to come on this development.

Until the justice system and the legal profession strictly adhere to the Rule of Law and adopt modern standards of transparency, independent oversight and external accountability, Canadians cannot truly say that the justice system and courts belong to all of us.

Justice Keith Boswell

Decision of Justice Keith M. Boswell

20171214 Full decision of Justice Boswell here. (.pdf 1.5mb)

Donald Best’s Application to Appeal Boswell Decision

20180111 Best Boswell Appeal Notice (.pdf 2.3mb)

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Retired Ontario Provincial Police Inspector Bill Van Allen publicly attacks Julian Fantino for exposing brother’s corruption

Donald Best highly recommends Bill Van Allen’s Criminal Investigation textbook.

Corrupt cop’s brother attacks Fantino in National Post.

I like and respect retired OPP Inspector Bill Van Allen although I’ve never met him. We do seem to have a difference of opinion about his brother, former OPP Detective Sergeant Jim Van Allen. Since Bill has publicly jumped into the discussion by launching Ad hominem attacks against former OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino and yours truly in the National Post, I’ll pick up gauntlet here and lead Bill through the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that proves corrupt and illegal acts by his brother Jim.

(Interesting that Bill Van Allen’s National Post comment doesn’t mention that he has skin in the game as his brother is the retired OPP officer whose criminal misconduct Fantino condemns in his affidavit. Also interesting is that Bill Van Allen does not (because he cannot) argue against the evidence that shows his brother committed corrupt acts. Bill can only question Fantino’s motives and call me ‘delusional’ – the very essence of an Ad hominem attack.)

Bill publicly attacked former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Julian Fantino for filing a sworn affidavit that includes evidence that Bill’s brother Jim Van Allen – also a retired OPP officer – committed provincial, federal and criminal offences while he was a Detective Sergeant in charge of the OPP’s elite Criminal Profiling Unit.

In this case, Bill’s affection and loyalty to his brother has caused him to ignore the overwhelming evidence and to publicly attack a fellow (former) police officer for breaking the silence, the Omertà, of the police brotherhood by exposing corruption in the ranks.

I wish I could say that this was the first time I have seen a police officer attack another police officer for exposing corruption, but sadly it is all too common.

In the mid-1980s when it became known that my Toronto Police colleagues and I had successfully infiltrated a corrupt downtown squad and were starting to arrest police officers, we couldn’t park our personal cars anywhere near the station. Calls in the middle of the night to our families, locker room threats and bullying by senior officers was the collective response to our anti-corruption investigation. My squad soon had to move from downtown to a secret office that wasn’t even at a police facility.

The most difficult part of any anti-corruption investigation is not the work itself, but the attacks that always follow as various cabals try to save valued friends and family members from prosecution and disgrace.

Retired OPP officers Jim Van Allen (left) and brother Bill Van Allen

The Evidence against Jim Van Allen

It’s unfortunate that Bill’s brother Jim created his situation by corruptly taking a few thousand dollars ‘on the side’ from lawyers who wanted access to the confidential police information that Jim Van Allen illegally provided.

You can understand how a man would want to defend his brother – but if Bill Van Allen is truly In Search of the Truth, he might want to start by looking at the invoices that his brother issued to the lawyers who hired him.

That’s right – Jim Van Allen issued at least two invoices to Fasken law firm and lawyer Gerald L. Ranking that detail his corrupt employment as an unlicensed private investigator. (October 24, 2009 and November 7, 2009)

Bill might also want to look at Jim Van Allen’s October 21, 2009 affidavit wherein Jim illegally details my drivers licence number and address history and confirms that he received my confidential Toronto Police employment record. And yes, Jim swore his affidavit on a Wednesday, his normal workday as manager of the OPP’s Criminal Profiling Unit. Very profitable for Jim Van Allen to double-dip – get paid for being on duty and get paid for doing private work on the side while on duty. Very profitable indeed.

Bill Van Allen launched Ad hominem attacks against Julian Fantino and Donald Best in the National Post, but cannot argue against the overwhelming quantity and quality of evidence detailed in Julian Fantino’s affidavit.

Readers can view a summary of Fantino’s affidavit here.

Full copies of Julian Fantino’s affidavit are available below.

What Julian Fantino’s Affidavit says about Corrupt Cop Jim Van Allen

  • “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.”

Julian Fantino affidavit & exhibits

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/ 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.

Bill Van Allen’s book, Criminal Investigation: In Search of the Truth

Bill Van Allen’s book ‘Criminal Investigation: In Search of the Truth‘ is an excellent textbook for new and aspiring law enforcement officers. The book is widely used in Canadian college policing courses and is even popular with experienced police officers. A friend gave me a copy of the second edition for Christmas back in 2010. I’ve read it cover to cover twice and strongly recommend it to all serving police officers and private investigators no matter what their background or training. Yup… that’s me at the top of this article reading Bill’s textbook.

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Retired RCMP Inspector William Majcher swears affidavit about corrupt Canadian lawyers and judges

Retired RCMP Inspector William Majcher

Affidavit reveals deep-rooted corruption of lawyers and judges in British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario

In 2002, it was revealed that William Majcher was a deep-cover RCMP police officer working against the dangerous Medellin Drug Cartel by targeting money-laundering operations in Canada.

“The Medellin Cartel, naturally, put out a contract to murder RCMP undercover officer William Majcher.”

For three years Majcher had worked undercover as a Futures and Options Commodity Trader primarily based on the floor of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. He took down disgraced Ontario lawyer Simon Rosenfeld and others for drug cartel money laundering, including Mark Valentine of the now-defunct Toronto-based brokerage firm Thomson Kernaghan & Co. Ltd..

Then in 2005, the RCMP removed Inspector Majcher from command of the Vancouver-based Integrated Market Enforcement Teams (IMET) – apparently because he sought nomination as a future candidate for the Conservative party. And because – much worse – in the news media Majcher alleged that the Crown prosecutors would not proceed with criminal charges against several high-profile individuals, and he hoped he could be more effective in politics than he had been in policing.

In other words – in 2005, RCMP Inspector William Majcher alleged corruption in the legal system and the system turned on him like a pack of wolves. What a surprise!

Flash forward to July 19, 2017 and William Majcher swore an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Canada civil case: Angleland Holdings Inc., Nederland Holdings Inc., John English, Paradise Beach Resorts Inc. and Pacific Rim resort vs Gergory N. Harney Law Corporation et al.

Every Canadian should read William Majcher’s affidavit and carefully consider the implications of what happens when the legal profession and justice system are allowed to police themselves with zero independent oversight and zero external accountability.

“During the course of my employment with the RCMP while working undercover or in handling criminal informants, I became tasked with knowlege and evidence of payoffs, bribery and case fixing that included judges, lawyers and court registry staff in various parts of Canada.”

If you read nothing else today, download and read William Majcher’s affidavit (720kb pdf)

UPDATED: July 21, 2023 – William Majcher Affidavit OCRd Optical Character Recognition

Then read the case of the John English family – that Majcher swore his affidavit in support of.

Former OPP boss Julian Fantino

Another Senior Canadian Police Officer alleges corruption by judge, lawyers & police.

Former Cabinet Minister and Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Julian Fantino recently swore an affidavit containing bombshell allegations of corruption by an Ontario Federal Court Justice, several lawyers and an OPP Detective Sergeant under his command at the time.

Toronto Star Article: Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers. 

Fantino Affidavit Summary and Court Exhibits.

“Our justice system is self-destructing before our eyes because too many lawyers, judges and elected / appointed government officials place their profession, friends, cartels and profits before the rule of law.”

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 21