Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen P. Robbins calls BC Provincial Court Small Claims Act unconstitutional
Seeks resignation from Chief Judge Crabtree  Mar 01, 2013

Commentary
This letter is directed to the Provincial Chief Judge as this relates to the Provincial Court Small Claims and to BC's Justice Minister.
By background my research team exposed former BC Supreme Court Justice Donald Brennar's improper custody of a case involving fraudulent conveyance of the family property of BC Supreme Court Justice Mervyn 'Mary' Koenigsberg. J. Koenigsberg's husband had been 'found guilty' in a California civil court for promotion of hatred against Jews and others. He was a self proclaimed Nazi. His wife continues to sit as a BC Supreme Court Justice.
The California judgment of $200,000 was brought to the BC courts by the plaintiff. J. Koenigsberg's husband was on title with her on the family home, and the lawyers for the California plaintiff wanted to place the judgment against the husband's interest in the family mansion.
In an effort to evade the judgment, the BC Supreme Court Justice and her husband conspired to have his name taken off title precipitating the court action of fraudulent conveyance. Instead of following ethical protocol, and having a Justice from another province sit in on the matter, Chief Justice Brennar took custody of the case himself kicking out the application of the California plaintiff with judgment to the favour of his court colleague Koenigsberg.
Chief Justice Brennar retired soon after our expose was published.
I have been told that as a lay litigant I have attended to court more than 90% of all lawyers, and I don't doubt this to be true. Most of the instances I have encountered in BC's courts have involved judges who carefully scrutinized submissions and evidence and made a good solid decision thereafter - win or lose. In these honest 'hearings' a person can literally 'feel' the to and fro of the arguments and the judge's digestion of them - changing by degrees before you as submissions are made.
These experiences are very enjoyable and require a solid effort from all participants and a proper mindset of the judge. This is what 'the people' expect from the courts and judges whose wages they pay.
I have however experienced a few cases which I believe were 'rigged' - pre-arranged outcomes in my opinion. The natural response to this comment by me is to say 'oh that's what all people say in court when they don't get their own way.' In a rigged case or grossly bias one - it is clear throughout the hearing to anyone who has a reasonable capacity of awareness, that something is not right.
At provincial court I have encountered more reasonableness than not, however most of these judges are criminal case judges and some are weak on civil law in my opinion.
I have experienced a couple of disgraceful efforts at the BC Supreme Court level, and a couple at the Provincial Court level. Decisions at the BC Supreme Court level can be appealed to the BC Court of Appeal. Appeals from the BC Court of Appeal can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Appeals from BC Provincial Court decisions can be appealed to the BC Supreme Court by way of Judicial Review, the same process as decisions from administrative decisions such as a decision from WCAT (appeal arm of WorkSafe BC) or Employment Standards.
Under Canada's constitution on administrative law there should always be some type of appeal reconsideration or review open to someone who does not believe they received a fair decision.
Not so at BC's Provincial Court (which is an administrative court) where section 5(1) of the Small Claims Act only provides for appeal to the BC Supreme Court after a trial and not from a hearing from an application.
This deficiency in the Provincial civil court allows for abuse and bias among judges - who are also lawyers.
I have encountered two situations where I knew there was something wrong with the judges. One situation involved Judge Buller Bennett and another involving Judge Beyan.
I was surprised by Judge Buller Bennett but not so much by Judge Beyan. Judge Buller Bennett is an advocate for aboriginal rights in the court and is head of the aboriginal court at New Westminster BC. The first time before her v Her Majesty Canada I sensed she would be fair. During my first application before her she indicated that the case had alot to it and would not rule on my application of that date but adjourned it to provide more time.
I expected another Judge to hear the matter but instead confronted Judge Buller Bennett again. My application was to have the claim of Her Majesty dismissed. Instead J. Buller Bennett made an order restricting information of my case involving a student loan from 1978 -- 1978 35 years ago - involving an initial debt alleged to be $4,000 to $6,000 - and no hearing or trial in all that time.
I argued that the provincial court had no jurisdiction as the last order had been obtained without my being permitted to attend at hearing at BC Supreme Court in 2000 (ironically before the Justice who husband was the convicted Nazi). The Government of Canada had decided in its wisdom (or lack thereof) to take a 2000 order of dubious acquisition - and rather than move through the scrutiny of Court Enforcement on court judgments, to 9 years and 10 months later sue in small claims for debt.
My position was clear section 3(5) of the BC Limitation Act applied which states: "Any other act not specifically provided for in this Act, or ANY other Act may not be brought after the expiration of six years after the date on which the right to do so arose." Also, the federal statute known as the Crown Proceeding and Liability Act specifically section 32 asserted that: Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other Act of Parliament, the laws relating to prescription and the limitations of the actions in force in a province between subject and subject apply to any proceedings by or against the Crown in respect of any cause of action arising in that province, and proceeding by or against the Crown in respect of a cause of action arising otherwise.....(and) and shall be taken WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE.
It was my position and the law was clear that the only cause of action that could reasonably be foreseen was the 2000 order from Justice Koenigsberg. That was October 2000. Section 3(5) of the BC Limitation Act would have expired in October 2006. Why was this judge ignoring the fact that the Notice of Claim was filed in 2010?
Instead Judge Buller Bennett ordered that no information on the case prior to 2000 could be heard even though her order had no impact on the Judge at trial.
I immediately smelled a rat. I looked to have the bias order overturned, and then realized....there was no appeal, the judge could do as they please and there was nothing that could be in this Soviet BC Court.
I wondered aloud, had Judge Buller Bennett somehow been 'BC Railed an expression which depicts when confidence is eroded in the courts - influenced - a quid pro quo. She knocks off Jesse James and maybe she gets something in return for her 'cause. Her attitude in the second hearing was definitely different than in the first, very bias and ignoring of the facts and the law.
Her decision was unquestionably arbitrary and capricious - that is her ruling should be declared invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without proper consideration of circumstances ----- or was her ruling clearly erroneous - that is it was clear that she had made a mistake - involving a palpable an overriding error.
In a more recent hearing before Provincial Court Judge Beyan I had an idea something was up from the beginning. On that day six of eight applications involved me. I found out that Beyan a sophomore Judge with 2 years experience and a background as an assistant professor of law at University - he was from Vancouver. The other parties were also from Vancouver. I had already witnessed their act in front of a BC Supreme Justice that was bizarre - I was suspicious of the circumstances. I was right to be.
I believed that Beyan was sent from Vancouver to help my opponents clean up their mess. The nut of the mess was that a lawyer (A tiny man of 5'2" AND SMALL FOOTWEAR) for a big bank BMO Bank of Montreal had obtained orders for court costs (which we were challenging). However rather than provide us with the Bill of Costs which we had a right to ASSESS - (most Bills of Costs are set down to a schedule A, B and C and such with B the common order)-the tiny lawyer helped himself to the cash converting an order with a schedule to cash -- as if he were the judge. The time period for assessing Costs (before a Supreme Court Justice, Master or Registrar) could take up to a year if there was no agreement, but months for sure. Instead, the lawyer for the bank converted the order from a schedule B to cash and an amount that he dreamt up - he was the lawyer for the Bank and the Judge. This lawyer then 3 weeks later collected his self directed amount of cash into a house re-financing. I screamed fraud. It was and it is.
Judge Beyer despite clear arguments and evidence would have none of it - instead he dismissed the case saying the Bill of Costs should go to BC Court of Appeal. I knew there was a major bias in the case - and believed it was coming straight from the top. I escaped the haunted house courtroom without too much damage looking at how I might appeal the matter.
Just as it was in the case with the Judge Buller Bennett judgment - the Beyan order could not be appealed no matter how preposterous.
I had laid my bread crumbs out with Judge Beyan citing my efforts at the Supreme Court of Canada over no fair appeal or hearing. He couldn't care less. Mission accomplished - he had enabled the cover up of the fraud. I can't stand dishonest people. This hearing like the Buller Bennett hearing was dishonest plain and simple.
In time these JUDGES careers will go down hill-they've been hit with the ROBBINS hex - once injected its lights out.
Under the law everyone in any situation involving a judgment of any matter before any administration or court should have right to appeal.
To only permit appeals from a trial is wrong headed and unconstitutional. Let's find out!
Every decision at BC Supreme Court or under administrative law allows for reconsideration, review or appeal, to disallow it particularly at small claims and most specifically in situations involving lawyers is very dangerous.
The person in charge of the Provincial civil court Mr. Crabtree knows this and also knows how dangerous it is. He and Justice Minister Bond should resign - Ms. Goat-gruff will go soon at the hands of voters - but he should go now too - along with the Judicial Council to nothing.
I will Petition these hearing outcomes to the BC Supreme Court - on my own-- and see what result is achieved on the basis of a right to an appeal. If that doesn't work than BC Court of Appeal--and if necessary Supreme Court of Canada. Imagine no right to appeal.
The bullies in schools may be a problem, but as a citizen of this province - I can be satisfied when I say - the real bullies are pulling in big tax payer dollars and in some instances operating with arrogance and impunity that demands challenge.
In my capacity as a politico I have advocated Independence and oversight of all professionals in the Province of British Columbia. The police have done it - Mr. Rosenthal looks off to a good beginning. The lawyers need to do the same - The Law Society protects few beyond their own - and the public needs independent oversight of these people and greater accountability for judges. Who the hell are these people - what do they believe in - ?

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2014