Why did Fasken Martineau lawyer Gerald Ranking not submit costs to the Supreme Court of Canada?

More evidence that Toronto lawyer Gerald ‘Gerry’ Ranking committed fraud upon the Supreme Court of Canada & Ontario courts

Money laundering question: Where did the million dollars go?

Faskens lawyer Gerald L Ranking

On September 4, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed my application for leave to appeal a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. I am informed that this doesn’t mean that the SCC thought that my appeal would not succeed or that it was without merit; it simply means that the SCC selects a very few cases out of hundreds of applicants. Apparently the SCC attempts to highlight cases that it believes have national implications, and for its own reasons the court did not choose to consider my case.

That’s life. As an aside, it also means that in some twenty appearances before the courts, no court, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, ever listened to or chose to listen to, the voice recordings that prove big law firm lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver fabricated evidence and lied to the Superior Court of Ontario to convict me in absentia of Contempt of Civil Court, and to put me in jail.

Again, that’s life. It is my hope that someday a jury of my fellow Canadians will listen to the voice recordings during the Best vs. Ranking civil case.

I can assure my readers that unlike the legal profession, ordinary Canadians have no reluctance at all to listen to the November 17, 2009 voice recordings of my telephone call with lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Sliver, and to compare those recordings with the false evidence the lawyers provided to the courts to convict and jail me.

(Readers can listen to the recording and examine documents here.)

Why did Gerald Ranking / Fasken Martineau not submit costs?

The rules and case law of civil procedure in Ontario are fairly simple; under normal circumstances it is usual that those litigants who bring actions or motions that are denied by the court might have some liability to pay the opposition for their legal costs.

Thus, when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to consider my appeal, the court awarded $20,364.79 costs payable by me to defendant Kingsland Estates Limited.

But the court awarded no costs payable to Gerald Ranking’s purported client ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’.

As the Supreme Court of Canada said in its reasons: “The respondent, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, has not submitted a bill of costs..” (SCC Costs decision here PDF 949kb)

A fraud upon the courts explained

Toronto lawyer Gerald L Ranking

Why would Gerald Ranking and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP law firm not submit a costs claim to the Surpreme Court of Canada as is normal? Why would Faskens and Ranking not attempt to recover costs for their purported ‘client’?

The answer is simple enough: Faskens senior lawyer Gerald Lancaster Ranking and his partners at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP knew that their purported client, ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ does not, and did not, exist at any time. Ranking and his law firm did not want to double-down on their fraud upon the Supreme Court of Canada and have the SCC issue another cost order to what the lawyers know is a false, phoney, criminally fraudulent, non-existent ‘client’.  

As clearly shown in evidence now filed before the courts, Gerald Ranking and his witness Marcus Hatch in 2007 first swore on the court record that ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ was a business legitimately registered with the Government of Barbados.

That was a lie, and that first lie was followed by many others over the next seven years; because once a lawyer places a lie on the court record it becomes necessary to support it with other lies.

From 2007 through 2010, the Ontario courts believed Mr. Ranking as an officer of the court and believed his co-conspirators; even to the point of convicting and jailing me at the behest of this purported ‘client’ that Ranking knew was a false, fraudulent creation designed to shield his real clients from liability in the event that they lost the Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. civil case.

Money laundering question: Where did the million dollars go?

The use of a fraudulent, non-existant business entity for financial transactions is a recognized badge of fraud and money-laundering.

While Gerald Ranking’s use of a phoney client and non-existent business entity offered his real clients some measure of protection if the civil suit was lost, it created problems when the court ordered payments to the phoney non-existent business. By definition, a phoney non-existent business cannot have a bank account.

During the Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. civil case, about a million dollars in costs was paid to Fasken and Ranking in trust for their fraudulent non-existent ‘client’. So where did Faskens and Ranking transfer the money received ‘in trust’ for their phoney client?

The one thing we do know about where the money went is that it was never deposited into any bank account in the name ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm’ as the court ordered.

How did Fasken and Ranking work around the currency laws of Barbados, applicable income tax laws and other legal problems that must have arisen when transferring a million dollars the court ordered paid to a non-existent, phoney, fraudulent non-entity?

That, as they say, is an excellent question that is certainly worthy of consideration by the courts, the Law Society of Upper Canada and by ordinary Canadians.

The Law Society of Upper Canada is well aware of this case (PDF letter 489kb), but did not perform an investigation or audit of the Ranking/Fasken money trail. Instead, LSUC whitewashed and covered up the entire affair and the criminal activities of senior lawyers from some of Canada’s largest law firms.

If the Law Society, Faskens, Mr. Ranking, Mr. Silver or anyone cares to dispute anything in this article, or to voice their side of the matter, I will print their unedited message here.

This article is written and published from Ontario, Canada by Donald Best

DonaldBest.CA reminds our readers that as of the publication date the allegations have yet to be proven in a court of law. Visitors are encouraged to examine the legal documents and other evidence posted here, to do independent research and to make up their own minds about the civil lawsuit known as ‘Donald Best v. Gerald Ranking et al’. (Superior Court of Justice, Central East Region: Barrie, Court File No. 14-0815)

Photo Credit: Public domain non-copyright photo of Toronto lawyer Gerald L. Ranking, obtained online from public domain materials distributed on the internet by Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP without copyright or similar notations.

5 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.