Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen P. Robbins demands BC Ombudsperson public inquiry on Law Society of BC, Chris Hinkson, Fenlon, Bakonyi Ellis & Kleisinger ahead of criminal complaint
Originally publish April 14, 2016  Sep 27, 2017

Office of the Ombudsperson, 947 Fort Street, 2nd Floor, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8V 3K3 Fax: 1 250 387 0198
Re: Complaint against John Motiuk (deceased), Chris Hinkson QC, Law Society of British Columbia Matters pertaining to BCHRT indexed as Tannis et al v Calvary Publishing Corp et al. Law Society of B.C. file No.: IN20160064
Please find enclosed letter from Ms. Lynne Knight of Law Society of B.C. (“LSBC”) dated April 5, 2016 as this pertains to the above captioned.
Please also find enclosed letter of March 7, 2016 to Ms. Jackie Drozkowski Information and Privacy Officer which provides further background information to this complaint, provides some insight into further allegations I am pursuing which are related to this file, and informs you of likely further complaints coming your way, given what I know of Law Society's conduct of these matters.
I also enclose letter of March 1, 2016 from Ms. Jackie Drozkowski as well as letter February 22, 2016
Background and history:
I include letters from Michael Kleisinger dated September 20, 2013 and November 2013 January 6, 2014, January 24, January 30, 2014, February 18, 24, 2014, March 04, 2014, March 14, 2014 as well as other documents pertaining to BCSC Vancouver file S111171.
This BCSC file was commenced by original petition of February 2011 (LSBC v Robbins) ending with reasons of Justice Grauer dated October 3, 2011. Application was made for leave to BCCA and later to Division of that Court, both dismissed. Leave Application was then made to the Supreme Court of Canada under docket 35302 also later dismissed. The basis of appeal was a matter of costs.
It was never disclosed to me during the appeal period of the Grauer J. decisions (where opposing counsel Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau)had relinquished the file and appeal was left in custody of Michael Kleisinger. Mr. Kleisinger as LSBC counsel filed all defences at BCCA and S.C.C., and was aware that BCSC S111171 file was concluded at Canada's highest court.
Mr. Kleisinger also sat as 2nd chair with Ms Lyall at trial opposing me and would have been aware as Elizabeth Lyall would also have been aware, that Mr. Justice Grauer's condemnation of poor legislative drafting in relation to the Legal Professions Act particularly as it related to section 15, at issue in the litigation, had been amended by Royal Assent of the BC Legislature without notification to me. Had I been properly notified, I could have amended my appeal at both BC Court of Appeal &/or Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Kleisinger proceeded by way of interlocutory application under BCSC S111171 (concluded at S.C.C.) in order, I believe, to ambush me into a fast hearing based on improper administration of justice that I would not be able to properly defend (and should never have been put in the position to defend).
The court filings are provided for your edification in order to examine the level of abuse of the administration of justice Mr. Kleisinger purposefully engaged in to achieve his nefarious ends.
Chris Hinkson C.J is an experienced lawyer, long time friend of LSBC and members both as a prosecutor of cases and defender in others, and would have known that he was abusing his office and the administration of justice in order to assist LSBC in a matter before SCC which was final and conclusive at that point.
My allegation is (also) that Chris Hinkson QC in his capacity as Mr. Motiuk's legal counsel participated with LSBC and legal counsel at BCHRT to use Mr. Motiuk knowing his mental condition (bi polar/off medication) in order to ensure that I did not receive a fair hearing.
As it turned out the hearing was held ex parte and the outcome produced a Google branding of me on first page as a “pedophile” for a period of 3 years before then BCAG Geoff Plant finally placed Meta Tags around the offensive defamation.
My further allegation is that once the LSBC became aware that Fenlon J former employee of Elizabeth Lyall of Fasken Martineau made justice in 2008 has made a decision to not grant leave to me in a foreclosure matter under BCSC H130330 involving my wife's house where we resided for some 23 years in a case where a response to petition she acknowledged in transcript evidence featuring a defence of a mortgage contract of 98.5% filed through a sister company of same owners through a 2nd company at a legal rate at land title & where the original illegal contract provided no independent legal advice & where the 2nd (filed at land title) also featured no independent legal advice to my wife and no notice of change of party to contract. Fraud, fraud and more fraud with purpose and collusion.
Fenlon J.'s decision was based on false submissions made by the petitioner's legal counsel Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg in his capacity as nominal respondent.
Leave to request right of audience does involve anyone but the person seeking leave and the judge. Justice Fenlon former employee of Elizabeth Lyall knew this, the lawyers knew this, they planned to do this in conjunction with Lauri Ann Fenlon in her capacity as constitutional justice.
As indicated in correspondence Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis filed an Order Made After Application on May 31, 2013 dated May 9, 2013 asserting order that I “had no standing and was prohibited from speaking on behalf of my wife..”
Not only was no application ever made no such order was given. Fenlon J. did (not so) cleverly (in collusion I believe with Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis) make her refusal to grant a right of audience on the basis of Mr. Justice Grauer's order pertaining to section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act (B.C.) a provision she had to know was unrelated to right of audience.
The purpose of what I believe was collusion, corruption, fraud, forgery and abuse of judicial office was to avoid the exposure of the unconscionable and illegal mortgage agreement and fraudulent registration filing at land title.
This expose would have led to the exposure of likely hundreds if not thousands of these agreements involving self regulating mortgage brokers and self regulating lawyers in collusion in likely the largest fraud in BC history. Lawyers benefited from charging $2,000 to $3,000 in fees charged back to the borrower (but which must be charged as interest).
Mr. Kleisinger led evidence at hearing based on his own fraudulent document filings which Trial Scheduling admits to ignoring based on the fact that they are not lawyers (the overarching position at BC Court Registries throughout the province) of my letter to BC Mortgage Brokers Association, Reals Estate Boards and others of my intention to file a class action lawsuit.
There is no doubt in my mind that when Chris Hinkson was moved over from the BC Court of Appeal to the BC Supreme Court to be its chief justice the opportunity to leverage his participation from past matters of association between the LSBC, the Motiuk file, and his upcoming inaugural speech to LSBC five days after 'kangaroo court hearing' March 21, 2014 in order to 'rebrand' me a vexatious litigant with intention at further public defamation.
There is absolutely no evidence that I met the criteria of vexatious procedure (there is no such animal as a vexatious litigant). Most important a new commencement document likely a petition or notice of claim (injunction have inference of damages) should have been implemented in the court registry.
Chief Justice Hinkson readily abused his power and his office to help out the Law Society of BC, as it knew that its members Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis and former member Fenlon J had colluded to defraud my wife and protect the interest of its members and others close to the government. An order for injunction (final order) cannot be obtained from a Rule 8 interlocutory application particularly in a case closed at the highest court (S.C.C.). Pure and simple judicial corruption.
Mr. Bakonyi used this phony order after application (not served) in order to obtain a conduct of sale order.
Mr. Bakonyi (as described) later obtained an order for vacant possession on ex parte basis under BCSC H130330 April 24, 2014 knowing that the dismissal order he obtained on that day and the one preceeding it (my application to be added as party, appeal of conduct of sale order) while a stay had been put in place by Madame Justice Kloegman until April 30, 2014.
Mr. Kleisinger and the LSBC were in huge trouble having engaged in matters far outside their scope of protecting the public interest and well within the realm of self interest including, I believe, a willingness to break the criminal law in order to do so.
I allege that Chris Hinkson abused his office in order to help them.
In recent BC Supreme Court case under Citation: British Columbia v Adamson, 2016 BCSC 584 under Order Made After Application (where law society of BC members represent parties) before the Chief Justice the case involves homeless persons using Courthouse Green Space.
During this hearing the Chief Justice clearly seems to understand the proper administration of justice as it concerns the rules, the facts, and the law including particularly as this relates to injunctions, something he elected to abandon in my case.
Current events:
I am awaiting response from Jackie Drozdowski as this concerns 8 boxes of information identified by her as being related to “LSBC” investigation of Mr. Motiuk between 1997 and 2000 and where his legal counsel is Chris Hinkson QC.
It is public knowledge provided by Law Society of BC that Mr. Motiuk was bi polar and according to two medical experts (psychiatrists) off his medication. Mr. Motiuk used this evidence as mitigating factor in his sentence at LSBC.
The events relevant to me with Mr. Motiuk as legal counsel are identified through reasons of Judy Parrack, Tribunal Member in matter indexed as: Tannis et al v Calvary Publishing Corp and Glen Robbins, 2000 BCHRT 26.
The ground of my most 'conventional' complaint is that Mr. Motiuk though properly instructed and who initially took action to separate five female complainants (who had accused me of staring along with another respondent later struck (because he was legally blind)), into separate hearings.
There is no possibility we would not have had these complaints dismissed. The level of lies and inconsistencies in the matter were easily evident. After over a year of adjournments following are expression of interest to separate the complainants the Tribunal raised the issue of joinder.
I draw your attention to the Reasons of Tribunal Member Parrack which described this joinder matter and clearly affirms odd behaviour on everyone's part including the Tribunal itself.
During this period Mr. Motiuk was being decertified by LSBC (was this the cause of the original adjournment of over a year to wait until Mr. Motiuk was better leveraged?).
Please note that Mr. Motiuk not only fails to follow instruction on the joinder matter, months later he continues the facade of representing me at BCHRT on matters of document disclosure at the same time his authorization to act as legal counsel (to anyone) has been taken away by LSBC.
Please also note that Tribunal Member Parrack makes decision on the matter of joinder on a date which actually precedes the two dates under direction to the complainant and to Mr. Motiuk on my behalf for submissions.
Eventually Mr. Motiuk confesses to me but blames its lateness after the damage had been done on his lawyer making him to it. The only lawyer I can determine is Chris Hinkson QC, though Mr. Motiuk never mentioned him by name.
I believe that Chris Hinkson and his friends at the LSBC colluded with counsel for the complainants (in a case involving the first time in Canadian history where more than one women (in fact five) made the same complaint of conduct lasting each and every day, in some case for over a year and one half, and where the lead complainant (Jennifer Tannis) the daughter of former business associate petitioned into bankruptcy was acknowledged to have a half interest in Calvary Publishing Corp during the period of complaint, in order to protect the BC Attorney General who had custody of the then BC Human Rights Commission and BCHRT.
I believe this was done by manipulating a lawyer (John Motiuk) they knew was mentally ill.
The question in context of this complaint is this: If Mr. Motiuk is not responsible than who is? He probably could not determine if he was in the wrong because of the state of his mind, but he was paying his membership dues. I would expect the Law Society of BC would then be responsible for Mr. Motiuk.
No matter his condition he failed to adhere to instruction with devastating consequences.
We need to determine form the investigative boxes and information which I gladly authorize the Ombudspersons office to take custody of, when the LSBC and his legal counsel Chris Hinkson knew about Mr. Motiuks mental illness and knew when he was off his medication.
They had a duty in the public interest to disclose this to his clients particularly me on the basis that the BCHRT matter was quasi criminal in nature.
Please note that investigation had determined that Chris Hinkson's wife committed suicide and suffered form alcohol abuse. This would suggest a higher incidence of (a) mutual abuse on the part of the spouse in this case Chris Hinkson; or (b) emotional instability on his party from this experience.
A family suicide would lead to a conclusion that depression was at hand. My 25 years as a member of Twelve Step programs and involving with many person in avocation who are alcohol and drug addicted would suggest that Chris Hinkson likely knew all about depression and would have been the right person to manipulate John Motiuk.
I know this information better than most and could make a statistical case on balance of probabilities against Mr. Hinkson in light of this information.
I note the alleged serious vetting that apparently occurs in designating a Queens Counsel designation.
Someone is responsible to me for Mr. Motiuk as he could not have been responsible himself, given that he was not in his right mind. (I have also filed complaints against Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis and Michael Kleisinger and await the position of the LSBC).
I would ask that the BC Ombudspersons Office fully investigate my complaints.
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2021