Broadcaster Jimmy Dore interviews Donald Best: “The lawyers lied to the court and as a result you were convicted…”

Jimmy Dore Show names corrupt Toronto lawyers Gerald Ranking, Lorne Silver, Sebastien Kwidzinski – plus corrupt judge and cop.

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

For years the Canadian news media put a ‘kill’ on my story and shadow-banned my comments on their websites. Many supportive mainstream journalists informed me that their editors refused to publish any part of my story due to ‘libel chill’ – their fear of being sued by the corrupt lawyers who proveably lied to the court to convict and imprison me for contempt in a civil matter.

On those rare occasions when Canadian outlets did write about my case, the stories were invariably agenda-driven, inaccurate and obviously sourced from the opposition. To this day no Canadian news media has published a story comparing the provably false court testimony of the Toronto lawyers with the truth as shown in the forensically-certified secret voice recordings of our conversation.

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Things started to change late last year when the Toronto Sun, Toronto Star, National Post and other outlets published Colin Perkel’s article Ex-cabinet minister Julian Fantino suggests judge, lawyers and cops part of conspiracy to convict man. Then on June 5, 2018 the Financial Post carried Julius Melnitzer’s story Internet research by jurors and judges during cases challenged: Julius Melnitzer.

Now the US news media is picking up the story with The Jimmy Dore Show out of Los Angeles being the first to publish a video of my guest appearance on the show. (YouTube video above or here: Cop Whistleblower Targeted by Canadian Court)

“There were secret recordings you made of your telephone conversations with the lawyers involved. I read the official court records showing what those lawyers told the court. They lied to the court, and as a result you were convicted for Contempt of Court while you weren’t even in the country.” (Jimmy Dore to Donald Best at about 10:30 into the interview.)

Jimmy Dore is the first journalist with the courage to publicly state that he compared my secret recordings with the corrupt lawyers’ testimony and finds that the lawyers lied to the court to convict me.

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

Jimmy Dore Show also names Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy, Police Officer James ‘Jim’ Van Allen

At about 18:41 into the interview, I name and the Jimmy Dore Show names the three Ontario lawyers, Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy and retired Ontario Provincial Police officer Jim Van Allen – all of whom Jimmy Dore refers to as “corrupt”.

“Donald Best, we wish you all the best in getting to the bottom of this, getting justice in your case and exposing these corrupt lawyers and judges…” (Jimmy Dore to Donald Best at about 25:00 into the interview.)

Jimmy, his staff and presumably his legal team studied my case in detail prior to making his production decisions and final edits.

Viewers know exactly what it means when a citizen like me and a journalist like Jimmy Dore openly name lawyers and a judge as “corrupt” and they do not sue. The lawyers and the judge don’t dare because they would have to expose themselves to cross-examination for the first time – and they know they are guilty of corrupt acts.

Sometimes it takes a while to break through the news media gatekeepers. It looks like that time is approaching.

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 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
September 29, 2018
Barrie, Ontario
Canada

 

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 info@donaldbest.ca 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

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

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 SchabasBlake, 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 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 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

 

 

 

Comparing two Canadian Judges: ‘Knees Together Robin Camp’ vs ‘Backroom Bryan Shaughnessy’

Justices ‘Knees Together’ Robin Camp (left) and ‘Backroom Bryan’ Shaughnessy

Which judge committed the most egregious offense?

Former Canadian Federal Court judge Robin ‘Knees Together’ Camp has applied to be reinstated as a lawyer in Alberta. The hearing will be held next week on Tuesday, November 14, 2017.

Mr. Camp resigned from the Federal Court in March 2017 after the Canadian Judicial Council found that his conduct was ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’. This was the end result of a 2014 trial where Camp asked a rape complainant why she didn’t keep her knees together and lower her bottom into a sink to avoid being penetrated.

Camp also lectured the ‘accused’ (oops… he was referring to the victim!) that “sex and pain sometimes go together, that — that’s not necessarily a bad thing” and that her attempts to fight off the rapist were feeble.

Such attitudes might be common in places like Saudi Arabia, but are unforgiveable here in Canada. The minute he uttered the words, Judge Camp’s future on the bench was sealed although it took a few years for events to play out.

During that trial Judge Camp acquitted the accused Alexandar Wagar – who now faces seven new criminal charges including assaulting and choking in entirely unrelated events.

To no avail Camp attempted to avoid being fired by taking courses in how not to blame women for being raped – but in the end his record undermined any possible confidence in his ability to be a judge.

Fair enough.

Should Robin Camp be allowed to practice as a lawyer?

It is interesting to note that many news articles about Camp mention that he is originally from South Africa. This mention of someone’s origin is unusual for the Canadian news media that normally goes to great lengths to discount an accused’s national origin and culture as irrelevant to acts committed in Canada – except that in this case Justice Camp himself blamed his South African background and 20 years practicing law there for his ‘deeply-rooted’ bias and outrageous conduct.

Whatever the origin of Mr. Camp’s attitudes and beliefs, no doubt he has by this time received the message that such standards don’t wash here. Humbled and humiliated, he has now applied to resume his law practice in Alberta.

Should he be reinstated as a lawyer? Sure. Mr. Camp is probably a capable enough lawyer and is no longer in a position of authority over victims who happen to be women. It is also reasonable to assume that he will be exceedingly cautious about his words and actions in the future.

In a time that embraces (sometimes overly so) the concepts of redemption and forgiveness, what reasonable person could oppose reinstating Robin Camp as a lawyer? Certainly Ontario’s law society that openly licenses convicted child molesters can hardly complain about Mr. Camp resuming his law practice.

At least Justice Camp’s outrageous statements were done in public on the court record – and were therefore open to discovery, scrutiny and censure. 

Backroom Bryan Shaughnessy

Contrast Robin Camp’s actions with the misconduct of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy of the Ontario Superior Court.

Former OPP boss Julian Fantino

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. The judge knew that he could get away with this abuse because the prisoner didn’t have a lawyer and was incapable of appealing an increased sentence from prison. Further Best might not even be told by prison authorities about his increased sentence for weeks or months.

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.

Outrage vs. Cover-up

Why did Robin Camp’s misconduct receive so much condemnation and public attention from government and the news media, while Bryan Shaughnessy’s more sinister and unlawful misconduct is ignored by the press and (at least initially) was defended by both Federal and Ontario Attorneys General?

In the case of Justice Robin ‘knees together’ Camp, Alberta Attorney General Kathleen Ganley ordered the Canadian Judicial Council to hold an inquiry – which was only the eleventh inquiry in the 45 year history of the CJC.

In the case of ‘Backroom Bryan’ Shaughnessy, however, the Attorney General of Ontario initially acted as defense lawyer for the judge in a judicial review application brought by Donald Best.

So too the Attorney General of Canada initially sided with Justice Shaughnessy in the motions leading up to the Judicial Review. Ontario’s Law Society made no public comment on the case or about Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct, but senior bencher of the Law Society Peter Wardle eventually took over as the judge’s defense lawyer when Ontario’s Attorney General withdrew from the role.

“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 news media is the same story: reporters swarmed the ‘Knees together’ inquiry which drew international attention. Camp is still in the news with his application to return to practicing law in Alberta.

With Shaughnessy’s misconduct, however, several journalists inform me that the news media issued an ‘editor’s kill’ on the story – perhaps because of libel chill or due to the powerful influence of the Ontario legal profession’s ‘Bay Street Club’.

Even a recent sworn affidavit by Julian Fantino, former federal cabinet minister and former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, is being suppressed in the mainstream news media – despite the fact that Fantino names names and presents credible, professional evidence of disturbing misconduct by police, lawyers and Justice Shaughnessy.

Perhaps it boils down to this…

Judges who take drugs, pat their secretary’s bottom, get caught shoplifting or drunk driving are easy to deal with. Camp falls into this category with his outrageous ‘knees together’ comments.

More difficult for society and those who administer our justice system is when judges go rogue and totally misuse their power and authority. This is when the Canadian Judicial Council and the entire legal profession back away – because to deal openly with culprits like Bryan Shaughnessy is to admit that such abuses happen. Exposure and discussion of this, the profession believes, undermines public confidence in the entire justice system.

And so they cover-up – but they are wrong to do so.

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.

Everyone understands human weaknesses for sex, drugs, booze – but when judges conspire to obstruct justice and commit criminal offenses in some backroom… well, that’s a tougher nut to acknowledge.

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

 

Court denies former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino intervention in Judicial Review of CJC

Julian Fantino’s ‘bombshell’ evidence.

A Federal Court prothonotary has denied a motion by Julian Fantino, former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, to intervene in the judicial review of a Canadian Judicial Council decision. (UPDATE: Fantino is appealing this decision in Federal Court on Monday, November 20, 2017)

Mr. Fantino, who is also a former Federal Cabinet Minister in the Stephen Harper government and a lifetime member of the Queen’s Privy Council, had sought intervenor status in a Judicial Review scheduled for November 20, 2017 in Toronto at the Federal Court of Canada. The review is brought by Donald Best, a former Toronto Police sergeant, concerning the Canadian Judicial Council’s decision not to investigate his complaint about the conduct of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

Justice Shaughnessy (r) & his lawyer, Peter Wardle

Opposing Fantino’s intervention were Victor J. Paolone of the Attorney General of Canada and Justice Shaughnessy’s lawyer, Ontario Law Society bencher Peter Wardle. Mr. Fantino was represented by K. W. McKenzie. Paul Slansky represented Donald Best.

While the October 25, 2017 written decision by prothonotary Mandy Aylen covers many of the issues addressed in Mr. Fantino’s application, it does not mention some of the most stunning parts of Fantino’s sworn affidavit, nor the controversial statements made by each of the lawyers during oral submissions.

Initial reactions from police officers, lawyers and ordinary Canadians range from shock to embarrassed acknowledgement that some of the activities revealed in Fantino’s affidavit are nothing new to insiders in the justice system and law enforcement.

(Fantino’s application, affidavit, written submissions and Prothonotary Aylen’s decision are public documents and are attached at the end of this article.)

Julian Fantino Affidavit Bombshells

Here, complied by your publisher Donald Best, is a list of selected passages from Mr. Fantino’s 33 pages of sworn affidavit. (With attached exhibits, the full affidavit is 461 pages.)

NOTE: The verbatim quotes and summarized excerpts below are selected from various affidavit pages. They obviously cannot be presented in context in this short summary article and may be out of order.

Canadians are urged to carefully read and consider Mr. Fantino’s full affidavit and other source documents and to make up their own minds as to the full import of Mr. Fantino’s sworn testimony.

Evidence in Julian Fantino’s sworn affidavit includes (summarized except verbatim excerpts in quotes):

General

  • No one is representing the public interest of Canadians at this judicial review. The Attorney General of Canada represents the CJC, not the public.
  • “Mr. Best was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to prison in absentia (while he was not in Canada) upon the presentation by lawyers of provably false evidence during a private prosecution in a civil trial costs hearing.”
  • “This prosecution and eventual imprisonment of Mr. Best was being carried out in the name of a purported client that did not exist. The CJC should investigate how this offshore non-person received substantial funds in court costs (over 1 million dollars) which raises questions about possible money laundering and currency control violations.”
  • “The court also convicted Mr. Best based upon affidavit evidence that was the product of illegal actions by a serving officer of the Ontario Provincial Police at the time that I was OPP Commissioner.” The officer, now retired Detective Sergeant James (Jim) Arthur Van Allen, was manager of the OPP’s elite Criminal Profiling Unit under Commissioner Fantino.

Improper Police Involvement in Civil Cases & Secret Investigations

  • “There are four general incidents in the (Donald Best) civil case, CJC record and in the current Judicial Review where police resources and personnel were improperly and even illegally and secretly used and coopted.”
  • “There is disturbing evidence, some strong and apparently irrefutable, and some circumstantial, that in four groups of incidents in the civil case and even during the present Judicial Review, police resources and personnel were (or appear to have been) improperly retained, used and coopted to assist one side of a private civil dispute in the Ontario courts.”
  • Involved police organizations include the OPP, Durham Regional Police, Peel Regional Police and the Toronto Police Association.
  • Durham Regional Police perform undocumented (secret) investigations of civil case litigants “all the time” and “most likely in assistance to the Court.” This was done in the Donald Best civil case and perhaps in respect of the current Judicial Review of the Canadian Judicial Council decision regarding Justice Shaughnessy.
  • “There is also evidence of involvement by other police forces before the finding of contempt by the court and later who have been involved in this civil court matter. Some of it with the apparent intent of using the investigation results to influence, impact or derail this Judicial Review.”
  • “If left to stand, these abuses in total would result in the undermining of public confidence in the police, the judicial process, the CJC and the Rule of Law. My background and experience is such that I can assist the Court in determining the truth about what appears to be significant abuses of police resources to improperly influence the justice system in the civil case and perhaps even in this Judicial Review.”

Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

  • Justice Shaughnessy backdated a court order ten full days that immediately put Donald Best into contempt for failing to deliver certain documents to opposing lawyers two days before the order was created. Best was jailed for this ‘failure’ to comply with an impossible court order.
  • Certain court documents and orders that were said to have been delivered to Donald Best were, in fact, not delivered and Justice Shaughnessy knew this. Nonetheless Justice Shaughnessy validated service of these documents.
  • Justice Shaughnessy allowed the court process to be used on an extra-jurisdictional basis and “improperly delegated his judicial power to the prosecuting lawyers in order to interfere with and impact legal proceedings in other countries.” The lawyers told Justice Shaughnessy that they were pursuing Donald Best for contempt charges in order to force Best to provide evidence for use in a Florida legal case, and to force settlement upon other litigants in civil cases in Florida and Barbados courts.
  • “The record shows that after Best requested a review of his conviction and sentence, the Judge (Shaughnessy) refused to consider his fresh exculpatory evidence including but not limited to secretly made and forensically certified voice recordings of a telephone call with the lawyers that showed they placed false evidence before the Judge, refused to allow Best to cross-examine the lawyer-witnesses, their clients and ‘private investigator’ James Van Allen, who together provided the false evidence that the court used to convict and sentence Best.”
  • “I cannot recall any other case where a Canadian was convicted and sentenced in absentia (when the accused was not present) upon provably false and/or illegally sourced evidence, and was then refused the basic right to cross-examine the witnesses and accusers that the court relied upon to convict and sentence.”
  • “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.”… “The CJC did not address these actions by the Judge, but rather summarily dismissed the issue by ruling that it was not ‘conduct’.”

OPP Detective Sergeant James Van Allen

“Had I known of his (Jim Van Allen’s) transgressions, I would have acted immediately as OPP Commissioner to deal with his rogue conduct.”  Julian Fantino

  • “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.”

Self-Represented Canadians and the Canadian Judicial Council

  • “I have no reason to believe that Mr. Best’s complaints to the CJC were handled any differently than those of other Canadians. I have no reason to believe that the CJC’s apparent arbitrary standards, lack of investigation, lack of transparency and absence of support to an unrepresented person in Mr. Best’s case is unusual for the CJC. I believe that the CJC’s handling of Mr. Best’s case is representative of the standard CJC treatment of unrepresented persons – with one important difference which in Mr. Best’s situation merely supported the imprisonment of an apparently innocent man and that is simply unacceptable and wrong.”
  • “Judicial independence is an important principle in the Canadian Justice System. That is all the more reason why Canadians must feel secure that the Canadian Judicial Council properly performs its function in dealing with complaints. The CJC was created by Parliament to serve the people of Canada and to maintain the integrity and high standards that people expect in their Justice System. It follows that full professional investigations and transparency should be the norm. Publicly defined standards for the CJC that are easy to access and easy to understand are of paramount importance to the mandate it received from Parliament, and for which it is accountable.”
  • “This would include ease of access by all Canadians and, where necessary, assistance by CJC staff trained to accommodate the different cultural, linguistic, and educational factors that are the hallmarks of our multi-faceted Canadian society. Not all Canadians have the skill set, educational background, or writing ability to properly compose a complete account of their concerns and complaints about their experiences in Court and how they are treated by Judges. Accordingly, I wish to contribute to this Court proceeding in evaluating and resolving the matters raised in regard to Mr. Best’s Application.”
  • “While the CJC guidelines as to how Canadians can expect to be treated in Court when they are unrepresented litigants, the CJC does not extend those same considerations to Canadians who complain about their treatment in Courts by Judges. The CJC’s response to (Donald Best’s) complaint emphasizes that this type of assistance and proactive treatment is not extended to complainants to the CJC.”
  • “The lack of assistance and guidance for the complainant adds a layer of mystery and lack of transparency to an already oblique arrangement where it appears that one person, Mr. Sabourin, whose credentials are not known, is the filter for all information that is assessed. This appears incongruous with the very specialized and unique knowledge that are required to review the jurisdiction and actions of judges.”
  • “Other tribunals which are in place to serve the public in specialized benefit from the assistance of fully trained assessors who can assist the aggrieved person and be certain that the full import of the complaint is fairly presented. This type of assistance is all the more important when it comes to Courts and Judges which may be the most important factor or bulwark in the preservation of democracy.”
  • “The CJC did not fully take into consideration that its function is to serve the people of Canada. Not all Canadians are able to fully understand let alone report about the nuances of what happens in Court and the CJC has decided it will give them no guidance. Whereas other tribunals engage investigators and information gatherers who are well versed in the areas under consideration that will interview, review, and generally help a complainant make a full and focused complaint the CJC does nothing of the sort. Apparently, Mr. Sabourin and the Judge are of the view that the CJC can reject a complaint arbitrarily.”

At the time of publication there is no word if Mr. Fantino will appeal the prothonotary’s decision.

Court Documents – Redacted Identity Information (signatures, etc)

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/ Order of Prothonotary Mandy Aylen released October 25, 2017 (22 pages – PDF 241kb)

3/ 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.

To be added after redacting (probably a day or two):

4/ Justice Shaughnessy: Submissions on Fantino Intervention Motion

5/ Attorney General of Canada: Submissions on Fantino Intervention Motion

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

1 2 3