Notice Of Appeal

Thank you to the New Denver resident who generously contributed in order to file this notice of appeal and order the transcripts of trial. Of course it is a breach of fundamental justice that the Canadian Judicial Council maintains that Judges have a discretion to reject the transcript if they want to, particularly if the transcripts indicates wrong doing within the legal system.

filed July 23rd, 2021
The grounds for appeal are

  1. No ability to pay fine. I exercised appropriate due diligence to resolve the issue by attempting alternate methods of payment including transfers from the shareholders loan account which had been used as legal currency in Holsworth v Holsworth. I explained to the court my indebtness and inability to comply. The current order is a continuation of the threat to my security of the person as it threatens imprisonment for failure to pay a fine.
  2. Refusal of the Court to hear Abuse of Process argument at all pre trial hearings is a breach of fundamental justice.
    “Compelling an accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community’s sense of fair play and decency” and “would tarnish the reputation of the court” Conway
    “Procedural irregularity during a criminal trial that is an error of law may amount to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, and can lead to a conviction being thrown out. Such is the strength of the law’s concern for proper procudure.” R. v. Khan.
    Usually a court can defer rulings however where the “interests of justice necessitate an immediate decision”. This will include where “the trial court itself is implicated in a constitutional violation” or where “substantial on-going constitutional violations require immediate attention.” De Sousa
  3. It is an error in law to dismiss my constitutional question regarding the constitutionality of the court by claiming it is a “frivolous and vexatious argument and without merit with no chance of success”.
    “I am mindfull of the right of the accused to make ‘full answer and defence’ if the court is empowered to reject a Charter defence advanced by the accused without hearing either the evidence which the accused proposes to tender in support of it or full submissions on the issue, it is difficult to see how the accused can be said to have had the opportunity to make full answer and defence” R v. Mills 1999 CanLII 637 (SCC) or where the proceedings are “oppressive or vexatious” Nixon
    To claim a discretion regarding the evidentiary weight of the transcript without allegations of fraud is contrary to fundamental justice and refusing to hear arguement confirms the abuse of process.
  4. There is a miscarriage of justice. The Justice Department cannot legally attempt to enforce the law whilst breaching the law by refusing to respond to a Charter complaint as outlined in the Constitutional Question put to the Court on July 15th, 2021. It is troubling to have the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner investigating the conduct of the Minister of Justice in regards to complying with his duty at the same time I am being prosecuted by the Minister of Justice.
  5. There is an abuse of process inherent in this current appeal as the appeal is based upon the transcript. The Canadian Judicial Council claims that judges have a discretion in their acceptance of the evidence of the transcript. I would submit that allegations of fraud is the only lawful reason. There have been no allegations of fraud ever made to me. Although I have alleged fraud against me in regards to the integrity of the transcript.
  6. Insisting that I attend a Court, under threat of imprisonment, that claims a discretion in regards to the best evidence that a Canadian could provide, is contrary to fundamental justice. “Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and indepedence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office” and must be “seen from the perspective of the public not the judge” Marshall Test
    and
    “a judge is disqualified if a fair minded observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge MIGHT not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the Judge is required to decide. That principle gives effect to the requirement that justice should both be done and be seen to be done, a requirement which reflects the fundamental importance of the principle that the tribunal be independant and impartial….lest the integrity of the judicial system be undermined…..the question is one of possibility, not probability”
  7. Such further grounds as I may advise and this honourable court may permit.

Valley Voice Newspaper letter to the Editor May 6, 2021

There is a Petition to Parliament to improve the quality and accountability of Judges in Canada. More important than voting having a voice in our democracy creates a society that reflects our values. All Canadian’s must sign this petition as our Judicial system is NOT operating within it’s constitutional constraints. https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3014

The petition closes on May 7th 2021. SIGN this TODAY. It only takes a minute. SHARE this information with ALL of your friends and family.

We are promised in the Charter that Justice will be “fundamental” and in criminal trials also “fair and impartial”. Parliament is supposed to monitor and control the powers of the Judiciary. However the responsibility for the oversight of Judges has been delegated to the Judges. You should read the information on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Judicial_Council

In my personal experience I presented to the Court the best evidence possible – the transcript of trial – because a lawyer created a fraudulent court order. The Judge, protecting the lawyer, personally called up the Plaintiff to the witness stand and asked for hearsay evidence and “preferred” that to the transcript.

The Canadian Judicial Council dismissed the complaint as the “weighing of evidence”. I reminded them of their obligations under the Charter but further communication was ignored as was my Freedom of Information Act request. A final complaint about Judges claiming absolute discretion was called an abuse of process and the request to have Parliament determine the legality refused.

I made a Charter of Rights complaint and appealed to Parliament as the only “court of competent jurisdiction” to provide the necessary checks and balances for abuse of powers of the Judiciary. The Attorney General’s Office ignored the appeal and ignored follow up emails until I made a complaint to the Prime Minister’s office which resulted in a reply “we do not provide legal advice to the general public”.

Canadian Judges claim to be above the law and not subject to the Charter of Rights. This is not a position that can be held in a Democracy. Claims for Absolute Power has resulted in human rights abuses for thousands of years. The Judiciary will not back down on this issue unless the people of Canada stand together and firmly refuse their services. We need a legal system in Canada that reflects the values of the Charter of Rights and the needs of Canadians. Sign the petition now. That is the minimum participation required to uphold OUR institutions to OUR values.

The Rule of Law means that the law applies equally to everyone. No one is above the law. Our politicians, police officers, lawyers and judges and wealthy and poor individuals must all obey the law.

Sign the petition NOW. https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3014

Write a letter to your MP requesting that the Rule of Law be applied. Speak Out. Protest Immediately. If you require more information contact me at fundamentaljustice@gmail.com. If you want to see the documents that I refer to they are available at www.fundamentaljustice.com

Does the Income Tax Act comply with the Charter….?

Section 238(1) of the Income Tax Act is a crime of strict or absolute liability and the crime holds a potential penalty of a year of incarceration for failure to comply. The crown merely has to assert that the crime has been committed and that they have can’t find any records and if I cant find them either then I’m guilty! There are no reasons, excuses, or extenuating circumstances allowed and the ‘crime’ has a potential term of imprisonment. This combination of liability and imprisonment has been found unconstitutional before and the precedent is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_BC_Motor_Vehicle_Act

“The decision established one of the first principles of fundamental justice in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter“), beyond mere natural justice, by requiring a fault component for all offences with penal consequences.”

The Crown knows that the law is unconstitutional and other countries have changed their Income Tax laws to remove the oppression. I believe that Canada has not changed the law in order to be oppressive.

At Provincial Court in Nakusp the Judge skipped debating the constitutional question of the income tax act before trial and even preferred to communicate the problem of judicial corruption contained within the 2nd constitutional question in preference to debating the unconstitutionality of the Income Tax Act. When I finally forced the debate and provided precedent and argument, the crown responded with ZERO argument BUT the judge ruled against me claiming that he just knew the law but could not point to the law but promised that at appeal I would be presented with the evidence. On appeal there was ZERO precedent or argument presented AND I pointed out the inherent bias of the court and the public service when their wages are tied to the enforcement of the Income tax act. The Judge on appeal delayed setting a date for a decision for 6 months and is due in late April or early May.

I also communicated the Constitutional question regarding the status of my Charter of Rights application to have Parliament determine the matter of Judges claiming absolute discretion to ignore all evidence.

NOTIFICATION

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ACT

In the Provincial Court of British Columbia

Regina v Trevor Russell Holsworth Court file 26418 Nakusp Registry

Regina v Trevor Russell Holsworth Court file 26419 Nakusp Registry

Constitutional Question Act
S 8(2) If in a cause, matter or other proceeding
(a)the constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of any law is challenged

The Law in question:

Income Tax Act R.S.C., 1985, c. 1

s 238 (1) Every person who has failed to file or make a return as and when required by or under this Act or a regulation or who has failed to comply with subsection 116(3), 127(3.1) or (3.2) 147.1(7) or 153(1), any of sections 230 to 232, 244.7 and 267 or a regulation made under subsection 147.1(18) or with an order made under subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable on summary conviction to

a) a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000; or

b) both the fine described in paragraph 238(1)(a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.

Date of Trial: July 15th, 2021 at Nakusp

Particulars:

1. The Income Tax Act provides for a term of imprisonment which is contrary to the Charter of Rights as stated in Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, 1985, 2 SCR 486

Furthermore

S 8 (2) (b) an application is made for a constitutional remedy

Particulars:

  1. The Canadian Judicial Council claims by their letter to me dated August 28, 2007 that Judges have absolute unfettered discretion to accept or reject all evidence including the official court record, the transcript.
  2. I served the Attorney General of Canada / Minister of Justice David Lametti on March 9th 2020 by registered letter through the office of the Deputy Attorney General’s office as specified under serving the Crown on the Ministry of Justice website with a charter notice as per s 24(1) of the Charter of Rights.
  3. The Charter Notice is attached in Appendix A.
  4. No formal response was ever received.
  5. No notification to Parliament was ever made.
  6. I hereby apply for the constitutional remedy outlined in my Charter Notice to be applied, for the constitutionality of the Courts be checked by Parliament and other such remedies be provided as that court determines.

Appendix A

Delivered to Deputy Attorney General’s office on March 9th, 2020

Initials of the receiving agent is M F and the Canada Post item number is RN445243445CA

A copy was also emailed directly to AG/MOJ David Lametti.

Trevor Holsworth

David Lametti

Attorney General of Canada

Department of Justice Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0H8

Federal Judges through the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) are claiming the right to dispense arbitrary justice contrary to the principles of fundamental justice of which a lack of arbitrariness is the primary factor. The CJC claim that Federal Judges do not have to accept the official transcript of trial as the highest form of evidence possible, that they have the discretion to accept other evidence such as personal testimony in preference. A large number of problems follow from that position and have effected my rights personally and continue to do so. I have requested from the CJC that they explain how they can hold that position with regards to my Charter of Rights or submit my complaint in regards to their position to Parliament to get confirmation of its legality but they have denied both requests.

Section 24 of The Charter of Rights allows me to enforce my rights

“(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”

The only Court of competent jurisdiction to judge the judges who judge the judges is Parliament. I have currently lost most of my legal rights except obviously my right to life but I am in fear of losing that. I am hereby applying to Parliament for the protection of my charter of rights. Obviously urgency is of prime importance.

Yours sincerely,

Trevor Holsworth

Parliament debates Judge Shaw

Quotes from the debate in Parliament include:

The statements of the then Minister of Justice Anne McLellan arguing against Parliament protecting Canadians against abuses of power by the Court.

“We are mindful of the importance of protecting the rights that have been guaranteed to us under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We respect the need to balance the powers of the state with the rights and liberties of individuals.”


“The right to appeal a decision of the trial courts in our country is a fundamental and effective element of our legal system.”
( How do you have a meaningful right of appeal if there is discretion by judges to disregard the transcript )

“It is in this way that we live in a system where the rule of law is respected. It is in this way that we live in a free and democratic society where its constitution and charter of rights have meaning. It is in this way that we enjoy a justice system that is the envy of the world.”

Various Parliamentarians arguing for protecting Canadians from abuses by the Courts

“We want the rule of law. The constitution of this land says that this parliament has the power and in fact the responsibility to override irresponsible decisions by the courts.”

“They are made by those who are getting paid to take sides on issues, and that is incorrect.”

“Why is it that the judiciary and the legal industry are rewriting and seem to be even creating the laws of our country within the courtrooms, and it is not done here in the House of Commons?”

“This is not a time for politicians to walk away from their responsibility and once again ask the lawyers and judges of our country to do the job that we do not have the courage to do.”

“What I do not want to hear today or tonight is the justice minister saying “Oh, we are going to look after it. We are going to bring in a bunch of lawyers from the federal government to intervene on an appeal court case which could last a year or more”

“In fact one British Columbia judge has just thrown out one child pornography possession case because of Judge Shaw’s ill founded, intemperate decision. Another 40 child pornography possession cases are on the books of British Columbia. Across Canada there could be hundreds which are in jeopardy, but even the fact this one case was thrown out because of this case is the reason we in parliament are debating the issue today.


“Surely this mockery of the charter by this judge is enough to shake the government out of its lethargy.”

“Let us do it right now. If I were to move that we vote right now to pass the motion we would save a lot of debate. Let us get it done now. Canadians want it done. We want people like Mr. Shaw to know that Canadians do not respect him, that parliament does not respect him, nor should they.”

“I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that I am an officer of the court and I have the highest respect for our justice system. My father was a judge in this country for 25 years and I have learned to respect our justice system.

That does not mean it is infallible. That does not mean it is perfect. We cannot abrogate our responsibility. There is nothing stopping us today from acting. We have a duty to protect citizens right across the country.”

“I was very surprised by the judge’s interpretation of the legislation and by his intellectual contortion of certain provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“I think it is important for parliament to reassert its intention both with respect to the charter and with respect to …. the criminal code.”

“Canadians want us to be involved and they want to know that their politicians and their parliamentarians are in a position to and willing to assert their values over the values of the courts when those values being asserted by the courts are found to be so out of whack with ordinary everyday common moral sense”

“We stand with the entire Canadian population it seems to me in wanting parliament to say something and to commit to doing something should this judgment not be eliminated in the course of the days to come. Canadians also want a commitment I think from the government that if the legal process turns out to be a long drawn out one that the government would have the freedom to act and not have to wait until the final legal act. That is where the whole question of timing comes in.the primary purpose of government is to maintain law and order, to protect those people who cannot protect themselves, to protect the citizens of Canada and to provide for our peace and safety.”

“We have people walking free who are committing criminal, despicable acts offensive to most Canadians. We need to punish criminal behaviour. Our children cannot protect themselves. Our citizens, men and women and children, are at risk because of this judge’s decision.”


“Another reason for the minister to show leadership in this matter is the state of flux within our justice system until the matter is resolved in months or, more realistically, in years by our courts….. is also aware that the courts are already dismissing charges as a result of the present ruling.”


“The people of British Columbia deserve to be protected right now.”


“The Minister of Justice says to wait and see what the courts decide. That appeal could run its course. We all agree it should be appealed. We all agree that this man should be brought back before the courts. He should be convicted. He should be sent to jail, but that does not preclude us from doing something today, right now.”

“As legislators we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner that respects the rule of law. This is the highest court in the land and the laws that we make here are not done in a cavalier manner or in a manner that would suggest that when we feel like it, those laws are applied.”

“What will the government do not only to look at this decision but, as this is an example of the problem of the appointment of judges, what will the government do to improve the accountability of who is on the bench and doing the deciding as well as what is being decided?”

“I suggest to her that the Canadian people view the process as failing them….I would say courts are not the solution, courts are the problem.”

“the decision of one man, Mr. Justice Shaw, has undone all the work by the people’s representatives.”

“This is about far more. It is about respecting our constitution. This is another example of the courts interpreting the charter of rights in a manner in which it was not intended.”

“It was almost 800 years ago that the British had the Magna Carta which introduced such concepts of guarantees of rights and the rule of law, as well as laying the foundation for parliamentary democracy.”

“I cannot overemphasize the importance of this case to the value of the charter and to the courts in general. I suspect very few Canadians can list the benefits that the charter has brought in their day to day lives.”


“If the charter of rights and accompanying court decisions are to have any value at all in the lives of Canadians then they must have the support of Canadians. Decisions like this left to stand will drive away any of the support that might still remain for the charter of rights and our constitution.”


“A constitution or a charter of rights that does not have the support of the people is an empty document. It is a document that is devoid of any relevancy. That is our challenge today, to make sure our charter of rights respects the feelings of Canadians and has relevancy to all our lives in Canada.”

“I believe that the justice minister should have acted on this issue in a far more decisive way. It does not give me pleasure to be debating this because there should be no debate. The children of Canada must be protected. Under this justice minister, under this government, that is not happening.”

“The definition of civilization is that we protect those who cannot protect themselves. We must look after the children of Canada. The people of Canada are saying to us in the House protect our children.

The judicial activism that is presently underway not in any way reflecting the values of Canadians is hampering the police in their ability to do their job.”

“There has been mischief by the charter of rights and it has been mischief that has been brought forward by the law society in Canada.”

“The people of Canada assume that the House of Commons is the supreme power in the country. Under this justice minister and her predecessor, under this solicitor general and his predecessor, the government has allowed the courts to become the lawmakers and the law restricters in Canada.”

“We must stand up. We must be counted. It is up to members of parliament to reflect the values of the people of Canada. The people of Canada are saying “Protect our children, protect our children now”.


“In British Columbia the law is not in place and search warrants cannot happen. The police are being restricted in being able to stop this most reprehensible of all crimes.”


“The charter of rights and freedoms is a legal instrument we have given ourselves to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone. This is an instrument we are proud of, and rightly so. It represents our core values.”

“In the final analysis who is on the hook if a judge screws up? It is the Prime Minister and the justice minister”


“It is not good enough to say that from now until whenever the government stands aside and watches while Canadian children are put at risk, to watch the process take a step by step management rather than leadership approach to dealing with the problem. It will just not accomplish what needs to be done.”

“A new generation is coming and it will judge the previous generation on both its actions and its inactions. It will judge this House on whether it acted or whether it just let so-called justice take its course and possibly end up as being an injustice because of our lack of action.”

“Parliament has the final responsibility in this country. We have appeal courts and the supreme court to review previous decisions but parliament has the final responsibility. With responsibility should come authority and parliament must not be afraid to act on that authority. It must not fail to use the authority.

Are we saying that in our country the buck stops down the road on Wellington where the supreme court justices have final say over the laws and intentions of this House which were produced in accordance with what our constituents asked of us when they said they want just laws, laws that provide equality, democracy, righteousness, freedom? Or are we to say down the road is where you will find those things and you will have to fight your way through every court, right through the provincial courts to the Supreme Court of Canada at great expense? Or can we be expected to act here for the people who we purport to represent?”

“Today we see the ultimate consequences of a completely unencumbered, unaccountable judiciary.”

“I believe that in Canada we have a system where we have parliamentary supremacy. That means we have a responsibility. We cannot abdicate it and say that every question has to go to the supreme court. We can act here in the House.”

“What concerns me is must we have more victims before we can determine if there is harm? We talked about the determination of harm being the criteria before we will decide whether it is reasonable to shut this kind of thing down. How much harm must we endure before we can say there has been enough? How many more children, victims, need to be involved in this kind of sick thing before we can say there has been enough?”


“It may be a lawyer’s dream to see this tragedy played out in the court system, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to protect the vulnerable and the innocent.”

“this Minister of Justice is not defending the rule of law. She is undermining it today by refusing to assert the sovereignty of this parliament to defend innocent children.”


“The whole issue of trusting the judicial process to address this tragic situation is wrong.”

“If we are ever going to send a message to the judiciary that parliamentary supremacy over legislation is meaningful, and if the public at large is going to receive that message as well, there is no better time to use this than at a time when something so offends the common sensibilities of people.”

“They place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of judges as opposed to those of us who place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of parliament. It is a legitimate debate to have in a democracy.”

“This is not a political issue. I suspect and hope there are members of all parties who will support this motion this evening.”

“I call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to not impute motives to one another here but let us assert the sovereignty of this parliament. We can act. The Constitution gives us the power to act and we must act. To do otherwise is to abdicate our fundamental democratic responsibility.”

“It is not at all surprising that such an offensive attack on the values of society comes from the benches of the unelected and the unaccountable. Judicial activism, a recently coined term, refers to rulings by judges which go well beyond the intent of the law. These decision substantively change the law to the point where judges have taken on the role of legislators or law makers as opposed to simply interpreting and applying the law.”


“the position taken by Mr. Justice Shaw do not appear to be in line with our party’s views of what is reasonable in a free and democratic society.”

“Courts cannot replace elected officials. The judges are unelected. They are unaccountable. It is we in this House who have to think, who have to act. We cannot tinker with the law. We need a law that has strong teeth which can give protection to society, which can give protection to the children and the most vulnerable in society.”

“I point out that what distinguishes our society from non-democratic societies is the rule of law. There is no question that no one in the House today has indicated anything but abhorrence for the decision of the chief justice of the British Columbia supreme court.”

The last comment made when Parliament failed to resolve the issue and allowed the Courts to self-regulate:
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on an earlier decision of a vote in the House, may I recommend we close this place and let the judges and courts run this country. “

Interestingly enough in 1999 during these debates Parliament did also seek the removal of Justice Flahiff

“That this House, barring a decision in appeal quashing the decision at trial level, recommend the removal of Mr. Justice Robert Flahiff, judge of the Quebec Superior Court, because of his inability to properly perform his duties due to
(a) a lack of honour and dignity;
(b) failure to perform his duties as judge under the Judges Act; and
(c) a lack of integrity as set forth in the Ethical Principles for Judges of the Canadian Judicial Council;
And that this removal have as its immediate consequence the revocation of the current salary and the right of the said judge to the enjoyment of a pension under the Judges Act.”

Link to PDF on full debate dialogue from Hansard.

Details on Judge Shaw’s Conduct

The judge called the Plaintiff to the stand, requested perjury to protect the lawyer’s fraud, and preferred that testimony, over the transcript.

What the CJC wrote to me was

“The admissibility and weighing of evidence is a matter that falls within the ambit of judicial discretion. Chief Justice Pidgeon is of the view that Justice Shaw exercised his judicial discretion when he preferred certain evidence over others. The exercise of judcial discretion is not a matter of conduct.”

This is the first instance of obstruction of justice and breach of the Rule of Law, and everything following flows from this point and the scheme of protection is exposed all the way through the system. I’ve worked on this statement for awhile trying to get impact and the truth in the statement. I’ll break down the timeline as I’ve not done that for awhile.

Justice Metzger removes my “right to approve as to form” the court order on a minor hearing where I was self-represented, despite my protesting on this issue and no reasons provided.

Plaintiff’s lawyer writes up the court order based on the judges words at the hearing however makes some minor edits to favor himself and sends me the court order. The judge had ordered “mortgage payments” to be paid by the Plaintiff however lawyer writes “mortgage payments ( of approx. $976 ). I write to him disagreeing with the court order as written and he does make some of the corrections that I request however does not alter the qualification of $976 when in fact there were two mortgage payments to be made, the second one was $1000 p.m. I write to the lawyer again and include the clerk’s notes from the court file where it is pretty clear that there was no mention of the qualification. He refuses to alter the document and pays only the one mortgage, the property falls into arrears on the mortgage and when that happens the bank stops accepting payments altogether and sues for full payment of the mortgage which would require the selling of the property. For the lawyer however he is now pocketing all the proceeds that were supposed to be going to mortgage payments. Minor money matters I know, but severe consequences result.

At this time enough other things had happened that were getting beyond my ability to cope, including the plaintiff’s lawyer was not complying with a court order to provide monthly copies of the trust account statement where this money was supposed to be accounted for. The problem was that the lawyer could see that his case was falling apart and he was not going to get judgement in his favor and he would not be able to secure payment from his client. However my hiring a lawyer resulted in the two of them colluding to create a result that would ensure he got paid. I believe that this is a very common occurrence however it’s hard to prove and unless I had been self-represented for a period it would never have been exposed. I was the one who got the court order against the lawyer to provide monthly trust account statements, another lawyer would not have done that, they would have dealt with it internally.

 I had sufficient evidence at this time that I knew that the two lawyers were working together to achieve a desired result which was certainly not to my benefit and did not represent my interests at all. I couldnt believe that we could go to the final trial when the plaintiff’s lawyer had not been complying with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements for almost a year. It was mind boggling. At this point in time I was basically going to trial ONLY to dispute this problem and the fraud on the court order. The lawyers altered ALL of the documents to remove any evidence of wrong doing regarding the trust account, but for a couple of months I had been documenting the issue in emails to BOTH lawyers. They both swear to the law society that the issue was fully presented to the judge. A couple days before the trial I ordered the transcript where there is no mention of the qualification ( of $976 ) on the mortgage payments and I essentially force my lawyer to present this to the court, which he does but very weakly but he does make the argument that the court order should be changed.

The Judge decides to deal with the matter by taking the very interesting step to personally recall the plaintiff to the witness stand. He then asks her what she heard the judge say in a hearing that occured almost a year ago. The Plaintiff of course claims she heard the judge say what her lawyer wrote in the court order and the judge dismisses her from the stand and the matter is over.

Only recently when I was reading through the criminal code regarding the crime “to incite perjury” did I realize that what the judge did was actually not just a perversion of justice but a criminal offense. The Judge knew that trial transcript was the best possible evidence ( apart from the actual audio tape – but that’s another matter for another story ) and he should have just accepted the fact and corrected the court order written by the lawyer and it would have been handled judicially. No big deal. However, he personally requested her to present evidence which he knew would be false. Incredible. I sat there stunned. However no-one in the court room skipped a beat, no-one reported the incident to the CJC, except myself.

The judge then took the extraordinary step to “prefer” the Plaintiff’s hearsay evidence of what a judge said months before over the official court documentation, the transcript. For a long time I used words from the charter, like “arbitrary” to describe this conduct however it is not arbitrary at all, it is completely biased and one-sided and clearly protecting the conduct of a lawyer.

Trying to summarize so many situations like this into a paragraph or into a sentence in order to communicate the issue succinctly to others has been my challenge. The fact that it is so unbelievably destructive to our concept of fairness and how our legal institutions work that it’s been hard to get others to accept the story. We want to trust. We want our institutions to work the way they say they do.

Unfortunately every step along the way the system of review doubled down on the obstruction of justice to attempt to shut me down. I just recently watched the movie “Rainmaker” on Netflix from one of the early books by John Grisham – whom we have lots to thank for exposing some of the way the world works in the legal sector. In that book an insurance company was essentially operating a scam, insuring lots of low income people with few legal rights and then just denying them their coverage until they hired a lawyer which they rarely did lacking the funds to take on the financial might of an insurance company. The insurance company wrote 7 denial letters, finally just telling her, as her son is dying of treatable disease, that she is stupid, stupid, stupid. The quote from that movie that stood out for me is in the final scene :

“Every lawyer, at least once in every case, feels himself crossing a line that he doesn’t really mean to cross… it just happens… And if you cross it enough times it disappears forever. And then you’re nothin but another lawyer joke. Just another shark in the dirty water.”
Rainmaker by John Grisham

I tried to communicate this issue all the way down the line in an appropriate and respectful way and every time those that should have done their job have doubled down and attempted to shut me down and now it’s a huge problem because it exposes the system as a sham and if the system itself is operating outside of it’s legal authority then it loses all of the protections of the law and the entire system is exposed as a protection racket where you pay money to a lawyer for protection money not based on facts or the law but on the fact that they can alter the facts and hurt you and you have no protection. And that is the problem that is facing the institution at this time.
After the trial I made a requisition to court, to Justice Metzger to have the court order corrected. I served Mr Stacey but he declined to respond stating it served no purpose as “there was no money involved”. I attended the Registry several times, apparently, Justice Metzger was sick for a while but ultimately signed off on the correction. Procedure was followed. But the damage was done and the Canadian Judicial Council approving of Justice Shaw’s handling of the matter is a disgrace to any concept of Justice. It is still on the record in Canada that Judges can protect lawyers committing fraud on the Court by calling upon the Plaintiff to perjure herself to protect her lawyer. The Rule of Law does not apply, equality under the law is just something that it says in the Charter of Rights. It has no meaning, unless Judges, or the Minister of Justice, enforce the law. Which they are refusing to do.

I hope you all enjoyed reading. I would like to meet you all one day. Thank you for your time, the efforts that you personally have contributed and of course all of the people throughout history that have contributed to a body of evidence regarding the abuse of power and human rights. It is a hard but inspirational journey that in some ways defines the meaning of life.

Trevor Holsworth