On February 13, 2015, the Respondents lodged of formal complaint with the Law Society of British Columbia with respect to Staff’s at the BCSC manipulating the Offering Memorandum to suite their theory of the matter.    Our letter was precisely written and explained in detail exactly what the issues were with regard to the actions of the Staff.

[Click on Link…]

Law Society Complaint

On February 20, 2015, the Law Society wrote a letter back to the Respondents dismissing the complaint and informing us they were closing the file.   In less than 5 business days – they decided to close the file?    Their “parting shot” insinuated that “if the Hearing Panel ruled in your favor on this issue, it does not necessarily follow that the lawyers did anything wrong or unprofessional” .  They then indicated they were closing the file with no further investigation into the allegation.

[Click on Link…]   

Letter from Law Society – February 20, 2015

Lawyers are held by of Professional Code of Conduct, which is suppose to be adhered to at all times.    A section from the Code, taken off the Law Society of BC’s website clearly states:

2.1-2 To Courts and Tribunals

(a) A lawyers conduct should at all times be characterized by candour and fairness.  The lawyer should maintain toward a court or tribunal a courteous and respectful attitude and insist on similar conduct on the part of clients, at the same time discharging professional duties to clients resolutely and with self-respecting independence.

(b)  Judges, not being free to defend themselves, are entitled to receive the support of the legal profession against unjust criticism and complaint. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it is proper for a lawyer to submit the grievance to the appropriate authorities.

(c)A lawyer should not attempt to deceive a court or tribunal by offering false evidence or by misstating facts or law and should not, either in argument to the judge or in address to the jury, assert a personal belief in an accused’s guilt or innocence, in the justice of merits or the clients cause or in the evidence tendered before the court.

(d)A lawyer should never seek privately to influence a court or tribunal, directly or indirectly, in the lawyer’s or a client’s favour, nor should the lawyer attempt to curry favour with juries by fawning, flattery or pretended solicitude for the personal comfort.                                             


  1. And in the Annotations to Chapter 2 – Standards of the Legal Profession Annotations to Rule 2.1-2 To Courts and Tribunals it states:

A lawyer who is negligent and reckless and displays a casual disregard for the truth in making misrepresentations to the court and to the Law Society, is guilty of professional misconduct.  [PCH]
DCD 01-16



  1. I am very glad that this blog is challenging the blasé performance from authorities in Canada that are charged with the duty to uphold lawful administration of justice. It is high time that the colonial/pillage basis of justice administration be challenged in all its forms. There has become zero allegiance to rule of law within many of our quasi-judicial bodies as well as our judicial organizations. This is not consistent with the proposition since westward expansion that Original Society governance would be replaced by colonial institutions in order to achieve “good government”. This “good” has been evidently scrapped, when justice mechanisms are concerned – so this needs a thorough critical review.

    If Canadians are able to get acquainted with the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, we will be able to organize so that evidence of non-performance of the wheels of justice can be taken to Geneva – and the facts presented and Canada asked to account for its performance. Sometimes you have to go over the heads of a systemically dysfunctional governance system.

  2. The courts and the legal profession typically look the other way when lawyers deceive or even outright lie to the courts.

    But what can you expect when a profession is allowed to regulate itself with no independent civilian oversight?

    Good luck with your quest for justice, and if justice is not to be had, then keep up the good work bringing the issues directly to your fellow Canadians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *