Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.: 12-IRobbins v Cambridge, Glen P. Robbins v LSocietyBC - Sea to Sea Supreme Court Perfidy - Demand to Can Judicial Council for Inquiry v Hinkson CJ, Fenlon J (primary) (2nd) (Davies, Smith, Grauer JJ, Bauman CJ) (3rd) SCC Wagner --Abella, Ro
  Jul 06, 2020

Commentary
continued from No.: 11
But wait there’s more:
At paragraph (25) Page 7 Grauer J. writes:
“It is not obvious why subsection 15 (1) (a) permits an “individual party” whatever that means to a proceeding who is acting without counsel on his or her own behalf to engage in the practice of law, when by definition, the practice of law would appear not be include such activity. One must assume, I suppose, that since the definition is not exhaustive, the practice of law may be taken to include other activities not covered by the definition, even when no fee is charged.”
At paragraph (26) Page 7 Grauer J. writes:
“It is also unclear why subsection 15 (5) includes the redundant words “in the person’s own name”. Given the provisions of subsection 15 (1), and the definition of the “practice of law” those words would appear to be superfluous, and detract from the clarity of the subsection.”
Quite clearly Grauer J. is isolating subsection 15 (5) as the culprit in the linguistic misfeasance/malfeasance.
(Quite clearly according to Grauer J. 's Reasons, if read textually, place the Law Societies case in a legal coma).
At paragraph (21) Page 6 in referring to the Legal Profession Act and most specifically 15 (5) Grauer J. writes:
“Just how these provisions apply to a person like Mr. Robbins, a non lawyer who is acting free as the representative of litigants to who he is related in matters in which he has an interest, “is not entirely clear”. Previous decisions of this Court are not consistent, and the (BC) Court of Appeal has yet to resolve the inconsistency. “The problem arises from what I consider to be rather clumsy legislative drafting. Given that the legislation in question is the Legal Profession Act this observation is not without irony.”
So, at paragraph (25) the two provisions of the LPA ‘leftover’ under application are Section 15 (1) and subsection 15 (5). At paragraph (26) subsection 15 (5) is to blame.
There is confusing inconsistent and unclear redundant language as between these two provisions.
The redundant language cited by Grauer J. is later removed by amendment by the BC Legislature May 2012 from the unclear (15) (5) and attached to not much clearer and more voluminous section 15 (1), the main provision.
Remember, Grauer J. has already stipulated that 15 (4) does not form any part of the Application of the Law Society, and 15 (4) is the primary reason for the Law Societies intervention.
At paragraph (27) Grauer J. writes about 15 (5):
“Given these peculiarities, it is not surprising that judges have not always agreed on how these provisions should be applied in given circumstances.”
If the Courts cannot clarify ‘confusing’ “redundant” language, and judges cannot agree, how could Glen P. Robbins or any other person possibly decipher through the provisions?
GPR indicates in an amended response to petition to the Law Society of BC, that he has no idea what 15(5) actually means. Grauer J. Reasons assert GPR’s defence for him by characterizing the language in 15(5) as unclear (at best) supporting Glen P. Robbins defence and undermining the Law Societies (residual) claim with 15 (5).
Many cases in the subsequent years involving the Grauer J. decision and 15 (5) don’t do a better job of dealing with the new version of 15 (5) post May 2012 amendment then anyone before it.
Most rely on Grauer J. But in so doing, the subsequent cases where Grauer J. or Robbins v Law Society of BC are cited, the separation of court registry and Legal Professions Act AND right of audience are affirmed.
Every 15 (5) decision prejudicial to any respondent or petitioner should thus be overturned.
Thus, the matter of 15(5) taken up by the Law Society of BC against Glen P. Robbins pursuant to the formers amended petition, and GPR’s Consent to LSBC’s demands vis a vis 15(4) under the original petition, where 15 (4) and 15 (5) involve the exact same action by GPR, but in the case of the provisions of 15 (5) were not the same words under the new amended provisions of the May 2012 legislative amendments when the order was passed up to Fenlon J. in the Cambridge Mortgage May 9, 2013 foreclosure application.
Not the same words, precisely how does one use the Interpretation Act to figure out how a subsection like 15 (5), we know to be unclear and redundant to 15 (1), which surrenders some of its words considered by Grauer J. to the 15 (1) in the May 2012 legislative amendments to assess the remaining words, which this to day are unclear, and certainly not produced in the Public Interest.
The Grauer J. order 15 (5) order was irrelevant on its face and without force and effect as the new amended language in 15 (5) post amendment from BC Legislature, retroactive to 1996, which removes the whole of the original language as encountered by Grauer J., castigated severely as unclear by Grauer J., and amended by BC Liberal Government without any doubt because of Grauer J.’ Reasons.
And yet another overwhelming Reason to expunge the original 15 (5) order by Grauer J. It doesn’t exist in law past May 2012 - and the Legislative changes.
One can see how untoward it was that both levels of BC Superior Courts and the Law Society of BC failed to inform Glen P. Robbins of the true importance of the amendments which would underscore the true significance of his case. By NOT notifying Glen P. Robbins of the legislative changes to subsection 15 (5) the BC Law Society obviously was evading detection of this exculpatory evidence.
The Law Societies credibility had been shot with previous real estate lawyer scandals costing the Society over $40 million a decade ago.
The Law Societies credibility had been shot with previous real estate lawyer scandals costing the Society over $40 million a decade ago.
Afterall, the Supreme Court of Canada Panel that decided the leave application had all of the relevant documents including the original petition, the response to petition, the amended petition, the amended response to petition, and Grauer J’s. Reasons.
Did the quorum of 3 S.C.C. Judges read the application including Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgment? Did any one of the three justices believe the matter should have been approved for appeal? Did they actually read the documents?
Or would having granted Glen P. Robbins at Hearing at the Supreme Court of Canada under such circumstances embarrassed lawyers, shamed legislative drafters terribly and make them appear dishonest, sneaky and perpetuate a well grounded negative opinion of lawyers as perfidious cheaters?
Again, if the shoe fits.
“Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted.”.
We can see that the Supreme Court of Canada has granted a motion for extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal to Glen P. Robbins yet refuses to grant Ita Robbins an extension of time to file her Leave to Appeal application under 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage (Government of British Columbia) (“Her Majesty the Queen”) involving her land, home and property, as well as the property of her children (Jane and Jane Doe).
The Law Society of BC directs the amendments to the LPA including 15 (5) (and 15 (1) cutting some of the language in 15 (5) and allowing those words to remain in 15 (5).
Had Glen P. Robbins been made aware of the legislative changes to 15 (5) (and 15 (1)), he would have amended his appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada to more properly flesh out the obvious detail of his trouncing of the Law Society of BC through the process of S111171 and at hearing.
How is it that Glen P. Robbins is provided with an order to extend his time to file a Leave to Appeal application at Supreme Court of Canada (35302), yet Ita Robbins is denied the same when it involves her home 35772?
GPR appeals on the Basis of Seeking Double Costs against the Law Society of BC on the basis that Grauer J. incorrectly ignored the fact that GPR agreed to ALL of the demands of the original petition of the Law Society of BC.
Three levels of appeal including the SCC hold that the presiding Judge has discretion over Costs. GPR argues this authority is limited where Reasons are provided and the textual reading of those Reasons makes the overall Judgment (determination) and order for 15 (5) out of any balance and conspicuously unfair to Glen P. Robbins.
A little suspicious don’t you think?
Grauer J. also admits that Ita Robbins could amend the Notice of Claim document against BMO. Following two appearances before the BC Court of Appeal (where Glen P. Robbins had no idea the provisions in subsection were being or more importantly had been amended) (they are no clearer now than they once were) by the BC Legislature, and where the BC Court Appeal Justices knew or ought to have known about the changes to the provisions by BC Legislature.
Remember, Glen P. Robbins came under attack by the Law Society for first 15 (4) ‘acting as lawyer’ and then in amended petition (15(5)) for the same singular offence, but was let off on 15 (4) by his promise.
This bargain with Justice Grauer occurred at hearing, and was repeated in Justice Grauer’s reserved Reasons.
There is no doubt to any reasonable person armed with the facts (and reasonable person is advanced in this context with some foreboding about its attachment to the members of the Judiciary at both levels of Supreme Court in BC), who read both Justice Grauers Reasons and who had possession of the original petition and the amended petition of the Law Society of BC that the ‘fix’ was in.
The Judges at BC Court of Appeal had no valid business excusing the outcome of Grauer J.’s order based on judicial discretion knowing what had occurred with the provisions of subsection 15(5), following Grauer J.’s Reasons. Grauer J. had no valid business making the order against Glen P. Robbins on 15 (5).
In his Reasons Justice Grauer clearly stipulated (as to Costs) that Glen Robbins did not do enough to mitigate against the Costs of the Trial through settlement neglecting to properly consider the response to petition of Glen P. Robbins to the Law Society of BC, wherein GPR gave in to all Law Society demands.
Grauer J. failed to properly deal with the response to petition in his Costs determination made under reserve.
The Grauer J. Reasons were provided under the Application for Leave which garnered the first step required for appeal, namely a docket number (S.C.C. 35302).
The Application for Leave was heard by a quorum of Supreme Court of Canada Justices without the knowledge that the provisions in the order provided by Grauer J. relating to subsection 15 (5), no longer existed at the time of the decision, and had been amended in the BC Legislature.
Glen P. Robbins did not receive a fair hearing, because of the ‘exculpatory’ information kept from him during the appeal process.
The Law Society of BC had a fiduciary obligation to inform Glen P. Robbins of the material changes to subsection 15 (5) by the BC Legislature made by the Law Society of BC, the party respondent at S.C.C.
These nefarious actions of the State and sub State actors then impacted on a whole hosts of other matters before BC Judges to which these complaints are related based on on a subsection of the Legal Professions Act which is incoherent, not understandable, unclear, redundant to other subsections 15 (1).
The Trial Outcome is Published in the Gazette: The Vancouver Sun.
Following the Trial before Justice Grauer, Ian Mulgrew a legal journalist with the (z)Vancouver Sun, wrote an article about the Law Society of BC case, (which prompted many calls to Glen P. Robbins by family and friends who had read it) (privacy), which article, focused primarily on the confusing language in the Legal Profession Act described by Grauer J. in relation to 15 (1), also amended in May 2012.
The fact that Glen Robbins exercised what he believed was a “free play” at Trial (given his clear offers to give the Law Society of BC what it demanded in response to petition), (admitted to by Grauer J. in is Reasons), including a discussion of the Council of Trent and his standing in his wife shoes, and that 15 (4) was dispensed with suggests the Trial was likely unnecessary.
Grauer J. called this position of Glen P. Robbins “ingenious”, and a “nice point”.
Given that the reference to the Catholic Church history applied by Grauer J. to GPR as an ingenious move that clearly won the right of audience argument in Grauer’s Reasons and provoked the back of Grauer’s hand (literally) at Hearing, and that this was published in the Gazette (where every game is a home game for the State), must have set off the (z)Jewish advocacy community of lawyers dominating the legal process involving GPR and his wife Ita - particularly in Ita’s case with Cambridge Mortgage involving usury and unconscionable lending practice - a hallmark of historical complaint against (z)Jewish Elites in western liberal democracies.
Glen P. Robbins easily won the Trial vs Law Society of BC, obviously he is a world class lawyer, world class political scientist, world class journalist and media/public relations expert outwitting high priced, making a mockery of the Canadian Legal System BC Superior Courts to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Just Imagine the Anger @ LSBC ®. It eerily reminds one of the surprise Trump White House win in 2016 predicted by Glen P. Robbins as pollster www.robbinssceresearch.com “The most accurate Pollster in the World '' ®.
So with no formal legal education, two ordinary Canadians Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins are badly defeated by the actual lawyers and in that process thus expose the Canadian Legal System as ostensibly a fraud. A contemptuous fraud on its own Rules, its own processes and procedures. A fraud on the Rule Of Law, and most importantly, a fraud on the Canadian Public.
There is a silver lining, a ray of sunshine. Just as nephew Ryan Dalziel is one of the finest Constitutional lawyers in the country, and was the youngest Canadian to pass the Bar, his Uncle Glennie is likely the best self litigant in the World, and one of the better lawyers in Canada, with or without a legal education. That my friends is DNA.
Many people like the idea of Tom Selleck for Glen P. Robbins (twins) & Laura Linney (Ozark) for Ita Robbins. Others like the idea of a cameo by US President Trump (into 2nd term by time move is shot) - in the role of the Chief Justice. (Can you imagine when the Chief Justices chair swivels round and there he is. (GPR - I know what you're thinking - goosebumps). (Alot of interest in Micky Rourke as well - given both his and GPR’s ‘pugilistic’ backgrounds lol).
On September 19th, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada granted Glen Robbins an extension of time requested but dismissed his appeal application versus Law Society of BC. Reasons aren’t provided, we are told the (3) BC Supreme Court Justices read the application, and are informed that not all 3 justices necessarily have to agree with the decision, but two must agree.
This decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to dismiss the application for leave to appeal Grauer J.’s orders occurred one year and four months after the BC Legislature amended (verb, make fairer more up to date) the provisions of subsection 15 (5) (May 2012).
The Law Society of BC had plenty of time to provide GPR with the changes to 15 (5) by BC Legislation approved by both the Law Society of BC and the BC Attorney General.15 (5) Infects BCSC H130330 Cambridge v Ita Robbins like a CoronaBCLawVirus.
Keep in mind that Fenlon J.’s decision on Glen P. Robbins' right of audience is derived through an informal procedural order and not a substantive one. A substantive order would require many documents and a formal Rule 8 (BC Rules) Application of some type, with opportunity for the filing of a response, in this instance by GPR.
When the reader experiences what transpired at the original foreclosure hearing in Cambridge v Ita Robbins 35772 herein, they will lose any pretense of authority for lawyers and wonder how many are as mentally incapacitated and dishonest as this.
A similar opinion may be ascribed to the Judges complained about as well (see also ridicule).
Fenlon J.’s procedural order weaponizing pathetic subsection 15 (5) of the LPA as a basis impacting right of audience arguments is too clever by half, and in context of the order and Reasons of Grauer both being submitted to the Court, ought to have triggered a compulsion by Fenlon J. to read the Reasons, perhaps triggering some of that reason for her own personal self.
Fenlon J. also conspicuously ignores the fact that her former employer Elizabeth Lyall is the solicitor of record for the Law Society of BC in the matter against Glen P. Robbins (S111171) before Grauer J.
Fenlon J. also failed to consider the documents filed by IRobbins “triable issues” proclaimed on Court Transcript by GPR - and also failed to read Grauer J.’s actual 14 page double spaced Reasons which clearly determined Robbins right to speak at hearing with the approval of the presiding Judge, the opposite of the Reasons provided by Fenlon J. based accidently on 15(5) which no longer existed in its original form at the time of hearing before Fenlon J.
It is only fair under these circumstances that the Supreme Court of Canada overturn the dismissal of GPR’s appeal under S.C.C. 35302 and permit a new application for appeal by Glen P. Robbins or place a stay of proceedings against the Law Society of BC applications against GPR dated May 2012 when the provisions to subsection 15 (5) were amended by the the BC Legislature, and where Glen P. Robbins should have been informed of the amendments and given an opportunity to in turn amend his Supreme Court of Canada leave application.
Notwithstanding any of this, and given the information provided to the Supreme Court of Canada including the Reasons for Judgment of Grauer J., and all documents of (1) petition, (2) response to petition, (3) amended petition and (4) amended response to petition, the matter ought to have been heard by the SCC.
It must be reviewed now given the huge damage caused by 15 (5).
As Grauer J.’s 15(5) order (S111171) connects legally to the Cambridge Mortgage petition for foreclosure H130330, the end of Transcript Proceedings of May 9, 2013 reveal that both Bakonyi and Ellis Roadburg lie to Fenlon at the hearing, misinforming her that Grauer’s order means Glen P. Robbins cannot speak on behalf of his wife or anyone else, when they (and likely Fenlon J.) know this is a lie to the court.
At the end of that court Transcript Fenlon J. clearly indicates to the courtroom that she has no idea what section 15(1) the main predicate subsection of the Authority to Practice law means.
Remember the Transcript excerpts offered from Bakonyi for Cambridge and Ellis Roadburg for BMO at Foreclosure hearing May 9, 2013.
Since section 15(1) is the main part of the Section relating to the Law Society of BC Authority to Practice law - how could Fenlon J. possibly have interpreted 15 (5) in the way she did, unless she was aiding and abetting her fellow lawyer ‘friends’ Bakonyi and Ellis Roadburg, to provide them the order nisi they desperately require, to cover up the unconscionable loan (Peet & Cowan Financial) and mortgage and interest rate fraud with Cambridge Mortgage (P & C’s sister company), and to protect the army of LSBC lawyers also filing fraudulent mortgage registrations, by giving her fellow lawyer ‘friends’ the advantage.
Remember, British Columbia does not permit an automatic appeal from the BC Court of Appeal on an order nisi.
Clearly the Transcript evidence of the May 9, 2013 foreclosure hearing of May 9, 2013 is an embarrassment for the BC Superior Courts. Left unresolved, it along with this rest of these complaints to CJC and otherwise, presents the apex of miscarriage of justice in legal cases @ Supreme Court of Canada (35302) & 35772.
Fenlon J. ought to have recused herself as a consequence of GPR’s pleas for her to read the Grauer J. Reasons for Judgment, and claim for a hearing of triable issues - and an entire afternoon recess to discover the truth about Grauer J.’s order relating to 15 (5), its lack of legal standing as ongoing case law, and most importantly the reality of Grauer J.’s separation of the Courtroom with Justice presiding and the court registry.
A proper hearing of the triable issues would have produced an order more favourable to IRobbins, consistent with her Notice of Claim filed in New Westminster Court against Cambridge Mortgage and its sister company (149328), filed in that (appropriate venue) prior to the filing of the petition H130330.
The Government of British Columbia Legislative Transcript under Hansard provided in the 172 pg Legal Binder relating to the the Legislative changes made to subsection 15 (5) of the Legal Professions Act, changes made to a quasi criminal enforcement order with language of contempt attached to it was directly related to Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgment in a case - should have been made available to Glen P. Robbins during the two appeals of the Grauer Reasons at BC Court of Appeal during 2012 and 2013.
The Legislative changes made by the Law Society of BC, BC Attorney General (Government) to subsection 15 (5) (rendered near impotent by Grauer J. in his Reasons, in May 2012), occurred at or about the same time Glen P. Robbins appeal of the Grauer J. order (seeking Costs only) was not not only outside the scope of discretion given his underlying Reasoning, but basically unfair given that Grauer J. acknowledged that Glen P. Robbins had nullified 15 (4) in his original Response to Petition of the Law Society petition.
Even the Chinese will be shaking their head at the Canadian Legal System. The Chinese should try the two Canadian me, find them innocent, send them home and then point to these cases in joint mockery of the legal system described herein.
Fenlon J. was given an opportunity to apologize for her suspect conduct at hearing, which would have gone a long way to resolving this matter and providing remedy to Ita Robbins et al.
These unique circumstances for the CJC and (if necessary) the Supreme Court of Canada via Writ of Mandamus impact dramatically on the reputation of justice and the senior court system. No one in the World reading this and understanding the incomprehensible corruption that occurred here would take Canada’s Justice System seriously.
NEWSFLASH! Grauer J. not at BC Court of Appeal he can fix the entire situation by declaring BCSC Court File No. S111171, Supreme Court of Canada 35302 Glen P. Robbins v Law Society a Nullity, and award punitive Costs to Glen P. Robbins, the story is written up in the press - other orders follow. Pay Compensation ($$$$$$$$$$).

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2020