“. . .we are looking for some halfway house. . . .” —Chris Bredt Chris Bredt is a Senior Litigation Partner at Borden Ladner Gervais.
Christopher Bredt name calls when he believes no one is watching or listening.
Why not hire a firm that does not name-call and discriminate on Record ? ?
Chris Bredt’s improper name-calling should not be condoned.
Chris Bredt has breached the “Civility Protocols” by publicly name-calling ‘Half-Way House’ on Record.
Name-calling by Chris Bredt brings disrepute to the administration of Justice.
Chris Bredt should be held accountable for name-calling.
Name-calling is one symptom of discrimination.
Discrimination creates a significant risk of harm to the public interest.
Chris Bredt creates a significant risk of harm to the public interest.
On February 28, 2011 Chris Bredt of Borden Ladner Gervais wrote an endorsement without written reasons suspending the law licence of the Respondent Bruce on an interlocutory basis. The entire affidavit of Natividad Ouano Sumodobila Bruce, sworn June 25, 2011, is available for viewing by all members of the public at the Tribunals Office, located at the Law Society of Upper Canada, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. W., Toronto, Ontario.
The following paragraphs are pulled from the sworn affidavit of Natividad Ouano Sumodobila Bruce, dated June 25, 2011.
“. . .we are looking for some halfway house. . . .” —Chris Bredt
29. It would have been just as derogatory for the Chair Chris Bredt to state, “ . . . we are looking for some bawdy house. . . .” to bring disrepute to the Respondent Bruce. A bawdy house or brothel is an establishment of ill repute, wherein lewd sex acts are performed. Similarly, a halfway house or recovery house is an establishment of ill repute. Generally people in a halfway house begin the process of reintegration with society, while still providing monitoring and support; this is generally believed to reduce the risk of recidivism or relapse when compared to a release directly into society. Some halfway houses are meant solely for reintegration of persons who have been recently released from prison or jail, others are meant for people with chronic mental health disorders, and most others are for people with substance abuse issues. Bencher Chris Bredt’s derogatory attitude towards the Respondent has no basis in reality. The Respondent is a high-functioning, fully-integrated member of the community.
. . .
32. Self-governance in the public interest is not necessarily, empirically true. Benjamin Barton has suggested that there is “little evidence” to support the perspective that self-governance is in the public interest. Instead, Barton suggests the evidence suggest that in fact that bar has “regularly oppressed disfavoured minority viewpoints, races and religions.” ( Benjamin H. Barton, “Why Do We Regulate Lawyers?: An Economic Analysis of the Justifications for Entry and Conduct Regulation” (2001) 33 Arizona St. L.J. 429 at 484.)
33. Ever since the Registrar told Bruce to withdraw from the licensing process, I have advised my daughter to practice law in a different jurisdiction. This modern-day witch-hunt is very personal and discriminatory.
34. After Bruce was served with the Applicant’s Notice of Application in December 2010, she attended at the Applicant’s office. During these attendances, the toxic atmosphere in the room was so thick, it could be sliced. The vilification of my innocent daughter was clearly intended to provoke a reaction and to offend her. The Chair of the panel, Chris Bredt stated on record,
Chair Chris Bredt: . . . what I’m seeking from you, Ms. Jarvie, is perhaps some - - if you operate on the assumption - - I haven’t spoken to my co-panelists or not – that the matter might be adjourned and you were seeking to protect the public interest between now and January 17, what is that you would say in those circumstances would be in the public interest? I understand your first position which is that we should give an interim, interim suspension.
Ms. Jarvie: Yes
Chair Chris Bredt: But if the Panel is to say no, we don’t think this is appropriate here, but we are looking for some halfway house, what would your submission be on a halfway house?
Ms. Jarvie: Recognizing that my primary position is that there should be an interim interlocutory suspension –
Chair Chris Bredt: I think we have that, and don’t take from my comments that we have not agreed that you are doing to get that. I’m just trying to see what the lay of the land is here.
Transcript of Proceedings, LSUC v Ann Bruce, File No. LINT128/10 dated December 22, 2010 at lines 21-25 on pages 22; lines 1-17 on page 23
36. Despite months of unexplained, inordinate delay from the Applicant’s original correspondence in May 2010 to the Respondent it took the Applicant many months to issue its Notice of Application to the Respondent. Supposedly the public was at significant risk of danger, during these months (May 2010 – December 2010) from Bruce’s “dangerous” and “threatening” activities— reading legislation, reading caselaw, texting, talking, walking, eating, attending church, Christmas carolling, drinking coffee, etc. A real danger.
37. Supposedly Bruce continues to be a real danger to society. Supposedly there was “reason to believe” Bruce may be duty counsel in women’s shelters. My daughter’s crucifixion from the Applicant is vexatious, frivolous and very personal. The Applicant’s proceeding alleging professional misconduct has similarities to the medieval inquisitions where individuals accused of heresy, sorcery, treason, etc were subject to great scrutiny, distrust and vilified, under an unreasonable suspicion they were heretics and agents of the devil, something akin to “hired assassins” or modern-day hijackers.
38. Chair Chris Bredt concluded that Bruce poses a significant risk of harm to the public. On February 28, 2011, the Applicant imposed an interlocutory suspension on Bruce’s practice of law Attached as Exhibit “6” is a copy of a signed endorsement from Chair Bredt placing the Respondent under an interlocutory suspension.
39. Despite cogent, direct evidence from witnesses . . . the Hearing Panel imposed this severe order on Bruce’s livelihood. Unlike in the Karen Cunningham case, the Applicant did not use its discretion to permit interviews with the judicial complainant within certain parameters. Instead, the Applicant protracted and created delayed, by calling witnesses, e.g. Renae Oliphant, with no direct evidence to provide the Hearing Panel.
40. The Applicant did not give sufficient consideration to the direct evidence from the Respondent’s witnesses during the LINT128/10 hearing —concerning judicial bias and lack of courtesy, lack of civility and lack of good faith towards Bruce from one or more Justices, including but not limited to: Justice Lafreniere; Justice Pazaratz; Justice Steinberg; Justice Mazza; Justice McLaren; Justice Brown; and evidence of lack of civility from David Walkling (legal representative for Jason John D’Ilio); lack of civility from Carm Runco (LAO Director for the Hamilton area), Richard G. Startek, Richard P. Startek, Peter Borkovich, John Venn, Martin Vamos, Richard Skibinski, etc.
52. The Applicant has a duty to maintain the reputation of the solicitors’ profession—as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth. (Bolton v Law society, [1994] 1 W.L.R. 512. The Law Society’s agents have relied on false and unverified representations to increase the magnitude and seriousness of each of the alleged breaches of professional misconduct. The conduct of the Applicant, in withholding disclosure, should be taken account, when considering costs.
Note: Ms. Jarvie (Suzanne Jarvie) in para. 34 is the ‘Suzanne’ doodled by duty counsel Symon Zucker in his chef d’oeuvre, magnum opus created February 7, 2011 posted on April 16, 2011 by Big Lady Justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment