Tag: Access to Justice

How the Law Society of Ontario Sent an Innocent Man to Prison to Save Three Corrupt Lawyers

Ontario Solitary Confinement Prison Cell

The client most lawyers fear – and won’t represent at any price

by Donald Best (First published 2016)

There is a class of self-represented litigants that the legal profession does not talk about or even acknowledge, at least publicly. These are the people who are ready and willing to pay a lawyer, but are forced to represent themselves because the vast majority of lawyers refuse to litigate cases involving a claim of professional misconduct against another member of the Bar.

In the past year I have spoken with dozens of such individuals. I am not a lawyer, but they appear to have good civil claims against lawyers for unethical or even unlawful conduct – apparently supported by strong evidence and backed by case law. Yet these Canadians are unable to find legal representation at any price.

Some of these victims choose to self-represent, while others abandon any thoughts of seeking justice. Increasingly, self-represented litigants are assisted behind the scenes with legal research and document preparation by lawyers who are sympathetic, but fear backlash and opprobrium from the profession if they take the case themselves.

Corrupt lawyers Sebastien Kwidzinski, Gerald Ranking & Lorne Silver lied to the courts.

The perils of challenging a lawyer in court

I approached over one hundred lawyers to petition the court to overturn my conviction for contempt. This conviction resulted from a private prosecution that was led by two senior lawyers from large Bay Street firms. All refused to take my case, even as they acknowledged its validity and the strength of the evidence against the Bay Street lawyers.

In brief: I had been convicted of contempt of court in a civil matter while out of the country, and sentenced to three months in prison. My conviction in absentia was based upon the written and oral testimony of two Toronto lawyers who swore that, during a conference call with them, I had confirmed that I had received a copy of a certain court order.

Their sworn evidence also assured the court that they had served the order upon me in Ontario via courier. (The courier company however, stated that they had never received the court order from the lawyers, and no shipping documents, signature receipt, or tracking number have ever been produced by the lawyers). An affidavit by their “private investigator” provided an expert opinion that I was deliberately avoiding service – because I use a commercial mailbox as my address.

In fact, I had not received the court order, and stated this many times clearly during the conference call (as a forensically certified recording proved). Instead I asked, many times, for the lawyers to please send me a copy.

Despite this, I was held in contempt based on the lawyers’ assertion that I had received the court order and confirmed that receipt to them during the call.

Looking for representation

I returned to Canada and hoped to put the recording of the conference call and other evidence before the court. I knew that I would face prison time for contempt if I were unsuccessful.

So I searched for a lawyer to represent me.

Many of the young lawyers I approached were sympathetic and forthright, even admitting that they were ashamed to have to turn me down. They explained that they dared not take my case because they feared the professional and social sanctions that would certainly result. Some cited conflicts of interest involving past colleagues and law firms, while others explained that they regularly receive work from the large Bay Street firms, and could not afford to jeopardize that source of business.

A surprising number of lawyers told me that it was their firm’s policy not to litigate against lawyers, or to bring motions or evidence that would harm the careers of other lawyers.

“Yes, Mr. Best, the lawyers lied to the judge to convict you, but our firm simply does not handle this type of case.”

When I explained all of the above to Ontario’s Law Society of Upper Canada and asked for assistance in finding a lawyer willing to represent me, I received a form letter referring me to the list of lawyers on the Law Society’s website {the Lawyers Referral Service).

Trying to defend myself

Since no lawyer would represent me at any price, I was forced to represent myself.

The judge {the same judge who presided over the original hearing) would not listen to the conference call recording or consider any other fresh evidence that proved that I had never received the court order, and that for the lawyers to claim otherwise was perjury. The judge also refused me permission to cross-examine the lawyers and the “private investigator” all of whom provided testimony the court relied upon to convict and send me to prison.

The judge sent me to prison.

It was while I was in prison that I finally found and retained a lawyer willing to appeal my conviction.

Mv appeal: finally represented by a lawyer

Principled Lawyer Paul Slansky Represented Donald Best

I shall never forget this moment.

When my lawyer introduced himself at the appeal hearing, opposing counsel refused to shake his hand, saying that he would not shake the hand of a lawyer who filed a motion stating that a colleague had deceived the court. And so the social and professional sanctions began: against the one lawyer I found with the courage and integrity to act on his sense of duty.

I was eventually forced to abandon my appeal because of punitive costs (that I could not pay) awarded against me earlier, and returned to prison to serve the rest of my sentence {which, as a former police officer, I served in solitary confinement). No court ever heard my certified voice recordings of the phone call with the lawyers. I was never allowed to cross-examine the lawyers and other witnesses upon whose testimony I was convicted and sent to prison.

My lawyer believes that everyone deserves Access to Justice and fair legal representation – but for over one hundred other Ontario lawyers, Access to Justice apparently ends if a litigant has evidence of misconduct by a fellow member of the Bar.

Donald Best is an Access to Justice & Anti-corruption advocate. A former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective), he worked on deep-cover investigations against organized crime, corrupt police, and public officials. His website is DonaldBest.ca

University of Windsor Deletes Original Article, Cancels Author

The above article was originally published July 7, 2016 by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project at the University of Windsor Law School under the title The client most lawyers fear – and won’t represent at any price.

(The NSRLP article did not name the corrupt lawyers as this one does)

For the next seven years, the article was the #1 read article at the NSRLP website – a fact that was confirmed by both the NSRLP Director in a video presentation and in NSRLP Annual Reports.

In June of 2023, the National Self-Represented Litigants Project removed the article from its website and cancelled the author, Donald Best – removing all mention of him from the NSRLP website.

This was within a few days of Donald Best publishing a personal-website article featuring Lois Cardinal, a transsexual woman who self-identifies as:

“A sterilized Indian on a mission to save vulnerable children and young people from the predatory trans-industry that destroyed me.”

See Canada’s Largest Pharmacy Chain Quietly Deletes ‘Trans’ From Pride Month

NSRLP Executive Director Jennifer Lietch and many other members of the NSRLP refused to respond to written communications and phone messages from Donald Best – requesting the NSRLP to republish deleted article and about 50 public comments.

As of March 28, 2024, the University of Windsor Law School National Self-Represented Litigants Project is still banning and cancelling Donald Best.

Other Articles About The Corrupt Lawyers and Donald Best

December 24, 2018 – Cassels Brock website celebrates corrupt lawyer Lorne Silver who lied to jail a self-represented litigant

December 4, 2018 – Donald Best Receives the 2018 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

Amazing COVID-19 Virus Decision by Ontario Court of Appeal Sends Warning to Lawyers

Also: Lawyers for Best Buy, Staples, London Drugs and Canada Computers using COVID-19 Virus Delay Tactic

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

Today the Court of Appeal for Ontario told the legal profession, litigants, and in fact everyone in Ontario that they cannot use the COVID-19 Virus pandemic as an excuse to delay or obstruct justice.

Using the strongest of language and leaving no uncertainty, Justice David M. Paciocco put all Ontario lawyers on notice – by refusing to adjourn a condominium fees dispute and ordering lawyers to use electronic documents and teleconferencing so the case can proceed as scheduled.

Further, the court will make its decision in the case based upon written submissions already filed and will use teleconferencing to question the lawyers about their submissions. The case will go ahead as scheduled on April 9, 2020.

And what if a lawyer claims that they are “uncomfortable working with electronic documents because they are accustomed to working with paper and is only slowly building up the technical capacity for law firm employees to work remotely” ???

The Ontario Court of Appeal savaged the lawyer and in effect answered “Cry me a river. You will do this – or else.”

“It is not in the interests of justice to overburden the court by adjourning matters that can be dealt with fairly, as scheduled. The backlog that will be created by cases that must be adjourned to protect the public and ensure fair hearings will be imposing and it should not be unnecessarily aggravated.”

Justice David M. Paciocco, Court of Appeal for Ontario. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Wong, 2020 ONCA 244 PDF Here

It must have been truly humiliating for 20-year senior Toronto Bay Street lawyer Newton Wong to petition to the court that he and his entire law firm…

“cannot prepare adequately for an oral hearing because his materials are at his law firm and contain post-its and other endorsements that he would rely upon. He has made the personal choice, that I respect, that he will not risk the health of his employees by sending them into the office to assemble and retrieve this material, and he himself is not capable of doing so without help. He is uncomfortable working with electronic documents because he is accustomed to working with paper and is only slowly building up the technical capacity for his law firm employees to work remotely.”

The court ordered THE OPPOSING LAWYERS to provide to Newton Wong electronic copies of his own materials filed with the courts so that he doesn’t have to attend his office and can work from home. Oh, the shame.

“The appellant’s adjournment request is denied.”

Justice David M. Paciocco, Court of Appeal for Ontario. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Wong, 2020 ONCA 244

The message to lawyers is this… If you have Internet and can receive emails and .pdf documents, you have a duty to advance justice as we face the COVID-19 health crisis.

Lawyers for Best Buy, Staples, London Drugs and Canada Computers using COVID-19 Virus Delay Tactic

In the Super Channel 4Stores anti-piracy case, the opposing lawyers are trying to delay the May 7, 2020 injunction hearing while their clients continue to profit from promoting copyright piracy.

I’m no lawyer, but anyone can see that Justice David M. Paciocco just sent a big message to the legal profession and litigants… Don’t even think about the tactic of using the COVID crisis to delay or obstruct justice if your case can reasonably proceed on schedule.

So Much for The COVID Excuse!

Coming in Part 2: The full details of how lawyers and witnesses on both sides of Super Channel’s 4Stores case recently conducted cross-examinations using video conferencing. Lawyers, witnesses and the court reporter came together online from Vancouver, Toronto, Barrie and Florida.

Learn about Super Channel’s anti-piracy lawsuit against Best Buy, Staples, London Drugs and Canada Computers – ChangeTheCulture.CA

Donald Best receives 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award

Scandal, Cover-up by Federal Court of Canada Exposed.

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Toronto Police

I’m surprised and deeply honoured to receive the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award – announced this morning.

Today (and in my recorded acceptance speech – transcript here) I am calling upon the Law Society of Ontario and the law societies in every province to cease investigating complaints against their own members. This most serious conflict of interest undermines the profession’s credibility and the public’s trust in our legal system.

Self-investigation by the lawyers’ unions is a real conflict of interest that is unacceptable by any modern standard and cannot be resolved – except by the establishment of independent organizations in each province to receive complaints against lawyers, to perform professional unbiased investigations and to lay charges where appropriate. The retention of investigative functions by the law societies is indefensible.

Today, I also reveal details of an ongoing major scandal and active cover-up by the Courts Administration Service and the Federal Court of Canada that impacts every Canadian who has appeared before that court for any reason in the last few years.

This documented misconduct by Federal Court of Canada personnel throws into question every recent decision of the Federal Court of Canada. Dozens of lawyers and litigants have already contacted me about this revelation and I am aware of several lawsuits / legal motions that are imminent. At least one will be filed within days.

Regarding my personal legal battles, both the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (in their news media release) and University of Windsor law professor Julie Macfarlane in her introduction speech for my award – openly declare that I was unjustly convicted of contempt of court and imprisoned based upon false evidence fabricated by senior lawyers from some of Canada’s largest law firms. (Former OPP Commissioner of Police Julian Fantino said the same thing last year in a sworn affidavit and said that if he knew then what he knows now, he would have launched a criminal investigation against named Ontario Provincial Police officers and lawyers.)

To my friends and family who believed in me during the darkest times and gave me strength – thank you. This is your Ontario Civil Liberties Award as much as it is mine. To the legal profession and the courts… We want our justice system back.

Ontario Civil Liberties Association announcement…

http://ocla.ca/ocla-civil-liberties-award/

My acceptance speech…

https://youtu.be/AWUcVtnec9A

Professor Julie Macfarlane’s introduction…

https://youtu.be/trPU2uwUzOM

Donald Best Receives the 2018 OCLA Civil Liberties Award

(Ottawa, December 4, 2018) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) presents its 2018 Civil Liberties Award to whistleblower and anti-corruption activist Donald Best.

Donald Best is a former Sergeant (Detective) with the Toronto Police responsible for investigating Canadian police, lawyers, and politicians involved in organized crime, and a leading Canadian anti-corruption whistleblower and activist.

In his ongoing legal cases and public advocacy, Mr. Best has exposed corruption in the Canadian legal profession including secret orders and investigations by judges, the submission of false evidence in court by lawyers, and the failure of disciplinary bodies such as the Law Society of Ontario and the Canadian Judicial Council to investigate complaints against judges and lawyers.

Mr. Best’s tireless efforts to create integrity and accountability in the Canadian legal system make him an exemplary leader in the fight for equality before and under the law of all Canadians, including self-represented litigants.

Embedded at the OCLA’s award website (link HERE) is a video of Donald Best’s acceptance speech for the 2018 OCLA Civil Liberties Award, following a video introduction of Mr. Best by law professor Julie Macfarlane, Director of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project, University of Windsor.

Background Articles available online

https://donaldbest.ca/faqs-about-best-v-ranking/

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ex-federal-cabinet-minister-julian-fantino-takes-aim-at-judge-cops-lawyers

https://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/internet-research-by-jurors-and-judges-during-cases-challenged-julius-melnitzer

https://donaldbest.ca/broadcaster-jimmy-dore-interviews-donald-best-the-lawyers-lied-to-the-court-and-as-a-result-you-were-convicted/

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

 

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

News media censorship of Julian Fantino’s Canadian Judicial Council intervention crumbles as Toronto Star publishes bombshell article

Former top-cop details evidence of corrupt acts by lawyers, police, judge

Four years after the Toronto Star first refused to cover the Donald Best story and deleted all mention of the name from the comments section of their website, the newspaper about-faced and published an article about former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino applying to intervene in Best’s judicial review about the Canadian Judicial Council and Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

The Toronto Star article opens with the following bombshell statement:

“Former Conservative cabinet minister and provincial police commissioner Julian Fantino has accused a Canadian judge, lawyers and several police forces of acting improperly and even illegally in the conviction and jailing of a man for contempt of court.”

After the Toronto Star published first, the National Post, the Globe and Mail and a host of smaller outlets carried the same Colin Perkel Canadian Press story of corrupt acts by police, lawyers and a judge. (Toronto Star: Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers)

Yes, Colin Perkel’s article contains important errors and omissions (some of which I correct below) and no link is provided to an actual copy of Fantino’s affidavit (pdf 8.7mb), but at least readers are now aware of an important story that was concealed from them.

The big story is that the after years of participating in a cover-up, the news media is finally acknowledging that this story is not going away, that it is important and that the supporting facts and evidence are as credible as they are disturbing.

In short, it seems likely that the Canadian news media came to the conclusion that the press could no longer withhold the Donald Best story from the public without further loss of credibility and relevance. It took the news media three months to mention Fantino’s September 28, 2017 sworn affidavit. Even then the media did not name any of the principal subjects in this story of corruption with the exception of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy whose name is on the official style of cause filed at court.

I’ll fix that naming omission in a moment, but first I want to address just a few of the important errors and omissions in Perkel’s article:

  • Contrary to the article’s statement that Justice Shaughnessy found me guilty of contempt of court in 2013, Shaughnessy found me guilty on January 15, 2010 at a civil court hearing that I was not told about and was not present for. Nobody represented me at the hearing. I was in Asia at the time.
  • Justice Shaughnessy convicted me based upon several lawyers’ provably false testimony – and also upon a deceitful affidavit by an ‘expert witness’ who concealed from the court that he was a serving Ontario Provincial Police detective sergeant corruptly taking bribes from the lawyers to provide them with access to confidential police information.
  • The lawyers falsely told Justice Shaughnessy in writing and orally on the court record that during a November 17, 2009 phone call with them, I had ‘confessed’ to receiving a certain court order. In fact I said exactly the opposite, that I had not received the order – but the corrupt lawyers lied to the judge. Too bad for the lawyers that I have recordings of the call that prove they lied to the judge.
  • I returned to Canada and applied to Justice Shaughnessy to remove my conviction and sentence. I presented forensically certified telephone recordings, transcripts and other credible evidence that proved the lawyers lied to the court to obtain my conviction.
  • At a hearing in May of 2013, Justice Shaughnessy refused to consider any new evidence showing my innocence. He did not listen to the recordings. He also refused to allow me to cross-examine the witnesses (lawyers and corrupt police) upon whose false evidence he had convicted and sentenced me in January 2010 while I was in Asia.
  • On May 3, 2013 Justice Shaughnessy refused to overturn my 2010 conviction for Contempt of Court and sent me to prison to serve the 3 month sentence he had already imposed in 2010.
  • After court ended on May 3, 2013, Justice Shaughnessy went to a backroom and there, off the court record and without a hearing, trial or transcript, secretly increased my prison sentence by 50% without notifying me. He secretly created a new warrant of committal with increased jail time that he gave only to the prison authorities. He did not file the new secret warrant with the courts or make mention of it anywhere in the records.
  • Later, higher courts denied me the right to appeal my conviction because I could not pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs earlier awarded to the other side on the basis of their provably fabricated and false evidence.
  • I was not even allowed to cross-examine the lawyers and other witnesses that Shaughnessy relied upon to convict and imprison me. I was not allowed to cross-examine the corrupt Ontario Provincial Police officer. To this day, no court has listened to the forensically certified voice recordings of my telephone call with the lawyers that prove the lawyers lied to the court to convict and imprison me.
  • Every judgment of every reviewing court considered only the evidence that Justice Shaughnessy allowed. Every judgment of every reviewing court is tainted by the fact that Justice Shaughnessy and all the reviewing courts deliberately excluded the evidence that exonerated me. 
  • When I could not pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in previous court costs, the court refused to hear my appeal. I served 63 days in prison because I could not pay court costs awarded during a civil matter; with every minute spent in solitary confinement as I am a former police officer. Prison authorities said that solitary was the only place where they could keep a former police officer alive.

This is also the true story of how, when confronted with forensically certified telephone recordings and other irrefutable evidence proving that lawyers fabricated evidence and lied to the court to convict a person of contempt – the Canadian legal profession and courts closed ranks to save the corrupt lawyers, even when that meant sending an innocent man to prison.

The People behind the Corruption

Here are the names referred to in Fantino’s affidavits, the supporting exhibits and the underlying case filings:

Corrupt Ontario lawyers Sebastien Kwidzinski, Gerald Ranking & Lorne Silver lied to the courts.

Lorne S. Silver – Corrupt lawyer with the Toronto office of Cassels Brock & Blackwll LLP law firm. Fabricated false ‘Statement for the Record’ on November 17, 2009. Falsely informed Justice Shaughnessy that Donald Best had ‘confessed’ during a phone call to receiving a court order. Conspired with Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy and Gerald L. Ranking to backdate a court order ten full days. Admitted to putting Donald Best in prison to extort evidence and settlement in a different legal case filed in another jurisdiction – Florida.

Gerald L. Ranking – Corrupt lawyer with the Toronto office of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP law firm. Fabricated false ‘Statement for the Record’ on November 17, 2009. Falsely informed Justice Shaughnessy that Donald Best had ‘confessed’ during a phone call to receiving a court order. Lied to the court about serving court documents upon Donald Best. Conspired with Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy and Lorne Silver to backdate a court order ten full days. Fraudulently filed court papers for, and claimed to represent, a purported client that he knew was actually a fraudulent non-existent business entity. Received a million dollars in court costs for this non-existent entity – which money was undoubtedly laundered into a bank account that was not in the name of his phony purported client. Unlawfully hired and gave money to Jim Van Allen, a corrupt Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officer, for illegal access to confidential police information. Directed Kwidzinski and Van Allen in crafting Van Allen’s deceptive affidavit. Admitted to putting Donald Best in prison to extort evidence and settlement in a different legal case filed in another jurisdiction – Florida.

Sebastien Kwidzinski – Previously junior lawyer with the Toronto office of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP law firm. Now a corporate lawyer with Foresters Financial. Watched as corrupt lawyers Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking fabricated false ‘Statement for the Record’ on November 17, 2009, said nothing when they placed the false evidence before the court to convict an innocent man. With Ranking, illegally hired corrupt Ontario Provincial Police officer Jim Van Allen to access confidential police data. Assisted Ranking and Van Allen in crafting Van Allen’s deceptive affidavit.

Corrupt OPP Detective Jim Van Allen (left) illegally made some cash on the side during the hunt for serial rapist / murderer Russell Williams

Detective Sergeant James ‘Jim’ Arthur Van Allen (OPP, now retired) Worked illegally ‘on the side’ as an unlicensed private investigator. Illegally took money from Ranking, Kwidzinski, Fasken law firm to provide confidential police information for use in a private civil action. Swore a deceptive affidavit that was used by Justice Shaughnessy to convict Donald Best of contempt of court. Surprisingly issued invoices to Ranking / Fasken Law Firm detailing his illegal activities. The invoices are filed as exhibits in the Donald Best case.

Former OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino swore in his affidavit:

  • “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.”
  • “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.”

Lawyer Andrew Roman and his client Iain Deane (right)

Andrew Roman – formerly senior partner with Toronto office of Miller Thomson LLP law firm. Sent threatening letter to directly to witness in controvention of Florida laws. Delivered legally privileged documents to his client Iain Deane and suggested they be published on website known for threats and harassment against Donald Best’s witnesses. Engaged in cover-up of anonymous threats to witnesses proven to have originated from Miller Thomson LLP’s Toronto office. Knew that co-counsel Ranking and Silver placed false evidence before the court but remained silent.

Surrounded by Law Society Benchers, newly elected Treasurer, Paul B. Schabas (centre), chairs his first meeting.

Paul Schabas – Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP lawyer defending lawsuit launched by Donald Best’s company. Member of the famed ‘Bay Street Boys Club’ and Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario. Engaged in cover-up of anonymous threats to witnesses proven to have originated from Miller Thomson LLP’s Toronto computer network. Covered-up Andrew Roman’s illegal threatening letter to a witness. Knew and covered-up that co-counsel Ranking and Silver fabricated false evidence and that they lied to the court. Complaints to the law society about Schabas were whitewashed with no investigation and no independent review.

Justice Shaughnessy (r) & his lawyer, Law Society of Ontario bencher Peter Wardle

Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy – Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario. Former Regional Senior Judge for the Central East Region. On November 12, 2009, Shaughnessy backdated a court order ten full days to November 2, 2009, immediately placing Donald Best into contempt of court for failing to deliver business documents on November 10th – three days before Shaughnessy actually made the order. In January 2010, convicted Donald Best of Contempt of Court for, among other things, failing to deliver documents on November 10th – three days before Shaughnessy’s order to deliver the documents existed.

On May 3, 2013, after court ended Justice Shaughnessy went to a backroom and there, off the court record and without a hearing, trial or transcript, secretly increased Best’s prison sentence by 50% without notifying Best, who was unrepresented by a lawyer. Shaughnessy secretly created a new warrant of committal with increased jail time that he gave only to the prison authorities. He did not file the new secret warrant with the courts or make mention of it anywhere in the records.

Numerous other incidents of judicial misconduct as laid out in Donald Best’s complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council.

CJC Executive Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed Best’s complaint without an investigation and without providing reasons.

Norman Sabourin – Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council, summarily dismissed a complaint against Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy by former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) Donald Best, without an investigation and in the face of irrefutable evidence that the judge went to a back room after court ended, and – off the court record – illegally made a secret new court order increasing the Best’s sentence by a month. Under Mr. Sabourin’s hand, the CJC regularly whitewashes complaints against judges and remains an organization with no transparency, independent oversight or public accountability. Mr. Sabourin acts as ‘gate-keeper’ to dismiss complaints without investigation – without so much as looking at the court file or reading a transcript showing the judge’s comments or actions.

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

Open Courts Principle abused

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

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

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

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

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

Julian Fantino intervention blocked

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

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

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

Judicial Review finished – Decision to come

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

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

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

Donald Best
November 22, 2017
Barrie, Ontario

 

 

 

Julie Macfarlane of National Self-Represented Litigants Project named to Top 25 Most Influential legal professionals in Canada

Prof. Julie Macfarlane

Congratulations to University of Windsor law professor Julie Macfarlane who is named one of Canada’s 25 Most Influential legal professionals by Canadian Lawyer Magazine.

Julie works tirelessly for for the rights of self-represented litigants and all Canadians to have access to justice – against a system that is set up and predisposed to favour those who are able to afford lawyers.

 

Did lawyers assist in Justice Bryan Shaughnessy’s “disgusting” misconduct? #3 in a series

Big Law Firm lawyers Gerald Ranking (left), Lorne Silver & Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Did lawyers Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking know of Justice Shaughnessy’s intentions? Did they assist? If so, they are co-conspirators with the judge.

In articles over the past months (listed below), we told how after court ended on May 3, 2013, Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy went to a backroom where, off the court record, he secretly increased a prisoner’s sentence without a trial and without telling the self-represented prisoner (Donald Best). In that backroom, Justice Shaughnessy signed a secret new warrant of committal – that he did not place into the court record and that he provided only to prison authorities.

Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney called Justice Shaughnessy’s behaviour “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.”

Donald Best complained of Shaughnessy’s misconduct to the Canadian Judicial Council – (Best’s Jan 5, 2016 12-page CJC complaint without exhibits. PDF 218kb).

After CJC Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed the complaint without conducting an investigation or providing reasons, Best’s lawyer filed for a Judicial Review of the CJC decision. That judicial review is now before the Federal Court.

Our second article in this series explained how big law firm partners Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking certainly witnessed parts of Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct in court.

In Part #3 of this series, we look at evidence that lawyers Ranking and Silver actually participated in Justice Shaughnessy’s serious misconduct – perhaps secretly meeting with the judge in a backroom after court.

On May 3, 2013, lawyers Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking were in court and witnessed Justice Shaughnessy state on the record that he was lifting the stay on his January 15, 2010 Warrant of Committal for Donald Best, and that Best would now be taken to prison to serve the sentence indicated on that January 15, 2010 warrant – for contempt of court during a civil case costs hearing.

On May 3, 2013, Silver and Ranking also witnessed Justice Shaughnessy state on the record that “Approval of the order by Mr. Best will be dispensed with and I direct that this order shall be prepared by Messrs. Ranking and Silver and presented to me for signature by Monday, May 6, 2013.” (May 3, 2013 transcript, pg 57, line 32)

Silver and Ranking also witnessed Justice Shaughnessy order that Best was never again to be brought before him.

Thus, Justice Shaughnessy ordered Ranking and Silver to create a Judgment Order to be presented to him on May 6, 2013, and also that self-represented litigant Donald Best was not to participate or be provided with a copy of the judgment order. This judgment order (download here) did not order the creation of a new warrant of committal or increase Best’s sentence, and was not the secret new warrant of committal signed by Justice Shaughnessy after court on May 3, 2013.

 

Secret new May 3, 2013 Warrant of Committal. Click to enlarge.

Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct was premeditated with malicious intent.

Shaughnessy ordered in court on May 3, 2013 that:

1/ Best was not to participate in the creation of a judgment order, and,

2/ Best was never to be brought before Justice Shaughnessy again.

As indicated in Best’s complaint to the CJC, these orders on the record are evidence of Shaughnessy’s premeditation and malicious intent to secretly increase Best’s sentence after court, and to not place the new secret warrant of committal or increased sentence on the court record.

We know that after court ended on May 3, 2013, Justice Shaughnessy left the courtroom and went to a backroom where he signed a secret new order dated May 3, 2013 that illegally increased Best’s sentence. Best only learned of the order from prison authorities after his arrival at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ontario.

Did lawyers Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking meet secretly with Justice Shaughnessy in a backroom after court on May 3, 2013?

We do not know at this point if Gerald Ranking or Lorne Silver knew in advance of Justice Shaughnessy’s intention to secretly increase Best’s jail sentence after court was over. Whether they knew or did not know in advance, is important evidence.

We do not know if Ranking and Silver learned of the secretly increased sentence and new warrant perhaps days or weeks afterwards – or, if Justice Shaughnessy secretly instructed them in a backroom meeting on May 3, 2013 to draft the secret new warrant of committal with the increased sentence.

Were the lawyers with Justice Shaughnessy on May 3, 2013 when he signed the secret warrant and illegally increased Best’s sentence? Did the lawyers draft the secret warrant upon private backroom instructions from the judge?

If lawyers Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking had any part in the creation or delivery of the illegal and secret warrant of committal, or if they knew about it on May 3, 2013 or were present when Justice Shaughnessy signed it – then the lawyers are co-conspirators with the judge in his egregious misconduct.

What did the judge’s secretary and other court staff witness?

Justice Shaughnessy’s secretary and other court staff may have witnessed the lawyers meeting with the judge after court ended. The judge’s secretary and court staff may have knowledge of the creation and forwarding of the secret warrant of committal to prison authorities.

Drafts of the secret warrant warrant of committal might exist on court computers – or the secret warrant might have been created using one of the lawyers’ laptop computers and therefore does not appear on court computers.

CJC Executive Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed Best’s complaint without an investigation and without providing reasons.

Justice Shaughnessy, his court staff and lawyers Silver and Ranking must be witnesses in any valid CJC investigation or public inquiry – but so far both Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking refuse to be cross-examined about any of their conduct in relation to Donald Best’s conviction, sentencing and imprisonment.

As indicated in our first two articles in this series, Justice Shaughnessy is now personally represented at the judicial review by Law Society of Upper Canada senior bencher Peter C. Wardle. Wardle has a conflict of interest as he also represented lawyers Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking in a related matter.

With the Federal Attorney General representing the CJC, and the Ontario Attorney General absent after formerly representing Justice Shaughnessy, no one is representing the public interest at the judicial review.  

. Read more

1 2 3 4