Steven Vamos

In the summer of 1987 I walked into a Coles book store. At the reference section I
picked up a book written by a lawyer. I do not remember the title of it and I am
sorry for not buying it. However I remember reading into it and at one point the
writer said something to the effect that when a party's claims are excessive in a
civil court proceeding it is advisable to prolong the adjudication of the case in
order to wear off the party. Today I attended the hearing of the Burkos' case in the
Court of Appeal of Ontario. (See the Burkos' posting on Aug. 24 on can.legal Re:
ONTARIO GOVERNMENT>>>LAND FRAUD>>>the coverup ... etc.)

Although there were microphones installed in the court room they were not in use and
it was difficult to follow everything what was said. Even the "chair" of the panel
put his hand to his ear to better his hearing. If I am not mistaken the case was
about the Burkos appealing the decision of judge Somers allowing Credit Valley
Conversation Authority (a government agency) to sue the Burkos for defamation in its
own name. (Note: The Attorney General Act of Ontario specifically states that it is
the role of the Attorney General that may sue on behalf of the Ontario government or
any of its agencies.)

The hearing was held before the Morden-Carthy-MacPherson trio. The Burkos were
"ambushed" by a motion of the other side as they were not served with the motion
record as the rule of civil procedure requires. I could see the Burkos were thrown
off balance by this event. Arriving a few minutes late I am not sure what the motion
was about but I found it strange. Motions are heard prior to adjudication of cases or
before appeals and certainly not before three judges of the appeal court. The Courts
of Justices Act of Ontario states:

"A motion in the court of Appeal ... SHALL BE HEARD by ONE JUDGE."

I could sense the attempt to confuse the Burkos by bringing the motion this time in
order to have judge Somers' decision overturned and the action against the Burkos
dismissed.

It was interesting to hear that at one point the head of the panel of judges asked
if anyone was present from the offices of the Attorney General. There was none. It
is my belief that the judge knew that they could overturn judge Somers's decision
and dismisse Credit Valley's action against the Burkos. Instead of that they quashed
the motion and I belive the the trial of the Burkos for defamation will go ahead in
the future.

Having witnessed the proceeding my distrust of the integrity of practice of law and
administration of justice has been reenforced again.

Steven Vamos

Berto Volpentesta

Some tactics used by lawyers may be valuable. Some may have to do with = true legal
issues and others may be the miscarriage of justice.

Immigration is not a legal proceeding, it is an administrative one. = There are still
rules of fair play and somewhat less of these tactics.

--=20 Good luck,

Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman

Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991

www.svcanada.com

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

David Nicholson

Steven Vamos concluded his story:
    >
    >

Stephen:

So, you distrust the "integrity of practice of law and administration of justice".
Not surprising, given what you appear to know about either. Let's see.

You say that this couple, the Burko's, are being sued for defamation by the Credit
Valley Conservation Authority. The Burko's have decided not to use a lawyer;
Mr. Burko is defending the action himself. You say that the Attorney General Act
states that it should be the Attorney-General that is suing them, not the
Conservation Authority. Yet, Mr. Burko never raised this point in Motions Court
of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in April, 2001, when he had the chance.
Instead, Mr. Burko raised some other odd preliminary arguments:

1. The Authority is a body politic and not as such entitled to bring a law suit
2. The Authority is only a body corporate and not a body politic and a body
corporate, so it is not entitled to bring a law suit
3. The Authority had not made its annual corporate filings or paid its fees, so it is
not entitled to bring a law suit.

The judge in Motions Court denied all 3 preliminary motions brought by Mr. Burko. It
seems that the Burko's decided to appeal (seek leave to appeal?) this decision to the
Court of Appeal.

You got to the Court of Appeal hearing after it had started, and it seemed to you
that some motion had been raised by the Authority. You have no idea what this motion
was about. You suggest that the Authority made the motion "to confuse the Burkos . in
order to have judge Somers' decision overturned and the action against the Burkos
dismissed." Do you really think the Authority was trying to help the Burko's in this
fashion? That would be odd if true, but is it a bad thing?

You then write that the Court of Appeal "quashed the motion and [you believe that
the] trial of the Burkos for defamation will go ahead in the future". I take it that
you mean the Burko's appeal was unsuccessful.

In trying to guess what you meant by your introduction: "when a party's claims are
excessive in a civil court proceeding it is advisable to prolong the adjudication of
the case in order to wear off the party", I thought you were making a condemnation of
the government side. Instead, it is your friends, the Burko's, who have tried out
several misguided tactics to avoid having the case against them tried on its merits.
Not surprisingly, they failed. Seems to me like justice had a pretty good day.

One last thing, Stephen: please tell us you are *not* taking money from this couple
for advising them.

David Nicholson

Steven Vamos

"David Nicholson" <davidnicholson@sympatico_remove_.ca>
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Having witnessed the proceeding my distrust of the integrity of practice of law[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > and administration of justice has been reenforced again.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
After the hearing I spoke them very briefly and they said that they have spent a lot
of money on lawyers. This was said in a way that I had no illusion to believe that
this money was spent on lawyers involved acting on their behalf regarding their
affairs with Credit Valley Conservation Authority. Shame be on their lawyers they had
prior to opting to represent themself. I must assume that they were not satisfied and
had serious doubt about their performance. The Burkos had to make a choice: Either

1. Have a lawyer digging deeply into their pocket without a reasonable hope that
their right and interest is properly represented;

2. Take the case into their hand and hope for the best.

    >
    >
    >
    >

Again, shame be on their lawyers they had. Given the fact that they are not
sophisticated in legal matters the underlying principles have not changed. The panel
of the judges should have recognized that

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
Again, shame be on their lawyers they had. Given the fact that they are not
sophisticated in legal matters the underlying principle have not changed. The panel
of judges should have recognize it and make a dicision accordingly. Do they not have
an oath of office?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
David, you know what motions are about? I beleive that they are mostly for delaying
the adjudication of cases. It is lawyers "strategy". The three judges in case went
along with the "technic". Otherwise the Court of Appeal was supposed to hear an
appeal and should not even consider the motion.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
The Burkos appeal was put to a "rest". Have you heard about
psychologic technics.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
That was I read in the book.
    >
    >
I have not seen them before.
    >
    >
    >
    >
It takes training. Long, long training.
    >
    >
    >
Hardly. Perhaps we have different perception about justice.
    >
    >
    >
    >
I am not a lawyer, I am not advising them, so be assured.
    >
    >

Steven Vamos

David Nicholson

Steven:

The Burko's represented themselves at Motions Court of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in April, 2001. They were the ones who made 3 motions to try to dismiss the
law suit against them. Let me be clear. It was not the other side or the other side's
lawyers who made the 3 motions - it was them. It was not even their own lawyers who
made the motions - it was Mr. Burko himself who made them. The judge ruled that none
of the 3 arguments had merit. So why do you write:
    >

They appealed that decision. Then it looks like they tried to raise an argument at
the Court of Appeal that was not even raised in Motions Court originally - a 4th
unsuccessful motion to try to avoid a trial on the merits of the defamation claim.
But you write:
    >
    >

Hmm. So the Burko's tried this stategy and it didn't work - 4 times.

    >
    >

No, I haven't.

David Nicholson