Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Bombshell - Glen P. Robbins writes to BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Hinkson - Fix your Mess or Resign -
  Mar 20, 2017

Commentary
By Registered Mail, Alternative & email
BC Chief Justice for British Columbia Robert Bauman,BC Chief Justice BC Supreme Court Chris Hinkson Min of Justice and AG c/o BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St, Vancouver, BC contact@bcliberals.com, Suzanne.Anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca Fax: 1 250 387 6411 V6Z 2E1 Suzanne.Anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca Fax: 1 250 387 6411
Re: matters pertaining to BSCS S111171 LSBC v Robbins & BCSC H130330 Cambridge v Robbins
Attention: Chris Hinkson (BC Supreme Court Chief Justice)
I am writing in relation to the above captioned matter (BCSC S111171), known as Law Society of B.C v Glen P. Robbins as well as BCSC H130330. You are implicated in the first which has a causal connection to the second.
The original petitioner for this matter was filed February 24, 2011 in Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia and was amended subsequent to the filing of my original response petition. In that response I accepted all orders sought by LSBC. A similar circumstance occurred in the amended response petition.
The petition of LSBC (S111171) sought relief pursuant to subsections 15(4) & 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act (BC (“The Act”), as it was, prior to provisions of 15(5) being slashed in half by Royal Assent of the BC Legislature in May 2012, amid wholesale changes made to the Legal Profession Act, (BC) influenced, no doubt, by the heavy criticism of 15(5) and other subsections of the Act, by Grauer J. in his Reasons for Judgment.
I remind you that the Reasons of Justice Grauer made September 8, 2011 from trial, and from reserve judgment October 3, 2011, were made the subject of an article written by Vancouver Sun legal writer Ian Mulgrew.
At hearing September 8, 2011 Grauer J. pronounced order against me on 15(4) of the LPA 'referring to oneself as lawyer' and relieved me of any penalty beyond my promise not to do it again. I have kept with my promise to Justice Grauer. This provisions relate to injunctive relief as you would know from decisions made by you on tent city subject matter occurring in Victoria, B.C..
From reserve judgment Grauer J. ordered against me on 15(5) “commence, defend, prosecute..” one of many subsections deeply decimated in the legislation prior to Royal Assent.
Grauer J. more than criticized the “clumsy” “redundant” language of 15(5) in his Reasons.
I take the position that but for me 'straightening these lawyers out', these legislative changes might not have been captured, at least those dealt with by Grauer J., the contrary argument being only that the changes were going to be made anyway, which also supports me as the inference would presume that the Law Society of BC went after me to a more malicious degree than is already proved.
I appealed the Grauer J. matter to the BC Court of Appeal on the basis of “Costs”, believing then, as I do now, that the genuflecting I did to the Law Society in response to petition, and amended petition accepting all orders they were seeking, was sufficient from me to make my efforts at trial, a 'free play' as they say in the National Football League .
Low J. dismissed appeal as did a Division, led by Lowry J. The first court of appeal dismissed appeal on the basis that Costs are a matter of judicial discretion under inherent jurisdiction of a constitutionally appointed justice of a provincial superior court.
The Division of the BC Court of Appeal did not overturn that order. A subsequent application for leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada merited a docket number 35302 but was later dismissed with Costs to the Law Society of BC. Law Society of BC Executive Director Timothy McGee is listed as legal counsel for the Law Society of BC.
In his capacity as Executive Director Mr. McGee would have been aware of the upcoming changes to the Act, but made no effort to notify me as he ought to have done given an appeal was in progress to the Supreme Court of Canada where the lower court Reasons of Grauer J. were directly linked to amendments made.
In my upcoming application to the Supreme Court of Canada in (re)considering 35302 I will seek order(s) for extension of time (in the interests of justice, fairness, unique circumstance etc.), to reopen the file and seek a broader appeal of Justice Grauer's Reasons. I will argue that because I only undertook one action, signing my name in the place of my wife in the N.O.C. , in Robbins v BMO Bank then I should not be charged twice from two different subsections of Section 15 in the LPA dealing with “Authority to Practice Law” for only the one offense.
Holding for the subsection 15(5) order is particularly unfair when we consider how this subsection 15(5) was later (mis)used to 'delude' Justice Fenlon in a foreclosure matter involving my wife (BCSC H130330 Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corp v Ita Robbins where I attended to seek a right of audience to deal with an unserved notice of hearing, seek an adjournment and obtain a trial date after submission were filed by the respondent cataloging a plethora of reasons which satisfy 'de minimus' standard for trial hearing.
I would submit that your own participation at Division of BC Court of Appeal in Askin v Law Society of British Columbia would alert you to this Stated Case type of situation. This is where the applicant indicated that Shirley Bond was in breach of the LPA in her being a justice as Bond was not lawyer.
I would also point out Ambrosi v Duckworth where Powers J. of the BC Supreme Court permitted filings (actual procedural filings) in relation to Ambrosi wanting a non lawyer to represent him. In that criminal case the court permitted submissions to be for well over a full year on the matter of right of audience. The individual Ambrosi wanted to represent him had vexatious procedure (litigant) orders in many provinces and a number of concerns about the interests of justice being served.
Ultimately the court denied that right of audience on the basis that Ambrosi had money for a lawyer.
In the Cambridge v Robbins matter before Fenlon J., Fenlon admitting to have permitted non lawyers to represent other parties, but refused to permit Glen P. Robbins to represent his wife on the basis of the Grauer J. order introduced to the court not through the process of formal application and evidence, but handed up impromptu from Bakonyi to Fenlon J. 'out of the blue', (almost as if it had been staged).
Not only did subsection 15(5) not exist in the form it did in the Grauer matter, it is a provincial statute involving the filing of documents at the provincial registry and is unrelated to matters in right of audience, or at least should not be the legal basis upon which to deny the audience.
In any event, the fact that the Legislative changes relating to same subject matter as I was involved with in (S111171) LSBC v Robbins would have surely caused me to take my appeal well beyond the more efficient effort I made on the basis of costs.
Given the trouble caused by the Grauer J. order and its contemptuous manipulation by members of the Law Society of BC including Michael Kleisinger working in conjunction with you and your office (I use the word collusion in the filing read by Brown J. in Google v Equustek), the setting aside of the order for reasons provided would help to solve the problems associated with both cases S111171 and H130330.
H130330 Cambridge v Ita Robbins:
As indicated, Fenlon J. armed with Reasons for Judgment from S111171, Law Society of BC, and featuring her former employer, Fasken Martineau as legal counsel for LSBC, Fenlon J. can be seen on numerous occasions asserting that it is Justice Grauer who determines I should not have a right of audience. He actually says quite the opposite. Fisher J. in LSBC v Parsons affirms Grauer J. Reasons as this relates to subsection 15(5) of the Act as it separates the role of the solicitor and the barrister.
A right of audience relates to the role of the barrister, the person speaking at court, and disregards the actions considered under 15(5) the sole effort of the solicitor or any person or party acting under 15(1).
Fenlon J. issued a judgment from the bench first under preliminary hearing on right of audience (where she errs at law), and then subsequently makes order for foreclosure (order nisi). The fact here is that the first order occurred before the substantive order for foreclosure. Costs are at scale “A”. The bench order indicates that Glen Robbins attended but no one appeared for the respondents (Ita Robbins et al).
Bakonyi for CMIC and Ellis for BMO sign Order Made After Application (in this case the Petition is the application) with respect to the Order Nisi following the May 9, 2013 hearing. On May 27, 2013 these same two LSBC members sign an Order Made After Application in relation to the right of audience of matter and file it with the court despite no court clerks notes evidencing that any substantive process of application (Rule 8) was undertaken.
The BC Court Registry should not have accepted this Order Made After Application as an order relating to the right of audience matter had already been issued by the court.
Following a standard redemption period, the petition filed for conduct of sale. At hearing I attended with Enduring Powers of Attorney one from me to my wife and the other from my wife to me, filed at Land Title registry by our attorney Ross Davidson. Master Tokarek who heard the application for conduct of sale and refused to hear from me based on the specific submissions of the duplicate (phony) Order Made Application of May 27, 2013.
On January 2, 2014 I attended to BC Supreme Court at Vancouver courthouse to file (and serve) my application to be added as party under H130330. The respondents provided a Consent Order agreeing to my being added as party. Bakonyi for Cambridge did not file a response to application. By not filing this response Cambridge relinquished its opportunity to be notified (or even heard) on the matter.
I ended up filing Requisition for hearing date April 23, 2014, having no intention to provide Cambridge with any further notice. On March 20, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada provided Ita Robbins with docket number 35772 in her application for leave to appeal the dismissal of her application at the BC Court of Appeal to extend the time for the filing of leave to appeal from H130330, the order nisi.
At BC Court of Appeal, Ita Robbins had instead filed a conventional appeal for numerous orders other than the order nisi, which have yet to be heard. This conventional filing including the filling out of document indicating that a constitutional question was raised as a consequence of the May 9, 2013 hearing. The decision on right of audience by Fenlon J. made prior to order nisi would comply with this appeal filing.
On March 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge filed an application for vacant possession. Bakonyi knew full well that the order for conduct of sale from Master Tokarek had been appealed by Ita Robbins and her co respondent Frana Matich. Ms. Robbins and Mrs. Matich had established April 24, 2014 for the hearing of this appeal. Bakonyi for Cambridge had never filed and served a defense of the appeal.
At the April 7, 2014 hearing of the vacant possession application Bakonyi appeared for Cambridge, while Glen Robbins appeared for himself (app to be added as party), while Frana Matich attended for the respondents. Glen Robbins spoke at this hearing on behalf of Frana Matich and by extension his wife Ita Robbins as English if Frana's 2nd language and Ita Robbins was unable to attend.
In Rule 8 application submitted by Glen Robbins, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich for the April 7, 2014 hearing a stay of execution order was sought. Kloegman J. adjourned Bakonyi's application and ordered a stay of execution on file H130330 from April 7, 2014 until April 30, 2014.
It is important to note that during the April 7, 2014 hearing before Kloegman J., she requested that court clerk phone down to Manager Sue Smolen from the bench and see if there was a hearing date for April 2014. The Court was advised by Trial Scheduling that there were no dates for April and no dates could be given until the 1st week of the next month (May, 2014).
So, Trial Scheduling knew what was going on.
On April 23, 2014 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (my) (adjourned) April 23, 2014 date and applied to Justice Davies to have my application to be added as party dismissed which it was.
On April 24, 2015 Bakonyi for Cambridge attended to the (adjourned) April 24, 2014 appeal of the conduct of sale order matter and obtained order for dismissal while the stay of execution was still in force. Following that Bakonyi for Cambridge then obtained a vacant possession order. Both the dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order and vacant possession were granted by Justice Nathan Smith.
Smith also signed the vacant possession order (circumventing the filing of the order which would have brought up court clerk's notes), but mysteriously did not sign the dismissal of the appeal of the conduct of sale order.
The dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order was later filed July 14, 2014 and no justice has signed it.
Bakonyi for Cambridge obtained 3 orders during a stay of execution.
In October 14, 2014 and again in January 2014 Michael Kleisinger of LSBC wrote to me indicating in his letters (provided in subs to Brown J.), that he was aware that I had Enduring Powers of Attorney but indicated that I could not use these in any court because of the Grauer J. order. Kleisinger was promoting a falsehood in actual contempt of the Grauer J. order relating to subsection 15(5).
Kleisinger was trying to intimidate me. A week later my wife Ita filed an affidavit with Kleisinger indicating that at all times and places she had commenced her own court matters.
Kleisinger knew that my application to be added as party would discover many of the improprieties of Bakonyi and Cambridge, as well as Ellis and BMO under H130330, Kleisinger then wrote to me indicating he was seeking order of vexatious proceeding (litigant is the defamatory style it is provided in) against me. At no time had Kleisinger ever written to me regarding the vexatious litigant matter.
At no time under the petition of the Law Society of BC (S111171) v Glen P. Robbins was a vexatious litigant argument ever made, despite both a petition and amended petition being filed, a trial being held, and an appeal before two levels of the BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada (35302) having taken place. This covered a period of time from September 2010 until September 2013. (Actually the S.C.C. Docket extends beyond this date).
In February 2014 Kleisinger made a Rule 8 interlocutory application to the court to hear the vexatious litigant matter pursuant to the Supreme Court Act. Obviously, a vexatious litigant matter under that Act differs from matters concerning the LPA as was dealt with under Grauer J.
This Rule 8 application was not served upon me as I was out of town. Without proper notice to me an application was then made to you personally seeking a Trial Date which was made for 18 days later and before you (Hinkson CJ) personally. The application documents filed by Kleisinger for LSBC exploited the ambiguity of application as an originating application (petition) or interlocutory application.
You have referred to the application as a petition which it was not.
I believe you permitted this to happen on purpose in order to use your office to help Kleisinger.
If he had filed a new petition under a new docket number a trial date would not have been heard for months. (Apparently everyone in the justice system except for you and the LSBC was not aware that there were court shortages).
I submit what I believe you and Kleisinger have known all along, and that is the claim for relief under S111171 by way of petition as you describe it could not possibly occur as a petition and an amended petition has already been filed. A rule 8 application cannot be made under S111171 because the amended petition had already been heard by Grauer J.
Also, as chief justice you are the equivalent in authority to any justice of the BC Court of Appeal. You were therefore hearing a petition which had already been heard by a fellow justice (Res Judicata, estoppel), and inserting yourself as a court of appeal justice in a matter where the appeal process has already been heard by three levels of appeal.
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 I telephoned Sue Smolen as I was directed to do by Kloegman J (at the extinguishment of the stay of execution order) seeking a trial date for the April 23 and April 24 applications. I was not permitted to obtain a date on the basis of your instruction that I could not make a trial date because of your order of April 10, 2014 three days following the Kloegman J. stay of execution order (adjournment).
What is even more disconcerting about these events involving your office and your efforts with Kleisinger and LSBC is that Sue Smolen was also the person who told me your reserved judgment would require from 30 to 90 days to decide, likely the longer. It took 20.
The inference of accusation loaded into these facts, is the further fact that in January 2014 following the letter of Kleisinger of January 6, 2014 I wrote to you seeking clarification of the Grauer J. order having been made aware that Kleisinger and other members were promoting the Grauer J. order as a basis for not allowing me to speak in any court. It was planned and deliberate contempt of Grauer J.
Despite my pleadings to you to include Grauer J. in this, and despite my complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council and the BC Attorney General office and Federal Attorney General office you wrote back to me saying it was inappropriate to deal with Grauer J. on the matter.
I take the position that it was at this juncture that you began to collude with Kleisinger agreeing to use your office to help him evade due process of the courts.
I remind you that from 1997 to 2000 when you were a lawyer you represented John Motiuk, who was my lawyer in a BC Human Rights complaint. The Law Society was investigating Mr. Motiuk who was later found to have breached the Legal Profession Act for conduct and who was determined by two psychiatrists to be bi polar and off his medication. Lynne Knights of LSBC indicated to me that Mr. Motiuk had no obligation to tell me he was bi polar and off his medication or that he was being investigated to breaches to the LPA.
Mr. Motiuk failed to inform me that he had not provided written ordered by the BCHRT in relation to application to decided whether or not to sever five female employees of mine who had filed complaint of my staring each and every day for a period of one and one half years.
Later when Mr. Motiuk did inform me (and it was too late to do anything about it before hearing), he informed me that it was his lawyer who told him specifically not to inform me. It turns out that this lawyer is in fact you. In case this appears to be an after the fact accusation I would advise that this was made public in my 2001 BC Supreme Court filing for which no defense was ever filed.
Because of this BCHRT debacle between you and Motiuk, I was subsequently listed as a pedophile by that quasi criminal body and listed on first page Google for 3 years.
In 2004 then BC Attorney General Geoff Plant wrote to me indicating that the Province of BC had settled with me which was not true.
In October 2013 I had written to Kleisinger and to the BC AG of my intention to file for Default Judgment in my 2001 matter, and to pursue a class action against the BC Mortgage Brokers.
You spent a great deal of time in cases involving the LSBC. You have history with them. In fact you even presided as judge in the Trinity Western matter.
I have no doubt that you knew of your history with Motiuk and I and realized when Kleisinger and the LSBC came to you for rescue, you would be willing to prostitute your own integrity as well as that of your office to come to their assistance in creating the climate of rushed Kangaroo style hearing.
In documents filed by Bakonyi to the Supreme Court of Canada in Robbins v Cambridge (35772), Mr. Bakonyi filed and served documents without disclosing as he must, the fact that he breached a stay of execution order to obtain the three (3) orders described herein. The initial response to application for leave features a service date of April 28, 2014 days after the illegal orders are obtained.
Another response/reply document was coaxed out of Bakonyi in May 2014 where he referenced the vacant possession order and your (convenient) vexatious procedure documents.
Given that I did not meet any of the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada for determining a vexatious procedure, (including the only Costs against me to LSBC which I am seeking to have overturned), and considering that you said at trial you had never heard of a person defending another person being charged with being vexatious, I believe you wantonly and contemptuously elected to help circumvent Kloegman's stay of execution order, and to hold Grauer J'.s order of October 3, 2011 in equal contempt in order to help maintain the cover up of the sub prime mortgage scam LSBC lawyers were involved with to the tune of $200 per year.
I (We) will follow due process of these activities at the top court and submit upon recent invite by BC Ombudpersons office (in regard to the registry recklessness relative to BC Court Rules including those for filing court orders). Beyond that I will proceeding with a court action against you, Fenlon J., Nathan Smith and others, as well as against LSBC (part of Federation of Law Societies) and the BC Attorney General (who assisted in mastering mind this) to the Federal Court of Canada.
I will seek damages more consistent with United States amounts for damages as against you and would ask that you not dispose of any property. I have confirmed with the Federal Court that Justices may be served in their own name.
These court filings will also include submissions exposing the historical relationship between the Chief Justice of the S.C.C., her husband as Executive Director of an organization representing provincial superior court justices, and the Canadian Judicial Council.
I would ask that you move as swiftly as you might to rectify matters under S111171 and do so in conjunction with the Chief Justice for the Province or bring in independent counsel to investigate these two files including your participation therein.
I would strongly urge you to take immediate steps to remedy these matters and your direct involvement with them.
I enclose a stay of execution order for judicial signature in the Robbins v Cambridge matter. Naturally, once this is filed as it ought to have been in April 2014, the other illicit orders obtained by Bakonyi should be rescinded including the vacant possession order of April 24, 2014 and writ of possession of July 10, 2014, with further order directing that my wife be returned to her property (as it was before) immediately along with her belongings insured for an estimated $300,000.
I (We) refuse to acknowledge your order as it exists against me by you, as I believe it now amounts to defamation, a political double down I believe on the pedophile cause of action which I understand you were indirectly responsible for.
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins (Enduring Power of Attorney for Ita Robbins)
cc other institutions/persons/press

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017