Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
BC Court - Law Society - China's BC Liberal AG -SCC (Fraud 4) lawyers for Cambridge - Peet and Cowan - BMO Bank -justices Hinkson - Fenlon coop to defraud SCC & J's Rothstein, Moldaver, Abella and Wagner
  Feb 12, 2017

Commentary
[The hearing date of April 24, 2014 is Ita Robbins and Frana Matich's date to hear the appeal of the conduct of sale order. The petitioner is too late under BC Civil Rules to file this Order Made After Application and there is nothing in the court clerk's notes that justify this order or for the acceptance of the April 17th, 2014 Application Response filed April 17, 2014].
There is no valid defence to either Glen P. Robbins January 2, 2014 motion to be added as party or Ita Robbins and Frana Matich's December 18th, 2013 appeal of the conduct of sale order. Both the motion and the appeal are dismissed ex parte during a period of Stay of Execution. No matter the orders should be of no force and effect as a consequence.
The petitioner respondents Ita Robbins and Frana Matich have their Conduct of Sale Appeal under Stay of Execution until April 30, 2014. A dismissal of this appeal is obtained ex parte by Ron Bakonyi, member, Law Society of British Columbia on April 24, 2014 before “Mr. Justice Smith” However, this order obtained ex parte is not filed until July 14, 2014, after the appeal of Ita Robbins & Frana Matich of BC Court of Appeal decision not to permit an extension for time has already been decided.
Ita and Glen Robbins believe Ron Bakonyi for Cambridge held this order of dismissal from Nathan Smith for filing intentionally.
Only the order for vacant possession filed April 24, 2014 is filed during the stay period. The only obvious signature is the Deputy District Registrars signature. Mr. Justice Nathan Smith's (unusual) signature is confirmed by Vancouver courthouse Trial Scheduling on 13/01/2017 @ 9:31 am to be that of Nathan Smith's.
The willfulness of Cambridge Mortgage's deception is the filing date of the Order July 14, 2014. There is no Justices signature on the order. Similarly the order of Davies J's alleged to be made on April 23rd, 2014 dismissing Glen Robbins application to be added as party is filed July 14, 2015 also without Judicial signature.
A Vacant Possession order cannot be obtained until the appeal of the Conduct of Sale has been finalized. The Conduct of Sale order is obtained while the appeal of it is under a Stay of Execution ordered by Justice Kloegman, April 7, 2014. The order for dismissal of the conduct of sale appeal must be rescinded forthwith. Why did the Registrar not send the July 14, 2014 order dismissing the Conduct of Sale to Nathan Smith for signing? We see Smith J's signature on the April 24th, 2014 document. Why did the Registrar not sign the order of April 23rd, 2014 filed July 14, 2014 obtained ex parte from Davies J?
Glen P. Robbins application to be added as party should be affected by the stay order of Kloegman J. made April 7, 2014 valid until April 30, 2014, particularly as it is effected. This contention is made with notice of the two July 14, 2014 orders filed without Judicial signature.
Under “Part 4: FACTUAL BASIS” of the petitioners application response to Glen P. Robbins it admits as much at paragraph 5:
“5. Glen Patrick Robbins is not an owner of the subject property, nor is he a borrower or mortgagor respecting the subject property. Glen Patrick Robbins has no contractual relationship with the Petitioner and is not a proper party to this proceeding. Glen Patrick Robbins' request to be added as a party is not required for the proper adjudication of the matter or necessary for any legitimate or proper purpose.”
The petitioner is admitting that the application is unrelated to the matter (of foreclosure) yet has apparently filed an Order Made After Application [May 31st, 2013 H130330- the fraudulent order] which, for the application to get to order would have required Glen P. Robbins to be added as party. We know that Kloegman J.'s stay of execution order made April 7, 2014 is valid until April 30, 2014. Justice Kloegman asserts in court clerk notes that “The Application (Cambridge's vacant possession) should wait until until the hearing of the appeal” (of Master Tokarek's order of December 9th, 2013). Such an order (supported by review of court clerks notes by PhD Linguist “LM”) would include the Order Nisi preceding the Conduct of Sale application.
The Court registry should not have permitted the filing of the Order Made After Application of April 7, 2014 (Kloegman J.) no court clerks notes, order is inconsistent with court clerks' notes.
The Appeal of the Conduct of Sale order has not yet been properly heard under Vancouver courthouse fraud BCSC H130330
No legitimate order has ever been obtained for vacant possession of the Robbins home under Vancouver courthouse fraud BCSC H130330.
No legitimate hearing in relation to Glen Robbins standing has ever been heard under Vancouver courthouse fraud BCSC H130330
Of the (3) three illegal Orders obtained by Ron Bakonyi on either April 23rd, or 24th, 2014 obtained during the Stay of Execution period (and during hearing dates that were not the petitioner's) only one is filed during the Stay of Execution period, the vacant possession order.
How could BC Court Registrar at BC Supreme Court Vancouver courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC have accepted the vacant possession order without the other order of the appeal of conduct of sale?
The order of Smith J of April 24, 2014 filed April 24, 2014 for vacant possession is signed by both the Deputy District Registrar and Justice Smith. If court clerks notes were compared to the filed order (the same day) how was it possible that this order was transferred to Smith J for signing? We must assume that the Registrar failed to compare the court clerks notes to the order submitted to the court by the petitioner.
This represents a type of convenient willful blindness in court process under Judicial Directive of the Chief Justice for the taking by BC Court Services of Orders of the Court. The Registrar can pretend to have checked the document for filing and put the Order to the decision maker who would assume the Registrar had conducted the mandated due diligence when in fact they had not.
Why were the other two July 14, 2014 orders submitted not signed? Were these orders compared to the court clerks notes? How was it that the order of April 7, 2014 before Justice Kloegman was signed by her, when the order prepared by counsel for the petitioner did not include the very important stay order? Did Ron Bakonyi make the deceptive move to ignore the court clerks notes and make the applicants seeking the Stay of Execution order in their April 3, 2014 application file the Order and when they did not simply decided at his client's direction to game the system and obtain further advantage through further fraud?
Why did Kloegman J retire on the same day the Robbins house was stolen?
Lets canvass the BC Civil Rule relating to “Orders”. Under Rule 13-1 of the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules under “Drawing and approving orders” it stipulates: “(1) An order of the court (a) subject to subrule (15), may be drawn up by any party, (b) subject to subrule (2) and paragraph (c) of this subrule, must, unless the court orders otherwise, by approved in writing by all parties of record or their lawyers, (c) need not be approved by a party who has not consented to it and who was not represented at the trial or hearing following which the order was made, and (d) after approval under this rule, must be left with a registrar to the seal of the court affixed” (following signature of the decision maker).
Subrule (2) stipulates: “(2) When approval in writing not required”: “If an order is signed or initialled by the presiding judge or master, that order need not be approved in writing by a lawyer or by a party.”
*As discussed Orders of the 24th day of April 24, 2014 dismissing Conduct of Sale (Smith J.) or April 23, 2014 (Davies J) dismissing Glen P. Robbins application to be added as party are not signed or initialed by the presiding judge or master. They are also not endorsed by Ita Robbins or Frana Matich (conduct of sale appeal) or by Glen P. Robbins (added as party). This means the orders were filed on the basis of them being obtained because Ita Robbins, Frana Matich & Glen P. Robbins were “not represented at trial” as directed by Rule 13-1 (c).
Under heading “Endorsement of order on application sufficient in certain cases”. “(4) If an order has been made substantially in the same terms as requested, and if the court endorses the nature of application, petition or other document to show that the order has been made or made with any variations or additional variations or additional terms shown in the endorsement, it is not necessary to draw up the order, but the endorsed order will do.”
The order entered April 14th, 2014 by Ronald Bakonyi for CMIC in the name of Justice Kloegman and signed by Justice Kloegman stipulates as follows: “(1) the application of Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation is adjourned on a peremptory basis to April 24, 2014, and shall proceed on April 24, 2014 regardless of any other application that may be set or pending by the Respondent Owners or Mr. Glen Robbins;”
*Conversation with court records 10:33 am 13/01/2017 indicates that although a party would have to go to desk 210 in the civil registry to obtain court clerks notes, the Registrar has these notes in a data base and can immediately view them whilst comparing them to submitted draft order. How is it that the vacant possession order obtained a judicial signature on April 24, 2014 (same day) as the ex parte order obtained, and the order for dismissal of the conduct of sale appeal and dismissal of application to be added as party (GPR) did not merit such a review?
Once the court clerks notes had been reviewed by the Registrar as required by Practice Directive of Robert Bauman on April 14, 2014 when the Order Made After Application filed that day from hearing of April 7, 2014 before Kloegman J. this draft order submitted would not correspond to the court clerks notes.
Frana Matich (petition respondent) and Glen P. Robbins (applicant to be added as party) attended to the hearing before Kloegman J., in this regard subsection (1) of Rule 13-1 would not apply. We note that the order is signed by Kloegman J., but is done so apparently on April 14, 2014 the filed date of the order. How was it that this order made it up to Kloegman J. who could have signed this order believing it had been properly vetted by the Registrar for compliance with the court clerk's notes. It was obviously not.
The April 24th, 2014 order of Nathan Smith also signed that date (apparently) would make it through because of the condition compliant to 13-1 (c) and would be affected by court clerk notes of the April 7, 2014 hearing and order of Stay of Execution of Kloegman J. Why wasn't Nathan Smith's order dismissing the appeal of the conduct of sale order, also made April 24, 2014 submitted for sale at the same time? Was it rejected by the court and than submitted July 14, 2014 as was the order of dismissal of Glen P. Robbins application to be added as party?
Without any doubt, a Stay of Execution order is made by Justice Kloegman on April 7, 2014 the court clerks notes are provided by not later than April 9, 2014 according to the Vancouver courthouse Supreme Court registry (usually not more than one day later). This order of April 14, 2014 should never have been provided to Justice Kloegman who is dependent on the court registry and Registrar doing their job and comparing the order to the court clerk's notes. Again, here are those notes:
April 7th, 2014 Application of Ronald Bakonyi for Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc. Commencing at “10:27:32 before Justice Kloegman. Where Ronald Bakonyi under tab 12 makes reference to the “Order of Master Tokarek...Mr. Robbins....not entitled...leave to speak on behalf of Ita Robbins and Frana Matich.”
At 10:43:37 Justice Kloegman states: “The application (of Cambridge) should wait until the hearing of the appeal.” At 10:50:47 Justice Kloegman states: “So I would make the order stay of execution until April 30th, 2014”.
At 11:07:34 “neither party can file anything further without leave of the court.”
Under BC Civil Rule 13-1 and heading “Endorsement of order on application sufficient in certain cases “(4) If an order has been made substantially in the same terms as requested, and if the court endorses the nature of application, petition or other document to show that the order has been made or made with any variations or additional variations or additional terms shown in the endorsement, it is not necessary to draw up the order, but the endorsed document must be filed.”
At hearing April 7, 2014 no such 'bench' order is made for initial.
The proverbial rubber hits the road at subsection (5) of Rule 13-1 under heading “Order granted conditionally on document to be filed”:
“If an order may be entered on the filing of a document, the party seeking entry of the order must file the document...leaving the draft order with a registrar, and the register must examine the document and, if satisfied that it is sufficient, must enter the order accordingly.”
At this juncture in the process we must assess who is more responsible for this mistake and the subsequent mistakes that follow. Did Ronald Bakonyi for CMIC have responsibility to check the court clerks notes first, given his role as Officer of the Court, or was BC Court Services more negligent or was the negligence mutual as between them?
Under BC Rule 13-1 subsection (6) “Waiver or order obtained on condition”. “If a person who has obtained an order on condition does not comply with the condition, the person is deemed to have abandoned the order so far as it is beneficial to the person and, unless the court otherwise orders, any other person interested in the proceeding may take either the steps the order may warrant or the steps that might have been taken if the order had not been made.”
Under BC Rule 13-1 subsection (8) “Date of order” “An order (a) must be dated as of the date on which it was pronounced or, if made by a registrar, as of the date it is signed by the registrar, and (b) unless the court otherwise orders, takes effect on the day of its date.”
Under BC Rule 13-1 subsection (17) “Correction of Orders” “The Court may at any time correct a clerical mistake in an order or an error in an order from an accidental slip or omission, or may amend an order to provide for any matter that should have been but was not adjudicated upon.”
*Of course the appeal of the conduct of sale, application of Glen P. Robbins to be added as party and proper vacant possession order has not been made to date.
Under BC Rule 13-1 subsection (18) “Opinions, advice and direction of the Court” “The opinion and direction of the Court” “The opinion, advice, or direction of the court must be entered in the same manner as an order of the court and is to be termed a “judicial opinion”, “judicial advice” or “judicial direction” as the case may be.”
How many hundreds or thousands of British Columbians have been detrimentally affected by the negligence of Law Society of British Columbia members and their counterparts at BC Court Services, court registries?

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017