On June 5, 2009, I published my first blog entitled Access to Justice According to Guy Babineau in this first blog I provided a link to the transcript of my September 14, 2006 oral presentation before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy when Bill 14—Access to Justice Act, 2006 was hearing public submissions. The link to my presentations is found at:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?locale=en&Date=2006-09-14&ParlCommID=7429&BillID=284&Business=14#P892_256087
When the government refused to address the concerns that I an other were raising, I brought an application for judicial review before the Divisional Court to put in question the government action and the role that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario was duty bound to play pursuant to constitutional dictate that place a restriction on his exercise of discretion to assent the Bill into law. My application for judicial review is found at:
http://www.pscanada.ca/main/content/view/15/1/
On October 9, 2009, A.C.J.S.C. Cunningham in an oral ruling dismissed my application (Swinton and Smith JJ. concurring). The link to that decision is http://canlii.ca/t/264hp
Being hard of hearing, I had requested the assistance of a real time captioning who was also a court staff that acted as court reporter but came late and could the audio for the court reporting were not setup during the hearing and she lack the experience and expertise to properly address my need. Her lack of the appropriate understanding of the French language made in impossible for her to transcribe what was said by Mr. Justice Smith when he address me in that language. Normally I receive upon request copy of the captioning report but the Divisional Court has refused to provide it to me. The lack of audio recording of the proceeding make it impossible for me to demonstrate that the Judges did not take into account all relevant factors in reaching their ruling as mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would question the accuracy of the captioning report and that is probably amongst the reasons that the Divisional Court has refused to provide me with copy of that captioning report that has never been refused to me by provincial tribunals.
Base on this I refused to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal because that Court can refuse leave without reasons and the policy of the Supreme Court is not to interfere with that discretionary exercise except in one instances when the Supreme Court was caught with its pans down because the Manitoba Court of Appeal had granted leave to appeal from a lower court decision while the Quebec Court of Appeal had refused to grant leave when similar issues were before the Court.
NOW HARRY KOPYTO IS CHALLENGING THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AND LAWYERS’S VICTIMS STAHD BEFIND HIS QUEST FOR AFFORDABLE JUSTICE BY SEEKING TO BREAK LAWYERS MONOPOLY
Harry Kopyto was disbarred in 1989 and the reasons for his disbarment will come clear as he is force to establish his good character as he is seeking to be grandfathered in as a paralegal. He questioned the Brights Panel on constitutional grounds and her panel refused to address the matter.
Even though the Supreme Court of Canada has rule that the first prerequisite in the exercise of discretion must be that the court establish its jurisdiction. He brought an application for judicial review and the Divisional Court refused to entertain his application. http://canlii.ca/t/fnlm6
Unlike me Kopyto is seeking leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal in his motion he is seeking the following:
1. An order granting leave to appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court sitting in Toronto made October 11, ,2011 dismissing the Applicant motion for an order for mandamus with certiorari in aid;
2. Cost for this motion;
3. Such further and other order as this Honourable Court may deemed just.
Razes the following three grounds;
1. The Divisional Court erred in law by failing to grant the mandamus application to have the Law Society hearing Panel deal with a jurisdictional challenge to its legal authority to adjudicate;
2. The learned Divisional Court erred in law by finding that the Panel rightly concluded that it could not deal with the matter because of institutional incompetence.
3. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
Very interesting motion indeed considering various Supreme Court ruling that the Divisional Court seems to have ignored.
As a footnote It was Swinton, J (concurred by Hoy and Lauwers JJ. who delivered the oral judgment a Judge that concurred with A.C.J.S.C Cunningham in my application.
Kopyto further protected himself by filing a Statement of Claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. His Statement of Claim is far reaching but took a some one different approach as I did in my application for judicial review.
A. An order for a declaration that By-law 4 of the Law Society Act and the Law Society decisions and actions pursuant to such bylaw constitute an anti competitive act” as defined by section 78(1) of the federal Competition Act;
B. An order for a declaration that the LAW Society has abused its dominant position as defined under the federal Competition Act by restricting access to justice as a result of it assumption of regulatory jurisdiction over the paralegal profession;
C. An order for a declaration that the Law Society has acted in bad faith in its administration of its jurisdiction over the paralegal profession by reason of a conflict of interest.
D. An order for a declaration that By-law 4 of the Law Society Act restricting paralegals’ scope of practice is inconsistent with the enabling statute and has had the effect of frustrating rather that promoting the public interest;
E. An order for a declaration that the impugned By law 4 and all acts, decision and promulgations of the Law Society in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the paralegal profession be declared to be of no force and effect, or in alternatively, inapplicable to the extent that it violates the constitutional right of access to affordable justice,
F. Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.
Panel Blights might just get what she asked for buy refusing to abide by constitutional dictates setout in section 29 of Magna Carta; that is that “We will sell to no man , we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or rights.” He refusal to address the concerns raised by Kopyto might be in flagrant contravention to her mandated duty if reference is made to the confirmation of the great Charter of 1297 etc. where it is stipulated “Know ye that we, to the honour of God and of Holy Church, and to the profit of our realm, have granted for us and our heirs, that the Charter of liberties . . . which were made by common assent of King Henry our father, shall be kept in every point without breach. . . . 3. and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which old under us have the law of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgment in all their points that it is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law, . . . for the wealth of our realm.”
Then comes what ought to have guided Panel Chair Blights: “And we will, that if any judgment be given from henceforth contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid y justices, or any other our ministers that hold plea before ten against the points of the charters, it shall be undone, and holden for noughts,”
In Canada there is a sense that Judges feels that they are above the law since 1965, I have appeared before a number of provincial and federal board and tribunals both here in Ontario and in my native province of New Brunswick including the Superior Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court of Ontario and its Court of Appeal not to forget both levels of the Federal Courts of Canada including the Supreme Court of Canada and I can count on a few hands figures the number of those appearance but only count ion the one finger a Judges before whom I have appeared and that it was a New Brunswick appellate Judge on of three I found to be law abiding the other two were off the mark that. I even had a judge tell me in the Ontario that I had no right and to set down. If there would have been media presence in the Court, I would have left the Court and brought an appeal to bring him to his sense but did not want to run the risk of being thrown in jail in contempt as a result of his contemptuous disregards of my rights. A sad reality for an person who is not a lawyer and his legal mind has not been corrupted by the law schools of this country to be denied justice.
I will return on a later day in order to demonstrate the assertions that I have just referred above. Most of my involvements were as a self-represented to demonstrate the flawed in our judicial system. Since I was self represented my income did not increase on the basis of judicial stupidities and their failure to properly address frivolous and vexatious motion to deprive a person of limited means to access justice. Judges were once lawyers and that is how they accumulated their fortune and they would be stupid to do away with the status quo that made them rich before being called to the bench.
This leads me to the lead Law Society investigator currently on the stand. And quote from a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which Kopyto was one of the lawyers for the appellant Dawson [1983] 2 S.C.R. http://canlii.ca/t/1txhw A unanimous court decision delivered by Lamer J., as he then was (Laskin C.J. and
Dickson, Estey, McIntyre, Choinard, Lamer and Wilson JJ. conncuring)
What is telling here is found at page 146:
“On June 26, 1980, a new information was laid and received. It charged an officer of the R.C.M.P with forgery, uttering false documents and conveying false message contrary to ss. 326(1), 330 and 324 of the Criminal Code. The hearing was under s. 455.3 was again adjourned. and eventually resumed on October 30, 1980. At this time, counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario, pursuant to s. 508 of the Code, directed the clerk of the court to make an entry on the record that the proceedings by the direction of the Attorney General. His Worship Justice of the Peace
Allen refused the appellant’s application for an adjournment and discontinued the proceedings.
In allowing the appeal, the learned Lamer, J, as he then was stated at page 158. “For these reason I would allow the appeal, and order that a mandamus issue and be directed to his Worship Justice of Peace Allen to proceed with a hearing pursuant to s. 455.3 of the Criminal Code on the nine charges contained in the information of the appellant Dowson.
Could the Blights panel be a case revisited if the matter was to reach the Supreme Court of Canada given the unanimous Supreme Court of Canada has overruled Ontario High Court of Justice Montgomery J. December 5, 1980 ruling (1980), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 286, 19 C.R. (3d) 384and Ontario C.J. Howland unanimous September 16, 1981ruling (1981) 62 C.C.C . 286, 24 C.R.. (3d) 139 (Martin and Lacoircière JJ.A) on June 1983? Could it be said that there is a similarly conduct between Justice of Peace Allen and Blight as Panel Chair during the present proceedings and how the Divisional Court dealt with Kopyto’s application for judicial review?
It is appalling that the lead investigator setout as moralizing on Kopyto good character when a former police when part of Kopyto character was trying to weed out corrupted police, I need to do more research on this topic. But res assured that I will have more to say.
Needless to say that I had a run-in in Court with the Attorney General who sought to stay the proceedings in question and this case involved a former Judge appointed Ombudsman by his government and he was appointed Judge by John Diefenbaker while Prime Minister and Bill Davis was leading the provincial government. Will also be interesting to see how the Law Society dealt with my concerns regarding this saga not to mention both the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Kopyto there is a story to be told and it is not told by the Law Society’s leading investigator. You’re doing a good job putting into evidence his good character as lead investigator.
What is interesting in the Dawson Case is that Ian Scott, Q.C. was one of the lawyer representing the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties. The only reference to the Canadian Civil Liberties submission is found at page 150: Appellant’s subsidiary submission position supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, one whit which I am in agreement and would so find, is that, because a prosecution commences only after the Justice of the Peace has made a decision to issue process, an information has been found only after that decisiom.”
This will prove important later. Ian Scott was served in the Ontario Legislative Assembly from May 2, 1985 to September 28, 1992 and Attorney General from June 26, 1985 to October 1, 1990.
Although Ian Scott appeared as one of the counsels for Intervenant, Canadian Civil Liberties Association before the Court of Appeal, no reference was made to any of his submission before that court and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association did not intervene before the Ontario High Court of Justice.
Ian Scott would have been hard press to accede to Kopyto’s request to have him crime of overbilling Legal Aid because the Law Society admitted that Legal Aid had paid his bill in full in accordance with the billing practice. Having cleared any such charges, Ian Scott would have been duty bound pursuant to his mandated functions under the Law Society Act to set the two Law Society’s goons who had disbarred him under false pretense straight and to reinstate his licence most probably under some supervision of his billing practice for a time.
Not only Kopyto had demonstrated that he was a thorn in the police side and members of the Law Society who modus operndie to blink their client as much as they can by bringing frivilous and vexatios motion before the Court and the Court reluctance to address that contempteous conduct. Now wonder Kopyto has so much fun in picking hold in the lead law society’s investigator a former police because maybe he has a personal axe to grind with Harry’s exposing policing dubious conduct.
At least the United States convincted Kapone of tax evasion the Law Society could not even convinct Kopyto of overbilling legal aid base on its lead investigaators admission under croas examination. A more trangression of justice yet to be seen at the hand of those responsible for protecting public interest.
Posts
