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 S.C.C. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (BC Ombudsperson) 35772 - Rothstein, Moldaver, Abella of SCC defrauded by LSBC, Cambridge Mortgage, Bakonyi, Chris Hinkson CJ, BC Court Services-massive filing f
  Jan 23, 2017

Continued from (II) dated January 18, 2017 under Canada polls:
Davidson advises that he has struck a settlement agreement with Bakonyi to permit the filing of a leave to appeal in relation to the order nisi, despite the fact that technically the time limit has run out for so doing, but with consideration of the conventional appeal which was filed within the time, and for Ron Bakonyi to produce an actuarial accounting of the original loan agreement and the mortgage agreement.
An application to extend the time to file a leave to appeal is filed within Bakonyi's application process for dismissing the appeal of the order nisi. The hearing of the extension for time (undertaken ex parte, more document evidence later involving unwarranted threats from Michael Kleisinger and the Law Society against Glen Robbins) is scheduled for January 2014 at BCCA.
First however, a hearing is held in late October 2013 at BC Court of Appeal to deal with Ronald Bakonyi's application that the appeal of the order nisi be dealt with leave to appeal and the settlement with Cambridge made between Bakonyi for Cambridge and Ross Davidson for Ita Robbins.
Ross Davidson asks Glen Robbins to speak directly with Ron Bakonyi over the leave application settlement just outside the BC Court of Appeal courtroom. Bakonyi tells Robbins he will agree to hear the conventional appeal as leave in relation to the order nisi but insists he will resist it. He also promises to provide an actuarial accounting of the original loan agreement made with PCFS and IR & FM in relation to the mortgage registration and prove that it is not in fact over 60% though he concedes the percentage filed at Land Title is not accurate.
[Without explanation Ross Davidson suddenly quits in late October 2013].
*Glen Robbins and Ita Robbins have included complaint against Ross Davidson to Law Society of BC (with no response). Ross Davidson had agreement with Ron Bakonyi to settle the matter of the BC Court of Appeal in relation to the conventional appeal filed and the leave to appeal required].
Notwithstanding the obvious civil breaches and possible criminal nature of the May 31, 2013 ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed by Bakonyi and Ellis, this Order is technically applicable to the conventional appeal filed...its still in play. The fraudulent nature of this Order, on its face, presumes to assert that Glen Robbins has no standing, how then was the order realized?
Michael Kleisinger, Compliance Officer with Law Society of British Columbia (who sat 2nd chair with Elizabeth Lyall under BCSC S111171 at first court trial before Grauer J. ) in October 2013 threatens contempt charges against Glen Robbins, based on the Grauer J. order if he shows up to the BC Court of Appeal in October before Justice Tysoe. Neither GPR, IR (FM) attend to the January 2014 hearing at BCCA which occurs before Madame Justice Saunders, who grants Bakonyi his order.
[IR & FM make application to the Supreme Court of Canada in February 2014 under court docket 35772 to have the dismissal of extension of time for leave to appeal dismissed]. Once Davidson quit representing Ita Robbins, Bakonyi breaks his deal with Ita Robbins and Frana Matich].
ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION -“Conduct of Sale” VLC-S-H-130330 –filed December 9, 2013 (from hearing the 9th Day of December, 2013 In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC
While matters relating to the appeal to BC court of appeal and the matter of leave and the order nisi are ongoing (awkwardly)...... the process of foreclosure continues. On December 9, 2013 GPR attends to the application for conduct of sale made by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of CMIC armed with Enduring Powers of Attorney.
An application response to the petitioner's application for conduct of sale (2nd step in the trilogy of 4 prominent steps of foreclosure) is filed by IR and FM. At the December 9, 2013 hearing Master Tokarek presides.
A Master of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is a provincial employee, not a federal employee like a justice is. A Master cannot give final orders.
From the court clerk's notes of that hearing on that date the following occurs: (1) At 2:02:20 PM Master Tokarek advises the court clerk to “Please note that Mr. Robbins attended and was denied standing to speak.” At 2:02:38 Glen Robbins introduces himself and submits to the Court: “I am the husband...representing my wife by legal power of (Enduring) attorney (registered) at Land Title BC”.
At 2:12:35 Master Tokarek states to Glen P. Robbins: “I am not going to hear from (sic) cannot make submissions.” At 2:14:42 Master Tokarek states: “My hands are tied....this order is clear (Order Made After Application of May 31, 2013 – the fraudulent order)....and I can't do anything about it.”
At 2:17:12 Master Tokarek says to the court clerk “Write in hand in the preamble...he (Glen Robbins) was present but not allowed to make submissions.”
In the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed December 9, 2013 prepared by Ron Bakonyi on behalf of CMIC, the Order reads: “On the Application of the Petitioner, Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation...coming on for hearing at Vancouver, British Columbia on Monday, December 9, 2013 and on hearing Ronald A. Bakonyi, Counsel for the Petitioner, and no one appearing on behalf of the Petition Respondents although duly served....THIS COURT ORDERS that:” [Conduct of Sale].
[IR, FM &GPR file suit against Justice Fenlon, and do so in small claims court to protect their interests in terms of time permitted for commencing a court action. This action against Fenlon is later ceased by both. Fenlon cannot lay claim to IR FM or GPR being out of time]. [This lawsuit also claims against a Master of the Court and is filed prior to the hearing and served upon the correct persons].
This order is signed by the Deputy District Registrar and initialed by “DWT” above the signature of the Deputy District Registrar – “Dennis Tokarek”, who has 'covered his rear end on the court clerks notes side, but has signed an order he knows or ought to know to be incomplete of the variant conditions under which he made the order. This order could not have been submitted with the court clerk notes as is required by the Practice Directive of Chief Justice Bobby Bauman (2010) previously outlined.
Master Dennis Tokarek signs off on an Order which is not written as prescribed by court clerks notes of Mr. Tokarek. [Alternatively if Dennis Tokarek has initialed this order as it is without reviewing court clerks' notes in contravention of the Practice Directive of Robert Bauman then he too is responsible.
Should court clerk notes be included with orders for signing. Obviously we cannot have confidence in the Court Registrars who, at least riddled through this process, appear to be purposefully negligent.
Masters of the Court are employees of the Government of British Columbia similar to all courthouse registry employees.
Following conversation with New Westminster BC Supreme Court courthouse @ 11:24 am 12/01/2017 Glen Robbins asks the registrar if when filing a draft order obtained from Chambers hearing he must include court clerk's notes as directed by Practice Directive of Robert Bauman (2010). New Westminster answers: “No, you don't need to include court clerk's notes, all court clerk notes are reviewed by the Registrar to see if they are consistent with the order filed prior to sending the order for signing”.
On December 18, 2013 IR & FM file a NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MASTER, REGISTRAR OR SPECIAL REFEREE. This appeal pleadings recognizes that the Order Made After Application filed May 31, 2013 was a fraudulent document, subsequently employed by Ron Bakonyi, member Law Society of British Columbia at hearing that day as his client's primary evidence to show cause at the Conduct of Sale hearing that Master Tokarek could not hear submissions from Glen P. Robbins, [the continuation of the fraud on the court by Ronald Bakonyi involving the Order Made After Application order produced by he and Robert Ellis also of the Law Society of British Columbia, later signed by co conspirator Lauri Anne Fenlon (former associate counsel with Fasken Martineau law firm)].
The Appeal notes the understanding of settlement which IR (FM) and GPR believe they have obtained through hiring of Ross Davidson lawyer which notes: “A consent order was arrived at the parties (sic) after consultation with the respondents (IR actually) attorney Ross Davidson which the petitioner (Bakonyi – CMIC) asserted it would resist”.
The Respondents assert that (sic) during the period when they were filing BC Court of Appeal documents at registry, and serving those documents on the petitioner, the petitioner demanded they do not obtain a hearing date without advance notice of that date, and consent of the petitioner. [agreement to permit conventional appeal filed to proceed as leave to appeal of the order nisi portion], [which the petitioner would resist].
The Respondents IR & FM write further: “Thereafter the aforementioned Consent Order was reached with an agreement within the context of that settlement [between respondents and petitioner] where the petitioner would immediately retain the services of an actuary/accountant to review the financing review the financing agreement between the sister company of the petitioner (Peet and Cowan Financial Services) to review/reconsider/reconcile the 98% Annual Percentage Rate (Interest Rate) charged to the respondents which was later laundered under the petitioner's name on mortgage registration as another percentage.”
Paragraph 2 of the Appeal of the conduct of sale order stipulates:
“The falsified documents referenced in paragraph 1 was contrary to the Administrative Notice – Document Filing Standards dated June 1, 2010 and Number: AN-1 under Direction 1 which stipulates” “Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that documents submitted for filing conform to the requirements of the Rules of Court...”
It further features this from Ita Robbins (and other): “The ground here is that the order nisi was obtained through a planned effort by petitioner and counsel to falsify a court document for filing to obtain a court hearing date without providing the respondents with proper notice and then not to serve the court hearing date in order to obtain the order nisi without contest. The further ground is that the order nisi was obtained through 'perjured' submissions of the petitioner's legal counsel support with the full knowledge of the Law Society of British Columbia, and with the full knowledge of the presiding BC Supreme Court Justice, and that any further orders obtained within this foreclosure process are product of that tainted fruit.”
Paragraph 3 of the Appeal of conduct of sale states: “Counsel for the petitioner and respondent BMO Bank of Montreal lied or consciously misrepresented information in submissions to Justice Fenlon during submissions at the hearing where the Order Nisi was obtained, when they 'informed' Justice Fenlon that Glen P. Robbins could not speak for the respondents Ita Robbins at the hearing, by stating that an order of Justice Grauer did no such thing.”
At paragraph 4 of the Appeal writes: ... “Glen P. Robbins has standing with the court (the fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION dated May 31, 2015 {later signed without mandated court clerk notes - by co conspirator former Fasken Martineau lawyer and employee of Elizabeth Lyall, now junior Justice Lori Fenlon} (the inference of that fraudulent order presumes standing – at the time before the BC Court of Appeal in conventional appeal)...and there is no bona fide order restricting him from attending to the court. Glen P. Robbins also possesses an Enduring Power of Attorney donated to him by the respondent, his wife, Ita Robbins, which Enduring Power of Attorney was registered on the subject property. With regard to the attendance before Master Tokarek in relation to the application for conduct of sale, the petitioner's counsel Bakonyi lied to the court a second time, and when the Master asked him (Bakonyi) (on court transcript) if there were any changes since the previous which Bakonyi answered “No”.
*It should be noted that the fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed under H130330 May 31st, 2013 by Ron Bakonyi lawyer for Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (and sister company in the fraud Peet & Cowan Financial Services) & Robert Ellis legal counsel (and insider under the federal Bank Act) for BMO Bank of Montreal (operating under the Bank Act Canada) with signature (later on) no court clerk notes – by original in the procedure Fenlon J. has now been filed as evidence in binder at BC Supreme Court registry, Vancouver courthouse – and has now fooled the BC employee Master. So, using basic arithmetic we have a Chartered Bank and its insider legal counsel Robert Ellis (Ellis Roadburg) along with a constitutionally appointed federal employee (Justice) Lori Fenlon working in conjunction with a BC Corporation – the Law Society of BC – to dupe a BC employee (Master) and to defraud two Canadian women out of their property (with plenty of equity).
January 2, 2014 Notice of Application by Glen P. Robbins to be added as party:
[This is an important strategic move by Glen Robbins under BCSC File No. H130330].
There is a fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION dated May 31, 2013 that is undeniable. In order for this order to be valid then Glen Robbins must have been made a party (respondent etc.) in order to have complied with the BC Civil Rule 8 and Glen Robbins would need to have had standing on May 9, 2013 in order for an order to be made against him.
How else could an order particularizing that he has no standing be made? This order as discussed is a fraud there are no clerk notes in support yet Justice Fenlon signed it months later. Did the Registrar check the notes? If so, how was it possible that these orders were able to be obtained as they were?
Being added as a party in a foreclosure proceeding implies many possibilities for change including: Orders demanding the matter be set over for trial hearing, amending the order (and re commencing the process from the beginning. Bear this is mind as the fraud conspiracy continues to unfold.
Under Part 1: Order Sought of the Notice of Application GPR writes: “1. For an order that the applicant Glen Patrick Robbins (“GPR”) be included as a respondent in this proceeding pursuant to Rule 6-2 (3), (4), of the BC Supreme Court Rules “Change of Parties, Change of Party Status or Indemnity.”
The application is first set for January 21st, then adjourned to March 20, 2014. The petitioner fails to file a response to GPR's application, a non action which removes the petitioner from any requirement of Glen P. Robbins for further notice or change of hearing date.
This application recites Rule 6-2 stipulating: “Rule 6-2 of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules deals with Glen Robbins January 2, 2014 application “adding, removing or substituting parties by order” “(7) At any stage of a proceeding, the court, on application by any person, may, subsequent to subrules (9) and (10), (a) order that a person cease to be party if that person is not, or has ceased to be, a proper or necessary party, (b) order that a person be added or substituted as a party if (i) that person ought to have been joined as a party, or (ii) that person's participation in the proceeding is necessary to ensure that all matters in the proceeding may be effectively adjudicated on and (c) order that a person be added as party if there may exist between the party and any party to the proceeding, a question or issue relating to or connected with (i) any relief claimed in the proceeding, or the subject matter of the proceeding that, in the opinion of the court, it would be just and convenient to determine as between the person and the party.”
“Procedure if party added, removed or substituted by order “(8) Unless the court otherwise orders, if an order is made under subrule (7) adding, removing or substituting a party (a) the originating pleading or petition must be amended in accordance with these Supreme Court Rules, a reference to the order must be endorsed on that amended proceeding or petition....(c) if a person is made a party under the order, (i) the person may apply to the court to vary or discharge the order within 21 days after the date on which the order is served on the person..(ii) Unless the court orders, in an application under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph or otherwise, that the person not be added as a party, these Supreme Court Rules apply in relation to that added party as if the amended originating pleading or petition were a new originating pleading or petition.”
“(10) A person must not be added or substituted as a plaintiff or petition without the person's consent.”
*With regard to subsection (10) the 'primary' respondents IR & FM endorse and file a consent order for Glen Robbins to be added as a 'respondent'.
At the time of the filing and service of Glen P. Robbins application to the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver courthouse, 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, BC to be added as (respondent) party the following events have occurred (recap):
(1) A petition is filed by CMIC legal counsel Ron Bakonyi in the incorrect courthouse (Vancouver not New Westminster; (2) the petition does not include triable issues as it must; (3) A notice of hearing is accepted by the registry which should not have been accepted; (4) There is question on transcript evidence as to whether or not the notice of hearing was served at all; (5) False submissions are made in open court about the effect of a Grauer J. order made against Glen Robbins Oct 3, 2011 pursuant to subsection 15(5) [as it was before legislative changes for 'clumsy drafting'], and its legal implications for the presiding Justices discretion to permit Glen Robbins to speak on behalf of his wife [the judge has the discretion as a constitutionally appointed justice to permit or deny leave of audience, but does not have the authority to deny leave of audience based on an order (Reasons) ground in provincial legislation engaging the court registry; (6) A (fraudulent) ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed May 31, 2013 is accepted by the court registry. This Application never occurred, the Order is not valid, no court clerk's notes are provided as they must pursuant to Practice Directive of the BC Chief Justice, and (eventually) the presiding justice providing the order nisi (essentially ex parte) signs this order months later; (7) the (fraudulent) ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION is then filed in binder evidence and is used by the petitioner to obtain a Conduct of Sale order.
The petitioner would obviously be concerned with the January 2, 2014 application of Glen P. Robbins being added as a respondent as the fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION and other problems with procedure in the case would be discovered by a justice, with the possibility that that justice would discover the fraud.
Where is the negligence apportioned at this point in time? The criminal Interest rate loan agreement made between IR & FM and Peet and Cowan Financial Services without independent legal advice is made on letterhead or at least with BC Government logo. (1) A cause of action occurs here against IR & FM and PCFS the BC Government & the Government of Canada (main parties). The Government of Canada is responsible for Interest and the Criminal Code, the BC Government is responsible for policing unconscionable or illegal lending practices and PCFS is responsible for as a commercial lender to comply with these laws.
The rate is 98.7% Interest. [BC legislation at Consumer Protection and FICOM calls for an attorney to be provided in cases involving unconscionable loan]. The transfer of the unconscionable loan directly to sister company Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (laundering of the original loan agreement) is made without valid independent legal advice. This is the responsibility of lawyers (at that time) (see BCSC 149328 style of cause for the names of these lawyers). (2) A cause of action occurs here as CMIC assumes the 98.7% loan from PCFS without notice or proper knowledge or (un)coerced consent of IR & FM taking the criminal loan under duress. The Government of Canada (Competition Act) & Government of British Columbia permit this event to occur. Now we have both lenders and both levels of government as parties to tort.
The RCMP are provided with documents, with no response. Vancouver Police and Vancouver City Hall are provided with documents, as the crooked court is in its jurisdiction.
Quick Review:
A laundered mortgage from an unconscionable loan involving 2 companies owned by the same principle is filed at Land Title & Survey Office in New Westminster, BC at a rate of interest which itself is lawful but is a constructive fraud because the (two) (2) rates permitted to be filed in the designated space for the federal Interest Act are not the rate of interest (A.P.R) in the underlying loan. A criminal loan occurring not once, but twice, are permitted to be filed. We know though that Land Title accepts any submission as registerable (as opposed to enforceable).
Two different rates are filed on the mortgage registration. How does this happen? Both rates are within basis points of one another, the design of this constructive fraud is to give the appearance that the mortgage complies with the Interest Act Canada section 6 requiring mortgages to be calculating semi annually not in advance (as conventional lenders do). (3) A cause of action occurs here against the lenders PCFS & CMIC for engaging IR & FM in their fraud, against Land Title & Survey Office (BC) for permitting the filing of a mortgage registration that obviously has problems, against the Government of British Columbia for establishing and permitting this fraud, and against the Government of Canada responsible for the Interest Rate designation of property filings.
The fraud is allowed to occur because both BC Court Services and Land Title Office.
The notice of hearing document of April 15, 2013 is signed by Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis and accepted for filing by BC Court Services the legal responsibility of the BC Government. Lawyer Bakonyi and his client, the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage have initiated a court process knowing the original loan was criminal/unconscionable. So, Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis (insider) (BMO Bank) both members of the Law Society of BC have endorsed a proceeding into the court which brings both provincial and federal levels of government along with it. (4) A cause of action occurs here as a notice of hearing was obtained from Supreme Court of BC courthouse which under Memorandum of Agreement of all 3 BC Chief Justices and the Deputy Attorney General have each declared personal responsibility. The BC Supreme Court justices at the time are Lance Finch and Robert Bauman. The expectation from citizens is that they will be accorded fair and equal access to the courts. BC Law Society lawyer/members Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis are responsible for jointly signing and then filing this notice of hearing. PCFS & CMIC are responsible because they directed their lawyers to do this and their principles are aware they have engaged two innocent people in their fraudulent lending practices. The Government of Canada is responsible because they are responsible for the judicial appointments and the Judges Act.
The submissions at hearing of the petition engage the next stage of the collaborative fraud as both Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis misrepresent the order of Grauer J. based on LPA section 15(5) as a basis for denying an right of audience. Justice Fenlon accepts these arguments at the same time she declares her awareness of her own constitutional discretion to permit or deny a right of audience and including her possession and awareness of the 14 page double spaced Reasons of Grauer J. before her (and at recess) which clearly state otherwise. The Vancouver Sun newspaper (“the Gazette”) has also published an article referring to this case (public domain). (5) A cause of action occurs here in conjunction with the notice of hearing which permitted this hearing (it could have gone to trial scheduling which demand different and greater scrutiny of facts. The action against Robert Ellis (BMO Bank) and Ron Bakonyi (PCFS & CMIC) [Law Society BC]. The BC Government and Law Society of BC are included because of the Grauer J matter, the poorly written legislation of the Legal Professions Act (later amended and affirmed as law by Royal Assent by BC Liberal and BC New Democrat members [May 2012], the use of these dysfunction provisions by LSBC members in matters of federal jurisdiction. We have now engaged the federal government again (Justice Fenlon).
The ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION of May 31, 2013 produced, signed and filed by Ron Bakonyi and Robert Ellis is a fraudulent document which should never have been accepted for filing. The Court registry grid shows a petition, an affidavit, a notice of hearing, a response to petition, an Order Made After Application in relation to the Order Nisi. This is filed May 27, 2013. The order of May 31, 2013 (the fraud order) does not include court clerks notes and is later signed by Justice Fenlon (who had to know the order was a fraud). (6) A cause of action occurs here against PCFS CMIC Ron Bakonyi, Robert Ellis and Michael Kleisinger of Law Society of BC. They all knew the Order Made After Application was prepared and filed long after the May 9, 2013 foreclosure hearing. They had already filed the only Order necessary to support some of the events of May 9, 2013 [May 27, 2013] and were consciously aware that the May 31, 2013 Order Made After Application was necessary to influence events down the foreclosure line. Lori Anne Fenlon is responsible as a lawyer and longtime member of the Law Society of BC as she abdicates her authority under the Judges Act (at hearing and in endorsing a fraudulent order made without court clerk notes as demanded by Practice Directive of the Chief Justice (2010).
This fraudulent ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed May 31, 2013 is later consciously used again to obtain a Conduct of Sale order. This cavalcade of legal and judicial fraud perpetrated against Ita Robbins, Frana Matich and (now) Glen P. Robbins includes the Federal Government, BC Government (inclusive of Master Tokarek BC Government employee), BC Court Services and BC Government Employment Union and PCFS-CMIC, lawyers Ron Bakonyi, Robert Ellis, law firms, Bakonyi & Company, Ellis Roadburg, Michael Kleisinger and Law Society of British Columbia.
But there is much more to come.
Lawyer Bakonyi wants a holiday – and seeks a Court Order (with costs) to have it (not kidding).
Just prior to the hearing of March 20, 2014 wherein Glen P. Robbins seeks to be added as party, legal counsel Ronald Bakonyi decides he wants to go on holidays on that same day. He files an application to his mom....(sic) err rather the court seeking an adjournment of this hearing date on the basis of his wanting to go on holidays. He sets the hearing down for March 10, 2014. Remember, the respondent Cambridge has failed to file an application response to the January 2, 2014 application of Glen P. Robbins to be added as party (which will expose the May 31, 2013 Order Made After Application fraud).
Glen P. Robbins files an application response consenting to the adjournment of Ron Bakonyi's holiday. Bakonyi goes to court ex parte anyhow and gets his (vacation) order and costs.
The Criminal Enterprise sanctioned by two levels of government and BC Superior Court continues:
The Application for Vacant Possession (Other):
On March 20, 2014 BC Law Society member Ron Bakonyi legal counsel for Peet and Cowan Financial Services and the Petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation, files a Notice of Application in BC Supreme Court Vancouver courthouse. The application is between the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage CMIC and Ita Robbins & Frana Matich. The application is marked “ORIGINAL”.
It is also the same date that the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear the leave application of Ita Robbins (and Frana Matich) appealing the decisions of the BC Court of Appeal January 29, 2014 dismissing an application by IR & FM to extend time for filing leave to appeal application notifying Ita Robbins in written letter with court docket number which she receives March 26, 2014 [It is also relative to reference other activity undertaken by Michael Kleisinger and Law Society of BC working with lawyer Chris Hinkson acting as Chief Justice under S111171-more about that later].
The Robbins contact the Supreme Court of Canada to determine on what day Cambridge was informed of the acceptance of their application for hearing. They are told Bakonyi receives the correspondence no March 18, 2014.
Two days after receiving notice that the Supreme Court has issued a file number to Ita Robbins Bakonyi for Cambridge files this Application:
“TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the applicant to the presiding Master at the Courthouse at 800 Smithe Street, in the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, on Monday, April 7, 2014 at 9:45 a.m for the Order set out in Part 1 below.”
Under “Part 1: Order Sought” para “1” the petitioner writes: “see attached draft Order for Vacant Possession, Forced Entry and Writ of Possession.”
The petitioner has filed an order for vacant possession despite the fact that the appeal of the conduct of sale order and application by Glen P. Robbins to be added as party has not been heard. The date for hearing the appeal of the application by Glen P. Robbins to be added as party is April 23rd, 2014, while the date for hearing the appeal of conduct of sale order is set for April 24, 2014.
The April 23, 2014 date is Glen P. Robbins' date as applicant he adjourned the date unilaterally against the petitioner, as was his legal right as the petitioner did not file an application response. The petitioner also had not filed and served a defence to the conduct of sale appeal.
Vancouver courthouse registry, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street did not have the authority to accept the vacant application of the petitioner as a vacant possession order may only follow the conclusion of the conduct of sale appeal. The application for vacant possession is directed to a Master and the Conduct of Sale appeal must be heard by a justice on appeal from order of a Master [December 9, 2013].
Vancouver courthouse registry, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street had received no application response from the petitioner against the application of Glen P. Robbins to be added as party, and proper requisition had been filed in the registry by Glen P. Robbins enlightening the registry to the fact that all dates could be changed by him without notice to the petitioner under Rule 8 rules for so doing.
Ron Bakonyi lawyer for the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation was heard on April 23rd, 2014 and April 24, 2014 despite the adjournment of both of these dates by virtue of the stay of execution order of Justice Kloegman (not a Master) at Chambers application dated April 7, 2014.
On April 3, 2014 an application is made to the court by Ita Robbins, Frana Matich and Glen P. Robbins (the latter on the basis of respondent/applicant. This application is set to be heard on April 7, 2014 at the same time as the application for vacant possession.
In this April 3, 2014 the applicants, Robbins, Matich & Robbins write notice to the Petitioner, to Dorata Rubaj (Registry Officer Supreme Court of Canada, and to BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson referencing evidence used at trial March 21, 2014 in vexatious procedure case filed by Law Society of BC [again, more about it later for further context]. The application references BC Supreme Court cases S111171, H130330, S127637, H1010527, S-105137, S-090024, S-149806, H-150621, S-149328, S-117843, S-136991, S-106413 “And To” Mr. Anthony Leoni, Webster Hudco Coombes, attorney for Lawyers Insurance Fund Re: Ronald Bakonyi (notice regarding litigation against Ron Bakonyi). All of these people are served with the April 3, 2014 application.
Note that the petitioner's March 20th, 2014 application for vacant possession order to be heard April 7, 2014 is set to be heard before a Master, while the April 3, 2014 of Ita Robbins, Frana Matich & Glen P. Robbins is set to be heard before a Judge. Only a Judge can make final orders. [Important when we later consider the stay of execution order of “JUSTICE Kloegman” of April 7, 2014-not a Master].
Under “Part 1: Order(s) Sought” of the April 3, 2014 application of IR, FM and GPR these are the Orders Sought:
1. “THAT all matters including all outstanding applications and orders under H130330 and all other matters referenced be stayed or otherwise adjourned generally until the matter before the Supreme Court of Canada under docket 35772, Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation has been completed.”
2. “THAT all matters either outstanding or concluded within the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson's inherent jurisdiction including H130330 (from 1) as well as BCSC Action No.'s S127637, H1010627, S105137, S090024, S111171, S-149806, H150621, S-149328, S-117843, S-136991, S-106413) be stayed or adjourned until the conclusion of BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Hinkson's reserved judgment under S111171 has been concluded.”
3. “THAT with respect to BCSC court files referenced in 2 herein, that the Order(s) Sought under Part (1), if provided by this Honourable Court [Stay of Execution order(s)] if provided by this Honourable Court, be communicated through the court system by way of the office of the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court to court registry supervisors of both Vancouver and New Westminster superior courthouses.”
4. “That the application (sic) of Cambridge Mortgage Investment of this date be dismissed with double costs, penalties, and sanctions against Ronald Bakonyi, legal counsel for the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation, including a declaration that he and his client are purposefully and willfully acting in a manner which is contemptuous of the superior courts...”
5. “That the petitioner and its solicitor be declared to be displaying conduct which is reckless and malicious toward the respondents and the applicant respondent, in particular as this pertains to their Charter Rights under the Constitution of Canada.”
6. “That any Order(s) provided under this application be provided by this court to the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court for edification and review for purposes of continuity and in the interests of the proper administration of justice, and not be put in the control of the petitioner or its attorney.”
The March 20, 2014 Chambers application of the petitioner (seeking vacant possession) before a Master, & April 3rd, 2014 application-Applicant-respondent of Ita Robbins, Frana Matich and Glen P. Robbins “before a Judge” are set at Civil Chambers desk to be heard in the morning of April 7, 2014.
On April 7, 2014 matters are put before Justice Kloegman “Monday, THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.”
The clerk's notes from the April 7, 2014 hearing before Kloegman J. at 10:43:37 Kloegman orders: “The Application should wait unit the hearing of the appeal.” At 10:50:47 Justice Kloegman orders: “So I would make the order stay of execution until April 30th, 2014.” The court clerks' notes also stipulate that at 11:07:34 Justice Kloegman orders “neither party can file anything further without further leave of the court.”
The court clerk's notes clearly indicated three (3) substantive orders of Kloegman J. The first is that a stay of execution is put in place as at April 7, 2014 valid until April 30, 2014 which covers off the waiting of the hearing of the appeal and the other is that no party “can file anything further without leave of the court.”
Court Clerks' notes are always provided to the appropriate registry desk @ street level civil registry at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver not more than 2 days following the hearing date (April 9, 2014 being the latest). [Ita Robbins, Frana Matich and Glen P. Robbins are not aware of this], (YET) Ronald Bakonyi legal counsel for the petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation files the following ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION in the BC Supreme Court registry April 14, 2014. The Order Made After Application does not correspond to the court clerks notes. The BC Supreme Court Registrar must not have compared the order to the court clerk's notes.
The order stipulates the following: “ON THE APPLICATION of the Petitioner, Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation coming for hearing at Vancouver, British Columbia on Monday, April 7, 2014 and on hearing Ronald A. Bakonyi, Counsel for the Petitioner, Frana Matich appearing on her own behalf, Glen P. Robbins and no one appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Respondents although duly served;”
[We can readily see how inattentive and sloppy the petitioner is. Frana Matich is one of the petitioner respondents....she appeared before Madame Justice Kloegman...on behalf of the Petitioner Respondents. Glen Robbins also appears on his own behalf in relation to his application to be added as party].
The Petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment and legal counsel write up their own version of the order at paragraph (1) of section “THIS COURT ORDERS that:” “(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.”
Quite obviously this ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION court stamp filed April 14, 2014 is not representative of the Judge's orders evidence by court clerk notes filed. [It is of course, the court clerk's notes required to be filed along with the Order Made After Application from hearing April 7, 2014].
The order drafted and filed without court clerk's notes as required by Practice Directive does not reveal the Stay of Execution Order from court clerks notes.
The April 3, 2014 application of Ita Robbins, Frana Matich (the petition respondents) and the applicant Glen P. Robbins (Jan 2, 2014 to be added as party) and as “applicant” or as “Applicant-respondent”
It should also be noted that the ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION filed by the petitioner appears to be signed or initialed by the Deputy District Registrar and by “D Kloegman J” (if this is D Kloegman's signature (she retired soon afterward) with no evidence of court clerk's notes being submitted to the courts by BC Court Services. [Alternatively, Kloegman J's signature has been written in by someone else].
On April 17, 2014 Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation files an Application Response to the January 2, 2014 (reset for April 23, 2014). This is the first Application Response filed by the petitioner to the January 2nd, 2014 Application of Glen P. Robbins to be added as party.
[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].
Notwithstanding that no documents are served on the Respondent owners or Glen P. Robbins pursuant to this hearing until April 30th, 2014 the petitioner's own order denotes that “further responding materials” is in relation to the vacant possession application, and not the application of GPR to be added as party. The Application response of the petitioner filed April 17, 2014 would appear to establish a mindset that the petitioner Cambridge was cognizant of the Jan 2, 2014 application of GPR to be a valid document in terms of the petitioner's believe of what is included under Kloegman J's order which in totality would include the stay order.
Under the Order Made After Application filed April 14, 2014 by Ron Bakonyi for the petitioner included in “THIS COURT ORDERS that:” ON THE APPLICATION of the Petitioner, Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (this application is related to vacant possession order only) paragraph (3) of the Order Made After Application stipulates: “Any further responding materials upon which the Petitioner may wish to rely RESPECTING THIS APPLICATION must to (sic) delivered to the Respondent Owners by 5 pm on April 18th, 2014.”

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