|
明天是商业法庭，星期五上午是证券会，下午是旧市政厅的交通告票。明年一月排满了法庭。
1. This affidavit further raises some new issues which had not been litigated before. 2. That all the issues previously raised had never been fully litigated; for example during any of my appearances, I was never represented by counsel. 3. The issue of representation by counsel while raised before, had never been fully adjudicated on in terms of judicial assessment after evidence had been called on my legal incapacity and a judge making a reasoned decision, with rational as to why I needed or did not need counsel. The issue of counsel is outstanding. 4. That the issue of the frozen funds and how that affected my ability to defend the legal suits and motions brought by the applicants was never fully adjudicated. 5. The issue of why investors’ money that was ordered to be returned to the investors on a pro rata format but now the law firms are claiming it for themselves without reference to the interests of the investors, has never been adjudicated. 6. The issue of why the law firm’s legal fees must come from the frozen funds ( and not from those who hired or appointed the law firm )which I need for counsel, has never been adjudicated. 7. The issue of lack of counsel is a constitutional issue as it raises issues of fair hearing or trial on these complicated legal issues and requiring a section 24(1) remedy under the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. 8. That while these proceedings were taking place, I was incarcerated and it is difficult if not impossible to mount a successful response to completed motions or applications, therefore raising the common law issues of principles of natural justice, fairness, procedural fairness and section 7 of the charter because at the time my life, liberty and security of the person were at stake and constrained because I was in jail and that issue had never been litigated on. 9. That a totally new issue has arisen and that is, when I appeared before the various judges, I had no interpreter and everyone knows that my English is not perfect, that my pleadings are not perfect and I have been told severally that my pleadings don’t make sense and they are so confused that it is easier to just dismiss them out of hand and that is why during the criminal trial, there was an interpreter because it was obvious I needed one just as I needed one during the various appearances in civil court. 10. The issue of proceeding without any interpreter raises a new constitutional issue which has never been adjudicated on. 11. That anybody who appeared or was present during those proceedings or has a copy of the transcripts and further, has a copy of my pleadings so far, will tell that my English language skills leave a lot to be desired. 12. That the issue of interpretation raises the issue of fair hearing and the ability to follow and understand the proceedings. 13. That the combination of lack of counsel and lack of interpretation affected my ability to properly prosecute the case. 14. The lack of counsel was caused by the freezing of my accounts by the OSC. 15. The lack of funds because they were frozen by the OSC also disabled me from hiring a court qualified interpreter as the courts and tribunals never hired one for me despite the obvious evidence from my participation and pleadings that I had a severe disability in the English language. 16. That in fact there is a comment in the factum of the applicant counsel that I told the court that “I know the facts. I don’t need to perfect anything” 17. That I didn’t know what perfection means as I thought it simply means t facts. 18. There is another issue that is totally new that has never been litigated on. 19. The issue is that counsel for the applicants, Kelly Mckinnon is in a serious conflict of interest, in fact the law firm as a whole is in a serious conflict of interest. 20. That Kelly McKinnon was Deputy Director of Enforcement at the Ontario Securities Commission during my litigation dispute with them, in fact during their investigation of my companies and is currently a member of the Ontario Securities Enforcement Advisory Committee. 21. That Kelly McKinnon was working with or knew Matthew Boswell who also worked at the OSC and was responsible for laying the OSC charges that had been investigated by the Enforcement branch when Kelly McKinnon was working there. 22. That the OSC claimed that they were protecting the interests of the investors while in fact the very firm Kelly is working for is only interested in taking the money that is supposed to go to me and the investors on a pro rata basis. 23. That Kelly is still associated actively with the OSC that is supposed to protect the interests of the investors but she and her law firm have taken the investors’ and my money. 24. That Kelly McKinnon and her law firm should have recused or excluded their law firm from being appointed class representatives because of the above-noted conflict of interest. 25. That it is possible that Kelly McKinnon knew that her law firm will be appointed and stood to benefit from the freezing of my accounts and further that those frozen accounts would be claimed by her law firm as legal fees. 26. That it is possible that Kelly McKinnon worked hand in hand with Matthew Boswell in the case at hand. 27. That I am told that this conflict of interests where McKinnon and her law firm stand to benefit raises a reasonable apprehension of bias that the process was rigged so that Kelly McKinnon and her law firm could benefit this way and may be benefitting from numerous other similar or like cases. 28. That I am told that reasonable apprehension of bias need not be made out in actually, it merely needs to be shown to be a possibility, a strong one in this case. 29. That it is the same with conflict of interest. Here, McKinnon was working in the investigation and enforcement unit when my companies and I were being inverstigated and shortly my accounts were frozen and I was charged, further McKinnon still works partly for OSC, the very agency that froze my accounts and charged me and Mckinnon is representing the class of investors whose money she and her law firm have claimed. 30. That the issue of conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias issues have never been raised and adjudicated. 31. There is even another new issue with respect to the law firm representing the class of investors, it is the same law firm that is taking my money as legal and other fess from the TD Canada Trust case ( Court File no. 453/13). 32. That this law firm is involved in a cesspool of conflict of interests, double dealing and is out to destroy me financially and in every way. 33. That this last issue has never been adjudicated. 34. The rest of the affidavit shows a connection to all civil cases and criminal proceedings and how the freezing of my accounts by OSC at which McKinnon worked and still works in addition to Gowlings started it all and have destroyed my life. 35. This affidavit is in support of my response to the applicants’ motions as well as to adduce extra and fresh evidence which was not litigated at or fully or even partially at the various courts and before different judges, though some issues were mentioned throughout the process. 36. That the overriding and consistent issue that I raised both before the Ontario Securities Commission and the Criminal Courts (Preliminary Hearing at Provincial Court, various Motions and Applications in Superior Court on the Rowbotham issue, at the Trial proper in Superior Court of Justice, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and now in the Supreme Court of Canada) is that I needed counsel to represent me as I was not a lawyer and had no legal knowledge.
| 
狗仔卡
发表于 2015-12-14 21:37:15
收藏
顶
踩
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
楼主