Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Glen P. Robbins responds to BC Ombudsperson on complaint matters-Lawyer John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson (QC) (now chief justice) BCHRT and lawyers Tom Path, Tonie Beharell, & BCSC Master McNaughton
  May 03, 2016

Office of the Ombudsperson 947 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8V 3K3
Attention: Ombudsperson (Jay Chalke)
RE: Failure to properly deal with appeal from decision of Law Society of British Columbia in relation to matters involving John Motiuk legal counsel – failure to follow instructions, complaint against is lawyer Chris Hinkson QC, matters of 8 boxes of investigative material 1997-2000 involving Law Society of BC, John Motiuk (mentally ill lawyer {bi polar off medication}, whether or not Chris Hinkson solicitor client privilege is valid, complaints against Tom Patch (formerly BCHRT), Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell, Heather McNaughton and others.
CBC – “Jay Chalke is a member of the Law Society of British Columbia and is a former Governor of the Law Foundation of BC”
Dear Sir: I am writing this response to your offices most recent letter relating to the above captioned complaint/appeal from Law Society of BC
I am writing to your recent letter wherein I am appealing the decision and actions of the Law Society of British Columbia, in terms of my past lawyer John Motiuk, his mental illness whilst in custody of my BCHRT file, the actions of Chris Hinkson QC (as he was then), and the Law Society of B.C.
I see nothing in your letter which properly addressed the issue of the appeal in relation to my rights under the Legal Professions Act.
First. Mr Motiuk was instructed to vigorously attend against any joinder of the complaint of the five women (only four testified). These instructions were not followed. A vigorous defense in pursuit of the objective of making separate trials for each women (to excuse the plethora of inconsistencies and lies) would have included filing submissions as directed by Tribunal member, and if unsuccessful appealing that order. The matter of joinder was not raised by application but by the Tribunal itself.
Mr. Motiuk received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for his work and his hiring was with the clear understanding that I wanted the women's testimony exposed as dishonest. Mr. Motiuk was also directed that in part I wanted the women's lawyers exposed at developing and securing perjured testimony.
Mr. Motiuk failed to properly take instruction, and at no time did he advise me otherwise. In fact, Mr. Motiuk was the originator of this legal strategy.
Chris Hinkson, Mr. Motiuks' legal counsel has a duty to solicitor client privilege. Mr. Hinkson is not entitled to break the law in his capacity as Mr. Motiuk's lawyer.
If it can shown that Mr. Hinkson directed John Motiuk to 'throw the case' in exchange for the Law Society of BC going easy on him, and in order to assist the BC HRT and save it from complete loss of credibility (which would have surely accompanied the exposure of Canada's only sexual harassment case where five women were alleged to have been harassed by staring each and every day for literally a year and one half in front of their legal employer (Mitchell Tannis and not me), and where no independent credible witnesses could collaborate their stories out of 40 employees) then solicitor client privilege would not attach.
As you have been aware the Law Society of BC has 8 boxes full of material relating to the investigation of John Motiuk involving matters pertaining to his being decertified and later an order that he not be authorized to practice law. This latter order occurred following Mr. Motiuks' failure to follow instruction in matter of joinder, and was chronologically directed related to events involving disclosure of documents.
This investigative material is relevant from 1997 to 2000. This is the same period in which Chris Hinkson QC was his lawyer, and which also covers the same period that John Motiuk was my legal counsel on the BCHRT matters.
The information pertaining to the outstanding litigation I have at BC Supreme Court since May 2001 can be reviewed online at “A Holocaust in Canada-The cruxification of Glen P. Robbins, Book 1 & “A Holocaust Made in Canada – The cruxification of Glen P. Robbins, Book 2 (carry over from one). These 'pleadings' transcribed for the general public include verbatim description of the legal facts involved in this case include the method of use of lies, changing of stories from one point in process of BC Human Rights Commission (as it was then) to BC Human Rights Tribunal.
I would also call your attention to the fact that the alleged 'pdf' of the Reasons of Tom Patch have been altered to remove the fact that the Tribunal member Tom Patch was sick, that one of the girls (Sara Clemente) was also sick on the day of the hearing, and that Tom Patch acknowledged that a BC Supreme Court action had been filed in relation to the matter. He ought to have adjourned the matter (given it had been adjourned many times already by BC HRT). On what lawful basis can these Reasons be edited out years after the fact.
I have indicated that Freedom of Information should be able to go through the 8 boxes of material involving John Motiuk, his lawyer Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of British Columbia. The material in these boxes must also be provided to the BC Ombudspersons Office.
As you are aware I am also making accusations in relation to the circumstances of the matter invoked by this appeal in relation to Mr. Motiuk and his relationship to other persons members of the Law Society of BC, as this relates to current accusations made against the Law Society of BC and lawyer Michael Kleisinger and his involvement with Christopher Hinkson in his current capacity as BC Supreme Court Justice.
This matter involves lower court case BCSC S111171 and its eventual completion at Supreme Court of Canada (SCC docket 35302). My accusation is that Mr. Kleisinger on behalf of the Law Society of BC colluded with the Chief Justice (Chris Hinkson QC) to proceed with a trial hearing on the basis of an interlocutory application for final order under BCSC S111171 rather than proceed by originating petition as it must. These actions of a clear breach in the administration of justice, abuse of power and abuse of office as well as breach of trust (as both Mr. Kleisinger and Mr. Hinkson received an indirect benefit in the process).
Mr. Hinkson produced a vexatious procedure order against me (which was intended to take a long time to decide according to Hinkson CJ, and 3 months or more according to Trial Scheduling Sue Smolen) on March 21, 2010.
It is my contention that Hinkson CJ made his order on April 10, 2014 in order to help cover up the fraud of Ronald Bakonyi & Robert Ellis under foreclosure matter BCSC H130330 where Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis filed an Order Made After Application on May 31, 2013 (which application and order never occurred), and where the presiding Justice Fenlon J. refused a right of audience to me on the basis of an order of Justice Grauer in Law Society of BC v Glen Robbins (BCSC S111171) (this is the matter which was concluded and final at Supreme Court of Canada) and the use of this forged order to obtain conduct of sale on December 9, 2013 before BC Supreme Court Master Tokarek.
An appeal was filed by my wife Ita Robbins of the conduct of sale order with hearing April 24, 2014. An application was made out of order by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of Cambridge Mortgage for vacant possession on April 7, 2014 which was adjourned by Madame Justice Kloegman.
Kloegman J. also made order for stay of the conduct of sale order (and appeal) until April 30, 2014 in order to permit the obtaining of a trial date on May 1, 2014 (the Vancouver Trial registry takes hearing dates over 2 hours the first week of each month only). The trial hearing was required to deal with the aforementioned appeal of the conduct of sale order, an application by me to be added as party and Mr. Bakonyi's vacant possession order. The Vancouver registry was providing hearing dates (it turned out) in late June and July.
Under BCSC action No.: 149328 my wife and I had filed suit in New Westminster Supreme Court 149328 my wife and I had filed suit against Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation and its sister company Peet & Cowan Financial Services. In November 2013 within the BC Civil Rules we had filed for Mediation.
The BC Attorney General Regulations along with BC Civil Rules makes it mandatory to attend Mediation. Although it is not required to file the Mediation document, we did under 149328 which can be easily determined through online services. Ronald Bakonyi failed to acknowledge the Mediation (although he is on the court record admitting service).
I have filed complaints to the Law Society of BC against Michael Kleisinger, Ronald Bakonyi, Robert Ellis (BMO Bank), in relation to these matters.
Mr. Bakonyi then took his ex parte vacant possession order while a stay order was in existence (see BCSC Court Clerk notes desk 210). and sent bailiffs and RCMP to take the home after attempting to negotiate the removal of both if we would consent to the conduct of sale and drop the litigation.
Chris Hinkson's earlier than expected order of April 10, 2014 was then used by Ronald Bakonyi in his obtaining the illegal vacant possession order. The order of Kloegman J drafted by Mr. Bakonyi did not include the stay order until April 30, 2014 but did include the evidence of the forged order made under BCSC H130330 of May 31, 2013 which stated that “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of (his wife) Ita Robbins”.
An application was never made with regard to right of audience and no such application for order could be made. A right of audience is determined by leave request of the person seeking the right and constitutional discretion of the decision maker, in this case the justice. One justice cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of another.
When Mr. Bakonyi obtained his illegal order for vacant possession after writing his second fraudulent court order (neglecting the stay order) the presiding justice Smith J. ought to have recognized the flaw with the “Glen Robbins has no standing and is prohibited from speaking on behalf of Ita Robbins...” but did not recognize that order in his comments. Instead he indicated that he would have refused to hear from Glen Robbins on the basis of the Hinkson CJ orders.
My accusation against Hinkson CJ that I intend to prove is that he was responsible for the matters involving John Motiuk and the BC HRT ultimately resulting in my being listed as a pedophile for three years, and then later when I had threatened to sue the Law Society of BC, again came to their rescue by permitting the severe breach in administration of justice and abuse of office to help to produce a second defamation and keep me from defending myself.
Although I realize these latter accusations against justices including the Chief Justice are not within the authority of the Ombudsperson's office, those complaints (appeals) from the jurisdiction of the Law Society of BC in relation to lawyers, John Motiuk, lawyer member Chris Hinkson and the Law Society of BC relating to the BCHRT matter presenting before you are within your jurisdiction.
I would ask that you attend to the complaints made against John Motiuk, Chris Hinkson, Tribunal Members Tom Patch, Judy Parrack, Tonie Beharell (in her capacity as opposing counsel), as well as BCSC Master Heather McNaughton who though made aware of the issues including the pedophile defamation on 1st page Google refused to protect the site at BCHRT (or place meta tags around it) as was later done by BC Attorney General Geoff Plant.
In context of this latter statement I would ask the BC Ombudsperson office to investigate a reference made by AG Plant at the time he acknowledged that “Meta Tags” would be placed around the offensive language, that he also believed that the Government of BC had settled legal compensation with me, when in fact it had not.
I would advise that I am seeking Intervener status at the Supreme Court of Canada in the Google v Equustek case relating to Jurisdiction of provincial legislation and free speech.
I will be including much of this information beyond the arguments I intend to make in the public interest generally and in revealing a general lack of credibility in the BC Civil Justice system which I am hopeful will showcase a complete lack of independence in the making the of judicial appointments, some members of the judiciary, who I anticipate will be shown to give up the standard expected of them to attain other objectives including those described herein.
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