Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Response to letter of acting Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council - formal Chief Justice of Nova Scotia J. Michael McDonald dated Oct 21, 2020
Another one bites the dust - Queen  Nov 04, 2020

Commentary
November 4, 2020
Mr. Glen P. Robbins
By email: glenp.robbins@gmail.com
Canadian Judicial Council, 150 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa Ontario K2P 1P1
Complaints against BC Justices Hinkson & Fenlon.
I am responding to your letter of October 21, 2020 provided 2 months after we submitted our complaints to the Judicial Council.
I take note that your email to my wife (and not to me) is condescending. I have a complaint separate from the other persons. As a matter of fact it is primarily my complaint against these judges that is tied to cause but adversely affected my wife costing her millions of dollars. The fact that you claim your efforts improved access to justice for Nova Scotians in context of the clear effort in these BC cases to deny access is frankly sickening.
‘Man up’ and deal with me henceforth as the lone complainant. The other Complainants are aware that there is no compensation available from the CJC. They are also aware that a simple apology from either or both of the judges on the basis without legal liability to either is an available remedy, an accommodation they have informed me is sufficient for them.
I will pursue a more suitable penalty for both if pressed. There is absolutely no chance I permit this to go away without some remedy. I will however offer to settle these complaints with an apology from both judges to me directly which will help with my wife’s position and save more litigation.
Not doing so, implies an intent to a zero sum approach from you - which will induce vigorous push back from me.
I take note that you suggest a signed letter was sent. None has arrived. I would like that signed letter your promise in the event I am forced to take an action at Federal Court against you personally for intentionally obstructing justice as well, which I know you know you are doing.
You provide no Reasons in you letter which I contend is ‘dodgy’ anyhow. The only Reason I can find is at paragraph 2 where you write: “You addressed your letter to the Chief Justice of Canada.”
This is evasive as you know because the Complaints were actually sent to the Executive Director. I would prefer the actual Executive Director and not a convenient stand in ‘acting’ make a decision on these Complaints.
Having a ‘stand in’ make the decision is a little too convenient by half - protecting the palace as it were with the prospect of employment or benefit down the road for you for your interference I suspect. Another judgeship? Supreme Court of Canada?
You know full well that the Complaint was sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada because he is implicated in these matters as a regular judge involving lawyers and judges not only misbehaving (interfering with decisions of another judge) but participating either directly or indirectly with conduct in breach of the Criminal Code. At a minimum its a ‘heads up’ to recuse himself when applicable including in this matter. At worst Chief Justice Wagner is inferred to have knowledge that he aided and abetted the parties.
Citing it as a reason for not permitting the case to be properly considered is tactical on your part I believe, trying to kick it down the road to the Federal Court or other.
So far this appears like a cover up of the judicial misconduct to me. Note that this letter in response will be featured at www.robbinssceresearch.com.
These Complaints were sent to the Chief Justice prior to having submitted the Complaint to the CJC so that excuse is no longer a Reason. The cover letter clearly says Attention: Executive Director Norman Sabourin. Given your history as a former chief judge it appears to me that you are taking the stand in position to protect your fellow judges and avoid a proper vetting and accounting by proper complaint process.
The Judges Act quite obviously adheres to the Complaints about these Judges. Am I aware that both or either Judge can apologize for their mistakes without legal liability for making the apology. These are serious meritorious complaints you appear to be evading (malicious in context).
Are you telling me that these judges are unwilling to settle with a simple apology?
Or is this really just about protecting the legal industry and the lawyers?
I demand that you reconsider your decision within 14 days of the date of this letter (or sooner) and that you place your legal signature on your letter of October 21, 2020 and provide it to me to the address you have. Please also provide me with with information of when the actual permanent Executive Director is back on the job or another appointed, (Maybe that will be you for doing this lol) so that any decisions provided appear to have proper weight to them (and less staging), though I have received a Tweet that Norman Sabourin is no longer Executive Director with no press release - and unusual happening. I also note from lawyersdaily recently that Simone Jellinek “a Toronto litigator who represents plaintiffs suing for sexual abuse and harassment” indicated that she would be “very surprised” if 2012 sexual abuse complaints reported to the CJC “were the only such problems that have occurred in the courthouses in the past 10 years.
Although the complaints against these BC Justices do not involve sexual assault per se, they do involve more metaphorically the rape of my wife's property and belongings and a colluded effort to deny us BOTH access to justice.
As a former judge of the court who claims access to justice as his calling card, in consideration of these complaints - you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins

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