Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
July 2020 No.:10 IRobbins v Cambridge, Glen P. Robbins v LSocietyBC - Sea to Sea Supreme Court Perfidy - Demand to Can Judicial Council for Inquiry v Hinkson CJ, Fenlon J (primary) (2nd) (Davies, Smith, Grauer JJ, Bauman CJ) (3rd) SCC Wagner --Abella, Rot
  Jul 07, 2020

Commentary
In Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins, presiding Justice Lauri Anne Fenlon at May 13, 2013 foreclosure hearing asserts that she does not know what section 15 (1) of the Legal Profession Act means. A cavalier and negligent judicial approach when de minimis due diligence on her part would have discovered the Grauer J. version of 15 (5) no longer existed on May 9, 2013.
(Y)et, Fenlon then uses subsection 15 (5) , a lesser obscure provision as it existed in October 11, 2011 Reasons for Judgment order of Justice Grauer, to deny Glen P. Robbins a right of audience, the exact thing that Grauer J. did not Reason at any time.
Glen P. Robbins & Ita Robbins assert Foreclosure Hearing was a ‘set-up’ with the Judge (Fenlon) involved in it.
In Grauer J.’s October 3, 2011 Reasons for Judgment his Lordship clearly separated the matter of right of audience as a role for a barrister speaking before a Justice with permission of the “C”ourt - - - from the provisions of the Legal Professions Act specifically sections 15 (1), 15 (4), and 15 (5) involving the filing of documents at “c”ourt registry but unrelated to the matter of right of audience.
Fenlon J. ought to have recused herself from the H130330 petition for foreclosure.
Fenlon J. was the former employee of Elizabeth Lyall senior partner at Fasken Martineau representing the Law Society of BC v Glen P. Robbins under S111171.Fenlon J. which reality was staring right at the front page of Grauer J. 's Reasons for Judgment from Grauer J., and which 1st page showcased her former Boss Elizabeth Lyall as acting for the Law Society of BC against Glen P. Robbins.
On Court Transcript Glen P. Robbins on two occasions begs Fenlon J. to read the 14 page double spaced Reasons.
Fenlon has a one and one half hour break to Read the 14 page double spaced Reasons. It would have taken her 10 minutes. What did Fenlon J. do during the one and one half hour break?
Fenlon J. had purposefully ignored the Reasons For Judgment of Grauer J. provided to her as recorded on Court Transcript Record for Hearing under H130330 and available under BC Court Services - which would also have clearly edified her to the problem of her own conflicted involvement in the matter, where her former boss Elizabeth Lyall’s name appears on the front page of the 14 page double spaced Reasons for Judgment.
Our assessment of Fenlon J. 's conduct at foreclosure Hearing May 9, 2013, turns to our firm belief she had conspired with Bakonyi/Cambridge and/or Ellis Roadburg/BMO prior to the hearing.
Proof of this Intentional activity occurs by virtue of Her later signing Bakonyi/Cambridge’s/Roadburg/BMO’s phony/fraudulent Order Made After Application filed May 28, 2013 - representing a substantive order + fails to recognize that she has already made the same order with respect to right of audience at hearing May 13, 2013 as a procedural order.
Even the rampant intellectual denial in BC/Canada Jurisprudence cannot in good faith deny that the fraudulent Order Made After Application (May 28, 2013) is Res Judicata to the original May 13, 2013 order made at Hearing.
The criminal Order Made After Application of Bakonyi/Cambridge/Roadburg/BMO filed May 28, 2013 should never have gotten past the ‘crooked’ Civil Filing Desk at Vancouver courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC., operated by the BC Attorney General.
This is a worse filing error than the one made against Boss Power, which one (1) error netted that company (whose lawyers were Fasken law firm), $40 million current because the Intent underlying this fraudulent Order Made After Application required thought and planning, a coordinated fraud between and among Bakonyi/Cambridge and Ellis/BMO.
Why did grossly negligent BC Court Services permit the Order Made After Application, when no Application exists on the Civil Desk filing. For an Order Made After Application to occur, a Rule 8 Application separate from the Petition would have been filed on the court registry.
The computer screen at BC Court Services, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC would have shown that there was an order nisi (foreclosure) and a procedural order denying Glen P. Robbins a right of audience. The order actually says that no one attended on behalf of the respondents Ita Robbins and another.
How could any decision maker in their right mind determine that a formal, substantive Order Made After Application could have occurred where no Application was filed, and the procedural order made at the May 9, 2013 hearing evidenced as no one attending?
There was never any application filed in the first place, an action necessary to produce An Order Made After Application. (fraud filing - fraud filing - fraud filing).
I/We have included the May 9, 2013 procedural order (lightweight order no evidence no proper hearing) in many court submissions including of course SCC 35772 Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage. We have also included the Criminal Order Made After Application in S.C.C. filings including in the evidence submitted in the response to application to the conduct of sale order.
How could Fenlon J. have made two orders for the same order denial of a right of audience?
First, the procedural one at hearing May 9, 2013 (lightweight order no evidence adduced), and second the substantive one Order Made After Application (the criminal one) including signing the Order Made After Application tends to make an onlooker armed with facts, believe the theory advanced by Pro Se law firm of ‘Robbins and Robbins’, that Fenlon J. a former associate of Elizabeth Lyall of Vancouver law firm Fasken Martineau, her former boss humiliated at Trial by GPR before Grauer J., was intentionally arranged to be brought over to Courtroom 31 (from another courtroom) to hear the foreclosure petition of Cambridge Mortgage and ensure the foreclosure order was given away to Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis/BMO on May 9, 2013.
Fenlon J. would later sign a second vacant foreclosure (2 -count em two frauds-independent judge lol) for Bakonyi/Cambridge in late 2014 or early 2015 subsequent to the contempt of court order/fraud vacant possession order deftly slipped to Bakonyi by ‘fellow lawyer’ Smith J. April 24, 2014 during Kloegman J.’s Stay of Execution Order made April 7, 2014 valid until Midnight April 30, 2014.
Glen P. Robbins believes that every day Fenlon J. remains as a justice is one day too long, she ought to resign while his law partner Ita Robbins believes an apology along with amendments to court records to her favour and compensation are sufficient. (Nullity)
I/We believe that the May 9, 2013 Hearing dicta of Cambridge Mortgage v Ita Robbins (35772) - in conjunction with the facts, that good right thinking honest and ethical judges will become sick to their stomach (if that hasn’t already occurred). This belief is strengthened by the clearly awful attempt made by Fenlon J. at hearing May 9, 2013 to pretend she is confused - including asking what Section 15 (1) of the Authority to Practice law in the Legal Profession Act means - yet makes an easy application of 15 (5) in denying the right of audience. (Plausible deniability).
The ridiculous decision Fenlon J. makes in Google v Equustek SCC 36602 is investigated by Glen P. Robbins prompting his filing of Intervenor application Read by Brown J. This application includes all court court documents under affidavit under Martin's Criminal Code 2013.
This application made by Glen P. Robbins served the purpose of getting the history of criminal complaints on the Record at the Supreme Court of Canada following that Court’s closing of Ita Robbins file at SCC 35772 predicated on Hinkson CJ’s/Kleisinger corrupt civil filing vexatious order filed by LSBC fraudster Bakonyi/Cambridge.
Fenlon J. believes she is thus provided with an ‘escape hatch’ on the basis of plausible deniability to excuse her clearly disgusting malfeasance (made even far more obvious with the passage of time and changing of world events), where institutions of high office need to get off their appointed high horses of intellectual denial, a particularly bad strain of this impacting Canada’s institutions including in this case- the Courts.
Fenlon J.’s 1st dubious decision at hearing on the procedural matter of right of audience May 9, 2013 literally stipulates that no one appeared on behalf of Ita Robbins et al, with Costs at Schedule A (the lowest).
Her Ladyship's neglect in recognizing she ought to have recused herself from getting revenge against Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins for her former Boss Elizabeth Lyall, and ought to have read the Reasons of Judgment of Grauer J. during the hour and one half afternoon recess.
This simple action, would have easily enlightened her as to the realities of subsection 15 (5) the procedural situation before Her, involving the right of audience, which contains sufficient evidence to precipitate striking the foreclosure order against Ita Robbins (substantive) and Her denying a right of audience to Glen P. Robbins (procedural) H130330.
Ultimately, what is most disconcerting about Fenlon J.’s behaviour is the fact that she makes her decision on the right of audience after a long afternoon recess - when Glen P. Robbins implored her twice to read Grauer J.’s Reasons for Judgment. It’s only 14 pages double spaced.
Fenlon J. had plenty of warning that something was wrong - her perusal of the Grauer J. Reasons for Judgment during the long afternoon recess would have compelled her to read the Legal Profession Act to determine for herself what 15 (1) means.
In that quest for information like a competent professional might have done, Fenlon J. might have also edified herself of the fact that the 15 (5) order of Grauer J. was no longer valid - the subsection had been amended a year previous.
Like Kleisinger of LSBC had been doing, not disclosing the amendments to 15 (5) evidence which would have helped Glen P. Robbins in his appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada under (35302), the appeal from lower court file No: (S111171), Bakonyi/Cambridge & BMO/Roadburg were trying to disguise this at foreclosure hearing on May 9, 2013.
{Glen P. Robbins contacted the Law Library at 800 Smithe Street December 2015. They were able to identify the legal amendments made to Section 15 of the LPA most specifically 15 (5) from BC Legislature Amendments May 2012 in 22 minutes. This fact has been included in previous Affidavits}.
Chief Justice Hinkson & Law Society Compliance Officer Michael Kleisinger use their Office(s) to help cheat Glen P. Robbins and by extension Ita Robbins (S111171). Background on Hinkson as lawyer and Glen P. Robbins - BCSC 012600 these two have history and GPR is out tens of millions of dollars because of this corrupt lawyer-judge.
Hinkson CJ should never have heard the vexatious procedure application of LSBC (S111171), as he knew he was the lawyer implicated in the BCHRT matter versus GPR in 2001, where Hinkson, then an LSBC lawyer, instructed his client John Motiuk (GPR’s lawyer), to ignore GPRs instruction to make application and arguments to sever complainants in that case, which resulted in GPR being erroneously published as a “pedophile” on Google for 3 years time.
Hinkson CJ’s actions were deplorable and evidenced in the 2001 Statement of Claim filed against the Government of BC, an action fully and carefully served, but undefended by the BC Attorney General Geoff Plant under Vancouver courthouse BCSC claim 012600.
Keep in mind that in 2004 Geoff Plant wrote a letter to GPR (signature in blue ink) indicating that the BC Attorney General did not file a Statement of Defence because they had already settled with Glen P. Robbins on 012600.
No settlement ever occurred.
The Statement of Claim against the Government of British Columbia, BCHRT and others is filed May 8, 2001 and served immediately thereafter upon Christy Clark (Glen P. Robbins MLA) as well as Chris Chilton of BC Attorney General's Office. Within the pleadings of that undefended court action are assertions made about John Motiuk’s own lawyer -Chris Hinkson- who, as the lawyer defending Motiuk’s (Motiuk is determined by two psychiatrists to be practicing law on behalf of Glen P. Robbins (BCHRT) and Ita Robbins (BC Court of Appeal) while a manic depressive not using his medication)--- instructed Motiuk, to not file GPR’s application to sever complaints made against GPR for staring at 5 female employees every single day for a year and a half, with no evidence of any complaint or request to stop the alleged behaviour and with another male manage of GPR’s publishing company being similarly accused for staring, the latter escaping the charge by declaring himself to be legally blind (lofl). John Motiuk was also Ita Robbins lawyer in a 1998 BC Court of Appeal of a motor vehicle accident Hearing while he was mentally ill. This involved a case at the lower court where IR’s lawyer Erin Berger told her she should leave her husband GPR - and refused to call GPR as a witness - undermining IR’s confidence in the hearing. Erin Berger, daughter of Tom Berger, told Ita Robbins (her lawyer) that she left her husband ‘for a good Jewish man’ (more ‘irony’ for Grauer J).
The Statement of Claim against the Government of British Columbia, BCHRT and others is filed May 8, 2001 and served immediately thereafter upon Christy Clark (Glen P. Robbins MLA) as well as Chris Chilton of BC Attorney General's Office. Within the pleadings of that undefended court action are assertions made about John Motiuk’s own lawyer -Chris Hinkson- who, as the lawyer defending Motiuk’s (Motiuk is determined by two psychiatrists to be practicing law on behalf of Glen P. Robbins (BCHRT) and Ita Robbins (BC Court of Appeal) while a manic depressive not using his medication)--- instructed Motiuk, to not file GPR’s application to sever complaints made against GPR for staring at 5 female employees every single day for a year and a half, with no evidence of any complaint or request to stop the alleged behaviour and with another male manage of GPR’s publishing company being similarly accused for staring, the latter escaping the charge by declaring himself to be legally blind (lofl). John Motiuk was also Ita Robbins lawyer in a 1998 BC Court of Appeal of a motor vehicle accident Hearing while he was mentally ill. This involved a case at the lower court where IR’s lawyer Erin Berger told her she should leave her husband GPR - and refused to call GPR as a witness - undermining IR’s confidence in the hearing. Erin Berger, daughter of Tom Berger, told Ita Robbins (her lawyer) that she left her husband ‘for a good Jewish man’ (more ‘irony’ for Grauer J). Hinkson CJ as lawyer then was Motiuk’s lawyer and there are 8 boxes of legal filings being held up by the Law Society of BC that will prove Hinkson. (It should be made known as well in that case that Motiuk had filed an application to sever the complainants a year or more earlier, but BCHRT adjourned the matter (while bully Hinkson began to groom him while he was unwell) - but that application was ignored later when the BCHRT requested applications. The original application by Motiuk for GPR has yet to be heard).
John Motiuk was also Ita Robbins lawyer in a 1998 BC Court of Appeal of a motor vehicle accident Hearing while he was mentally ill. This involved a case at the lower court where IR’s lawyer Erin Berger told her she should leave her husband GPR - and refused to call GPR as a witness - undermining IR’s confidence in the hearing. Erin Berger, daughter of Tom Berger, told Ita Robbins (her lawyer) that she left her husband ‘for a good Jewish man’ (more ‘irony’ for Grauer J). Hinkson CJ as lawyer then was Motiuk’s lawyer and there are 8 boxes of legal filings being held up by the Law Society of BC that will prove Hinkson. (It should be made known as well in that case that Motiuk had filed an application to sever the complainants a year or more earlier, but BCHRT adjourned the matter (while bully Hinkson began to groom him while he was unwell) - but that application was ignored later when the BCHRT requested applications. The original application by Motiuk for GPR has yet to be heard).
It also caused the disruption and eventual ruin of Glen P. Robbins publishing company audited by Canada Revenue Agency at earnings of $2.2 million per year in 1997.
(A business plan for earnings of $5-$10 million per year had been filed under Affidavit in the BC Supreme Court under CIBC versus Tannis 1996).
With BC Court of Appeal Judge Hinkson on the verge of being exposed for his interference with judicial process in the late 1990’s involving GPR’s right to a proper defence, he is then quickly hustled over from BC Court of Appeal to become BC Supreme Court Chief Justice November 2013 enabling him to commit his 2nd interference in legal process against Glen P. Robbins, 1st as a lawyer and member of Law Society of BC, and 2nd as Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court.
Moving Hinkson from BC Court of Appeal to BC Chief Justice Supreme Court (an equivalent authority in the judicial food chain (lofl)), occurs within weeks of Glen P. Robbins notifying Hinkson’s former law partner Michael Kleisinger of LSBC that he is moving for Default of Judgment on the 2001 matter involving Hinkson as legal counsel in the Pedophile matter.
The BC Court of Appeal had already colluded with Kleisinger to not inform Glen P. Robbins that subsection 15 (5) had been amended, a fact which would have compelled GPR, had he received the exculpatory evidence to amend his leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada (35302).
Glen P. Robbins believes Hinkson CJ’s gross negligence, abuse of power, abuse of office in conjunction with Google’s Search Engine are responsible for the vicious pedophile libel against Glen P. Robbins.
The recital of the ex parte evidence reveals that Google should have vetted the information from BCHRT/BC Attorney General better. The problem would not have occurred had Motiuk’s original application to sever the lying women with no collaborating evidence in support of anecdote been heard by BCHRT and not interfered with crooked Chris Hinkson.
LSBC Kleisinger and Hinkson CJ then ‘hook up’ use their Office to corrupt Grauer J.’s (S111171) case (SCC 35302) and secure vexatious order necessary to cover up Bakonyi/Cambridge & Ellis Roadburg/BMO fraud against Ita Robbins H130330 35772.
In October 2013 Glen P. Robbins had written to Law Society of BC, and BC Attorney General informing them he intended to (1) seek Default Order on the BCHRT pedophile scandal (implicating Hinkson CJ when he was a Law Society of BC lawyer)AND (2) file a Class Action lawsuit against the crooked unregulated Mortgage Brokers of BC, and reckless bad faith of BC Attorney General/BC Government.
I/We believe this correspondence and Ita Robbins affidavit of January 2014 also provided, indicating that at all times and places she conducted her own 15 (5) 15 (1) actions, by deduction, would mean that Glen P. Robbins had absolutely no guilt of 15 (5).
Kleisinger, the Law Society of BC - BC Attorney General, BC Liberal government and BC Courts including most particularly Chris Hinkson were now themselves in serious trouble. Time to double down on the Court fraud.
They decided to collude and hatched a scheme to defend their perfidy and to defraud Ita Robbins out of her home and belongings, by abusing their Office to cook up a vexatious litigant order (S111171) against Glen P. Robbins, in order to assist Bakonyi/Cambridge & Robert Ellis Roadburg with the covering up their fraud with Fenlon J. at Foreclosure and in the subsequent criminal Order Made After Application H130330 lest they be exposed at Supreme Court of Canada.
The Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Supreme Court of Canada all have immediate access to these documents. The appeal of the order nisi to Supreme Court of Canada H130330 S.C.C. 35772, the Stay of Execution Order of April 7, 2014 by Kloegman J and the ‘not so invisible hand’ of BC Chief Justice Chris Hinkson.
As previously discussed, the appeal of the order nisi (foreclosure) to the Supreme Court of Canada was not to be heard until June 2014 from original order by Fenlon J. on May 9, 2013 H130330.
Had the Stay of Execution Order and adjournment order made by Kloegman J. H130330, been filed on April 8- 9, 2014 at Vancouver courthouse registry, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC, when it was available to Ron Bakonyi to submit to the Court, not only would it thereafter be required to be filed as response in the appeal of the original order nisi 35772 (the reply time at SCC was running at same time as the Stay of Execution period), it would also have been at the front of the files put right under the noses of both Justices Davies J. & Smith J. on the April 23, 2014 and April 24, 2014 Bakonyi/Cambridge fraud dates and none of the court fraud could have occurred.
We know Bakonyi for Cambridge committed the court fraud and contempt of Stay of Execution Order of Kloegman J. April 7, 2014 to April 30, 2014 under H130330.
Bakonyi & Cambridge also know he had already filed a fraudulent Order Made After Application under H130330 along with Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg to deceive the Master of the BC Supreme Court (Tokarek) at December 9, 2013 Conduct of Sale application H130330 - and knew his and his client’s ‘gooses were cooked’ once this came to light.
Any mortgage registration of an unconscious loan would surely have been struck by ‘real justice’ as a consequence of the 98.7% APR loan between Ita Robbins and original lender Peet and Cowan Financial Services (the lender having entered the 98.7% amount on the document) placed right on the Government of British Columbia loan document.
(So you know, if you don’t already, when the lender determines the Annual Percentage Rate and marks it on the contract, if there is a dispute, the lender is responsible to produce an Actuarial report on the Interest Rate. One cannot have a 98.7% contract loan and an 8.9%/9.2% mortgage registration for that same loan).
Non bank lenders have been using the two company scam like Peet & Cowan Financial and sister company Cambridge Mortgage Investment for many years. The Competition Bureau of Canada (CBD) was written to by Glen and Ita Robbins in 2015, by way of Complaint. The CBD responded to the Complaint relating to Cambridge Mortgage/Peet & Cowan loan by indicating that FICOM of British Columbia was responsible for Interest Rates. (Read the Constitution idiots).
FICOM was written in 2015 by Glen & Ita Robbins. “It” indicated they had no responsibility for oversight and regulation of Interest Rates - Mortgage Brokers/Lenders were self regulating. The so-called self regulating Mortgage Brokers were then contacted in 2015 in writing and described the 98.7% Interest Rate as a “clerical error”. Samantha Gale, CEO of the Mortgage Brokers was written to in 2015 as well by Ita Robbins. She acknowledged that all contracts for loans must include an APR. She is provided with a copy of the fraudulent.
Peet and Cowan featured a 98.7% Interest Rate, it was their calculation, and their obligation to prove the APR is not 98.7%, yet the Mortgage Registration is filed at Land Title New Westminster at 8.9%/9.2%.
In 2016 Glen P. Robbins contacted the Registrar at Land Title and asked if two different interest rates could be included in the Mortgage Registration box designated under Federal Interest Act for APR, was told there can only be one APR rate, but that Land Title doesn’t check that part of the FORM for filing.
It should also be noted that the Competition Act (Canada) does not permit the two company scam where one company sets one interest rate to comply with disclosure then commits the constructive fraud of filing the registration through a second sister company owned by the two same people. What an embarrassment this would have been for BC lawyers, BC lenders, and the BC Government to be discovered. Instead of allowing the truth to come to light they elected both individually and collectively to cover it up.
That the Province of British Columbia is a jurisdiction with little credibility on white collar crime is without doubt. In an article in the Vancouver Sun dated November 23, 2017 (Hoekstra, Shaw) entitled (BC) “Finance Minister instructs securities commission to improve collection of fines, and soon” (lol) - the article suggests:
“The provincial government had ordered the BC Securities (FICOM) Commission to improve its poor record of collecting fines it has imposed - more than half a billion dollars unpaid by fraudsters in the past decade.” “The directive Wednesday was revealed in the first public comments after a Postmedia investigation reported that more than 80 fraudsters who have harmed thousands of investors - in B.C., other parts of Canada, the United States and as far away as Switzerland - have escaped paying the large (sic) penalties.”
Had these massive frauds in High Office not occurred, and the correct outcome occurred, Ita Robbins free of mortgage and damages as case law provides - perhaps the massive fraud on BC real estate commencing 2014 and continuing on until now might not have happened.
So - former Hinkson understudy Austin Cullen now head of the Inquiry into money laundering (or whatever they call it these days) here is our question to you following our submission to you of the 172 page Legal Analysis.
Former BC Supreme Court Justice Austin Cullen - Are you part of the solution or part of the cover up? Did you know Hinkson and Kleisinger, Bakonyi and Ellis Roadburg were using the Courts as their own ‘legal playground’?
The entire unconscionable loan, usury occurring between and among essentially non regulated secondary lenders and MICs, and participation in fraudulent mortgage and document filing at Land Title Office (New Westminster) was about to be exposed through the Ita Robbins et al versus Cambridge Mortgage, Government of British Columbia case at Supreme Court of Canada under file No.: 35772.
It was now up to former law partners Michael Kleisinger of LSBC and Chris Hinkson Chief Justice BC Supreme Court to manufacture ad hoc, a fast track legal process of their own, breaking the filing rules and consciously manipulating the filing of documents using the Grauer J. file (S111171) (35302).
This will be discussed in greater detail after a review of the original Ita Robbins v BMO case (for scope and context).
Case 106413 BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver B.C. (the “predicate case”).
This case (106413) instigates S111171 (LPA subsections 15 (1), 15 (4), & 15 (5) which later prejudices H130330 (IRobbins) 15 (5) & right of audience and acts as original causation of the crimes at BC court registry, 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, BC., and in the Constitutional Courts upstairs.
In September 2010, Ita Robbins & Frana Matich (“Ita Robbins”, “Ita Robbins et al”, IRobbins) sued BMO Bank over a foreclosure it initiated (the original foreclosure), in 2009, where no Notice was provided prior to the filing of the Lis Pendens (1st public document).
BMO foreclosed on Ita Robbins home with one month mortgage in arrears following Ita Robbins seeking a 3 month delay. BMO had engaged a national security service to watch the house in 2008 designated it as empty. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister at the time. BMO fails to disclose the potential triable issue of no notice to IRobbins, which is (much) later admitted to by Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg lawyer for BMO Bank.
BMO foreclosed on Ita Robbins home with one month mortgage in arrears following Ita Robbins seeking a 3 month delay. BMO had engaged a national security service to watch the house in 2008 designated it as empty. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister at the time. BMO fails to disclose the potential triable issue of no notice to IRobbins, which is (much) later admitted to by Robert Ellis of Ellis Roadburg lawyer for BMO Bank.
The plaintiffs Ita Robbins offer BMO $750,000 in additional clear title real estate covenants to support the mortgage (nearly $1.5 million 2009 dollars to cover $200,000 1st mortgage), which BMO refuses (twice).
The plaintiffs, Ita Robbins also pay any overdue amounts into the mortgage account, contact BMO about the making good on the overdue mortgage, and generally assert their good faith actions and mitigation of damage prior to the foreclosure process by doing everything possible. These actions taken in mitigation are never heard by the Court.
Over one or two months mortgage overdue versus ‘huuuge’ equity. Ellis Roadburg was BMO’s legal counsel. FYI, at or about the time the Robbins brought suit against BMO, the Notice of Claim form in BC Courts had just replaced the standard Statement of Claim document for initiating a claim against party(s).
The new form stipulates “Lawyer for Plaintiffs”. The law demands that Glen P. Robbins sign for the plaintiffs (Ita Robbins, Frana Matich), but with his own signature. {Glen P. Robbins signing his name as Lawyer for Plaintiffs was technically perfectly legal}.
Keep in mind that in a lawsuit defence and other documents must be served upon the parties. It would be theoretically impossible for parties to act in an instance such as this one between the Robbins and BMO Bank and any party to the action not to find out what was going on. They must be personally served with all of these documents.
In addition, Glen P. Robbins was legally ‘practicing law’ under the restriction of acting as his wife’s lawyer without receipt or expectation of fee or benefit pursuant to Legal Profession Act 15 (1).
Who is the Law Society of BC protecting - the public or the Banks and lawyers?
GPR is the lawyer for both women, one his wife, the other her mother, because they are family and ask him to be on the basis of 15(1) of the Legal Professions Act (at the time) February 2011. GPR receives no fee or any other benefit for his actions. Service of documents (defence) occurs at Ita’s home (Honeysuckle Lane) addressed to her in her capacity as plaintiff. (Remember, every person of majority age is theoretically a lawyer by definition of the law. When Ita is served with a foreclosure petition she is her own lawyer under 15 (1) until she hires or contacts a lawyer on retainer or asks for assistance from another ordinary person under 15 (1)).
This is how that provision in the Authority to Practice law of Section 15 exists, and that is how it was followed, to the letter, by both Glen P. Robbins and Ita Robbins. Robert Ellis lawyer for Ellis Roadburg is also included as a defendant in the BMO lawsuit by Ita Robbins. He and his firm were both required by Law Society Foreclosure mandated rules of practice, to issue notice of foreclosure prior to the public and more formal event of the Lis Pendens filing, in order to permit the homeowners an opportunity to pay off the small amount owed.
Defendant Robert Ellis Roadburg’s lawyer Daniel Webster QC claims in his ‘Statement of Defence’, that Glen P. Robbins has breached section 15(4) referring to himself as a lawyer by signing the Notice of Claim on behalf of the two plaintiffs.
GPR is not a party to the BMO action, although Grauer J. does make specific reference in his October 3, 2011 Reasons, that GPR does “have an interest in the property”, as it is his residence too and he has been paying the mortgage on the property since 1993 when there was a mortgage.
In context of the provisions in the Legal Professions Act (BC), most specifically Section 15(1) “Authority to Practice Law”, GPR is not receiving a benefit and is also not soliciting publicly for work (the hallmark case precedent activity of the 15 (4) devient)..

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2020