Lawyers are not rats, say lawyers
Via the Canadian Magazines blog, we discover that a number of lawyers are hot under the robes about an interview in the newest issue of Maclean’s with Philip Slayton, author of Lawyers Gone Bad: Money, Sex and Madness in Canada’s Legal Profession, published this month by Viking Canada.
The interview, entitled “Lawyers Are Rats,” has prompted a heated reply from the Canadian Bar Association, which has posted a statement on its web site that accuses the magazine of painting “a distorted, one-sided and sensationalized picture of the legal profession.”
Quillblog can certainly understand the CBA’s anger – as far as we know, this is the first time ever that anyone, anywhere, has suggested that lawyers are anything other than morally upright citizens who want nothing more than to teach the world to sing.
Lawyers are rats. The Macleans piece was brilliant!
We are in the midst of a takeover of all parts of society by lawyers and legal activities. Lawyers are forming a second class of privelege above everybody else providing a mythical useless service.
Good for Macleans!
[…] hence the title of this post. For an aray of reactions surrounding this, see here, here, here, here and […]
I haven’t read the article yet, saw the “story” on TV/Legal Brief and went on line finding the outrgage by the legal profession on the issue.
Most people once at least in their life time will be needing legal assistance and that is enough wanting to avoid the use regardless of need maybe– later on. Why ? because we no longer believe in justice after we taste the process and start paying for it., only to find out the only winners are really the lawyers at the end.
To be fair , i did meet with lawyers who are great people and professionals, but the problem is they are not the majority. I am glad to see this topic up and hot, and will be following it. I will definitely buy this issue of Macleans today and most likely the book also. Looking forward to continuity and -who knows- , perhaps .. positive changes by highlighting problems…..and if that means looking into a mirror for some of the legal professionals where they don’t like what they see….hey , it is time for a make-over and new hair cut! …or allow only the “worthy-ones” to stay and practice. Trust…. we give it blindly and often abused by the power they have, and that is knowledge of the law…-ow ironic………and the strength of their close and private and silent rule of “sticking” together…..against …..who? yes….who? …the other side….the side who needs them…., use them….pay them…? …and all these are in the name of justice …
William Levy
Status of Men Canada
Ethics Committee
344 Lagace,
REF: Maclean’s Article “Lawyers are rats”
AN OPINION
Dear Mr. Morton
How can you be so offended in your article in the Post: An inexcusable smear on lawyers - James Morton, National Post Published: Monday, July 30, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=6796f7b7-9f77-4674-8a6a-e9a99776a17a&p=1
How did we, the Canadian public, allow ourselves to be overrun by a handful of legalist zealots who operate Above the Law?
Legalist Zealots have impoverished the Divorced Family Unit (article available upon request to CSM Canada).
These Zealots have reintroduced incarceration without trial (divorce court) and re-opened debtor’s prisons (just miss one support payment).
These Zealots have made our children both fatherless and motherless in their greedy quest to line their pockets, regardless of the Canadian Constitution, Fundamental Human Rights, the UN Rights of Children and the Fundamental Principles of Justice!
Worst of all the Canadian and Quebec Bar Associations encourage such behavior by making any reasonable complaint impossible to resolve for the average person. (Come attend our lawsuit this fall in Quebec against the Bar for their failure to protect the public).
The BAR wants you to NOT to know the following (or why bad lawyers (rats) go un-suspended from practice:
When you have cause to complain you write a letter to the Bar:
Then you get a form to fill out.
Then you mail it.
Then you get of letter of reply.
Then you get another letter saying you have no cause for complaint.
Then you ask for a review.
Then you get another letter which tells you it is getting an opinion on the first decision.
Then you get another letter that it is their opinion the first opinion is ok.
AND all this done by the Bar itself, NOT from an outside review board independent of the Bar.
Making our children parentless?…..this writer in his opinion thinks ‘rats’ is too kind a word.
Respectfully,
William Levy
Mr. Morton,
I heard about this story that MacLean’s did and had to do some searching on the subject, while doing that search I read your comments (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=6796f7b7-9f77-4674-8a6a-e9a99776a17a) . Unfortunately since you provided an email address you get to here my side and my opinion and this is only the very short version. I do believe that not all lawyers are “rats” without a full public inquiry, we will never know.
I respect your position and your comments, but as an ordinary citizen who has tried to stop a fraud that is happening here in Canada and the US is simply not true. In this instance there are at least 5 or more law firms involved in helping keep this fraud alive and well. I have been sued for coming forward and my lawyer in the US and the Judge(s) simply ignore what is going on. In our country nobody gives a “rat’s ass”, not lawyers, not the government, not the police, absolutely nobody, innocent victims are being screwed! Where is the justice system? I firmly believe that my lawyer and the Judge have been paid off. The Board of Professional Responsibility has been asked to look into it, I have asked the judge to look into and report these lawyers to the board as required under that States rule of Conduct. I have written a letter to the law society here in Ontario back before I was sued telling them what was going on, did they care? I told them that if I file a complaint they would use their knowledge as lawyers to screw me over and was afraid to come forward. Was I right, absolutely! I have a lawyer here in Ontario that is supposed to sue under our law here; I have brought him 8 or 9 others to sue as well. That was at least 15 months ago, took our money and nothing has been done, my guess is who cares about some guy from Canada!! This fraud brings in too much money into the State and we will keep it going. Other lawyers involved who know these lawyers are corrupt and assisting this corporation break laws in others States and Countries including Ontario and Alberta simply turn their heads! It is my belief that this is nothing but an “Old Boys Club”!
Do you honestly think that everyone that has been screwed over by a lawyer has come forward? Maybe you and the members of the law society should do your own survey with the help and assistance of newspapers (national post), radio, TV and magazines like MacLean’s and find out how many ordinary citizens would file a complaint if would actually do some good. Here is an idea: why don’t we as a society have lawyers that the only cases they can take on would be to sue lawyers for things like improper billing, corruption, assisting crooks break the law, and ethics, etc, etc, etc. Maybe that should be the first job a lawyer has before he can practice in society, that way he will be able to see what goes on first hand and will learn and know that the following year their will be a new batch watching him! My guess for the first few decades we would have such a backlog that it would break the system! One thing you are right about, that lawyers do help with things like better medicine, better cars, better products, but come on how many damn stickers do we need on a ladder? Do we need you to protect us from our own stupidity? There will come a day when nobody will want to be in business, nobody will want to make a ladder or it will just be to expensive to pay for the insurance to make that ladder thus making it too expensive to buy a ladder. We have all heard the story (true or not) I guy breaks into a house, gets hurt and sues the home owner for what, Negligence? And Wins!!!!
I have wanted to sue many lawyers in the past for their wrong doing and incompetence; try and find one who will take on the case. I am not one of these people who want to sue for everything that goes wrong, that is part of our problem in society today; someone has to pay and be responsible! As a prime example take a look at your insurance bill and the things you have to have insurance for. Between you as lawyers (as a whole and not you personally) and the insurance companies you have created one hell of a business. Speaking of insurance, are you as a group of lawyers not self insured? Is that not a conflict of interest? Is that why it is so hard to find a lawyer to sue another lawyer? Will it not make your premiums go up? I have wanted to file complaints about many lawyers that I have dealt with in the past but feel that it is not worth it. I know lawyers who have gotten out of the law business because of the “rats” in it and others who complain about their coworkers and the ethics (lack of) they bring to a situation. I understand from a friend of mine who has a son in law that is a professor of law has explained to him how the practice of law started; of course this would be hearsay in a court! Many, many years ago when people did not know how to read or could not speak for them selves they had people do it for them, probably in a kings court, they must have seen that this was a good practice. When people started to become educated and learned how to read and write the others must have come up with a plan to make it difficult for the ordinary people again by making the language of law more and more difficult to understand, we will use the old language of Latin, confuse the hell out of people and thus the new system of law was born. (my opinion), “bad manners, good business”
One final question; where are the pro bono lawyers, where are the lawyers to help victims of fraud, where is the justice system, where are the loop holes (everywhere), sorry that was more than one final question.
I rest my case!
http://faqusajudicialcorruption.blogspot.com/
What came first? The corupt lawyer or the corput Judge?
I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED Q AND Q COMMENTATORS TO SAY THAT THIS IS A POORLY WRITTEN, SENSATIONALISTIST PIECE OF TRIPE. SHAME ON THE PUBLISHER AND MACLEANS MAG , TOO.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!! It`s very clear to me, that the complete legal professsion and most important, the CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION should and must be thoroughly investigated, scrutinized and cleaned up just as we are now doing with the RCMP and just as Spitzer, the SEC and other authorities across the border, have and are busting open and discovering the rot within corporations, accounting firms, banking institutions and investment firms. Lets not kid each other!!! It`s no secret the legal profession is rampant with corruption, incompetence, chicanery, and most importantly INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT which would include a new class of barristers who specialize in representing the Canadian public for the purpose of suing unethical lawers in Canada. It`s that simple!!!
I`m assuming EDITOR is a lawer.
The article is a complete embarrassment to journalism. Phil Slayton and Macleans are manipulating the public to sell books and mags-its that simple. And the sad part is that most of you bought right into it. There’s absolutely no research to support his claims-I can sit there and ramble off countless cases where doctors molest patients and accountants cook books. Will I, no because I know that proves nothing about those professions as a whole. Take away lawyers and the legal system and just wait and see what kind of society we’re in then–our entire capitalist system arose as a result of a solid legal system. One only has to look at the countries that are impoversihed and disorganized and pay attention to the lack of any legal establishment. The
scary thing about this type of journalism is that your racial, ethnic or socio-economic group will be on that cover next.
This thread is clearly sponsored by insurance companies and doctors.
I don’t think that everyone wants to get rid of all lawyers, but for a start if we could get rid of the corrupt, the lazy, the unethical, etc, etc would be great. This article was written about LAWYERS, not accountants, not doctors; they too have there problems like any industry including mine. Fortunately for society we have lawyers that will take care of those problems but won’t or refuse to look in the mirror to see what’s wrong within their own! The problem, as I see it, is that the bad ones are PROTECTED, much like a union and until that union stands up and takes care of that problem it will not change. In a union there are many great and honourable people, but when the co workers turn there heads , stick their heads in the sand, turn a blind eye, what ever you want to call it, it could and does come to an end. There are many companies out in the real world that decided it is not worth and shut the doors, jobs lost, rules changed! Here is question for you lawyers, you have a code of ethics, correct? So why do you not follow them (this is not meant for the ones that do and are honourable), is there loop holes in that code? Have you ever complained about another lawyer? Have you tried to close the loop holes in that code?
I have personal knowledge of a corporation in the US that has broken investment laws, both Federal and State for many years yet their lawyers (5 different firms) all allow it to continue and they sue and harass the individuals who try to make it public! Other lawyers know about it, don’t report it. Judges know about and have been asked to do something about, don’t. They have been reported to the Bar, nothing done about it! No lawyers will not take on a class action for the victims because there is no money in it for them; they all talk the big talk until they see the financials. Thank God for Pro Bono! Now if a bunch of rich investors were cheated or felt cheated out of 3 cents a share by wrong doing, oh boy they would have someone Balls hanging in a corporate office and justice would be done or at least appeare to be done! So, you the lawyers out there, tell me where is the justice that you speak of? Why does the crook have more rights then the victims; is it because the crook can and are willing to pay? Do you feel sorry for the crooks and do this out of the kindness of your heart? No, it is because the victim can’t afford to pay for JUSTICE!!!!
Follow up to your opinion :
PC Minister Michael Fortier, Ottawa, is the brother-in-law of one of the two senior associates of the law firm Pothier Delisle in Quebec and Montreal (recently transformed to Morency Associates), Me Pierre Delisle. (Me Delisle is married to ex-minister Margaret Fortier-Delisle in Charest’s government)
This same law firm is the one since March 2005 defending Groupaction, Jean Brault, etc. in the Federal lawsuit. Michael Fortier is fighting to recover 60,000,000$, while his brother-in-law, until September 2006, time at which he left his law firm today known as Morency Associates, was fighting to stop Michael Fortier from recovering the stolen money !
Moreover, Groupaction, Jean Brault, etc., as in the past, continue today to have their companies’ addresses at Pothier Delisle (today Morency Associates), 500 Place d’Armes, suite 2420, Montreal.
Very easy to verify the above information.
Tks
“Lawyers are rats” interview is at this site :
http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070806_108073_108073
More information from Canadian Press about Minister Michael Fortier and sponsorship scandal :
—
“We’re going to continue to do what’s necessary with our lawyers to try to recover all of the money that we believe we’re owed,” said Public Works Minister Michael Fortier.
The federal government has filed a civil suit to recover $60 million from about 20 people involved in the sponsorship scandal, of which the suit is seeking $11 million from Lafleur.
(Canadian Press, June 27, 2007, by Pierre St-Arnaud)
—
Jim, darling, lawyers are also guilty of sexual impropriety with their clients. You can read all about it on LSUC’s page regarding Tribunal Decisions. For what you’ve said about doctors the very same could be said about lawyers. And accountants? Well, creative accounting is somewhat of an art that usually benefits the little people in society. Especially where income taxes are involved. Is it right? No, but you hear far less complaints from the masses about accountants than you do about lawyers.
Nobody’s talking about removing lawyers from society. That’d be like abolishing politicians. The issue is of scrutinizing the practices of the profession. Fraud is rampant and it needs to be addressed. That’s just the plain truth.
And if you are, like me, a lawyer who is “on the level” then you have absolutely nothing to complain about.
I’m confused. Why are lawyer’s so outraged by Slayton’s Maclean’s interview? Slayton didn’t state explicitly that lawyers commonly scam their clients. Slayton didn’t say that unscrupulous personal injury lawyers fraudulently tell their client they lost the case and “pocket” the settlement cheque.
The LSUC, CBA and OTLA all issued press releases attacking Slayton for having besmirched the good name of hard working, honest lawyers.
Where is the LSUC, CBA and OTLA press release expressing outrage for the allegations of systemic fraud on the part of plaintiff lawyers posted on the Insurance Bureau of Canada website?
These IBC allegations of “common scams” being perpetrated by personal injury contest are more serious than anything Slayton has said - and are every bit as public - if not more so.
So, how is it Slayton has evoked such a backlash from OTLA - but the same lawyers happily ignore the IBC’s far more serious charges of fraudulent practices among lawyers? Like I say - I’m confused. Is this a bit of a contradiction - or not?
Here is the link to the IBC website.
http://www.ibc.ca/en/Insurance_Crime/Personal_Injury_Fraud/Whos_involved.asp
Dammit. I knew I should have specialized in personal injury.
BF, it is a contradiction. A big one. But in the legal biz we prefer to call it a deflection. Like this:
“Quick! Look over there!”
Vigilante, one more question if I may.
If you go to the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association site and click on “about us”; you will see that their members are self-described “fearless champions” of justice. Which of course begs the following question: exactly what (or who) is it, in the personal injury context, prompting the need for plaintiff lawyers to be “fearless”? Or is this self description merely hyperbole? (It’s not as if these lawyers are prosecuting Columbian drug lords.)
But, if OTLA lawyers are indeed, as they say, “fearless” - why haven’t they challenged the IBC’s sweeping inflammatory allegations of corruption in the same way they have challenged Slayton? (ie. in the form of a press release)
bf
sorry - that’s three questions!
A million apologies for the delayed reply. I had an anniversary party to attend. And in my never-ending quest for unpopularity I pestered every lawyer in attendance with your questions. Now they truly despise me and I couldn’t be happier.
So, regarding the OTLA’s members being “fearless champions” of justice…well, everyone likes to refer to themselves as fearless, don’t they? I’m a fearless defender of a clean kitchen (it’s an uphill battle). You’re probably a fearless commuter. My daughter is a fearless smasher of spiders (which comes in very handy, I must tell you).
It isn’t entirely hyperbole because these individuals, or at least the ones I mingled with last night, do believe that they are fearless champions of justice. Only the younger ones claim they “try to be” when queried. One old hound said “Well of course I am! What kind of stupid question is that?”. All that having been said I’m surprised the OTLA stopped short of calling their members “impenetrable pillars of all that is good and just in this world”.
About the IBC…not too many people had heard about it. I hadn’t heard about it myself, I had to follow the bouncing link. And you’re right, the allegations are just as damaging as anything Slayton may have written. So what’s the difference? Well first of all in the eyes of lawyers insurance companies are held with some disdain. The general consensus among last night’s unwilling participants was that insurance is a scam. And not just your home or your auto insurance, all insurance is a scam. Our friend Jim up there will back me up on that, I’m sure. Look above in the comments where he says “This thread is clearly sponsored by insurance companies and doctors”. Is insurance a scam? I’d rather not say. But I will tell you I’ve become increasingly irritated with my insurance company’s insistence I carry two million dollars’ worth of liability coverage on my homes and my automobile. Because, they say, recent litigation has proved that one million dollars’ worth of coverage is no longer sufficient. Well…that’s news to me.
So how is Slayton different? “Well, he’s one of our own!” says the old hound. How could he turn on his profession like that? How could Philip Slayton, a former dean of law AND a Rhodes Scholar, sling mud on the spotless reputations of so many “fearless champions of justice” by telling the stories of some of the worst of the business…and then saying that such practice is commonplace? It’s horrible! It’s disgusting! It’s deceitful! It’s….it’s…
It’s true and they know it.
If a bricklayer had written a book about some rotten lawyers nobody would have given it a second thought (except maybe the lawyers he’d written about). If an insurance company adjudicator had written a book about his experiences with members of the legal profession there would have been laughter and lawsuits. But because it was “one of our own” there is only anger and embarrassment. I’d like to pretend I’m confused as to why there’s such a backlash over what he’s written. As far as I know each individual case is available for public scrutiny so he’s not penned some brilliant expose…he hasn’t “outed” anyone. I’d like to ask why but I already know why. Because it happens and nobody wants to talk about it. It’s the elephant in the courtroom.
I hope that answers all your questions! There’s just one more thing I’d like to say. My boss, after reading a blog post I wrote, bought everyone in the office a copy of Slayton’s book. When I went to thank her I found she had put her copy right at the very edge of her desk, where clients could see it plainly if they were sitting in her office. I thought that was brilliant. If I was a prospective client and I knew anything about Slayton’s book I would think it was a statement of decency. As if to say “I’ve read the book and I’m better than that”. And that’s exactly what I told her. She thought that was interesting, but that’s not why she’d put the book there. Turns out that’s just where it landed when she went to put it down.
A nice thought, she said, but pretty soon it won’t make any difference. In a couple of years everyone will have a copy of Slayton’s book prominently displayed on their shelves. Why? I wanted to know…
Because, she said,
“Even the Devil can quote the Bible”
Hi again Vigilante,
I spent quite a while entering my response to yours. Maybe it was too long? Maybe it was too “inflammatory”? Maybe it isn’t permissible on this site to cite cases which illustrate lawyers aren’t checking and challenging the qualifications of “expert” medical assessors - as is their duty?
I’m not talking about the occassional lapse. I’m talking about nearly a thousand involving just one unqualified neuropsychological expert alone. I’m talking about an IME doctor who from one case to the next is referred to by the trier of fact as as “general practitioner” - an “orthopaedic specialist” - a “surgeon” because nobody is checking his misleading credentials.
At what point do these “mistakes” cease to be anomalees and become a norm?
Defence lawyers have the audacity to tell the Medical Post they used to commonly write the medical assessments they then adduced as expert evidence (proudly announcing that now they do this less frequently). What??
Plaintiff lawyers sleep through their cases and don’t even check and challenge (when appropriate) the qualifications of defence medical experts.
Maybe that is why my reply to you wasn’t posted. Because once you begin to scrutinize actual cases you wind up with the ingrediants of a damning expose. One that would out a lot of personal injury lawyers. One that would give rise to ten years worth of work for the defamation lawyers!
bf
Jim,
If you are interested in an investigatory look at the unholy nexus where insurers, doctors and lawyers intersect - see if you can lay your hands on a recent series of articles in The Medical Post beginning with “Examining the examiners”
The series talks about insurer sponsored medical assessments as the “underbelly” of medicine. Talks about defence lawyers who moonlight as medical experts and who write the insurer medical assessments themselves. Talks about a litigation landscape littered with cases in which unchecked, unchallenged, unqualified, “deporable” IMEs (ie. second opinions) had profound harmful effects on the profoundly ill and injured.
Though a prominent Toronto insurer defence lawyer is quoted (pontificating on normative practices in the personal injury context), not a single personal injury plaintiff lawyer (”fearless champion”) is to be found anywhere in this series of articles on what happens after the accident.
It seems they slept through the Medical Post’s entire investigation. Not unlike the way many sleep through their cases - blissfully unaware that the insurer expert calling their client a symptom exaggerating faker is (far more often than you would ever believe) a credential exaggerating faker.
That’s not to say all lawyers are always sleepy. When it come time to bill - some hyper-aggressively over-bill. One wonders how many personal injury lawyers prepare to settle but then bill as if they’d prepared for trial. Caveat emptor. Get the bill “taxed”.
Insurers, second opinion salesmen, defence lawyers, plaintiff lawyers - a pox on all their houses!
bf
ooops…I should have said….a pox on all their nests.
I’m outa here.
bf
Concerning the Minister Michael Fortier and his brother-in-law the lawyer Pierre Delisle, see the site:
www.canott.blogspot.com
You will be stunned by an apparent conflict about Groupaction, Jean Brault, and Sponsorship scandal. Is there another iceburg part?
Vigilante,
Today Ellen Roseman at the Toronto Star finished up her series on insurance matters.Nowhere in the entire series does OTLA step up and challenge the insurance industry stance. Why is it an organization comprised of over 1,000 fearless advocates of the cause of (often) devastatingly injured claimants sits out all the public battles and runs from confrontation with the IBC?
The industry talks about its duty to to guard against fraudulent claims, its duty to maximize profits and protect shareholder interests/dividends. Fair enough. The industy reminds the public of the adversarial nature of insurance. Some insurance insiders even warn the public (accident victims) they need to be “vigilant and vigorous” when filing a claim.
But what about the insurer’s duty to act in good faith. What about what the SCC told insurers (in Whitten/Pilot) about their rersponsibilities when dealing with claimants who have suffered “devastating” losses?
Seems to me if an insurer can be hit with a million dollar punitive award for using dubious arson investigation “experts” to accuse a claimant of arson - then OTLA ought to be asking what the punitive award ought to be when auto insurers hire dubious (partisan/unqualified) medical experts to charge catastrophically injured accident victims with fraudulently faking their impairments.
Interestingly Honda/Keays is set to be heard by the SCC in February. Maybe OTLA will seek intervenor status in this one - like they did in Whitten/Pilot. Especially since, if you read the trial transcript, you will see that a “bogus” “farce” , passing as an insurer sponsored ltd medical assessment, is lurking in the background of this battle.
bf
You’d think OTLA could have taken a second and thrown that question into the mix. Nope. Instead they sat out yet another battle and missed yet another chance to be the fearless advocatates they imagine themselves to be.
bf
Sorry, bf! Every long weekend always seems to mean extra long hours at work for some reason. And it’s a busy season, kids go back to school, people go back to court.
The insurance industry vs the legal “industry” (and before anyone jumps down my throat…by virtue of the hiring of legal professionals for services rendered does in fact constitute an “industry”). Well, you have to think about it this way: if there is a courtroom battle to be had who’s going to make money over it? The lawyers do. So naturally if they see a storm brewing they’re going to sit back and wait for the pennies to fall from heaven.
By that regard it’s not in the OTLA’s best interests to intervene. Their members are making money. Insurers call fraud for the purpose of preventing fiscal loss, for them it’s an autonomic reaction. Calling fraud on a claimant usually means that the claimant is going to have to retain a lawyer at some time or another just to sort things out. Now, I have heard OTLA members lament the fact that virtually nothing can be done by your average layperson when it comes to legal matters anymore. Self-representation has become a thing of the past, especially with regards to insurance and disability claims. It’s not that people don’t want to represent themselves, it’s just that things have become too frightening. Sharks with big teeth patrol the deep waters of the seas of liability. To them your average unrepresented water-wing-wearin’ Joe is easy pickins’ and ripe for the shredding.
It’s a passing lament though, more like a “GAWD! Do I have to do EVERYTHING???” rather than a genuine concern for the fate of the public at large. Because there’s money to be made. And money makes the world go ’round.
Sad, isn’t it? I’d love to see the OTLA seek intervenor status more often but I’m not holding my breath. At the end of the day they’ll do what’s in their members’ best interests. It will be interesting to see what the SCC rulings are on Honda vs Keays. I’ll be keeping my eye on that one!
Vigilante
Have you read the split decision re Worthman v AssessMed? It raises interesting questions as to whether it might be dangerous public policy to clothe “experts” in witness immunity.
Here’s my question for today:
If a psychologist proffering defence oriented neuropsychological asessment opinions in brain injury casualty cases goes completely unchallenged by plaintiff lawyers in case after case - despite the fact that the College of Psychologists, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Boad and the Divisional Court of Ontario all decided he is unqualified - have the lawyers who failed to check and challenge this unqualified “expert” sunk to negligence?
Isn’t it the duty of lawyers on other side to prepare for hearings, including confirming the qualifications of opposing experts and challenging them whenever appropriate to do so?
Given this “mistake” has happened in hundreds of cases - would this be systemic negligence - or just the same innocent mistake made over and over and over again? I’ve asked assorted lawyerly organizations but I get no response.
Thanks
Anybody see Alan Young’s article today about “snooty lawyers bullying their way out of favour”? (news@nowtoronto.com)
The “old hound” atttending the shindig Vigilante speaks of sounds a bit like a “snooty bully”.
Where are the pro-bono lawyers. I have need of a good one having been screwed by 3 rat lawyers and would like to sue them. I would like to believe in “don’t mess with the Justice System” I want some one to represent and prove it.
Robert, are you in Ontario? Or, more specifically, in the Toronto area? You could try U of T’s Downtown Legal Clinic. I don’t know that there’s an actual list of people who do pro bono work, but if you contact the Law Society of Upper Canada you can use their Lawyer Referral Service (costs $6). Mention that you are low income and need a referral to a community legal clinic. That should get you somewhere. Good luck!
PS to bf: Yeah, the Old Hound Dog is about as snooty as they come. He reminds me of that actor, Brian Cox. Only I’d imagine Brian is much nicer in person.
Awww…I shouldn’t say that. The Old Dog’s alright. He’s just old school with old-fangled views on new-fangled problems. Rougher ‘n diamond studded sandpaper and twice as expensive, the old fart.
Don’t tell him I said that…’kay?
I was ripped off in a “Business Opportunity Scam” a few years ago and want to help others become aware of this growing industry (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/03/biz.shtm ) I hope that you will take the time to read this as you or someone you know has bought into a “Bizz OPP” or is looking at one right now or maybe in the near future. To raise awareness I would like to ask that you forward this to your friends, family and contacts. You may not know of someone personally who has been affected; but keep in mind the “six degrees of separation”. This also includes work at home schemes, MLM, Ponzi schemes, franchise fraud, pyramid schemes, etc. You never know may be you or your next door neighbour may have been a victim and are too embarrassed to come forward.
The purpose of this post is to raise awareness to my cause which is the setting up of a non profit organization called “Business Opportunity Busters”, aka B.O.B. This organization comes as a result of my ignorance into this world of “investment” and to others whom I believe have the same problem. Over the last few years I have learned many things about this industry and would like to prevent others or at least as many as I can from becoming victims. Our “Justice System”, I believe, does not really care about us; unless of course we have lots of money and can pay for that “Justice”. I also hope that we can get help for past victims, by bringing them together, possible class action suits. Get criminal charges brought against those who purposely defraud under section 380 of the criminal code just to mention a couple of ideas.
Unfortunately or fortunately for me(depending on how you look at it) I believe that I have been given this task by God, but not the skill, money or resources to fulfill this task. Kind of like David and Goliath; he at least had a sling shot. I have a computer and the WWW and don’t forget the will!
This brings me to the reason of my post here on this site as I believe a lot of lawyers and talented people read this Blog.
Plain and simple……..I am looking for HELP. For B.O.B, I am looking for lawyers; pro bono of course, board of directors, lawyers who are willing to help victims at a reasonable fee who may have lost everything and lawyers who are willing to help potential buyers go over contracts who specialize in the franchise field. I am also looking for web site developers, writers, media, reporters, secrete shoppers, survey specialists, volunteers to man trade shows and hand out flyers, printers and the list goes on. Another important thing that I will need is financial support. I know that this is not going to save the world but for someone who may be putting up his life savings, re mortgaging their house to make an investment it may be a God sent! The ultimate purpose is to educate. With time and resources we can make a difference.
This is how I see this organization and how it will work:
Someone starts looking for say a “business opportunity”, say on the internet. They do a google search and there it is 19.7 million hits. Wow! On the right you see an add under sponsored links, “business opportunity busters”, it might say something like, “before you buy, educate yourself so you don’t loose”. This takes you to our web site and there you might find the following:
1) Introduction, explaining why this site exists
2) Survey, an area for you to fill out a survey 1) to find out if they have bought or looking to buy.
3) Laws, which would take you an area say Canada/US here you would find laws that protect you, then you would go to a link for each province or state that would give you those laws.
4) Sample site, which would give an idea what to look out for.
5) An area where you will find past scams and how they worked.
6) Archives, here you will find public documents like court files, disclosure documents, government actions
7) Volunteers section
8) Lawyer referral service
9) Insurance
10) Search engine
11) Links to government sites and others
12) Donate
13) Contact
I would like to here your comments thoughts and Constuctive crtizim and I would especially like to here from you if you feel you have been scammed
Thank you
B.O.B. contact me at busoppbusters at gmail dot com
I BELEIVE THE MACLEANS ARTICLE WAS GUTSY.ITS UNUSUAL FOR MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO SUGGEST THE STATUS QUO MAY NOT BE UTOPIA.FROM MY EXPERIENCE LAWYERS HAVE USED THE LEGAL SYSTEM FOR THEIR OWN BENIFIT AND JUSTICE HAS SUFFERED AS A RESULT.THE SOONER NORTH AMERICA CATCHES UP TO THE REST OF THE WORLD AND ESTABLISHES AN INDEPENDANT BODY TO OVERSEE THEIR ACTIONS THE BETTER.
ITS UNFORTUNATE THAT RODENTS CANT SUE FOR SLANDER BUT THATS ONE PEICE OF COURT TV I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.I HOPE THAT AT ONE POINT IN THE FUTURE OUR POLITICIANS WILL FIND SOME COURAGE AND TAKE ON THIS GANG WHO HAVE DONE SO MUCH DAMAGE TO SOCIETY .
MIKE HAUGHIAN PUTS IT RIGHT BY EMPHASIZING……… “AN INDEPENDENT BODY TO OVERSEE THE ACTIONS OF LAWYERS”….. BUT I ALSO ADD THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE CLASS OF LAWYERS WHO SPECIALIZE IN SUING LAWYERS…..A COMPLETELY RE-WRITTEN CODE OF ETHICS WHICH SHOULD BE ADVERTISED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC……AND MANDATORY DISCLOSURES REGARDING FEES, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES PRIOR TO DOING ANY BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DISCLOSE…DISCLOSE…SHOULD BE THE ORDER OF THE DAY…..IN SHORT THE WHOLE LEGAL PROFESSION NEEDS TO BE SCRUTINIZED…….I CALL IT THE SPITZER EFFECT
http://www.nljblog.com/2007/09/oc-attorney-ind.html
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article.jsp?content=20070925_164804_4836
Both these articles contain corupt lawyers?
Now B.O.B. has something really good there. B.O.B. has one of these rare, nearly extinct decent lawyers contacted you yet?
dave
Not one!!!! Maybe the ones that do Pro Bono work know nothing about this site and have not seen it.
BOB
Mr. Morton and all involved in the Law Society,
I ask you to visit the following sites and explain to me how this can happen! Is this how the Legal systems works in this province?
http://www.unixhq.info/docs/mfraud/plea.htm
http://www.unixhq.info/docs/mfraud/
DISGUSTING!
Send them an email of support to stop this fraud!!
mortgagefraud@gmail.com
Hey Vigilante,
Lazy lawyering leads to systemic problems. See London Times “first of its kind” study below:
From The Times
November 12, 2007
Most lawyers fail to check on their expert witnesses
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
Three out of four judges and lawyers make no checks on the qualifications of expert witnesses, whose evidence can be crucial to a finding of guilt or innocence, research suggests.
The first study of its kind shows that the training of expert witnesses to give evidence is still patchy and unregulated, creating a continuing risk of miscarriages of justice.
The research, by City University, London, comes after a High Court ruling on Friday that upheld findings of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council against Alan Williams, a Home Office pathologist. Dr Williams, 58, conducted post mortem examinations for both of the babies of Sally Clark, the solicitor who served three years for murdering her two sons until her conviction was quashed on appeal.
Penny Cooper, associate dean at the University, a barrister and a governor of the Expert Witnesses Institute, who conducted the research, said that nearly one in ten experts had no training at all and did not intend to undertake any. “The quality of expert evidence has been criticised in a number of recent, high-profile miscarriages of justice. This issue is inextricably linked with training, which is voluntary and unregulated,” she said.
Related Links
Court expert ‘was bogus scientist who bought PhD on internet’
Wrongful convictions put forensic science in the dock
The finding was of concern, she added, given that solicitors and barristers were involved in selecting experts and judges decide whether to permit them to give evidence or not.
“I think the court rules should be changed to impose a duty on judges and lawyers to consider the training an expert has had before allowing them to give evidence,” she said………………………
Lawyers lax on checking experts: U.K. study
International
Research from City University in London suggests three out of four judges and lawyers don’t conduct background checks on expert witnesses.
Source: The Times, London, England, Nov. 12, 2007
It’s ironic that this (U.K.) “first of it kind” study into lazy lawyering (and it’s implications for forensic pathology) is covered by the London Times on the very day that on this side of the pond the public inquiry into Dr. Smith’s handiwork kicks off! Maybe somebody ought to send a copy of this study to Justice Goudge?
The only people who know the truth are the ones who have engaged lawyers personally. They lie. It’s not a cliché. They lie. They are not interested in truth or justice. They are interested in process, and billing at a rate that exceeds that of a doctor’s, or a soldier’s…y’know…the people who really do deserve that kind of money.
They are an essential service, yet are private, only available to those who can pay, and governed only by themselves.
I am a struggling artist/writer. I’m smart, but I don’t have any money. Over the last seven years, beginning with my first attempt against an employer that had screwed me, I have been suing people who fuck me over in small claims. I represent myself. I have to.
The first time, I was motivated to do so out of outrage. I got a settlement of $1,500.00, which for me, at that time, was both a moral, and (modest) financial victory.
From that first beginner’s luck case, I wasn’t afraid to give it a go from then on. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but my wins have all been small settlements, just to prove a point, and my losses, well, I don’t consider them losses, as the cases were strangled at motion hearings brought by lawyers for the defence to have the cases thrown out before a trial.
At these motion hearings, you face a judge which, because it is small calims, is not really a judge, but a deputy judge. What the hell is that? A moonlighting lawyer. When you get there, the lawyer and the judge work together to fuck you over.
Whatever the lawyer says is considered true.
The benefit of every doubt is given to the lawyer.
The judge then makes wild leaps of reason in his ruling. I once applied for a federal job-creation program that they give away to bored housewives, most of the time, to start doomed small businesses. Things like craft businesses…pet grooming businesses. You get the idea.
The intake worker and I didn’t get along. Fine. But she did not check any of my references, and, they were excellent references. I called this person, with a tape recorder running, and asked her why. She said that references amounted to a “big fan club,” and weren’t worth bothering with.
I couldn’t believe it. And, I had it on tape! I sued for negligence. All I wanted to do was put that woman on the stand, and ask her if checking references was a part of the job in the past, was now, and would likely be in the future. If so, then I was not treated fairly; she was then negligent.
Here’s what happened. The judge said that the non-profit corp that did the intake DID check the references after I sued, so, we could all be assured that after those references were checked, the good folks at the corp would have made a fair review, and if they still turned me down (which they did), then everything was done right.
Case dismissed.
As if I could trust them to give me the same chance I would have had, if my references had been checked when that corp submitted their report to the feds for approval, and, that a corp that I had SUED would, for a discretionary program, would treat me the same, as if I had not sued.
Now, if I want to appeal, a mistake “in law” must be present, which means that something crazy had to have happened. So, you can’t appeal.
But why, then, do the judges make these kinds of seemingly stupid decisions? For the same reason dogs lick their own balls: Because they can.
If I had a lawyer, then everything would have been different. Then, the suit dummy must be respected. If the suit dummy says I was screwed out of a fair chance via negligence, and with the tape evidence to back it up, then that suit dummy for the defence would have to respect my suit dummy, and say to his client, “We’d better settle this. It’s a strong case, and I won’t be able to protect you on the stand.”
Lawyers are provided if you are charged with a crime or fighting over bastard children, or maybe an ambulance chaser will help you for a cut of the action, but lawyers are not provided for civil matters if you can’t afford them, even if you are dirt poor.
Thus, our justice system is for those who can pay for it. If an unrepresented guy takes a shot at it, he begins an unfair fight. A rich defendant will spend 20 grand to defend a claim of 2 grand. That is unfair enough, but even after the poor man loses the unfair fight, which is worse still, he then–worst of all, is presented with the bill for the guy who could afford a lawyer.
IS THAT NOT SICK????
Don’t think that we live in a modern age, in a fair society. Justice is something only rich people can have. If the poor DARE to claim their portion, they are slapped in the face by the lawyers who happily participate in, and profit from, a system which is absolutely, utterly unfair.
When I tell this to people, they say, “Oh, you need to get the lawyer to do it pro bono.”
What?
People think that there are legions of lawyers available, for the asking, to do work for free. There are not. Once in a while, a firm may take a case on for free, but only if it is foolproof, and easy, and doesn’t challenge anybody in a position of power. You have no right to pick up the phone and ask anybody to do anything pro bono. There is no calvary coming to the rescue.
What can be done? The very people who enter law school already know this, and they don’t care. They graduate with a smile on their face, knowing that they will be wealthy, very soon. Helping the poor get justice? They never think of it, even for a moment. And, when they crucify the poor in court, they aren’t troubled by it in the least.
They go home, crack open a bottle of something real good, laugh and forget about it. Lives are destroyed and blighted by bitterness and these lawyers
DO
NOT
CARE
AT
ALL.
We should vote for somebody to change all this. Oh, hang on…all the politicians are lawyers.
I’d like to quote Shakespeare.
Hit me on Facebook
Hey all you Quillblog compaliners - The Ontario AG wants to hear from you (the public) as soon as possible with suggestions/recommendations for change. So, write to him soon with all the reasons why you love lawyers!
See Law Times article/interview below:
Civil system needs key changes
AG says ministry determined to ‘move forward’
By Helen Burnett | Publication Date: Monday, 26 November 2007
Ontario needs changes to its trial scheduling process, more resources and information for unrepresented litigants, and an increase in the judicial complement in certain areas, say recommendations in a year-long comprehensive review of the province’s civil justice system.
Former Chief Justice Coulter Osborne released his summary of findings in a review of the civil justice system. Among other changes, Osborne recommended more judges in some areas, and resources for unrepresented litigants. More than a year after he undertook his review of Ontario’s civil justice system, former Associate Chief Justice Coulter Osborne’s summary of findings was released to the public late last week, including 81 recommendations for change in 18 areas, from appeals to technology. The Civil Justice Reform Project final report is to follow later this year.
At a press conference, Attorney General Chris Bentley said he’s “hopeful that we can make quick progress.” He added that, “Our determination is to move forward. The Ministry of the Attorney General is going to be supporting the focused discussion process.”
Bentley also challenged those who represent legal organizations to “get your members involved; we want the input and we want the input as quickly as possible.”
Meanwhile, Bentley tells Law Times that he hopes by the spring the ministry will have a good idea of where the judiciary, the bar, and the public stand, and what the next steps will be.
“I expect that if the central recommendations in this report are implemented, there will be what I hope is a marked reduction in the cost and time required to bring a civil action that does not settle to trial. Thus, access to justice will be enhanced,” says Osborne in his report.
As part of his review, Osborne consulted with dozens of legal stakeholders, many of whom were encouraged by the findings of the summary report.
James Morton, past president of the Ontario Bar Association, tells Law Times the OBA is “encouraged” that the report emphasizes resources: “We’re obviously going to be passing the report on to our membership for further comment.”
He adds the association is also pleased a number of the recommendations that it supported, such as changes to the monetary jurisdiction of Small Claims Court, have been picked up in the report.
“The changes, as far as we can see, are sensible, incremental changes,” he says, noting that the system was good overall, and needed tinkering rather than a “slash and burn” approach.
“We look forward to studying in detail the many positive and thought-provoking proposals contained within the summary, and to working with the attorney general on this important initiative,” says Michael Eizenga, president of The Advocates’ Society.
Access to justice was one of the main issues raised in the review, and during the course of the year, Osborne said that delays in scheduling trials were noted in many regions. The worst of which was Brampton, where as of November 2006, trial dates were not being fixed until 2010. Delays in hearing motions varied by region.
As a result, Osborne is recommending that the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court and the regional senior justices of each region consider eliminating the requirement of lawyers having to personally attend assignment court, replacing this with a new practice for setting trial dates, such as through teleconference hearings or the internet.
He recommends that judges enforce time limits on trials “to ensure greater certainty in trial duration and improved trial scheduling,” and use teleconferencing more often for short motions.
Based on the ratio of defended cases to judges and other submissions, Osborne also concluded that more judges are urgently needed in the central west (Brampton), central south (Hamilton/Kitchener), central east (Newmarket) and probably Toronto.
“One does not have to spend much time in the Brampton and Newmarket courthouses to realize how busy those judicial centres are. Simply put, there are too many cases per available judge. Coupled with other aspects of the civil justice system, this has led to delays that should no longer be tolerated,” he says.
In addition to considering an increase in the complement of Superior Court judges in those areas, the federal government should also undertake a structured analysis in the long term, after a consultation with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, he says.
Also with respect to courts, Osborne is recommending that the monetary jurisdiction of Small Claims Court should be increased to $25,000 and that the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court and other stakeholders consider whether an agent should be allowed to represent a litigant in Small Claims Court appeals and enforcement matters in the Superior or the divisional Court.
While he notes that the debate on the role of the divisional court has been ongoing for years, Osborne also suggests that the Law Commission of Ontario undertake a review of the court’s role and make recommendations regarding its future role and jurisdiction.
Under the civil justice reform project, which began in June 2006, Osborne was asked to propose options to reform the province’s civil justice system to make it more accessible and affordable for Ontarians.
His recommendations will help the Ministry of the Attorney General focus its discussion on how to further strengthen the civil justice system, and will open the door to further discussion and consultations with the judiciary and the legal community, according to a ministry spokesperson.
While previous civil justice review initiatives in the mid-90s led to reforms in the province to increase access and affordability, including an increase in the monetary limit of the Small Claims Court to $10,000, as well as case management and mandatory mediation, the government noted last year that “cost and delay continue to be cited in national and provincial reports as formidable barriers that prevent average Canadians from accessing the system.”
In addition to consulting with legal stakeholders, Osborne also took research, recent reforms in other jurisdictions, and data into account, as well as considerations relating to access to justice, proportionality, the culture of litigation, and the fact that one size does not fit all with respect to different jurisdictions.
During the consultation period last year, interested parties were asked to comment on whether the issues identified were more acute in certain regions of the province or in certain types of cases, as well as what types of reforms would best respond to the needs of unrepresented litigants.
Osborne’s report outlines several changes needed for unrepresented litigants, one of which is the fact that Ontario lawyers should be encouraged to “consider new and innovative billing methods that promote access to justice for litigants with civil legal issues who would not otherwise be able to afford counsel.”
In addition, bar associations and civil litigators should continue to implement and offer pro bono services and programs where possible, he says, while Prof. John McCamus’ 1997 recommendations with respect to legal aid should also be revisited as part of the most recent review of legal aid, announced last year.
Committees of legal service providers figure prominently in Osborne’s recommendations for unrepresented litigants, as he recommends that a committee, chaired by Pro Bono Law Ontario, should undertake an independent needs assessment study to develop a profile of civil unrepresented litigants in Ontario.
Specifically, he says, the committee should look at the “points of interaction with the civil justice system that give rise to difficulties for unrepresented litigants themselves, court administrators, and the courts.” This committee should also clarify the legal needs of unrepresented litigants and where additional services could be provided to fill gaps, Osborne suggests.
Groups such as the Ministry of the Attorney General, PBLO, the Law Society of Upper Canada, and legal aid should also work to co-ordinate the delivery of improved legal information and resources.
Also included in Osborne’s recommendations was the suggestion that counsel be required to prepare a litigation budget and review it with clients prior to starting or defending any proceeding, which he says the law society should consider making an express requirement under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The issue of reforms with respect to the use of technology also came up during the review, as Osborne established a technology committee to consider e-discovery, electronic trials, filing of documents, and document production.
What resulted were recommendations that parties and counsel should be encouraged to explore methods of using technology to share information electronically to save time and money and the judiciary and courts administration should make reasonable efforts to accommodate requests to use technology.
I’ve got a suggestion. They should offer themselves up for a study as to what happens when lawyers are frozen solid and thrown into a wood chipper.
Pro bono my ass. As if you’re gonna find helpful, posted notices on the walls of EI and welfare offices, directing the poor to their friendly, neighbourhood lawyer who will work for free and make sure they get a fair shot at justice.
Good one Darren.
Like the Justice system would listen to the people whom the law is there to protect. Right…….it protects those in the system and the crooks who know the system!!!!!!!
[…] Lawyers are not rats, say lawyers (July 30) […]
Lawyers will defend lawyers and crooks will defend crooks! Please tell me what the difference is.
I would like to send Philip Slayton an e-mail re his book Lawyers Gone Bad.
Vigilante,
Are you there? Can you help reconcile this National Post excerpt (below) with the ONCA case (further below)? Thanks.
* from National Post (July 30, 2007)…”In my years as a lawyer, I have seen many things. These include a (very) few lawyers who intentionally lied about their billing, slept with a client or defrauded someone. Where discovered, those lawyers have been disbarred and, in some cases, sent to jail. That’s how our system works: If a lawyer breaks the law or the professional code of conduct, he or she is punished just like everyone else.”
versus….
CITATION: Guillemette v. Doucet, 2007 ONCA 743
DATE: 20071101
DOCKET: C45944
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DOHERTY, GOUDGE and LANG JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
LAUREINE GUILLEMETTE
Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
and
PETER J. DOUCET
Respondent (Appellant in Appeal)
James Morton, for the appellant
Sylvano Carlesso and Lisa Barazzutti, for the respondent
Heard: September 21, 2007
On appeal from the order of Justice David Nadeau of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 24, 2006 directing an assessment of the appellant’s accounts.
DOHERTY J.A.:
Can you fill us in as to what this case was about.
Rego,
It seems to me there is a contradiction between Morton’s comments on overbilling quoted in the National Post versus the arguments advanced in this case about “time-barred” complaints. But hey - you be the judge:
CITATION: Guillemette v. Doucet, 2007 ONCA 743
DATE: 20071101
DOCKET: C45944
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DOHERTY, GOUDGE and LANG JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
LAUREINE GUILLEMETTE
Applicant
(Respondent in Appeal)
and
PETER J. DOUCET
Respondent
(Appellant in Appeal)
James Morton, for the appellant
Sylvano Carlesso and Lisa Barazzutti, for the respondent
Heard: September 21, 2007
On appeal from the order of Justice David Nadeau of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 24, 2006 directing an assessment of the appellant’s accounts.
DOHERTY J.A.:
I
Overview
[1] This appeal addresses the applicability of the two-year limitation period set out in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B to an application for an order directing the assessment of a solicitor’s accounts brought pursuant to s. 4 of the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15. The appellant, Peter J. Doucet (“Doucet”), a lawyer, argues that s. 4 of the Limitations Act applies and that the application brought by his former client, Laureine Guillemette (“Guillemette”) was out of time.
[2] The application judge rejected this submission and directed that the accounts be assessed. I agree with his conclusion and would dismiss the appeal. In my view, the special circumstances exception in s. 4 of the Solicitors Act applies to Guillemette’s application and permits the commencement of the application for a Reference to assess costs beyond the two year limitation period found in the Limitations Act. In addition, were it necessary to do so, I would hold that under the terms of the transitional provisions in s. 24(5) of the Limitations Act, the limitation period in the Solicitors Act applies since Guillemette’s claim was discovered by her prior to January 1, 2004. The claim was not time barred under that statute.
II
The Facts
[3] Not unexpectedly, in a dispute over a lawyer’s accounts, the lawyer and the client have very different versions of many of the relevant events. In directing an assessment, the application judge concluded that the material before him provided the requisite “special circumstances” warranting an assessment despite the passage of almost three years from the payment of the accounts.
[4] A finding of “special circumstances” turns on a fact driven exercise of judicial discretion. This court will defer to that discretion absent an error in principle or a clearly unreasonable result: Plazavest Financial Corporation et. al. v. National Bank of Canada 2000 CanLII 5704 (ON C.A.), (2000), 47 O.R. (3d) 641 at para. 33 (C.A.). I see no basis upon which to interfere with the application judge’s exercise of his discretion.
[5] As I would not interfere with the finding of special circumstances, it is not necessary for me to review much of the conflicting evidence placed before the application judge.[1] I observe, however, that some factual disputes between Doucet and Guillemette remain outstanding and will be resolved at the assessment. I need review only the facts relevant to the limitation period argument.
[6] Guillemette retained Doucet in mid-December 2002 to act for her in a matrimonial dispute. She signed a written retainer. Doucet acted for Guillemette until June 2003. Over the six months of his retainer, he delivered several accounts to Guillemette totalling about $31,000. All of the accounts were paid in a timely fashion. The last account was paid before the end of June 2003.[2]
[7] Things did not go smoothly between Guillemette and Doucet. She regularly complained about the amount of his bills. She withheld payment on occasion and Doucet threatened to stop working on her behalf if she did not pay the accounts immediately. As he put it:
You are required to pay all of my accounts as rendered in accordance with our retainer agreement. If you stop paying my accounts, I will stop working for you. It is that simple.
[8] Guillemette’s health was not good between December 2002 and June 2003. She had various physical problems and was abusing pain medication. She ended up in the hospital in September 2003. According to her, it was almost a year before she was physically able to look after her affairs and some considerable additional time before she could “gain control of [her] life”.
[9] Guillemette indicated that after receiving and paying Doucet’s last account in June 2003, she went to another lawyer she knew for assistance in assessing Doucet’s accounts. She believed that the accounts were much too high. A secretary in that lawyer’s office told Guillemette that she should hire a lawyer in Cochrane, where Doucet’s office was located, to assist her in assessing his accounts. Guillemette did not take any further steps to initiate the assessment and in September 2003 she was hospitalized. She contended that she was physically and emotionally unable to initiate the application until 2006.
[10] This application for an assessment was commenced in March 2006, about thirty-three months after Guillemette received and paid Doucet’s last account.
III
The Relevant Legislation
(a) The Solicitors Act
[11] A client may challenge his or her solicitor’s accounts by way of an assessment. The provisions of the Solicitors Act governing applications for assessments are notoriously unclear: see Fiset v. Falconer, [2005] O.J. No. 4023 at para. 24 (Sup. Ct.). Sections 4 and 11 of the Solicitors Act are in issue on this appeal. The present s. 11 came into force on January 1, 2004 as one of many amendments made to various statutes when the new Limitations Act came into force: Limitations Act, 2002 s. 46. The predecessor to s. 11 is also germane to this appeal. The relevant provisions are set out below:
Current Provisions
Predecessor Section
4.(1) No such reference shall be directed upon an application made by the party chargeable with such bill after a verdict or judgment has been obtained, or after twelve months from the time such bill was delivered, sent or left as aforesaid, except under special circumstances to be proved to the satisfaction of the court or judge to whom the application for the reference is made. [Emphasis added.]
11. The payment of a bill does not preclude the court from referring it for assessment if the special circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the court, appear to require the assessment.
4. Same as the present provision.
11. The payment of a bill does not preclude the court from referring it for assessment, if the application is made within twelve months after payment, and if the special circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the court, appear to require the assessment. [Emphasis added.]
[12] Prior to the amendment to s. 11, the case law revealed some confusion as to the interaction of ss. 4 and 11 on applications pertaining to accounts that had been paid more than twelve months before the application for an assessment was made. In Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa Canadian Management Services Inc. 1997 CanLII 733 (ON C.A.), (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 301 at 302 (C.A.), this court held:
The Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15 makes no provision for the assessment of accounts paid more than 12 months before the application is made.
[13] In Enterprise Rent-a-Car Co. v. Shapiro, Andrews, Finlayson 1998 CanLII 1043 (ON C.A.), (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 257 at 260 (C.A.), this court held that s. 4 of the Solicitors Act, which permits assessments beyond twelve months after delivery if “special circumstances” are shown, applies to both paid and unpaid accounts: See also Fiset v. Falconer, supra, at paras. 35-37 which adopts the position taken in Fellowes, supra.
[14] The amendment to s. 11 deletes the requirement that the application for the assessment of a paid account be made “within 12 months after payment”. Section 11 no longer imposes any time limit on the bringing of the application for an assessment of the paid accounts. The present s. 11, however, maintains the requirement that in all cases where the client seeks to assess paid accounts, the client must demonstrate “special circumstances”. The “special circumstances” requirement reflects the commonsense inference that payment of an account implies an acceptance of the reasonableness of the account: Enterprise Rent-a-Car Co. v. Shapiro, Andrews, Finlayson, supra at 265, Re Randell and Robins and Robins (1979), 22 O.R. (2d) 642 at 643 (H.C.).
[15] Section 4 of the Solicitors Act was not amended by the Limitations Act. The twelve month time period that runs from the delivery of the accounts applies to all accounts whether paid or unpaid, as does the “special circumstances” exception to that twelve month time limit. Consequently, an application to assess paid accounts brought more than twelve months after delivery of those accounts is subject to the “special circumstances” requirements in both ss. 4 and 11.
[16] The “special circumstances” that are relevant to a decision to allow an assessment of a paid account will overlap with the “special circumstances” that are relevant to the decision to permit an assessment more than twelve months after delivery of the account. The “special circumstances” will not, however, necessarily be identical. For example, the fact that an account was paid under a mistake may be relevant to the “special circumstances” required by s. 11 of the Solicitors Act, but not to the “special circumstances” required in s. 4. Similarly, a disabling illness suffered after payment of the account may constitute a “special circumstance” under s. 4 of the Solicitors Act, but have no relevance to the “special circumstance” inquiry under s. 11.
(b) The Limitations Act
[17] The Limitations Act came into force on January 1, 2004. It effected an overhaul of the law pertaining to limitation periods in Ontario: see York Condominium Corp. No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Ltd. (2007), 84 O.R. (3d) 414 (C.A.).
[18] One commentator has described the impact of the new Act in these terms:
The changes to the limitations law are dramatic and, although they are designed to rationalize and modernize a complex area of the law, legal practitioners will need to consider carefully the impact of the new limitations regime on their clients’ affairs.[3]
[19] Section 2 of the Limitations Act provides that the Act “applies to claims pursued in court proceedings” and then lists several exceptions to that general rule of application. None of the exceptions are relevant to this proceeding. The word “claim” is defined broadly as “a claim to remedy an injury, loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act or omission”.
[20] I agree with the appellant’s submission that the application brought by Guillemette falls within the phrase “claims pursued in court proceedings” in s. 2 of the Limitations Act.
[21] Section 4 of the Limitations Act sets out what the heading describes as the “Basic Limitation Period”:
Unless this Act provides otherwise, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered.
[22] Section 19 of the Limitations Act speaks to the application of limitation periods found in other statutes to claims to which the Limitations Act applies:
19.(1) A limitation period set out in or under another Act that applies to a claim to which this Act applies is of no effect unless,
(a) the provision establishing it is listed in the Schedule to this Act; or
(b) the provision establishing it,
(i) is in existence on the day this Act comes into force, and
(ii) incorporates by reference a provision listed in the Schedule to this Act.
(2) Subsection (1) applies despite any other Act.
(3) The fact that a provision is listed in the Schedule shall not be construed as a statement that the limitation period established by the provision would otherwise apply to a claim defined in this Act.
(4) If there is a conflict between a limitation period established by a provision referred to in subsection (1) and one established by any other provision of this Act, the limitation period established by the provision referred to in subsection (1) prevails.
(5) Sections 6, 7 and 11 apply, with necessary modifications, to a limitation period established by a provision referred to in subsection (1).
S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B., s. 19, in force January 1, 2004 (O. Gaz. 2003 p. 789-790).
[23] Section 19 reflects the legislature’s intention to jettison the numerous limitation provisions scattered throughout the statutes in favour of the generally applicable provisions found in the Limitations Act. With the exception of the statutes identified in s. 19(1), that section negates the operation of limitation periods found in other statutes if the claim in issue is one to which the Limitations Act applies. The Solicitors Act is not listed in the Schedule referred to in s. 19(1) of the Limitations Act, and does not incorporate by reference any of the statutes listed in that Schedule. Consequently, and subject to the transitional provisions in s. 24 of the Limitations Act, any limitation periods in the Solicitors Act do not apply to a claim to which the Limitations Act applies.
[24] Section 20 of the Limitations Act addresses provisions under other statutes which modify limitation periods set out in those statutes, as for example, by providing for the extension of a limitation period. It reads:
20. This Act does not affect the extension, suspension or other variation of a limitation period or other time limit by or under another Act.
[25] Section 20 retains in force any “extension, suspension or other variation” of a limitation period found in another statute even if the limitation period in that statute is itself no longer applicable to the claim by virtue of s. 19(1) of the Limitations Act.
[26] The transition provisions in the Limitations Act are also relevant to this appeal. Section 24(2) reads:
This section [the Transition Section] applies to claims based on acts or omissions that took place before the effective date [January 1, 2004] and in respect of which no proceeding has been commenced before the effective date.
[27] Guillemette’s claim was based on acts that occurred before January 1, 2004 and no proceeding had been commenced before that date. The transition provisions apply to this claim.
[28] Section 24(5) sets out the rules for determining whether a former limitation period, or the limitation period in the Limitations Act applies to a claim that is caught by s. 24:
24(5) If the former limitation period did not expire before the effective date and if a limitation period under this Act would apply were the claim based on an act or omission that took place on or after the effective date, the following rules apply:
1. If the claim was not discovered before the effective date, this Act applies as if the act or omission had taken place on the effective date.
2. If the claim was discovered before the effective date, the former limitation period applies. [Emphasis added.]
IV
(a) The applicable time limit
[29] The issue raised on this appeal appears to be a matter of first impression. None of the case law to which the court was referred addresses the relationship of the statutes in issue on this appeal, or the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Limitations Act.[4]
[30] The Limitations Act seeks to simplify and standardize the law of limitation periods in Ontario in part by fixing two generally applicable limitation periods, the basic limitation period of two years (s. 4) and an ultimate limitation period of 15 years (s.15). The Act, however, recognizes that these generally applicable limitation periods cannot apply in all circumstances and to all claims. Under the Limitations Act, some claims have no limitation period (s.16), some claims remained subject to the limitation periods set out in other statutes (s. 19), and some remain subject to limitation provisions in other statutes during the transition period referred to in s. 24.
[31] Section 20 of the Limitations Act places a further qualification on the application of the limitations periods set out in the Act. Section 20 provides that nothing in the Limitations Act will affect a provision in another act which extends, suspends or otherwise varies the limitation period found in another Act. Section 20 recognizes that individual statutes may provide for situations or conditions in which the limitation provisions in those statutes should be extended or modified. Those provisions may well be particularly apt for the limitation period addressed in that specific statute. The Limitations Act does not seek to standardize the circumstances in which limitation periods can be extended, suspended or otherwise varied by statute.
[32] I think the “special circumstances” qualifier in s. 4 of the Solicitors Act falls within s. 20 of the Limitations Act. The twelve month time period in s. 4 has repeatedly been described as a limitation period: see e.g. Enterprise Rent-a-Car Co. v. Shapiro, Andrews, Finlayson, supra, at 260-261. Where “special circumstances” exist, the court will order an assessment beyond twelve months after delivery of the account, thereby effectively extending, suspending or otherwise varying the twelve month time limit set out in s. 4.
[33] Consequently, while by virtue of s. 19 of the Limitations Act, the two year limitation period in that Act trumps the twelve month limitation period in s. 4, s. 20 of the Limitations Act preserves the “special circumstances” exception set out in s. 4 of the Solicitors Act.
[34] Applying my analysis to this case, Guillemette had to show special circumstances before an assessment could be ordered because she was seeking to assess an account that had been paid: Solicitors Act, s. 11. Guillemette also had to show special circumstances because she was seeking an assessment more than two years after the delivery of the accounts: Limitations Act, s. 4; Solicitors Act, s. 4.
[35] I appreciate that my interpretation of the interaction of the Limitations Act and the Solicitors Act means that there is no absolute time bar against applications for the assessment of lawyers’ accounts. This result may seem inconsistent with the purpose underlying the Limitations Act. However, solicitors’ accounts have always been treated differently than other debts and even other professional accounts. A superior court has an inherent jurisdiction to review lawyers’ accounts entirely apart from any statutory authority. That inherent jurisdiction was not subject to a time limit. My interpretation of the two Acts preserves that status quo: see Rooney et al. v. Jasinski, [1952] O.R. 869 at 875 (C.A.); Plazavest Financial Corp. v. National Bank of Canada et al., supra paras. 14-16.
[36] The passage of time, particularly a lengthy time period after a bill has been paid, will be a significant consideration in exercising the “special circumstances” discretion in both ss. 4 and 11 of the Solicitors Act. Time alone will not, however, preclude the examination of the suitability of a lawyer’s accounts where other circumstances compel a review of those accounts.
(b) The transitional provision
[37] Alternatively, if s. 20 of the Limitations Act does not preserve the “special circumstances” exemption found in s. 4 of the Solicitors Act, I would hold that the transitional provision in the Limitations Act forecloses the operation of the two year limitation period set out in s. 4 of the Limitations Act.
[38] Section 24 of the Limitations Act speaks to actions commenced after January 1, 2004 where the claim is based on an act or omission that took place before January 1, 2004. The transitional rules are found in s. 24(5). This case fits within s. 24(5) in that the limitation under the Solicitors Act had not expired as of January 1, 2004 and the limitation period in the Limitations Act would have applied had Guillemette’s claim been based on acts that took place after January 1, 2004.
[39] The question of whether the limitation provision in the Limitations Act, or the limitation provision in the Solicitors Act applies turns on when the claim was discovered. Rule 1 in s. 24(5) speaks to those cases where the claim is discovered after January 1, 2004. The Limitations Act provisions apply to those claims. Rule 2 speaks to claims discovered before January 1, 2004. The former legislation, in this case the Solicitors Act, applies to those claims.
[40] Guillemette contended that she had decided she had been overcharged by Doucet and wanted to assess his accounts by late June 2003. It is difficult to suggest that she had not discovered the claim by the end of June 2003 when she went to a lawyer seeking to commence an action against Doucet for recovery of some of those fees.
[41] On any measure of discoverability, Guillemette knew of her claim against Doucet by the end of June, well before January 1, 2004. Clearly, if the definition of discoverability provided in s. 5 of the Limitations Act guides the interpretation of discoverability for the purposes of s. 24(5), Guillemette had discovered her claim against Doucet when she went to another lawyer in June 2003. By that time, the loss of which she complained, the money paid to Doucet, had occurred (s. 5(1)(a)(i)). Also by that time, Guillemette had attributed her loss to Doucet’s actions (s. 5(1)(a)(ii)(iii)). She had also decided that a legal proceeding was the appropriate means by which to remedy her loss (s. 5(1)(a)(iv)).
[42] Guillemette’s claim was discovered before January 1, 2004. Under the terms of s. 24(5) any limitation period imposed on her action against Doucet had to be found in the Solicitors Act and not the Limitations Act. Section 4 of the Solicitors Act permitted the action assuming the judge found “special circumstances” at any time after the accounts were delivered.
V
Conclusion
[43] The claim advanced by Guillemette is not time barred. The application judge did not err in directing that the assessment of the accounts pursuant to s. 4 of the Solicitors Act. I would dismiss the appeal.
[44] The respondent is entitled to her costs. In oral argument, counsel agreed that $4,500 ($3,000 in legal fees plus $1,500 for travel expenses) would be appropriate if the respondent was successful. I agree with counsel’s submission and would so order.
RELEASED: “DD” “NOV 01 2007”
“Doherty J.A.”
“I agree S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“I agree S.E. Lang J.A.”
——————————————————————————–
[1] In his factum, the appellant also argued that he was denied procedural fairness on the application. That claim was not urged in oral argument and is without merit.
[2] Guillemette also claims that she paid an additional $10,000 to Doucet which, has not been accounted for by him in his accounts. Doucet denies that he received the additional $10,000.
[3] J. Lee “An Overview of the Ontario Limitations Act , 2002” (2004) 28 Advocates’ Q. 29 at 29.
[4] The court was referred to a passage from Rosemary Bocska, ed., Ontario Limitation Periods: A Handbook of Limitation Periods and Other Statutory Time Limits, 2d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 2003) at 1428 where the author observes:
With the removal of the 12-month limitation period in s. 11 of the Solicitors Act, the governing limitation period for court assessment of solicitor’s bills is now found in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
No authority is cited for this proposition and no reference is made to the 12 month limitation in s. 4 of the Solicitors Act. Nor does this observation appear to have been carried forward into the Rosemary Bocska, ed., Ontario Limitations Manual, 3d (Toronto: Butterworths, 2006).
Scope of Databases RSS Feeds Terms of Use Privacy Help Contact Us About byfor theFederation of Law Societies of Canada
Interesting? Just goes to show you crooks protect crooks!
Rego,
You asked for the case so I gave it to you. Now you call me a crook. If I were a lawyer - you might be right. But I’m not a lawyer- you self-absorbed, pompous, accusatory dickhead.
Hey fellas, just stay focused on the real scum…the lawyers
Brian,
Thank you for providing the case. Please explain why you think I called you a crook for posting the case?
i was taken by a lawyer and i know that lawyers protect each other and i have explained my situation to many lawyers and i have written a letter to the upper canada law society and they refused to obtain the file from my lawyer. If there was a true law abidding lawyer that would seriously find a way to look at my file and see that their are differences in monies when my doctor did not charge my lawyer a cent for any documents that was required my doctor told me this personal because he made a mistake and nearly cost me my life he felt bad. Then my lawyer charged me fees for the doctors notes and their are quite a few of them that my doctor did not send. Also I recieved three advancements one for five thousand another for ten thousand and another for five thousand at the end of it all he took twenty five thousand and told me there were four advancements. This is not true I did alot of footwork myself bringing him notes and letters I would go him and see him with my wife and he would talk to us for about three or four minutes leave and come back ten or fifteen minutes later and talk to us for another five minutes and then charge me for a full visit at one point and time my lawyer was in a meeting with me and he had set up a structured settlement for the rest of my life, I had no say as to where or what I wanted to do with my money, in this same meeting the lawyer called me a retard. The lawyer and the structured settlement guy laughed thinking it was some kind of joke and I said im not a retard and i dont think i like being called a retard he said he was sorry but i know he was not sorry for saying what he did. I asked if this would be settled right here and that i did not want a structured settlement but that i wanted all my monies if we were to settle and he said you take the structured settlement and close the file at the same time then he said were not going to settle this. unless you take this offer. i dont want it i said then i felt threatened when he stood up and demanded that i take it or im not getting anything so i said lets hear all the different options after listening to the options thay asked which one i would like best as i told them and just like that the meeting was over and as soon as we walked out the door the secretary said i need you to sign these papers i said that i’ll take them home and read them the secretary said you can’t take it home so sign the papers then i asked if this had anything to do with signing off and the secretary said no it’s just formality will you please stop wasting my time i am very busy and i have a lot to do,i told her i better not be signing off and again she confirmed the i was not so i signed, now need i say anymore about lawyers. well i think i will another lawyer said to me ill keep you out of jail if you sign 300. dollars more and i can promise you that you will not go to jail so i did . i did not go to jail and all of this was done just before we went into the court room. (Barring Real Interesting Bussines Examples So). there are no true authentic truthfull lawyers out there if there is where are they?
Pigeon King International……
is probably the largest Ponzi fraud in North America, certainly in the farm community. Farmers are posed to lose 20,000 to $1,500,000 individually and tens of millions collectively and contracts exceeding $1 billion will not be honoured. PKI offices are located in Waterloo and Moorefield Ontario.
The story was half-hardly covered recently in the media where most of the relevant facts and evidence were suppressed, with corporate and prosecution lawyers pulling the strings behind the scenes. PKI continues to operate the biggest fraud and North America aided and abetted by a corrupt system in this country.
This crook’s son is a lawyer; ironically put through school through the proceeds of white-collar crime. The Office of the Iowa attorney general has declared this to be an absolute Ponzi scheme and prevented PKI from recruiting ny more farmers in his state, into this fraud. The assistant attorney general is willing to talk to anyone that contacts their office particularly other law enforcement in Canada and the U.S. and certainly the media. But, this is being kept out of the news media by corrupt corporate lawyers. When this a multi-million dollar fraudulent scheme collapses, farmers all over North America will lose their farms or be heavily in debt. Thousands of farm children will suffer through this massive fraud.
The following is from the Vancouver Forum. Our organization fights white-collar crime, corrupt lawyers, corrupt and arrogant judges, corrupt prosecuting attorneys and perjuring police.
[quote name=’Gunta’ post=’3100231′ date=’Mar 9 2008, 09:48 PM’]Who the bless volunteers to prevent Internet fraud? Get a #@$*&^% life dip shit. People deserve to be frauded. If you are too stupid to protect yourself and not get yourself involved in a scam, I am glad you lose your money.[/quote]
CrimeBustersNow
International fraud investigation
David J. Thornton, President, retired businessman, Ontario, Canada
Chet Bowen, Vice-President, Retired Captain of Police, Louisiana, USA &
Member Of The American Congress For Truth
Michel J. Grenier, Secretary-treasurer, retired businessman, Quebec, Ca
Patricia-Ann Allan-Newman, Director, retired businesswoman, Que. formerly of BC.
Ashley Avila, Director, Practicing Paralegal Ontario Canada.
The problem is some ignorant anonymous piece of trash like you, came into our town and induced a number of people, including a least one local lawyer, some in our Ontario Provincial Police detachment, school board, town hall, businesses, the hospital, even our churches,into one of these filthy frauds you condone. They spread it throughut our town like a wildfire in “semi - secret” meetings and destroyed, marriages, friendships and business relationships…..From our local newspaper……. “police and lawyers said it was up front and legal.”
People like myself, who were not involved, who didn’t even know it existed, were nonetheless victimized. Some, like myself, losing far, far more than those directly involved in the fraud.
It is this very attitude from unconscionable, and abhorrent, people like you (that they actually execute in China) and met out life sentences to in the USA, that need to be delt with and stamped out in our society. Unfortunately there are also too many police and government officials with the same attitude: If a victim; an immigrant, a senior, someone who is financially unsophisticated, someone financially desperate, blind or deaf, even a high school student can be talked into an “Affinity Fraud,” devised through a conspiracy of unconscionable corrupt lawyers, police officers, accountants, psychologists, prosecutors, politicians, school board officials, even judges, and the families of those mentioned and their own teachers; and like the farmers here, being defrauded for tens of millions, it’s the victim’s own fault, and they deserve, to not only be cheated, as you abhorrently subscribed to, but to then be ridiculed, and laughed at, as you are doing in your posting; and harassed, stalked, threatened, assaulted, (baseball bats if necessary, as was discussed by the leaders of this PKI fraud) and if need be, executed, like Randy Rankin of the Ottawa area Ontario, if they refuse to keep their “mouths shut” about the fraud and those involved in it, particularly if they try to warn their fellow citizens; this attitude clearly manifest on this forum, and now with added confirmation from your anonymous, sick posting.
But, I can warn you, and you decide how seriousy you should take it: From the contacts I’m getting and the people I’m talking to, particularly immigrants, some have the same attitude against the scammers; I have been hearing about bombs, and scammers in the ditch with their heads, arms, legs, hacked off with machetes; body parts strewn about, because authorities are refusing to deal with the likes of you!
So be cautious scammer, someday you may slip and reveal your attitude to the wrong person; or someone like this finds out you scammed them, and you may very well be the one in a ditch with your head, arms and legs hacked off and eviserated like a chicken, with your entrails strewn about, as it was described to me.
All I can tell you, is what is being told me and our organization; and as I say, you decide how seriously to take it. But when you read what the “lose scew” perpetrators of this particular PKI fraud are capable of, crooks that simply fear losing stolen money they are not even entitled to, and many professing to be good Christian churchgoers yet; consider what someone from a different culture, who’s been scammed for hundreds of thousands of dollars, losing their homes, borrowing money from family members from their homeland, having them sell land or other personal possessions to lend to this relative who came to Canada to realize the great Canadian dream of owning their own legitimate business, trusting the “Canadian System” is not corrupt like the one they left, then running into something like you, and then experiencing the betrayal, the ridicule, the attitude, the frustration, and told by the local corrupted Chief of Police and corrupt lying prosecutor, “there is nothing we can do about it,” and seeing their children suffer, or perhaps even more motivated, as a family member who feels they are the protector of the whole family, and their whole community, it is not difficult to understand how strongly motivated they may feel. And as I say, you consider; then decide how seriously to take it. You, who like so many others feel they have the “God given right” to defraud victims, simply because you can, and the authorities deliberately looking the other way, making it possible for fraudulent trash like you to exist and operate.
Again, this uncaring and stupid government will wait until something horrific happens, then maybe they might start doing something about the exponentially exploding fraud in this country, and on the internet from the likes of you; anonymous sick poster; and do something instead of simply every year, having their stupid “rubber chicken dinners,” and spewing their ridiculous propaganda, and outright lies, every “March, Fraud Prevention Month”. So watch your step, sick, anonymous poster; guard your house; look over your shoulder; and watch out for your own children. It may very well be your stupid head severed in a machete attack, and your intestines strewn about the ditch, or your car or home blown to bits in a bomb attack by a victim, or some family member of a victim’s family or community.
That’s the word out on the street!!! We simply provide readers with information, try to shut down fraud, and leave this forum as a diary; a journal to be used, at an inquest or inquiry as to the lengths we went to warn the public, close down fraud and bring all this to the attention of the arrogant, ignorant police, from the RCMP down; every level of government, the politicians, the Federal Competition Bureau, the Security Commissions, Attorneys General, Chambers of Commerce, the BBB and even the McKenzie Institute. That’s what we do; and that’s the truth. And if they refuse to listen to the prophets, they will suffer the plague. They did in the country of Albania. The problem of course is, all the citizens will also all suffer the same plague. All will become victms of criminals and a stupid, arrogant, ignorant, uncaring, unfeeling shortsighted government and a equally stupid arrogant mainline media, who like the Albania media blindly promoted the frauds. Of course for show, they produce a “bit of lip service” every now and then, about fraud, without revealing the most complicated the most intricate of the frauds, the extent of it, or the upper echelon; particularly the corrupt lawyers (that the corrupt Law Society of Upper Canada protect against public complaints, instead of protecting the public against corrupt lawyers) and including the very media themselves involved in it!!!
dave - CBN
Came across this site you the public might be interested in.
Canada Court Watch
http://canadacourtwatch.com/
Lawyer Registry
http://canadacourtwatch.com/CPSWorker-LawyerRegistry/legalservicesregistry.html
Judges Registry
http://canadacourtwatch.com/CPSWorker-LawyerRegistry/CanadianJudgesregistry.html
We get hundreds of calls each month about lawyers ripping off their clients and failing to protect their interests. While there are some ethical and honest lawyers out there, unfortunately, the majority of lawyers would seem to be failing their clients.
Not only are lawyer failing their clients but there is a lot of unethical behavior where lawyers knowingly break the law and subvert justice. Innocent Canadians are being railroaded in the courts.
The state of Canada’s Justice System is a mess. It is lawyers who run the show and lawyers are the only ones to be blamed. If readers want to know more just check out our website. If you have a comment about a lawyer or judge then post it on our lawyers or judges Registry (Canada only please)