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 info@donaldbest.ca 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 info@donaldbest.ca 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 info@donaldbest.ca 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

Justice Keith M. Boswell dismisses Judicial Review of Canadian Judicial Council’s ‘Backroom Bryan’ Shaughnessy decision

Former President of the Progressive Conservative Association of PEI, card carrying Conservative for 30 years and current Federal Justice, Keith M. Boswell

Appeal of Boswell’s decision will cite gross errors.

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

Justice Keith M. Boswell dismissed my application for a Judicial Review of the Canadian Judicial Council’s decision about my complaint against Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy. Justice Boswell also awarded costs against me to the tune of $30,000. He orders that I must pay Justice Shaughnessy and the Attorney General of Canada $15,000 each within 30 days. (See full decision below.)

One business day before the start of the Monday, November 20, 2017 hearing Justice Boswell also announced that he would not accept evidence from former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Julian Fantino – notwithstanding Fantino’s stunning evidence of criminal and / or other offences by lawyers, police and Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

Justice Boswell then elected to go ahead with the judicial review application hearing notwithstanding that Julian Fantino had appealed the court’s rejection of his application to intervene in the judicial review hearing.

Other than stating that Justice Boswell’s decision contains gross errors and that I will be appealing, I will not be commenting further on Justice Boswell’s decision and reasons at this time.

Readers are, however, able to discuss Boswell’s decision and whatever else their hearts desire in the comments section.

About Justice Keith M. Boswell

Mr. Justice Keith M. Boswell was appointed to the Federal Court as announced on about June 15, 2014 by then Attorney General Peter MacKay of the Harper Conservative government.

According to the Prince Edward Island Guardian Newspaper, Keith Boswell was a practicing insurance lawyer with the large Stewart McKelvey law firm.

“At the time of his appointment to the Federal Court, Keith Boswell had been a card-carrying Conservative for nearly three decades and past president of the Progressive Conservative Association of P.E.I.” … PEI Guardian Newspaper

Full Decision of Justice Keith M. Boswell

The full decision of Justice Boswell can be downloaded here. (.pdf 1.5mb)

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 info@donaldbest.ca and I will publish your writing with equal prominence. Comments left on articles are moderated at least 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

Canada’s new Supreme Court judge Sheilah Martin says courts should treat litigants with respect, be open, transparent. What does she think about Justice ‘Backroom Bryan’ Shaughnessy?

SCC Justice Sheilah Martin and ‘Canada’s Backroom Judge’ Bryan Shaughnessy (right)

Last Monday, Justice Sheilah Martin spent almost three hours meeting parliamentarians and generally laying out how she sees her role and the law. Of course she properly stayed away from specific issues that could come before the Supreme Court – but some of her words go straight to the heart of our justice system and the rule of law. Hopefully she will come down hard on courts that abuse their powers and authority.

Justice Martin’s Questionnaire for her appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada is a revealing document that shows her concern for the wrongly convicted and ordinary Canadians of many origins who are most often roadkill in our courts.

Overall, Martin stressed the need for judges to treat litigants with respect…

“You have to show respect in order to get respect,” she said.

She pushed back against the idea that judges’ rulings express their own views.

“The role of judges is a very different one than law professor or advocate. Judges decide based on proof, principle, precedent. We may call it a judicial opinion, but it’s not the personal preference of the judge. It has to be grounded in law, it has to be grounded in principle, there has to be an open, transparent, defensible reasoning, there has to be an explanation to the public, and it has to be clear and intelligible and has to meet the arguments that have been raised.” From the Star article New Supreme Court judge underscores need for judicial independence

How would Justice Martin view Bryan Shaughnessy’s disgusting misconduct?

Here is a sample from the September 28, 2017 sworn affidavit of Julian Fantino, former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, concerning Justice Shaughnessy’s conduct during the Donald Best civil contempt case:

  • “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.”

In other words, Bryan Shaughnessy, a Federally appointed Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, corruptly wielded his authority and power in secret, in a backroom, off the court record and with zero regard for the rule of law, transparency or accountability… just as one commonly sees in third-world backwaters where local despots misuse their authority for private purposes.

Further, Justice Shaughnessy was dealing with an unrepresented person who had already been taken away to prison. Justice Shaughnessy knew that he could get away with this abuse because the prisoner didn’t have a lawyer and was incapable of appealing the secretly increased sentence from prison. Further Best might not even be told by prison authorities about his increased sentence for weeks or months.

There is no doubt that our new Supreme Court Justice Sheilah Martin would slam Bryan Shaughnessy’s corrupt and secret backroom actions that undermined the public respect for the courts and brought the judicial system into disrepute.

Justice Shaughnessy should permanently resign from the bench as no lesser remedy is capable of repairing the damage he has done.

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.

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in this article

As always, if anyone disagrees with anything published at DonaldBest.CA or wishes to provide a public response or comment, please contact me at info@donaldbest.ca and I will publish your writing with equal prominence. Comments left on articles are moderated at least 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. Photo of Justice Martin via Alberta Courts public handout.

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

 

 

 

Canadian Judicial Council investigation of Judge wearing Trump t-shirt, grocery shopping on day off

Justices Toni Skarica (left) and J. Bryan Shaughnessy

There is no better illustration of the political and arbitrary nature of the Canadian Judicial Council (‘CJC’) than to contrast how the CJC handled complaints against two Ontario Superior Court Justices – Toni Skarica and J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

Wearing a Trump t-shirt on a day off resulted in a full investigation of Justice Skarica by a three-judge CJC panel.

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” – but the CJC wouldn’t even investigate.

 

CJC Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed complaint against Justice Shaughnessy without investigation or providing reasons.

CJC Director Norman Sabourin 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, without telling the self-represented prisoner and without placing the new secret order into the court record. This was a deliberate, vindictive and premeditated extra-judicial abuse of Justice Shaughnessy’s position and authority.

The Federal Court of Canada will conduct a Judicial Review of the CJC’s whitewashed decision about Justice Shaughnessy on November 20, 2017. Read the details here.

CJC investigates judge over Trump t-shirt

Citizens will be pleased to know that the Canadian Judicial Council has once again protected the integrity of judges and our courts – this time by launching an investigation of an Ontario Superior Court judge who had the (dare I say it?) bad judgment to be seen wearing a Donald Trump “Make America Great Again” political t-shirt while grocery shopping on his day off.

After spending considerable effort investigating the incident and questioning Justice Toni Skarica, a CJC tribunal of senior judges let the judge off the hook when he promised he would never again wear the t-shirt in public. Today’s Toronto Star covers this egregious case of judicial misconduct in No discipline for Ontario judge who wore Trump T-shirt while shopping.

Lorne Warwick complained about judge’s Trump t-shirt

Now don’t get me wrong here. Retired teacher and prolific writer Lorne Warwick was correct to complain about a judge wearing political signage in public – whether in the court or not. We can’t have our judges endorsing political candidates and parties because they must be seen to be impartial. Persons coming before the court should not have to fear judicial bias because they know that the judge disagrees with their politics.

As picayune as Mr. Warwick’s complaint might seem to some, it all goes back to the concept that our judges and courts must exude integrity, fairness and adherence to the rule of law whether on or off duty.

While I haven’t spoken with Mr. Warwick, however, I’m sure he would be the first to admit that on a scale of judicial misconduct, the Trump t-shirt falls somewhere short of murder.

Nonetheless, the CJC fully investigated his complaint with a three-judge panel. Serious business this wearing of Trump t-shirt on a day off, while grocery shopping.

CJC Whitewash and Cover-ups

While the Canadian Judicial Council revels in the public investigation of some novel or relatively minor judicial offence just to let Canadians know that they are doing their job, the CJC has proven time and time again that they regularly whitewash many serious offences without any investigation at all.

This is accomplished by having the CJC’s Director act 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.

This is especially true if the complaining citizen is unrepresented by counsel.

Canadian Judicial Council said to be operating ultra vires – in violation of the law.

As well as looking at the circumstances of the CJC dismissal of Best’s complaint, the Federal Court Judicial Review will be considering whether or not CJC Director Norman Sabourin is operating beyond his authority under the laws which established the CJC. This issue has been previously raised in public discussions, but has never been formally brought before the court as it is in the Judicial Review filed by Donald Best’s lawyer, Paul Slansky.

Packed Courtroom Expected

Many Canadians wrote expressing support for Donald Best and asked to be notified of the hearing date so they can attend and observe the process. A court artist and several independent journalists also state they will cover the hearing.

The hearing will be held:

Monday November 20th and Tuesday November 21, 2017 at 9:30am

Federal Court: 180 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario.

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in this article

As always, if anyone disagrees with anything published at DonaldBest.CA or wishes to provide a public response or comment, please contact me at info@donaldbest.ca and I will publish your writing with equal prominence. Comments left on articles are moderated at least 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.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

 

Net Neutrality and why it matters to you

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

Suppose governments or corporations could slow or restrict your access to various websites – or restrict visits to your own website – based upon the published political, social or religious opinions and facts? It is a form of censorship that strikes at the very heart of free speech, personal freedoms and democracy.

Net neutrality forces all internet suppliers to treat each piece of traffic in the same manner.

And wouldn’t you know it… powerful forces want to allow internet suppliers to control and restrict what you are allowed to access on the internet.

If you value your freedom to create or visit any internet venue – you need to become knowledgeable about Net Neutrality, and you need to start aggressively asserting your rights.

Use ’em or lose ’em.

Things to do about Net Neutrality

1/ Have a listen to Tay Zonday above. You remember Tay… as a teenager he broadcast his original song ‘Chocolate Rain‘ on YouTube. Ten years later the original post has almost 114 million viewers.

2/ Go to the website battleforthenet.com and familiarize yourself with the Net Neutrality and the political side of why your freedom is at risk.

3/ Write, broadcast and agitate about Net Neutrality.

How the establishment media kills my story

Hired Gun Journalist Colin Perkel

In my own case, the Bay Street Cabal lawyers have done everything they can to restrict my telling the public about their misconduct and criminal activities like perjury, obstructing justice and fraud upon the courts.

The National Post shadow banned me. The Toronto Star erased all my comments, and the Toronto Sun published Colin Perkel’s two commissioned fake news pieces about my lawyer, Paul Slansky.

But, thanks to net neutrality, I still get my message out to tens of thousands of people every month through my blog, Twitter and Facebook accounts.

If we lose net neutrality, the first to profit will be those who wish to push a false narrative – and the biggest losers will be ordinary people.

Net Neutrality matters to you, your freedom and democracy. Don’t lose it!

1 2 3 4 6