Have you ever defended someone who actually was framed?

My answer to the question – originally published at Quora.com…

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

I was framed by corrupt lawyers and police – and was forced to self-represent and act as my own lawyer. I can freely tell you everything because what happened to me is a matter of public record – widely published and supported in court records and news media articles available on the internet since 2014.

My website https://donaldbest.ca has all the documents, recordings and other evidence available for public scrutiny – as well as a list of my supporters including lawyers, organizations and a former Commissioner of Police and Canadian Federal Cabinet Minister who filed sworn affidavits in my support.

This is the true story of how several corrupt lawyers from some of Canada’s largest law firms fabricated false evidence, bribed police and lied to the courts to convict me of Contempt of Court in a civil lawsuit costs hearing that I was unaware of and not present for as I was not in Canada.

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

But first a little background…

As a Sergeant (Detective) with the Toronto Police and later in private industry, for over thirty years I hunted organized crime members and their enablers including corrupt police, politicians and members of the legal profession.

Now I’m an independent journalist, documentary filmmaker and an anti-corruption advocate.

I am the sole recipient of the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award for my work in exposing and fighting corruption of the police, the legal profession and the judiciary.

Oh… I also served 63 days incarcerated in a Canadian prison; spending every day in solitary confinement.

Senior Ontario lawyers Gerald Ranking (center), Lorne Silver (right) and junior Sebastien Kwidzinski (left) lied to the courts to convict Donald Best.

The Frame Job

In November of 2009, I was traveling in Asia – but this didn’t stop a group of corrupt Bay Street lawyers from falsely swearing to the court that they had served me in Canada with a certain civil court order and that during a subsequent telephone call with them I admitted to receiving that court order.

Twelve times during that telephone call, I denied receiving the court order and asked that it be sent to me. After the call, the lawyers immediately created a formal ‘Statement for the Record’ document that falsely indicated I had informed them during the call that I had indeed received the court order the day before. This was a deliberate fabrication of evidence, a lie – but they submitted their false statement as evidence to court.

Later, during a hearing that I was not notified of, and was therefore not present for, the lawyers doubled down on their false Statement for the Record by confirming it orally on the court transcript. Further, they submitted a sworn affidavit – falsely stating that they had couriered the order to me at an address in Canada. The judge convicted me of contempt of court upon the lawyers’ false evidence, sentenced me to three months in prison and issued a warrant for my arrest.

The Secret Telephone Recording

The corrupt lawyers didn’t know that I had secretly and legally recorded my telephone conversation with them.

The recording proved they fabricated evidence and lied to the court to convict me.

Evidence from the courier company showed that – contrary to their sworn affidavit – the lawyers had never sent the court order to me in Canada or anywhere else and they couldn’t produce any courier record, tracking number, invoice or receipt for delivery.

They lied to convict me, a self-represented person who did not have a lawyer. They lied because they knew they could, because they had the power, authority and credibility as Officers of the Court and as senior partners of large and respected law firms. They did it because they were corrupt and wanted to win a civil case so badly that they would commit criminal offenses to do so.

Senior Ontario lawyers Gerald Ranking, Lorne Silver and junior Sebastien Kwidzinski placed their false evidence before the court, swore it was true both in writing and orally on the transcript record, convicted me of Contempt of Court and obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs against me based on their false evidence.

Ah… but I had my secret recording of the telephone call that irrefutably proved the lawyers lied to the court in writing and orally on the record. ‘No problem’ I said to myself – I’ll just return to Canada and play the recording for the court, who will overturn my conviction and justly imprison these corrupt lawyers for perjury, obstruct justice and fabricating evidence.

Abandoned by the legal profession and the Law Society of Ontario

When I voluntarily returned to Canada from Asia to appeal my conviction and present my evidence, over one hundred Ontario lawyers refused to represent me even as they acknowledged the veracity and power of my evidence. Many told me that while they personally sympathized with my situation facing injustice and corruption, they feared backlash and opprobrium from the profession if they harmed or even challenged the involved senior lawyers and their large Bay Street law firms.

Even the Law Society of Ontario refused to assist in finding a lawyer to represent me and chose to not investigate the wrongdoing that I reported in writing. The Law Society chose to not seize and preserve evidence from the corrupt lawyers and their law firms. Some Law Society senior benchers actively covered up for their fellow Bay Street cabal members at the highest levels.

So I was forced to represent myself before the court.

Self-Represented in the Ontario Courts

The judges did not allow me to appeal my conviction that was obtained while I was not in court. I was not even allowed to cross-examine the lawyers and other witnesses that the courts relied upon to convict and imprison me.

I was not allowed to cross-examine the corrupt Ontario Provincial Police officer, Jim Van Allen, who worked illegally for the lawyers as an unlicensed private investigator, and whose ‘expert’ evidence was also used to convict and sentence me.

Not Allowed to Cross-Examine Witnesses against me

As a Canadian facing prison, I was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who provided the evidence the court used to convict and sentence me.

Let me repeat that: As a Canadian facing prison, I was not allowed to cross- examine the very witnesses who provided the evidence the court used to convict and sentence me.

Right now, many of you are thinking, “That can’t be true. No way. Not in Canada.”

How naïve you are.

Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

A Corrupt Judge takes his Revenge

On May 3, 2013 after refusing to even consider my recordings and other new evidence that proved my innocence, and after sending me off to prison and ending court for the day, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy went to a backroom.

There in that backroom, off the court record and without a hearing, trial or transcript, Justice Shaughnessy secretly and illegally increased my prison sentence by fifty percent without notifying me. He secretly created a new warrant of committal 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.

Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney describe the Judge’s misconduct as “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.”

Later, I was denied the right to appeal my conviction and Justice Shaughnessy’s actions to a higher court 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.

Solitary Confinement prison cell very much like the one Donald Best spent 63 days in. Lights on 24 hours a day and the screams of other prisoners never stop.

Solitary Confinement

I spent 63 days in prison – every day in solitary confinement as I am a former Toronto Police Officer. The prison authorities told me that solitary was the only place they could keep me alive – and from what I saw, they spoke the truth. In my solitary cell I had to clean the faeces and blood of previous occupants from the floor and walls. The lights in the cell were on 24 hours a day – but the screams and moans of my fellow prisoners didn’t allow for much sleep anyway.

All this is still celebrated online as a victory by the group of corrupt Bay Street lawyers and their large law firms who wanted to win, and did win, a high-value civil case by any means possible – including fabrication of evidence, perjury, obstructing justice and bribery of police to illegally obtain confidential police records.

How the Courts protect fellow members of The Legal Club

But as disgusting as all that is, there is much worse. The Canadian legal profession, the Law Society of Ontario and the Courts themselves, when confronted with legally made certified voice recordings and other irrefutable evidence proving that the Bay Street lawyers deliberately fabricated false evidence and lied to the court to convict me while I was out of the country…

… when confronted with that irrefutable evidence, the legal profession, the Law Society and the Courts closed ranks to save the corrupt Bay Street lawyers – even when that meant knowingly sending an innocent man – a self-represented person in a civil case – to prison.

In response to my solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing by senior Law Society of Ontario lawyers, the courts refused to consider my evidence, my exhibits and refused to even listen to the voice recordings. In all these years before various levels of courts, no judge has ever listened to the voice recordings – at least officially.

When faced with a choice of ignoring irrefutable evidence of lawyers’ corrupt activities – or of receiving that evidence and then holding accountable senior partners from some of Bay Street’s largest legal firms – the Law Society of Upper Canada, the legal profession and the courts betrayed their duty to Canadians.

Canada’s Legal Profession & Courts cover-up legal system corruption

The worst though, is that my personal story is just one small part of a much larger disaster involving thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have been denied access to justice and justice itself because of systemic failings in our justice system.

Those systemic failings in our justice system include a Canada-wide tolerance by judges and lawyers for corruption in the legal profession.

There is an unwillingness in the Canadian legal profession to even talk about corrupt acts by lawyers and judges. When a lawyer actually presents evidence of corruption in specific terms, naming names… look out! The rest of the pack will turn and attack as my current lawyer and so many other Canadians have discovered.

My false conviction and imprisonment was possible only because there is a level of tolerance by judges and lawyers for corruption in the legal profession and in the courts. There is strong reluctance to damage the careers of fellow lawyers and judges – or to tarnish the profession itself by acknowledging serious deliberate wrongdoing.

Tolerance of corruption in our justice system is systemic and deep-rooted. It is fed by the low integrity of some individuals in positions of influence and authority, who are empowered by the total lack of courage and the unwillingness of our legal profession to hold fellow Club Members accountable in any meaningful manner.

Not a week goes by that I do not hear from five or ten other Canadians (totalling many hundreds in the past few years) who write to tell me their own stories of lawyers and judges committing serious acts of misconduct with impunity; confident that they will never be held accountable.

Many of the writers are desperate because they cannot afford a lawyer and must represent themselves in court – knowing as they do that the courts are set up to overwhelmingly favour and benefit the legal profession, not to provide justice to ordinary Canadians as purported.

Losing Faith in the Justice System

For a variety of well-founded reasons, ordinary Canadians are fast losing their faith in our justice system. Many believe that justice is now simply unattainable through the courts. This is a dangerous situation, the extent and seriousness of which has yet to be acknowledged by those entrusted with operating our justice system.

Unless individual police officers, lawyers and judges start to act with courage, integrity and a sense of duty towards ordinary Canadians and the Rule of Law – this situation will continue to deteriorate.

Much of the unrest, protests and violent flareups that we see in our cities has origin in the fact that people have lost faith in the professions and institutions charged with upholding the rule of law.

When the police, lawyers and courts are not to be trusted – anything goes.

Donald Best

Barrie, Ontario Canada

Supporting court evidence, documents, news media articles and much more can be found online at DonaldBest.CA | Access to Justice. Anti-corruption.

Twitter: @DonaldBestCA

Read Donald Best’s original answer on Quora.

Court hears of Donald Best story as mobster jailed for threats to murder former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino.

Former federal Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino “Abuses in the Donald Best case could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.”
  • Mobster Delio Manuel Pereira jailed for 18 months for credible threats to murder former federal Cabinet Minister and Police Chief Julian Fantino.
  • Pereira, 66 years old, is a career thug who previously spent years in prison for his role in the 2001 murder of mafia enforcer and boxing champion Eddie Melo.
  • Ontario Judge Elaine Deluzio heard evidence that Pereira tacked news articles about  Julian Fantino on his wall, including one from a December 2017 edition of the Star.
  • That article, headlined “Fantino takes aim at judge, police and lawyers,” described Fantino’s allegations that a Canadian judge, lawyers and several polices forces acted improperly in the conviction of Donald Best on contempt of court charges.

Story of corruption, coverup by Canadian lawyers, police & judges in the news again.

by Donald Best

The ongoing Donald Best case concerning how corrupt lawyers, police and a corrupt judge acted improperly to convict and jail Best received a brief mention in a recent Toronto Star news article by crime journalist and author Peter Edwards.

The Toronto Star article ‘Man sentenced to 18 months for threats to kill former Toronto police chief Julian Fantino’ relates how mobster Delio Manuel Pereira threatened to murder former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino.

The court heard how Pereira had a December 2017 Star news story tacked to his wall – ‘Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers’. That article told of Julian Fantino’s legal efforts to intervene in the case of Donald Best.

Judge Elaine Deluzio

After hearing all the evidence, including about the Toronto Star article pinned to Delio Manuel Pereira’s wall, Ontario Judge Elaine Deluzio sentenced the mobster to 18 months in prison.

The Toronto Star report of Pereira’s trial and sentencing makes no mention of what Judge Deluzio said or thought about Fantino’s accusations of corruption by lawyers, police and judges in the Donald Best case. Here is an excerpt from that article…

Former Federal Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino alleges wrongdoing by Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy, lawyers & police

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.

In his submission, Fantino maintains that Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy convicted Donald Best “upon the presentation by lawyers of provably false evidence.” He also argues that “disturbing” evidence suggests police resources and personnel were “improperly retained, used and co-opted” to help one side in the private civil dispute.

“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,” Fantino states. “Had I known about it at the time, I would have immediately ordered an investigation to gather all evidence … with a view to possible provincial and/or criminal charges.”

Fantino, who could not be immediately reached for comment, explains in his 33-page affidavit filed along with 100 exhibits why he wanted to get involved. The “abuses,” he said, could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

“I notice that, in this matter, no one represents the people of Canada,” Fantino states. “No one speaks for me and other Canadians who believe in and rely upon fairness, courtesy and honourable treatment within the justice system.” 

… Above from the Toronto Star article Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers’.

Donald Best story gaining traction in the mainstream & online news media.

With increasing frequency in the mainstream media, the story is being told to the public of how corrupt lawyers Gerald Ranking, Lorne Silver, Sebastien Kwidzinski, corrupt OPP officer Jim Van Allen and corrupt Federal Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy convicted and knowingly sent an innocent Donald Best to prison for Contempt of Court – to protect the corrupt Bay Street lawyers (Ranking, Silver, Kwidzinski) who fabricated provably false evidence and lied to the court.

Donald Best’s story has now been covered by every major Canadian newspaper. His interview on The Jimmy Dore Show attracted international attention by both the public and the news media.

Watch for more public exposure in the coming weeks as Donald Best appears in more video interviews and mainstream press articles.

Further Reading

Summary of Julian Fantino’s September 28, 2017 affidavit.

January 1, 2018 News Media censorship of Julian Fantino’s Canadian Judicial Council intervention crumbles.

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 [email protected] 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.

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.

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

Donald Best is a former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) who is now an independent journalist, documentary filmmaker and an anti-corruption advocate. He is the recipient of the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award, and has been called “One of Canada’s most methodical and well documented whistleblowers.”

Did Superior Court Judge interfere with St. Michael’s College School sex assault investigation to protect his football coach son?

St. Michael’s College School teacher & football coach Kevin Shaughnessy with his father Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in promotional video.
  • Legal experts say an Ontario Superior Court Justice should not have involved himself in the ongoing sex-assault investigation at St. Michael’s College School.
  • Judge’s son is a teacher & football coach of students charged with gang sexual assault & making / distributing child porn video of the attack.
  • Two sources say that in November 2018, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy attended St. Michael’s College School meetings during the sexual assault investigation where he called for the firing of principal Greg Reeves and school president Father Jefferson Thompson. The two school officials subsequently resigned on Thursday, November 22, 2018.
  • A source states that one of the meetings was ‘open’, but the other was a small private meeting that included various school board members, respected senior alumni and advisors who discussed with Justice Shaughnessy options in handling the scandal.
  • Justice Shaughnessy’s son Kevin Shaughnessy is a ten-year teacher at the school and was one of the teachers / coaches of the now-dismantled football team whose students were videoed in the school locker room (allegedly) sexually assaulting a boy with a broom handle.
  • Justice Shaughnessy is a St. Michael’s College School alumnus (1968) who has remained heavily involved in school affairs including law classes and mock trials. He founded and donated two longstanding student awards. His three sons also graduated from the school where one, Kevin, is employed as a teacher.
  • In May 2018 Justice Shaughnessy appeared in a promotional video for the school, associated with his receiving the ‘Order of St. Michael’. The video makes revelations about his involvement with other organizations, some of which are also involved with the courts and law enforcement in Durham Region where the judge sits on the bench – raising further questions about potential and/or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Did Justice Shaughnessy have any contact whatsoever with law enforcement personnel concerning the St. Michael’s College School matter?
  • In an unrelated civil case, there are four known improper police involvements associated with Justice Shaughnessy. This raises strong suspicions of Shaughnessy’s improper use of, and relationship with, law enforcement. In 2017 Durham Regional Police launched major investigation into Donald Best immediately after Best’s lawyer filed legal documents about Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct in a civil case. In 2009, a Durham Regional Police officer assigned to Justice Shaughnessy’s courthouse improperly conducted a secret investigation into Donald Best “in aid of the court”.
  • Justice Shaughnessy is already embroiled in separate litigation concerning his corrupt behaviour in a matter outside the St. Michael’s investigation. In the Donald Best civil case, Justice Shaughnessy – in a backroom after court closed – secretly and illegally doubled Best’s prison time for Contempt of Court without informing Best or placing any record of the judge’s secret order into the court record. Only the prison was notified of the increased sentence.
  • In the same Donald Best civil matter Justice Shaughnessy also backdated a court order by ten days to assist the opposing lawyers – and then convicted and imprisoned Donald Best for failing to deliver business records to opposing lawyers two days before Shaughnessy made and signed the backdated order that required Best to present the business records. (Yes, you read that correctly.)
  • Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney call Justice Shaughnessy’s behaviour in the Donald Best civil case “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.” His corrupt actions earned Bryan Shaughnessy the monikers ‘Backroom Bryan’ and ‘Canada’s Backroom Judge’ with both the public and (quietly) in the legal community.
Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in May 2018 promotional video for St. Michael’s College School.

How Involved is Teacher & Football Coach Kevin Shaughnessy?

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

The scandal at St. Michael’s College School exploded in November 2018 and is only partially about the horrific behaviour of some members of the school’s football team who (allegedly) sexually assaulted a fellow student with a broomstick, videoed the attack and then distributed the child pornography.

Seven students now stand criminally charged involving multiple incidents on school property over a number of months.

In a breach of professional ethics and perhaps even the criminal code, for at least two days senior school administrators (and probably some teachers, board members and parents) failed to report the horrific sex attack and existence of the child-sex video to the police or Children’s Aid. Some possessed copies of the child-sex video during this time and distributed it to others.

It was not until the police were notified by the news media and came to the school that principal Greg Reeves surrendered the video to the police and informed them of the sexual attack – some two days after he knew and first possessed the child-sex video.

Why did so many senior members of the St. Michael’s College School community fail to report the existence of the child-sex video and horrific sex-attack to the police? 

Were the school staff and board members honestly just overwhelmed and unprepared to deal with such events? Were they naïve about their duty to protect a child at risk?

Or… was it an attempted cover-up? Were the staff and board trying to find some way out to protect the international reputation of the school? Did the worldwide revelations about child sexual abuse and coverups by the Catholic Church and clergy influence the St. Michael’s College School individual and corporate decisions?

Roster showing Kevin Shaughnessy as a football coach with St. Michael’s College School. From the OFSAA Team Rosters – St. Michael’s vs Cardinal Newman

What did Justice Shaughnessy know and when did he know it?

It would be only natural for Justice Bryan Shaughnessy and his son Kevin Shaughnessy to discuss the sexual assaults the moment either of them learned of the events. 

As a ten-year St. Michael’s teacher and football coach, Kevin Shaughnessy might have been worried about the school image and about his own career. He would naturally inform and ask advice of his father who is both a senior justice in the Ontario Superior Court and a respected member of the St. Michael’s College School community.

“(There should be) a full accounting of coaches, clergy and staff members assigned to sports teams. Where were they when that kid was screaming for help?”

Toronto Sun journalist Joe Warmington November 23, 2018

Both Justice Shaughnessy and his son Kevin would have known that public questions were bound to be asked about the school’s athletic and football team culture, why the assault was not prevented and when each staff member became aware of the assaults and videos. The public and parents would also want to know if anyone had knowledge of this type of behaviour happening in the past and what the response of the school was at the time. (Note: At least one former student has gone public claiming that hazing and assaults at the school have been part of the school culture for decades.)

Justice Shaughnessy should have recused himself from any involvement whatsoever.

In this situation, it would be a natural instinct for senior school officials, staff, board members and parents to contact Justice Shaughnessy for advice – perhaps not even considering that contacting a senior judge during a criminal investigation was improper. 

Bryan Shaughnessy, however, is no ordinary person, no ordinary alumnus or parent – ‘Bryan’ is Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy whose public and private statements on anything carry real influence and the heavy credibility of a senior judge. 

Further, Justice Shaughnessy’s son Kevin is a teacher and football coach and therefore directly involved at the very least as a witness – and potentially as the subject of investigations into the school’s staff and football culture.

“It was up to Justice Shaughnessy to recuse himself from the picture, but instead he deliberately chose to become involved.

Upon learning of the sexual assault at the school, as a sitting Ontario Superior Court Justice who is the father of an involved teacher and football coach, Bryan Shaughnessy should have immediately recused himself from any discussion, communication or any role at all in the school.

Further, he had a duty imposed by law to report any incidents himself unless he was absolutely sure they had already been properly reported.” (Senior Law Society of Ontario lawyer to Donald Best.)

There are recognized limitations on what a judge may or may not do both officially and in private life. According to several senior lawyers and a law professor I consulted with during the writing of this article, Justice Shaughnessy crossed the line when he made recommendations to the school in the middle of a criminal investigation – whether he made those recommendations in public at the general meeting or in private with school officials.

As a senior Ontario Superior Court Justice, Bryan Shaughnessy should not have involved himself in any way in a criminal matter likely to go before the courts.

According to the senior lawyers, Justice Shaughnessy’s actions during the criminal investigation crossed the line even before considering the obvious conflict of interest created by his son’s employment as a teacher and involved football coach at the school. 

Parents, staff and members of the public would naturally wonder if Justice Shaughnessy’s recommendation that St. Michael’s College School fire principal Greg Reeves and president Father Jefferson Thompson was intended to take the heat away from Shaughnessy’s son and his son’s fellow teachers and football coaches.

Too many unanswered questions.

Did Justice Shaughnessy’s teacher-son have a copy of the video or know of it and not report it to the police? Did anything that Kevin Shaughnessy do or failed to do influence his father to call for the firing of the school principal and director?

Exactly when and how did Justice Shaughnessy learn of the sexual assaults and of the existence of the video? Did he immediately call the police to report the crime himself? Did Justice Shaughnessy see or possess a copy of the child-sex video?

When sitting judges insert themselves or allow themselves to be inserted into criminal investigations – at the very least this causes public doubt about the judiciary and the rule of law. At worst, such actions bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Add to that the fact that Justice Shaughnessy’s own son is at the very best a potential witness and at the worst an involved teacher and football coach.

Justice Shaughnessy made a deliberate choice to insert himself into an ongoing criminal investigation despite his obvious conflicts of interest.

He knew or should have known that his involvement had the potential to cause doubt about the integrity of both the internal and police investigation and to bring both his personal judgment and the administration of justice into disrepute.

Yet, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy chose to become involved in the St. Michael’s College School scandal.

Coming in Part II…

  • Update on the St. Michael’s College School criminal charges, including known timeline.
  • Analysis of the Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy promotional video for St. Michael’s College School.
  • Discussion of what public activities are permissible for sitting judges. Is fundraising for organizations permitted? What if the organizations have an acknowledged role with the police or the courts in the judge’s jurisdiction?
  • Details of all police involvement associated with Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in the Donald Best civil case.

Further Reading

CBC Toronto, Nov 22/18 St. Michael’s College School principal and president resign amid student sex assault scandal

Toronto Star, Dec 19/18 What we know and don’t know about the scandal at St. Michael’s College School — and what we can’t report

Dec 2/15 Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy secretly increased prisoner’s jail sentence – in a backroom, off the court record, without informing the prisoner.

Jan 1/18 News media censorship of Julian Fantino’s Canadian Judicial Council Intervention Crumbles as Toronto Star Publishes bombshell article.

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 [email protected] 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.

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.

Photos have been included to put context to the article. Their use is the same as with other Canadian news outlets. With the exception of Kevin Shaughnessy who is a legitimate subject of this news article, all other members of Justice Shaughnessy’s family have been edited out of the photos.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Donald Best is a former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) who is now an independent journalist, documentary filmmaker and an anti-corruption advocate. He is the recipient of the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award, and has been called “One of Canada’s most methodical and well documented whistleblowers.”

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

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Toronto Police

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what this latest filing meant in materials alone:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadians just might make this happen!

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

Coming Soon

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

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

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

More coming!

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

GoFundMe Donald Best CJC Public Interest Campaign

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

 

Help fund the public inquiry into the Canadian Judicial Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

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

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

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

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

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino

Who Supports Donald Best?

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

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

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

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

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

Contribute anonymously to the Donald Best CJC Challenge GoFundMe campaign.

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

Newly revealed off-the-record speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

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

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

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

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

Access to Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University College London

The Constitution Unit The Supreme Court London, England

July, 7, 2011

Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella

Supreme Court of Canada

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

Read more

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

Former federal Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julian Fantino’s bombshell affidavit

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Keith Boswell

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

Julian Fantino, former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, applied to intervene in the CJC / Justice Shaughnessy case by filing an application and supporting affidavit sworn September 28, 2017. On October 25, 2017, Prothonotary Mandy Aylen rejected Fantino’s application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

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

Lawyer Paul Slansky filed Best’s appeal

Victims’ Rights advocates mobilizing.

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

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

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

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

  • “Court ended and the Judge (Shaughnessy) left the courtroom. The courtroom staff ended their duties and Mr. Best was taken away to prison. Then, in Mr. Best’s absence, in a backroom and off the court record with no transcript and no endorsement on the record, the Judge secretly created a new Warrant of Committal and increased Best’s time to be served in prison by 50%… this new secret Warrant of Committal was given only to the prison authorities and was not placed into the court records.”
  • “There is no justification for this which appears to be a vindictive and punitive act and it needs to be closely scrutinized.” (Summary of Fantino’s bombshell affidavit and full copy here.)

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

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

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

Victims’ Rights advocates rip into Justice Boswell’s decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Keith Boswell

Decision of Justice Keith M. Boswell

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

Donald Best’s Application to Appeal Boswell Decision

20180111 Best Boswell Appeal Notice (.pdf 2.3mb)

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

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

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

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

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

1 2 3 4