WE ARE ALL
The first major problem I had adjusting from UK to Canada was I would always look the wrong way before stepping out on the road…………. Oops. Trying to buy milk was ridiculous and Dave almost missed his bus to work trying to buy “20 Players tipped and a box of matches”. Looking in the yellow pages for a “chemist” still has not brought success and talking to a car salesman about the size of “the boot” continues to get me the “rolling eyes” treatment. It took a while to understand why those I worked alongside had such an interest in the bowel movement of bulls and why it was the primary topic of conversation from 9:00 until 5:00 p.m. including coffee and lunch breaks.
In these days of the
Every time I go into Court or deal with pleadings prepared to defend a vulnerable person against the Goliaths of our land, I face the same barrier. This past week is no exception – “perjury” to a lay person is “a mistake” to the member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The “evidenced truth under oath” to the lay person is “not believable” to the Law Society of Upper Canada member who sits in the judgment seat purportedly to deal with “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Back in January in a Small Claims matter where I am the lay person representative the Deputy Judge tried the issue, we had brought to the Court (Brampton) as a defendant, and very clearly told the plaintiff “you perjured an affidavit”. Last week another Deputy Judge, in the same matter but in a different Court house (Burlington) changed the first Judge’s decision from “the plaintiff perjured the affidavit” to “the plaintiff made a mistake” to support the credibility of the “hearsay evidence” of the plaintiff member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Her endorsement makes it clear that “perjury” becomes “mistake or ‘cock up’ in the UK” and “truth” becomes “perjury” by the Court’s innuendos with the lay person defendant being allocated the “s…………… end of the stick” with a court sanitized rip off that amounts to over $4,000.
That was bad enough for me to stomach and then yesterday I received a Statement of Defence in a “public misfeasance” tort in the Federal Court – T-576-09 Estate of Eva Bourgoin - Deceased vs. the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada where the counsel is the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and a Law Society of Upper Canada member. About a year ago now a well evidenced complaint was sent to the Law Society of Upper Canada that showed the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and the counsel who acted under his supervision were putting “perjured affidavits” before the Court to try and discredit me as a “whistle blower” and get rid of a rather embarrassing legal matter that would expose the Minister’s unwillingness to change a system that sees approved pensions paid to unauthorized third parties simply because the person has rightly or wrongly been deemed “paranoid schizophrenic”. It didn’t matter to the Minister that their client, my mam, had shown, through a personal interview with HRSDC staff at the local pension office that she was perfectly capable of managing her own finances, as limited as they were, and had a valid power of attorney if she ever was deemed not capable – it can happen to us all in a few seconds, a car accident can leave us unconscious and rob us of our decision making ability. Further, the Minister had a copy of the court order demanding that her widows pensions be returned to her, given by Hon. Justice Clarke of the Superior Court of Justice, that supported mam’s clearly recorded position that is before the Court, that the Minister was involved in a conspiracy to “cook the books” to defraud mam of her approved pensions.
The Law Society of Upper Canada complaint went nowhere …… it just dissolved into thin air as the many involving the battle for “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” between lay person and member of the Law Society of Upper Canada did before it and after it. And, the personal time taken to document the issues for those who are supposed to protect us from members of the Law Society of Upper Canada who would use “perjury” to defend state sanitized financial abuse of our elderly disabled was for naught.
Scene II…………… a new counsel but still under the supervision of the same Deputy Attorney General of Canada misleads the Court in the Statement of Defence where the evidence is before the Court, the Minister and the Law Society of Upper Canada that the Minister is relying on a “perjured affidavit” to support her position in the Statement of Defence.
April 2, 2008 and January 19, 2009 the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and the counsel who worked under him, presented affidavits to the Court to support the position of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (presently Diane Finley) that my husband and I had demanded Mrs. Bourgoin’s pensions be paid to us, when our clearly stated position has always been Mrs. Bourgoin’s pensions should be paid directly to Mrs. Bourgoin. In both these affidavits the deponents claimed Mrs. Bourgoin’s pensions were paid to myself from October, 1999 until April, 2006 when my mother died. Their statement to support this position in not one, but two, sworn affidavits was : “Starting in February 2000, Mrs. Bourgoin’s benefits were paid to Mrs. Marsden until Mrs. Bourgoin’s death on April 9, 2006.” The statement that saw the Law Society of Upper Canada complaint against the Minister’s counsel which was “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is set out in an affidavit again supplied by the Minister’s counsel dated June 24, 2008 that responded to my written examination of the Minister on the affidavit presented to the Court on June 24, 2008:
“After March 2001, the payments of OAS benefits were made to Eva Bourgoin at the same address. Please refer to a computer printout attached as Appendix IV. After August 2002, the payments of CPP benefits were also made to Eva Bourgoin at the same address. Please refer to a computer printout attached as Appendix V.”
So what’s my point? The point is because the Law Society of Upper Canada ignored the first well documented complaint that members of the Law Society were using “perjured “ affidavits to allow the Minister to get away with unlawfully removing the fundamental freedoms of Eva Bourgoin to manage her own financial affairs, either personally or through a power of attorney, the Minister was able to continue to set aside “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” to protect herself from being held accountable before the Federal Court for what the Estate of Eva Bourgoin – Deceased believes is a public misfeasance. Now a complaint will go before the Law Society of Upper Canada that the Statement of Defence in T-576-09 and the material previously submitted to the Law Society of Upper Canada shows the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and now another member of the Law Society of Upper Canda, are misrepresenting the facts to the Court in a Statement of Defence in order to bring harm to the Estate of Eva Bourgoin – Deceased. This is only one of several “transgressions” – the new buzz word brought into play by Tiger - and probably the smallest.
“33. All CPP and OAS benefits for Bourgoin from October 1999 forward, were paid to Bourgoin care of Marsden and David Marsden.”
which clearly contradicts the sworn testimony put forward by the Minister and her “counsel” on June 24, 2008
October 1999 to on or about March 2001, the CPP and OAS benefits were paid to
“Eva Bourgoin” c/o Anne & Dave Marsden at
What the affidavit of June 24, 2008 fails to state which is “the whole truth” is payment was changed from “Eva Bourgoin” care of Anne and Dave Marsden, in response to a letter from Mrs. Bourgoin, dated February, 2001 which I helped her put together and typed for her signature, that stated mam wanted to receive her pensions directly and not care of anyone ………………… Dave and I fully supported my mother in her position that no-one, and I mean no-one, was entitled to receive her pensions but her. If mam wanted someone to take care of her affairs if and when she could no longer do it as she wished to do it, then a valid continuing “enduring” power of attorney – which she had already taken care of March 31, 1995 – would ensure her affairs were managed by those she trusted and not “trustees” who had no idea how she wished to spend her money. This is only one of the “transgressions” in the Statement of Defence meant to set aside Eva Bourgoin and now her Estate’s well evidenced position:
“that a certificate of incapability used by the Minister to pay all her pensions to the Regional Municipality of Halton who administered her home at the time “was a fraud”.
misfeasance tort victory in the Federal Court is
Gregory McMaster vs. The
Queen. (The Minister of Correctional Services
Our purpose in our “battle for truth” is to stop those, I don’t care who they are, who ignore the truth, our laws, and their own rules to bring harm to Vulnerable Canadians. No-one should lose their rights to their pensions simply because, in someone’s opinion, they have a mental illness diagnosis that may or may not be correct – no X-Ray or test is yet available that will corroborate a doctor’s opinion that someone has “paranoid schizophrenia”. The Minister of Human Resources of Skills Development Canada, and her counsel according to my well evidenced audit are currently involved in a “public misfeasance”. Further, there is the issue of the Law Society of Upper Canada who could have terminated the thousands of public monies being spent to defend the Minister from receiving a judgment of the Court, like her counterpart the Minister of Correctional Services Canada, by simply dealing with the complaint against the Minister’s counsel in a manner that promotes “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” being an integral part of our Court process. A December 4, 2009 publication of Anne Marsden, Rights Advocate for Vulnerable Canadians, 308-1425 Ghent Avenue, Burlington, Ontario, L7S 1X5 Tel. 905-639-5684
E-mail: watching@ cogeco.ca