Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Letter from International pollster Glen P. Robbins to Roger Bilodeau Reg at Supreme Court of Canada - evidence that 5 BC Justices & panel of 3 SCC justices Rothstein, Abella, Moldaver defrauded, Ron Bakonyi of law society bc fails to disclose stay of exec
  Nov 28, 2016

Glen P. Robbins, Ita Robbins, xxxx Burnaby, BC
Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OJ1 Fax: 1 613 996 9138 Attention: Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar S.C.C.
Honourable Suzanne Anton, Attorney General & Minister of Justice, PO Box 9044 Stn Provincial Gov't, Victoria, BC V8W 9E2 Fax: 1 250 387 6411 Attention: Honourable Suzanne Anton
Justice Minister, Jody Wilson Raybould 1245 West Broadway Ave, Suite 104, Vancouver, BC V6H 1G7 Fax: (only 1 available) 1 613 992 1460
Re: Reconsideration of S.C.C. Docket 35772 Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation
On June 5, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada (“S.C.C.”) denied an application made by Ita Robbins and “FM” seeking an extension for filing leave to appeal of an order nisi made May 9, 2013 in BC Supreme Court by Justice Fenlon. Also on June 5, 2014 the S.C.C also denied our motion for stay of execution. No costs were assigned to the dismissal of the stay motion.
On July 4, 2014 Ita Robbins and FM provided the respondent Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (CMIC) (and the S.C.C. Registry) with notice of our intention to apply to the Court for reconsideration of the decision(s) made by the S.C.C panel of judges made June 5, 2014.
On July 8, 2014 Ita Robbins filed a motion for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal and motion for stay of execution.
The S.C.C court docket for 35772 reveals that the application for reconsideration is “completed” on July 15, 2014 (receipt of the affidavit of service to CMIC on July 9, 2014).
On July 21 2014 the S.C.C docket reveals the Court did not accept the reconsideration for filing.
At the time the reconsideration was filed with the court (July 8, 2014) neither myself nor the other party involved was aware that a stay of execution order had been made April 7, 2014 by Justice Kloegman of the BC Supreme Court. This stay of execution order was valid from April 7, 2014 April 30, 2014. The Court gave Ron Bakonyi was custody of producing the order.
(For context and the record neither Ita Robbins husband or FM was aware that CMIC and another respondent BMO through their respective lawyers Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis filed an Order Made After Application in BCSC file H130330 (May 31, 2013). No Application or subsequent Order had ever been made. This phony order was made in Justice Fenlon's name. An order from an application under BC Civil Rules (8) would be substantive in nature, when the actual order involving leave to seek a right of audience in that matter was procedural only). (This (fraudulent) Order Made After Application of May 31, 2013 under BCSC file No: H130330 makes the conventional appeal of the May 9, 2013 decision legally relevant).
The stay of execution was issued following an application made April 7, 2014 for vacant possession by Ron Bakonyi legal counsel for CMIC for vacant possession.
On April 7, 2014 Glen P. Robbins (“Glen P.”) attended to the hearing at BC Supreme Court Smithe Street, Vancouver BC along with “FM” the other party involved with Ita Robbins.
At the hearing Glen P argued successfully that his application to be added as party (BCSC H130330) dated for hearing April 23, 2015, FM's (and Ita Robbin's) appeal of a conduct of sale order dated for hearing April 24, 2015, should precede the hearing of the application for vacant possession as they were filed in advance of the vacant possession application.
(Both Glen P.'s application to be added as party and Ita Robbins and FM's appeal of the conduct of sale order were not responded to by CMIC, as a consequence, under the BC Civil Rules, hearing dates could be changed without further notice to CMIC).
At the April 7, 2014 Glen P and FM were directed by Kloegman J. that they were to order a trial date (for more than two hours scheduling) on Thursday, May 1, 2014 or at any time in the first week of that month (the policy of Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court was that trial dates could only be made the first week of each month).
The events of this and materials produced in both Ita Robbins and FM's name, were read by Wagner J. the 19th of February 2015 under docket 35772. The actual clerk notes related to the stay of execution were not discovered until December 7, 2015 at Desk 201 Vancouver law courts, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, B.C..
The notes of the B.C. Supreme Court clerk sitting with Kloegman J at hearing April 7, 2014 produced for the BC Court Registry as is required was not known to either of the self litigants attending, namely Glen P & FM.
These court clerk notes were provided to the registry within 2 days of the April 7, 2014 hearing before Madame Justice Kloegman. Non lawyers are not likely to be aware of this process but according to the registry all lawyers must be. Mr. Bakonyi for CMIC knew there was a stay of execution in place but intentionally kept it out of his revised version of the order.
It was made clear on the record at hearing April 7, 2014 that presiding Justice Kloegman had requested the court clerk determine if a hearing date could be had in April 2014. The record reveals (and information acknowledged as read by Wagner J.) that it was the court clerk who was directed by Kloegman J. to telephoned Trial Scheduling with the Smithe St court registry during the hearing and the court clerk pronounced told that Trial Scheduling had no suitable dates to hear Glen P's application, Ita Robbins and FM's appeal and the vacant possession application of April 7, 2014 of Ron Bakonyi adjourned on April 7, 2014 by Kloegman J.
The clerks notes ordering a stay of execution on April 7, 2014 are provided under affidavit provided (with specific attention to Exhibit ). This affidavit and evidence in support and “read” by Justice Brown in an application for Intervener status made by Glen P in Google v Equustek 36602.
Mr. Bakonyi had been given conduct of producing the order. There is a history of CMIC and its legal counsel Ron Bakonyi filing false documents and skirting the rules. These examples include: (1) Filing an originating petition for foreclosure H130330 along with affidavit that failed to disclose clear triable issues; (2) Filing a notice for hearing document that asserted that a response to petition had been filed (when it had not as yet) {a requirement for being granted a hearing date}; plus the aforementioned Order Made After Application relating to Glen P., for which there is no application or order as prescribed.
On April 23, 2014 Ron Bakonyi attended to Glen P.'s chambers date for hearing of application on behalf of CMIC (H130330) to be added as party and did so ex parte without filing or serving a response to the application and during the stay of execution period pronounced by Justice Kloegman April 7, 2014 binding upon the parties until April 30, 2014.
Glen P.'s application was dismissed. (Under BC Civil Rules a successful application to be added as party could include further order for the originated petition to be set aside in favour of a notice of claim).
On April 24, 2014 Ron Bakonyi attend to Ita Robbins application (& another) for hearing of appeal of conduct of sale order.
(Glen P had attended to the application for conduct of sale with Enduring Power of Attorney made by Ita Robbins through my lawyer Ross Davidson, which had been filed at Land Title & Survey BC on or about October 6, 2013, but was denied audience based on the phony Order Made After Application made May 31, 2014) {Neither Ita Robbins nor Glen P nor “FM” were aware of the phony Order Made After Application filed by Ron Bakonyi (CMIC) and Robert Ellis (BMO) during this period as it had not been served upon us which we believe to be part and parcel of the deception and fraud perpetrated by Mr. Bakonyi and Mr. Ellis on behalf of their clients CMIC and BMO}. Mr. Bakonyi obtained an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the conduct of sale order. This order was obtained during the stay of execution order April 7, 2014 through to April 30, 2014).
On April 24, 2014 after obtaining order for dismissal of appeal of conduct of sale order made by Master, Mr. Bakonyi obtained an ex parte vacant possession order from BC Supreme Court Justice Smith. This order was obtained during the stay of execution period April 7, 2014 through to April 30, 2014. The writ of possession (element of vacant possession order) was filed July 9, 2014 (while Veronica Robbins was still an infant) and exercised on July 14, 2014 prior to the decision of the S.C.C. Registrar to make a decision on the Reconsideration.
The (3) three orders obtained by Ronald Bakonyi on behalf of CMIC were all obtained in April 2014 on ex parte during a stay of execution period (April 7th, 2014 to April 30th, 2014).
The stay of execution order applied to the consequential orders involving in a foreclosure proceeding in the Province of British Columiba including: (a) order nisi; (b) conduct of sale; and (c) vacant possession.
Ita Robbins and FM's original application to the Supreme Court of Canada for extending the time for leave to appeal is originally filed February 12, 2014. It is noted on the court docket as being completed July 3, 2014. The motion for stay of execution is noted as being completed April 22, 2014.
At the point of originally filing the application for leave on February 12, 2014 only the order nisi and conduct of sale orders had been granted.
The respondent CMIC's response on the application for leave and the response for stay of execution are completed for filing at April 28, 2014.
The respondent CMIC's response on the application for leave and the response for stay of execution are completed for filing at April 28, 2014.
The motion for stay of execution is completed by Ita Robbins and FM April 22, 2014 and the response for leave and to the stay motion are completed for filing April 28, 2014 by Ron Bakonyi, the stay order of Kloegman J is valid April 7, 2014 to April 30, 2014
When Ron Bakonyi as legal counsel for CMIC filed his responses to the Supreme Court of Canada April 28, 2014 he had already secured dismissal orders of Glen P.'s application to be added as party (April 23, 2014) and dismissal of Ita Robbins and FM's appeal of the conduct of sale and vacant possession order (April 24, 2015) while under a stay of execution.
The April 28, 2014 response to the application for leave and motion for stay of execution by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of CMIC filed at Supreme Court of Canada is evidence of an effort to deceive the court and the (3) three Supreme Court of Canada judicial panelists hearing the application and motion and the response.
Ita Robbins and FM could not have received a fair hearing given that the information involving the stay of execution order made April 7, 2014 valid until April 30, 2014 and the obtaining of orders ex parte during the stay of execution was not provided to either of the presiding justices at the BC Supreme Court at ex parte hearings April 23, 2014 & April 24, 2014 or to the panel of Supreme Court of Canada justices reading the material inclusive of the response(s) filed April 28, 2014 by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of CMIC.
These actions (non actions) of Ron Bakonyi on behalf of his client CMIC involve a gross miscarriage of justice and we believe are sufficient for a reconsideration of the reconsideration material. We are seeking a further investigation of these facts and further reconsideration of the decision by the Registrar to provide the new information to a Judge as the rule(s) permit in order to ensure the integrity of the courts processes, procedures are respected and to ensure that a gross miscarriage of justice does not occur.
The Supreme Court of Canada has broad powers for the making of appropriate orders and direction to ensure the proper administration of justice occurs.
The Rule(s):
Rule 73(1) provides that “{t}here shall be no reconsideration of an application for leave to appeal there are exceedingly rare circumstances in the case that warrant consideration by the Court and an explanation as to why the issue was not previously raised.”
If the affidavit does not set out the required exceedingly rare circumstances, Rule 73(4) states that the motion “shall not be submitted to the Court”.
The affidavit originally provided July 2nd, 2014 by Glen Robbins (apparently) did not provide the details relating to the stay of execution order made by Justice Kloegman nor the Order Made After Application against Glen P of May 31, 2014 (which as noted never occurred).
We provide this from the original Reconsideration application at page 5 and para 21 which states: 'There is substantial case law on (sic) relating to the miscarriage of justice which normally relates to civil procedure: (a) in the practice of law most courts will accept an appeal if a miscarriage of justice can be proved. This is the case not only to protect the individual(s) against whom the miscarriage has occurred but also to protect the “greater interest of the public in the justice system, and to ensure that the appellant is “put back to the position he or she was in before the decision infected by the miscarriage of justice”;
(b) Justice Dundedin of the Privy Council wrote in “Robins” - “Miscarriage of justice....means such departure from the rules which permeate all judicial procedure as to make that which happened not in the proper use of the word judicial procedure at all”;
(c)'In Regina v Duke Justice McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal wrote, in reference to an appeal and the Canadian Criminal Code..... “the determination of whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred rests on broader considerations than those attaching to the demonstration of a substantial wrong. Proof of actual prejudice for an error of law is not required to find that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It may be enough that an appearance of unfairness exists.”
(d)“In Lin v Tang, Justice Huddard of the British Columbia Court of Appeal opined: “Miscarriage of justice is a difficult concept. It is not simply unfairness as viewed by the party who perceives himself the victim of an unfair my view miscarriage of justice that which is not according to law. A miscarriage of justice will always be about procedural. The blemish must be such as to make the judicial procedure at issue not a judicial procedure at all.”
Glen P has recently been provided with an order & receipt of payment for Notice of Motion in relation to his application for Intervener status in the Google v Equustek case (36602). The order made by Brown J which dismissed the application without costs, did however affirm that the material has been read.
This material provided in Google (36602) included submissions seeking a criminal investigation of lawyers Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis members of the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC), as well as Michael Kleisinger Compliance Officer with LSBC. These criminal submissions were provided in spring of 2016 to the RCMP (Ottawa), Canadian Judicial Council, Federal Justice Minister Wilson Raybould, the SCC Registry and others.
Included in the criminal submissions were allegations made against Lauri Fenlon (professionally known as Fenlon J.) as well as Chris Hinkson (professionally known as Chief Justice BC Supreme Court. The Federal Justice Ministry contacted Glen P through his gmail account acknowledging receipt of the criminal submission documents in late spring of 2016 and directed Glen P (on behalf of himself & Ita Robbins & FM) to contact the BC Government on the matter. In gmail response Glen P wrote that the matter involved justices who fall under the Judges Act Canada.
Also included in the Application for Intervener status was an Affidavit and Exhibits of some 300 pages (retained by the Court Registry under 36602). In that affidavit of Glen P. Robbins is the detail of the stay of execution matter described herein as well as the clerk notes from BC Supreme Court registry provided in the form of Exhibit.
The order of Justice Brown includes not only his acknowledgment that he has 'read the material' but also includes an order that the application for extension of time be granted.
(I) do not believe that the Reconsideration filed completed on July 15, 2014 received a proper consideration based on the fact that the Reconsideration was not completed until one day after Ron Bakonyi and CMIC had exercised a writ of possession (under vacant possession order obtained during the stay period (April 24, 2014) on July 14, 2014.
The Reconsideration did not include pertinent information relating to the Stay of Execution order of Kloegman J made April 7, 2014 with expiration date of April 30, 2014.
A vacant possession order is tied in procedure subsequent to a conduct of sale order and to the original order nisi which was the subject matter of the leave application under 35772.
By taking the action he did, Mr. Bakonyi and CMIC acted inappropriately in S.C.C. 35772 prohibiting the fair and impartial hearing of the Reconsideration application Mr. Bakonyi a BC lawyer was allocating himself jurisdiction higher than both the Supreme Court of Canada Registrar and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada and of two justices at BC Supreme Court including those who heard the application for leave and who have read the subsequent material.
The Supreme Court of Canada has the affidavit and exhibit evidence under 36602 Google v Equustek which can be taken from that file and introduced back to file 35772 in order to fulfill the need for a Reconsideration process (or for any other action the Court might take).
This letter in relation to a reconsideration of the original reconsideration decision or any other order, the material evidence already provided to the Court inclusive of the affidavit evidence proving the existence of a stay of execution is in our collective opinion sufficient to demand a review of the original reconsideration.
To not do so would in our collective opinion bring the countries highest Court into disrepute having knowledge that a terrible wrong had been committed, that the Court knew all about it, and elected to do nothing.
We believe the Court has to consider what is more in the public interest: The proper and fair administration of justice for all Canadians and lawful homeowners or the protection of dishonest and unethical BC lawyers (and in our opinion justices) and an unconscionable lender both of whom have deceived 5 federally appointed justices in the most heinous of ways.
In furtherance of these submission which on their own we believe to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Rules, we add that the public interest should also be served.
A recent article in the Vancouver Sun (Nov 22, 2016) outlined what Glen P has been publicly advocating for some time now, that the British Columbia real estate has been infected by fraud. Foreign investors buying up property, kiting sales among Asian investors, shadow flipping by real estate agents (to maintain false values on property) as well as sub prime mortgages not yet fully described in news media.
The mortgage involved here is a sub prime mortgage. The original lender was not CMIC but rather Peet and Cowan Financial Services. A loan was conceived with Annual Percentage Rate of 98.7%. Naturally this loan is illegal on its face and certainly cannot be filed as a lawful mortgage. Instead the existing criminal loan with Peet and Cowan Financial Services is remade through a second company CMIC and filed at Land Title and Survey (BC) in New Westminster, BC showing in the applicable Box designated for Interest (pursuant to the federal Interest Act) at 8.9 and 9.2% interest.
The document filed at Land Title Office is a fraud. Legal or not the Interest Rate filed in BC registry pursuant to the Federal Interest Act should have been 98.7%. Why wouldn't the disclosure of two interest rates have raised red flags?
Ita Robbins and FM received no independent legal advice for the original loan with Peet and Cowan, nor did Ita Robbins receive any Independent legal advice receive any for the mortgage documents. Her lawyer Michael Rathbone refused to call his advice independent and instead wrote in as to signature only, something a Notary could do. A Notary cannot provide independent legal advice.
The Federal government and Competition Bureau was provided the loan and mortgage documents in question and wrote us indicated that FICOM (BC) was responsible for mortgage brokers in the Province of British Columbia. In fact, Mortgage Brokers are self regulating and when confronted with the original loan agreement (on Government of B.C. letterhead) referred to the original loan agreement of 98.7% as a “clerical error”.
The Vancouver Sun article of November 22, 2016 discussed private lending in BC real estate and while mentioning new guidelines for FICOM was not aware, or failed to disclose the self regulating nature of Mortgage Broker loans. The reporter who wrote the article Joanne Lee Young indicated that there were many loans involving private lenders which may feature a higher interest rate but failed to mention that some loans are filed at Land Title in amounts much lower than the actual legal interest rate.
Other countries including the United States doing business with Canada would certainly be concerned that land title registrations in the thousands may feature false and fraudulent filings. In a downward turning real estate market doesn't the public have a right to know all of the information?
This case (35772) should be revived for the reasons provided. This action becomes more paramount when they are considered with the issues and problems inherent with the Vancouver (B.C.) real estate 'market' which have become more public and have involved extraordinary policy and law steps undertaken by both the provincial and federal government. Many of these mortgage broker loans in BC have already been reported as being tied to publicly listed companies on Canada's Toronto Stock Exchange.
Given that Canada's Competition Bureau has no idea what individual provinces are doing in matters which relate to the Interest Act (still the jurisdiction of the Federal government) perhaps its time that the Canadian public became aware (or perhaps the International market).
An acknowledgment of this case including a decision of this court to reconsider the reconsideration application (or any other action this Court might consider appropriate in the circumstances (and some further exercise of judgment on the matters before Wagner J.) in our legal interest as well as the public interest is vital in support of countries justice system but also so that full information about the likelihood of hundreds if not thousands of similar filings occurring at Land Title and Survey Office in British Columbia and for regular homeowners who may be adversely affected by the fulsomeness of the criminality ongoing in BC lending and real estate.
Lastly, we note that the BC Attorney General has communication to the Supreme Court of Canada May 11, 2015. This letter acknowledged a Quebec based law firm participating.
We desire a quick remedy to this legal catastrophe made against us and for which we bear no responsibility including considerable compensation commensurate with the clearly established facts.
We also note the Supreme Court of Canada in “Beals” made reference to the type of damages Florida persons were permitted as not being inconsistent with Canadian values. We believe a significant statement needs to be made in consideration of these values in this case as it has gone on unresolved since May 2013.
Glen P. Robbins has an interest in this action. Ita Robbins & Glen P. Robbins hold legally binding Enduring Power(s) of Attorney over each other. Glen P. Robbins Enduring Power of Attorney over Ita Robbins was registered at Land Title and Survey Office (October 6th, 2013 by BC lawyer Ross Davidson) on 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam BC (the subject property).
Glen P. Robbins is authorized to speak on our behalf predicated on signatures below and can be reached at 604 298 9721 or at
Sincerely, Ita Robbins Glen P. Robbins
enclosure: Order of Brown J dated /copy of receipt for payment (Google v Equustek 36602

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