fraud

Update on the Criminals at BMO

Posted on Updated on

DO THE RIGHT THING

I thought I would provide an update on my continuing search for justice from the criminal actions of BMO.

I will set out the present status. A lot of it deals with the attendances at court and my health, a lot of it involves BMO, but more particularly some judges who regardless of my health and medical treatment have put pressure on me to disclose aspects of my health that are not being challenged, and then proceeding in my absence.

DO THE RIGHT THING

BMO’ s  failure to consider this approach confirms to me the existence of a criminal culture that I experienced in my dealings with BMO that promoted illegal activity, lying about it and putting that evidence to court, and spending excessive amounts of money to conceal and fight it. My question is just this. If I was wrong. If there was not the criminal culture I experienced, why did no one from BMO ever contact me, own and take responsibility for their action and deal with it properly. DO THE RIGHT THING.  The fact that they don’t seem to know what  THE RIGHT THING is ,nor have they made any effort to show that they are not the criminals that the evidence shows them to be. Instead they spent your money if you are a customer of BMO to fight the victim. All of their actions and the fact that they have not DONE THE RIGHT THING. Confirms that culture to me.

If they really believed it and practised the ethics of trust and honesty they profess, and what Canadians expect from them, you would think they would be anxious to clear up the matter and demonstrate that they will not tolerate fraud dishonesty or lying. Unfortunately here they not only tolerated but went to great lengths including criminal activity to defendant support it while apparently refusing to do a proper if any investigation. This is strong confirmation of a culture of dishonesty, fraud, arrogance, entitlement, and of an organization apparently devoid of ethics

After the Summary Judgement Motion, I brought an action against all of the parties who had committed perjury and fraud in obtaining the judgement.

It turns out that you can stand on the street corner lie about someone and do serious damage and be sued for libel and slander if it is not true. In our legal system in Ontario, you can go to court, commit perjury and lie, cause damage to the other party, and you are not liable for the damage that your lies under oath were responsible for.

BMO and the other parties brought a motion to dismiss this action and the previous action I brought against them in 2015, based on the argument that had been decided by Conway and was therefore res judicata in that it was already determined. I consented to dismissal of the action that I brought after the summary judgement motion.

I don’t disagree that most of the facts and law that Conway corruptly distorted, despite the breach of her obligations as a judge, are nonetheless final.

The one issue that was not decided by Conway was whether or not
BMO owed me a duty as an executor. They say they do not owe me a duty. I believe they are very wrong. An executor is entitled to any information’s that the deceased would be entitled to.

That breach of duty and the failure to disclose the evidence they allege was from Harold Laski was to cover up the fraud they committed.

I have been in ill health for several years. As a result of my health I had to give up practising law and my house. A great deal of my psychological illnesses are a direct result of the abuse I’ve suffered from a number of judges in this this matter.

The matter initially had come up in front of Justice Chiappetta on April 12, 2018. As a result of which and pursuing torpor instructions, I delivered a notice of discontinuance on the case that I had brought after the summary judgement motion. As far as the other action was concerned although most of the facts I was stuck with from Conway’s perverse judgement I made no argument. The only issue was their duty to tell me as an executor any information I asked for or requested that the deceased would be entitled to. The law is that an executor stands in the shoes of the deceased.

Justice Chiappetta made a very strange order. It is an order that I do not recall ever hearing in such circumstances. She ordered that there be no cross examinations on the affidavits. Neither counsel raised this issue. It was a surprising and unsolicited order from the court which restricted my ability to provide full answer and defense. There are issues in the affidavit of Andrew Parley which are inaccurate and require cross-examination. I was not well and was stunned at the lack of explanation from her and the lack of any response from counsel to this off hand order.

This was just one of the odd and unusual decisions from a number of judges who dealt with this case and made decisions which in my opinion do not appear to conform to my understanding of general judicial standards.

The next time the matter came up with September 10, 2018 before Justice Gloria Wilson. By this time my health was such that I had to appear by CourtCcall, a service used by a number of jurisdictions including Ontario, to provide audio and video connection to the court room.

I was now ill and unable to work.I had a number of medical certificates over the last few years when they were required. I had never had any problem. The note said that for health reasons I was not able to work and I would be reassessed in two months.

Wilson, with no evidence of any kind to suggest that my certified doctor and myself as a solicitor with 40 years experience were misleading the court.expressed dissatisfaction with the note finding that it did not give the reasons I couldn’t proceed.

I explained to her that I do not write the doctor’s notes, nor do I tell them what to put in. I had had a total break down as a result of the corrupt decision of Conway and being defrauded and lied to by BMO. My instructions from my five physicians was that I needed a complete rest and was not capable of working at all as the letter said.Wilson didn’t ask me for any clarification. Nor did she suggest we get further information from the doctor.

With what I view as a total lack of judicial integrity she granted the adjournment which was not being opposed. She ordered me to deliver materials which was clear I would not be well enough to do by that time. Then she went and ordered that the matter be peremptory on me. This means that I could not get it adjourned and had to go ahead on that date. Given my health that order did not seem to make sense. It seemed like a very inappropriate way to deal with the medical certificate. It was certainly not warranted in the circumstances and was inappropriate

The order had no basis in law or fact. That remedy is imposed by a court when one of the parties is delaying the matter unduly. In this case it was the first time up. There was no suggestion by the other party that I had in any way done anything improper or intentional to delay the matter. In my opinion a sad example of ego and judgeitis and was clearly contrary to the standards for judicial behaviour. it showed bias, a lack of impartiality and lack of fairness.

The worst part was that the pressure my doctors were trying to relieve me from so I could be treated was multiplied by the pressure of that decision. I had a relapse which severely affected my life. A further result of that mean-spirited decision was that future judges who dealt with the matter would put pressure on me and remind me that it was peremptory on me.

The next appearance was scheduled for Tuesday, 23 April 2019 before Justice Nishikawa. The Tuesday following the Easter Holiday long weekend

I had been taken by ambulance to Toronto General Hospital, then to Toronto Western Hospital, and back to Toronto General.I was there for 10 or 11 days. I was released late Thursday night right before the Easter Weekend. I was not able to arrange a Court call appearance in such a short time.

I sent the following email to BMO’s counsel Jonathan Chen:

From: Wayne <wlaski@wlaski.com>
Sent: April 22, 2019 10:00 AM
To: ‘Jonathan Chen’ <JChen@litigate.com>
Subject: RE: Laski – Motion

Hello Jonathan

This is further to your email below and our conversation of this morning.

As I advised you I was taken to the hospital April 10 at the Toronto Western where I spent a few days.

I was transferred to TGH I believe on the Friday the 12 and was released late Thursday the 18th.

The hospitalization was the result of my blood sugar being over 30 and my kidneys failing.

Given the Easter weekend, I was unable to get any of the documentation from the hospital.

Again given the holiday I was unable to set up court call even though I tried them several times.

I am not well enough to attend.

His honour had indicated that if I wanted an adjournment I would have to provide medical evidence.

As I say I have not had that opportunity.

Since we last appeared in court I have seen seven different doctors.

I was at my psychiatrist office to discuss a letter from him, when I fell ill and was admitted to the hospital.

I have not left my house save and except for medical appointments in the last several months.

I intend to provide documents from the hospital and my GP and Psychiatrist as evidence of my liabilities and limitations.

The only issue remaining between the parties is whether or not BMO owed to me as an executor a fiduciary duty to advise me with respect to the deceased dealing with his account.

BMO refused when my father died to give me any information. They stonewalled me for four years revealing the evidence one month before the motion. This evidence was used as determinative by judge Conway.

Their failure to provide it precipitated a very expensive four year estate battle causing approximately $400,000 in cost.

Your Honor this is an important issue. Besides their other conduct there should not be a precedent where a bank can deny an executor who stands in the shoes of the deceased.

I have asked Jonathan Chen to bring his cell phone tomorrow morning and if possible call me so that I can participate.

If not I would ask that you adjourn the matter to give me an opportunity to collect the medical evidence

Wayne S. Laski

416-229-1166 direct line

wlaski@wlaski.com                                                   

From: Jonathan Chen <JChen@litigate.com>
Sent: April 16, 2019 7:23 PM
To: Wayne <wlaski@wlaski.com>
Cc: Sophie Alexander <salexander@litigate.com>
Subject: RE: Laski – Motion

Hi Wayne,

I acknowledge receipt of your below email which appears to suggest that you will not be appearing on the motion scheduled for April 23, 2019.    

As you know, our motion to strike was originally scheduled on April 12, 2018 for a full day on September 19, 2018.  You took no issue with the hearing date at that time.

About a week before the hearing, we attended before Justice Wilson at Civil Practice Court wherein I requested an adjournment for health reasons but only provided the Court with a one-line medical note that provided no details as to why you could not proceed.  Justice Wilson ultimately adjourned the motion to February 11, 2019 on a peremptory basis and required that your responding materials be filed by November 2, 2018.  No materials were filed by that deadline.

On January 28, 2019, we appeared again at Civil Practice Court before Justice Nishikawa.  Although the hearing was marked peremptory by Justice Wilson, you demanded an adjournment for health reasons.  Justice Nishikawa adjourned the motion to April 23, 2019 and required that you file responding materials by March 22, 2019.  Justice Nishikawa also endorsed that there would be no further adjournments unless you provide specific information regarding your medical and health limitations from a qualified medical doctor.  To date, we have not received responding materials from you or the medical documentation required by Justice Nishikawa.   

In the circumstances, we intend to proceed with the motion scheduled for April 23, 2019.  In light of your e-mail below, however, we will consider an adjournment provided that you provide us with written confirmation that you have been admitted into a hospital.  Specifically, in line with the previous endorsements made to date, we require a medical note from your treating doctor indicating which hospital you have been admitted into, how long you will be admitted and for what reason you have been admitted.  If you cannot provide us with a medical note, please have your treating doctor call us.  We can be reached at (416) 865-3553 or (416) 865-3093.   

We look forward to hearing from you. If we do not hear from you, we will provide this correspondence to the judge hearing the motion next week and will ask that the motion proceed as scheduled.

Regards,

Jonathan

From: Wayne [mailto:wlaski@wlaski.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:42 AM
To: Jonathan Chen
Cc: Sophie Alexander
Subject: Re: Laski – Motion

Jonathan. I won’t get a chance to read the enclosure. I’m presently in the hospital since last Wednesday and they believe I will be here for a week or two. I will be in touch when I get out 

From: Jonathan Chen <jchen@litigate.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:03 AM
To: Wayne
Cc: Sophie Alexander
Subject: Laski – Motion

Hello Wayne,

We will be filing the attached motion confirmation form today (and before 2PM).  Please advise if you have comments.

If we do not hear from you in the next two hours or so, I will amend the form accordingly.

Thanks,

___________________________________________________________________________________

The rules of professional conduct state that Council should agree to a request for an adjournment unless it goes to the merits. It is interesting to note that the instructions from BMO, was to oppose the adjournment and proceed despite my circumstances.

Despite my request I was not connected to the hearing by cell phone. I cannot remember another time in my career where request to appear by phone was never denied unless there was a technical problem.

Nonetheless they continued in my absence. With the email handed to him, Nishikawa, knowing I had just been in the hospital went ahead and gave BMO the order dismissing my case. Even the one part which is definitely a triable issue, their obligation to provide me as an executor any information the deceased would be entitled to.

Also, without argument he awarded $20,000 in costs against me in favour of BMO. Here’s another example of them getting to commit fraud lie and put false evidence in the court, and I have to pay them for the privilege. 

I should also mention here in this discussion of judges who ignore Doctor’s certificates, fail to consider that there are issues of privacy in people’s health. If a doctor provides a letter which indicates somebody cannot work, what more are you entitled to unless there is some suggestion that the issue of the illness is not true. This was not the case for me. I had cancer operation in 2014, spinal surgery in 2015, and other ailments which I don’t feel are required knowledge for the court for the public. Any suggestion by any of those judges or counsel that there was some question as to my health, could certainly be documented by the trauma I suffered from Conway’s judgement.I lost total respect for the judicial system and the concept of Justice that I had spent 40 years of my life dedicated to. I lost my practice, I lost my home, I lost my health. Any suggestion that I did all that to avoid arguing the motion with BMO is ridiculous.

I am presently forced to appeal Nishikawa’s order. Personally, I do not see how denying an opportunity to be heard in such circumstances would be seen by anyone to be bias, lacked impartiality and fairness.

I personally don’t see, in the judgements above, the honouring of the principal, that not only should justice be done, it should be seen to be done. In those instances where judges ignored or criticized without basis the doctor’s writings, I do not think a reasonable person would say that there was not an element of bias and unfairness. Tough to be fair and reasonable when one of the parties is not there,

I became a lawyer because I believed in justice and to fight injustice. I will continue to pursue justice in this matter because people or corporations should not so blatantly and arrogantly commit frauds. be allowed to come to court and lie about it, and get away with it.  no faith now

This will not end if they’re lucky enough to defraud and defeat the legal system again. I shall warn as many as I can in any appropriate manner. I shall certainly be sending copies to most of Canada’s financial editors. I can prove my claims to them with existing sworn evidence. Hopefully at some point we can stop this kind of conduct from being carried on here or condoned by Canadian Courts.

I am somewhat amazed that no one in authority at BMO ever considered, that they had committed fraud and lied, and should discuss it with the victim now with sufficient evidence to show their wrongdoing. This could have been resolved quickly and relatively cheaply. Instead the criminal culture at BMO spent huge amounts of your money (if your client or customer of BMO’s) to fight it.

I will be pursuing BMO and the people who are the directing mind of the corporations, with evidence of crimes committed by the corporations and the employees they are responsible for.

I’ll be buying shares of BMO and will be at all of the shareholders meetings with my material and my questions. I will take all appropriate steps available to me as a shareholder to continue to get to the bottom of this. I will be doing further research on those individuals who are running this organization. I will not stop until I get an answer and explanation as to what went on, why they took the position they did. What they’re prepared to do to make the situation right. In some assurance, backed up by documentation, if they are taking steps to make sure this does not happen again.

If I or anyone in my family or my friends had money or investments or any business with BMO, given my experience I would withdraw it and place it in a safer institution. If I was a client of BMO , who did not remove their money, I would look very carefully at their paperwork and their reporting. Given my dealings with BMO and their lawyers I would have to say that they are completely untrustworthy. For an institution based on trust this is a complete failure. They have proven that there focus is to put their interests before the interests of the client

These companies have a protected trust and fiduciary duty to the public. I think it’s time they take it more seriously than they did in my case and recognize that they are not above the law.

The above is the opinion and experience of the author as a litigant and a victim.

Trump Wants Out, or Should

Posted on Updated on

Something tells me Donald Trump has buyer’s remorse. He certainly doesn’t look like he’s having fun at this job. It is to borrow a phrase “a shit hole of a job” compared to his old one. He did what he wanted, everybody listened to him and sucked up to him. There was no investigation into his complicated ties with Russian money and other possible sources of blackmail. There may have been talk of him as a sexual predator, but it wasn’t widely known outside of the Howard Stern constituency. There was not the scrutiny of his personal and financial life that he could not control.

I do not get the sense he enjoys dealing with the issues of government. He certainly doesn’t understand how government works and expresses his continual frustration about the people around him and the functioning of the government.

There must be days when he thinks to himself:   What do I need this for? I’m over 70 years old. Whether it’s true or not, I believe I’m a rich man with a nice life. People did what I told them to do. I did what I wanted to do. And nobody bothered me. I had my own airplane, furnished more luxuriously than the one I now use. An apartment and other homes that cause me to refer to the White House as a dump

As the threat of the exposure of his financial, personal, and political entanglements of he and his family with Russia becomes more certain, he will look for next strategy. I predict a health crisis which forces him to resign and get back to his old life.

He is one of the few men who has held the White House who really seems to get little or no enjoyment out of the job. All that’s important to Trump is Trump. And Donald Trump appears to be a joyless man in a joyless job. On his exit he will be happier; America will be happier; and the world will be happier.

Don’t Forget Who He Is.

Posted on

Trump was sent to Washington to shake things up. A reaction to the voters anger from both parties at the governing class.

Today he spoke at the United Nations. He did what no other president has done. He attacked America’s enemies. He said the things that many Americans felt needed to be said.

He has shaken up government. He has attacked the leadership of both parties and has admonished them quite accurately for their failures and lack of accomplishment. When the GOP wouldn’t cooperate and come through, he turned to the Democrats. He doesn’t have an ideology.

These are admirable accomplishments. One must however, remember that this is a lying, pathological, misogynist degenerate.

It is unfortunate that the electorate had no other choice but the governing class they rejected or a corrupt con man.

The Donald Trump Trample

Posted on Updated on

There’s a new dance sweeping the nation. It’s called the Donald Trump Trample. So far the White House staff, Departments of government, Congress, and Scotus are learning how it’s done.

First there’s the Trump Trample on racial and religious groups. From Mexicans to Muslims there’s enough disrespect and hate for all. His tacit support of the Nazis and white supremacists fit in with his concept of America.

Next he does the Trump Trample on individuals. Whether it’s Jeff Sessions, James Comey, the GOP leadership in Congress or the long list of departed staffers. No one but his family is spared. For now. Trump has no shame in publicly bullying and berating people.

Finally and more importantly he does the Trump Trample on the basic rights and freedoms that are the foundation of America. His war on the press has viciously attacked the First Amendment. The greatest and most pathological liar to ever sit in the Oval Office, wants to control the truth. He tacitly encourages violence and hate.

There’s no doubt that everybody’s afraid of the Trump Trample. He runs the country like a reality TV show. Create a fantasy world, crank up the drama and the tension and keep them entertained. He truly believes in his own superiority. Only he can decide what’s lawful or not. If you’re anywhere in government and you don’t fall in line you’re gone.

So far the Trump Trample has worked. He freely trashes institutions, individuals, and civil rights in the most base way built on pathological lies. He has succeeded in intimidating and frightening all around him. He will do the dance until he is recognized as the indispensable leader. His ego, personality disorders, and mental illness, will accept no less

Impeachment ?

Posted on Updated on

Impeachment has been on many lips since election night. The specter of impeachment has only been raised and proceeded on three occasions. Congress is 0 and  2 with one default removing presidents in its entire history. No president has been successfully removed. Why? It is not a legal process, it is a political process.

The House impeaches and the Senate tries and acquits or removes the President.

What makes anybody think it’ll be so easy this time. There is no specific definition of the presidency or the scope of it. It’s changed throughout history

What is an impeachable offence? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Although many have weighed in with their opinions, there is no definition of impeachable offence better than,” it is whatever Congress says it is”.

Likewise there is no definition of presidential. Any president’s behavior is by default, presidential. What is acceptable presidential behavior is again up to Congress and certainly influenced by public opinion.

It is questionable whether the transgressions of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, constituted treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Johnson was impeached by the House for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and his policies towards reconstruction of the South. Nixon for obstruction of justice, of an irrelevant break in. While contrary to law, it may not have measured up to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for lying under oath about sexual conduct. Nixon resigned while Johnson and Clinton were impeached by the House and each acquited by one vote in the Senate.

It would seem to me that treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors should relate to the ability to govern and national security. Previous impeachment’s have only served to distract from the business of the American people. A waste of time over conduct which, save and except for the media’s focus, did not impair the president from carrying out his duties, but did impair Congress from doing theirs.

Trumps personal habits and behavior do not fall under my expectations of acceptable presidential behavior. Nonetheless it is so generally harmless, mostly entertaining in a perverse way, and not the main focus of concern. That’s not to say they are not of some concerns. He embarrasses America both at home and in the eyes of the world.

What really concerns me. What is more frightening and dangerous is that right before our very eyes he seems to be bent on unwinding and unraveling or at least viciously attacking, and reversing the social progress we have watched, felt, paid for, and deeply believe in. The GOP has the presidency, Congress, Supreme Court, and a majority of state governors and legislatures. The GOP Congress, for the moment, have restrained him with respect to foreign-policy decisions and costly domestic mistakes. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes by his and their own incompetence.

He has opened a Pandora’s box of the ugly underbelly, lowest common denominator of America. He has created uncertainty and fear in America and throughout the world.

He has disgraced America in the eyes of the world. The view of the international community is that American no longer leads the free world and has as its president an incompetent, embarrassing, disturbed, man-child.

Congress is going to have to face the issue at one time or another. Whether it’s the results of the Russia investigation, the damage he is doing to the reputation of America at home and abroad, or his mental state.

Congress is in their own disarray. In this they can be moved by popular opinion. Once they feel comfortable enough that they have the support of the American people who are fed up with Donald Trump then they will act.

The question is when? If they do it now, they’re afraid of the possible backlash the extent of which is hard to measure. If they don’t do it before the midterms and lose control of Congress, the Democrats will impeach both Trump and Pence, and put the new Democratic Speaker of the House in the White House.

The GOP have to grow a large pair of political balls and remove him from office before he does some damage they can’t mop up.

Government is Not a Business

Posted on Updated on

Donald Trump came to power promising to apply his business experience to running the government. Forget for a moment the realities of his business experience which lack ethics. Consider his modus operandi of using debt and bankruptcy to profit at the expense of the hard-working small businessmen who worked for him. Government is not a business.

The principles of running a business do not apply and do not work in running a government.

In business Trump was the boss. He could do whatever he wanted to do. His only considerations were making money and building his brand. There was little or no room for dissenting opinions. If he didn’t like the job you were doing, you were fired. His only constituency was himself, his family and his businesses.

Government doesn’t have a bottom-line. Healthcare and Education are investments whose success are not measured in dollars and cents. It is measured in the lives that are saved and enhanced. Government is always an exercise in pay it forward. It is measured in the social and scientific advancements which save lives and make lives in the world better.

Government in the free world democracies is a process of balance and compromise. This is not a characteristic often found in running businesses. Government is the process of debating the social and political issues to try and come to a consensus that improves the life of the nation and its citizens.

Government is there to give voice to the disenfranchised. One of the best examples is Lyndon Johnson. His success with Medicaid, his war on poverty, civil rights and voting rights, are proof that government can make a significant difference in people’s lives. if not for Lyndon Johnson it is doubtful that Barack Obama would have become president. Without Lyndon Johnson he may not be able to vote.

Government exists for entirely different reasons than a business. It has different goals, responsibilities, and methods. It success is measured in markedly different ways and with significantly different criteria than a business.

Trump and his administration are clear proof that businessmen are not suited to govern using business principles and methods. It has been a disaster for Trump, America, and the world.

The drama and infighting between Trump and the members of his administration are further proof that you cannot operate as president in the same way you run your own business. The public nature of government is a far cry from the behind closed doors autocratic style which works in business.

Trump clearly does not understand this. American democracy is paying the price. Never in the history of the United States of America has the nation been held in such low esteem by the rest of the world. Not since the Revolutionary war has America faced such a threat to their democracy, as they do today.

Americans have to restore the kind of government that puts the people first. The GOP needs to grow a pair of patriotic balls and take back American democracy.

 

 

 

The Russians and the Trump

Posted on

The media feeding frenzy over Don Junior’s admissions of meeting with Russian’s is  important evidence confirming Russian involvement in the 2016 election. The more important issue is Putin’s power and influence at the very top levels of the American government. Western values are under attack in America and around the World. Trump emulates the totalitarian characteristics of the Russians. The critical concern is the serious damage that Trump and his administration is inflicting on the United States and the World. The Russians have gained a foothold.  The threat to American democracy will be significantly diminished by the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians had very little to do with the outcome of the election. The Russians did not need Trump’s collusion, or even his knowledge to accomplish what they set out to do. It is hard to believe that Trump knew nothing of the Russian efforts. The depth and extent of his knowledge and involvement  is still in question.

Trump didn’t expect to win and was as surprised as everyone else. He probably woke up on November 9th  thinking, “Wow the KGB are really good”. Given recent history he wouldn’t be wrong. Putin and the KGB hijacked American democracy without ever firing a shot. American Intelligence was either sleeping or not able to stop them.

KGB 1    US Intelligence 0.

Putin had a motive in defeating Hillary Clinton for whom he felt  personal animosity. He also knew that she would be a difficult adversary if elected. Trump presented himself like a lamb to the slaughter.

The electorate was angry at what they perceived to be an entrenched governing class who spent their time on frivolous arguments and obstructionism, lining their pockets and the pockets of their friends. While dancing on the head of a pin, they had little or no time to care about or do something to make people’s lives better. To make America greater. The disparity between the rich and the poor had widened with the middle-class struggling and shrinking.

For Putin it was a perfect storm. Voters angry at the establishment. His target, Hillary Clinton, struggling with an overpowering unpopularity. Best of all he had Trump.  That with the KGB and all the money he needed apparently left America helpless.

Give Trump credit for recognizing the political incorrectness that matched the issues his supporters saw as a reason for their personal circumstances. They wanted and needed somebody to blame. Trump’s threats of action, building a wall and deporting immagrants, was just what they wanted to hear. Trump opened a Pandora’s Box of the ugly underbelly of America. Spewing hate and fear he trashed and threatened the people that his supporters blamed and feared.

The Russian efforts including, cyber and public relations attacks and hacks, targeted spending, and any other forms of interference, the extent of which which we are not  and may never be aware Combined with the Trump lit match tossed carelessly on the gasoline of hate and fear. Add Hillary Clinton’s  driving the Democrats into a shell all made Donald J Trump, President of the United States of America.

The only one who probably wasn’t surprised was Vladimir Putin. He had defeated Hillary. Trumps gratitude for the election may or may not work in Putin’s favour. Unless of course he has something else on Trump.

Trump has been to Russia. The extent of his political and business contacts there is unknown to the public. There certainly could be video recordings of Donald Trump engaging in “alternative” sex acts with what Vladimir Putin bragged were the best prostitutes in the world. He certainly appeared to speak with some authority. Trump is a misogynist with a deviant personality. He’s rich and used to getting or taking what he wants. It is not a stretch to imagine a man who brags about grabbing pu**y and sexual assault would get caught in such a situation. From observing his life and tweets he seems to lack the restraint which would govern most of us. Trump would claim they were “fake” and his supporters, no matter how accurate the video, would jump to his defence.

Another reason would give Putin confidence that he can influence the president. Trump and his familie’s financial dealings in Russia. The only thing Trump likes more than pu**y is money. There certainly seems to be smoke in the direction of the Trump familie’s financial involvement with Russia. One thing is certain. Whatever they’re doing, Putin and the Russian Mafia, (Putin’s enforcers) are involved. Whatever their entanglements investments and obligations it is certainly clear how that could influence Donald Trump.

The evidence supporting this comes from Donald Trump himself. Throughout the campaign to his recent meeting, he has shown a deference to Putin never before  seen or expressed by an American president. An alpha male, like Trump, with the power of the presidency and America behind him should be showing that strength and confidence, not behaving like an obedient lapdog.

The real troubling part of Trump is that he has quickly picked up the totalitarian conduct which cannot help but make one fearful for American democracy. The lack of transparency is a page right out of the Totalitarian Handbook for Dummies,( a gift from Vlad). Press conferences with no video and/or sound. A meeting in the Oval Office with Russians and Russian press when the American press are excluded. He uses the excuse that he doesn’t want to telegraph what he’s thinking. Forgetting for a moment that the telegraph operator is working overtime on his tweets, America and the world need some stability and predictability. He is destabilizing the world, but not in a good way.

The most frightening aspect of the Trump administration is its attack on the Free Press. Fox and Friends definitely speaks for the right. MSNBC and CNN have the perspective from the middle to the left. Trumps dealing with the press is nothing short of an attempt to impose his will and destroy his opposition. This while his press minions go out daily and perpetuate their masters lies while their noses grow before us.

Misogynist, pathological liar, corrupt, ruthless, shallow, are some of the words to describe Donald Trump and his administration. Are these impeachable offences? If they were  there would have been a lot of impeached presidents. An impeachable offence is whatever Congress says it is.

Trump should be removed from office because he is incapable and unfit for office. He is embarrassing America and destroying the economic and social justice gains of the last  100 years.

And to those who say that this is all just sour grapes for a lost election, open your eyes and ears. It is not just the Democrats who are standing up in horror at what this man is doing to their country, but the world. The entire world’s climate, economy and safety are threatened.  We, wherever we live are all citizens of the world. He is meeting resistance because he is pushing against the weight of the history of social and economic justice. He can damage it, but he can’t reverse it.

The Congress of the United States of America owes it to the Founding Fathers whose hope was to build a nation where something like this could not happen. They owe it to themselves as representatives of the American people they represent and serve. And, they owe it to the World with whom America must coexist.

They owe it to the future.

 

 

 

Bonaparte and Trump

Posted on Updated on

Beside being megalomaniacs, Napoleon Bonaparte and Donald Trump have a common love of being gaudy.

Napoleon plastered or embroidered an N on everything.  Trump plasters his name and initials on almost anything but particularly buildings and airplanes.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not comparing Napoleon and Donald as leaders. Napoleon accomplished a great deal in his domestic policy  which looked out for the French Citizens.  he was a great administrator. He was also quite bright. He won and made things better for French Citizens and the glory of France.

No, they both just share the character flaws that present themselves from the ridiculously insecure, to the self-destructive misplaced belief that they are the centre of the universe.

BMO DEFRAUDS INVESTOR CLIENT’S ESTATE

Posted on Updated on

BMO DEFRAUDS INVESTOR CLIENT’S ESTATE 

POSTED ON JUNE 20, 2017 UPDATED ON AUGUST 9, 2017

the contents of this article are the opinions of the BMO DEFRAUDS INVESTOR CLIENT’S ESTATE author as victim and litigant.

BMO Nesbitt Burns conspired with one sibling to defraud a client’s estate and another sibling out of their inheritance. Their efforts included fabricating and concealing alleged evidence. It culminated in providing false testimony under oath, in my view, and caused extensive damage.

The case of Laski v. Laski revolved around allegations that Wendi Laski, the deceased’s daughter had used fraud and undue influence to change all his accounts from Harold alone, into joint accounts with survivorship to her, thereby defrauding the estate and leaving nothing for her brother Wayne. This was all done while Harold Laski was under palliative care in the last three months of his life. There was no credible evidence that he knew of the changes. The evidence was quite the opposite.

Harold Laski, at 88, was proud of the fact that he was completely self-sufficient. In mid-December 2011, he fell to his knees and could not get up. From that moment until he passed away on March 13, 2012 he was under 24-hour palliative care. That day he fell to his knees, his life as he knew it was over. He would live the next three months under 24-hour palliative care at the hospital and then later sent home to die. That day he fell to his knees, the bulk of his estate was in his name alone. Over those next three months, his daughter Wendi Laski arranged to have all those accounts made joint with right of survivorship to her. This was done under suspicious and unusual circumstances outside of the normal course of business.

Harold Laski left a will dividing the bulk of his estate 60% to his daughter Wendi, and 40% to his son Wayne. Another sibling had received his share by getting his parents house 20 years earlier. Harold had advised both Wayne and Wendi of his wishes and shown them a copy of the will.

At the time of his death, Harold had his investment accounts with BM0 Nesbitt Burns (also referred to as BMO which includes the employees and management of BMO Nesbitt Burns). The account representative was a man named Norman Yu. The week following Harold’s passing, Wayne phoned Norman Yu to discuss the accounts. Contrary to what he’d been expecting, he was advised by Norman that “all of the accounts were in Wendi’s name alone”.

Wayne was totally shocked. He advised Norman that he was an executor of the estate as well as a beneficiary. He asked Norman directly whether he had any information relating to how this happened. Did Harold say anything to him about this? Norman refused to answer. This was the beginning of an almost four-year fight with BMO Nesbitt Burns to get that information. They refused and stonewalled.  They made it clear they would not provide any information and would vigourously oppose any attempt to get information from them or Norman Yu.

Wayne realized that something was clearly wrong and he could get no explanation, cooperation or information from his sister and BMO. He had no choice but to turn to the courts. Anyone who has ever been in fight over an estate can tell you what a nightmare the entire experience becomes. That is another story for another day.  The focus here, is the shocking and illegal conduct of BMO Nesbitt Burns in helping one sibling steal from another.

Norman Yu is a central character. He committed most of the fraudulent acts in dealing with Harold Laski’s estate. I want to make it clear that I place most of the blame on BMO Nesbitt Burns. That includes any of the employees and management who were involved. They were clearly being, or should have been, aware of it. BMO immediately hired some very expensive lawyers to deal with the matter. The fact is that they circled the wagons and didn’t appear to ask the obvious questions about the suspicious circumstances outside of the normal course of business. They did that knowing that they were causing damage, but did not care.  Ultimately it seems clear to me that they allowed Norman Yu to lie under oath and allow that evidence to go before a court.

The evidence of the involvement and conduct of BMO Nesbitt Burns, will in my view, show improper conduct by an employee which was arrogantly and aggressively backed up by management with more impropriety. All this time they were aware, or should have been aware, of what was being done in their name and the harm and damage it was causing.

The nightmare began, March 19, 2012, when Norman Yu told Wayne Laski that the accounts were all in the name of Wendi alone. That would prove to be not true at the time. They were still in the process of being stolen and were still in a joint account with Wendi and Harold Laski. The transfer from Harold Laski alone to Wendi and Harold was according to the evidence, not done before Harold had died but after. When Harold died, the money was in his name alone and should have been divided in accordance with his will.

There followed, an expensive legal battle to get any kind of record of disclosure and financial information from BMO and Wendi. All this time, Wayne was asking BMO, their lawyers and Wendi’s lawyers for any information or evidence they had with respect to Harold’s intentions or any explanation as to how the money ended up in Wendi’s name alone.

Despite constant efforts, both verbally and in writing, to find out what Norman or BMO had to say, they aggressively continued to stonewall for almost 4 years.

A mediation, required by the Court, had been scheduled for May 2013. In January 2013, Wayne’s lawyer at the time, arranged with counsel for BMO, to have a without prejudice meeting with Norman Yu. This over the objections of Wayne, who wanted this evidence under oath. BMO insisted that this was the only way they would produce Norman Yu without a vigourous fight. The stated purpose of this meeting was for the lawyers for Wendy and Wayne to hear from Norman Yu, for the first time. This turned out to be a false premise. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Donald Baker, Wendi’s lawyer, announced to Wayne and his lawyer, to their shock and surprise, that he had heard all this before. This had occurred at a secret meeting with BMO and Norman Yu in July 2012 where they made him “promise not to tell”.

In the January 2013, without prejudice, meeting, Norman Yu stated the following:

Up until the time Harold Laski went into the hospital, he had nothing but nice things to say about his son Wayne and was very proud of him. When he went to see Harold at the hospital he said he did not want Wayne to have any of his assets and wanted to leave everything to Wendi. As the litigation proceeded Wayne discovered other evidence about their dealings that had been obstructed or concealed by Wendi and BMO.

Given that the meeting was without prejudice, nothing said in the meeting could be used. Throughout the rest of the course of the litigation BMO and Wendi refused to even acknowledge the meeting, confirm or provide any information, or answer any questions about BMO’s dealings with Harold or Wendi. BMO refused to explain the significant delay in bringing this information forward. They continued to conceal this evidence for almost three more years until December 2015 when they arranged with Wendi’s lawyers to produce Norman Yu to be examined under oath. This was a little more than a month before the case went to court in January 2016.

In his December 2015 examination, Norman gave evidence that he had not said in the without prejudice meeting three years before.

Wendi had contacted Norman Yu while Harold was in the hospital following which Norman came to see Harold in the hospital. Harold had not called Norman Yu. On January 10, 2012, immediately after Harold was released from the hospital and sent home under 24-hour palliative care to die, Norman came to visit Harold. Again, Harold had not called Norman. It was Wendi who continued to call Norman. He brought with him the papers he had prepared to direct the transfer of Harold’s investment account from his name alone into an account joint with Wendi with right of survivorship.

The dealings with those documents by BMO were suspicious and outside of the normal course of business. To begin with, it would be normal and prudent to affect the transfer right away. This was even more urgent, because Harold was clearly dying.

The trail of this paper and the transaction it represented is very unusual and troubling in the circumstances. Despite Harold’s quickly failing health, and the apparent urgency, as evidenced by Norman’s visit January 10, as soon as Harold got home from the hospital, the transfer did not take place for over two months. The transfer papers remained in Norman Yu’s briefcase until late February. It was at that time on February 29, that the transfer direction document was supposedly acknowledged and accepted by BMO.  Not only was the handling of this document, to this point, outside of the ordinary course of business, it was a tremendous risk for Norman and BMO.  If Harold died before the transfer was done then the account would be in his name alone at the time.

This is not the end of the curious and unusual path of this document and the transfer. After being approved the document would be sent immediately to the department where the transfer would be done. The actual transfer, I believe the evidence clearly shows, was not done until after Harold Laski had died. This is supported by a sworn statement by Wendi Laski:

48   The Direction was accepted by BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. on February 29, 2012. Although the securities were not deposited into BIM Joint Account # 4551381314 in advance of March 13, 2012. the Direction was irrevocable and therefore the instruction could not be changed once BMO Nesbitt Burns accepted the Direction.

According to BMO records, the transfer was dated March 12, 2012. This was conveniently the day before Harold died. This was in direct contradiction to Wendi’s clear and detailed statement on the issue. Wendi’s statement is consistent with the evidence that Wendi knew this because immediately after she was informed of her father’s passing, one of her first calls, if not the first, was to her father’s financial advisor Norman Yu. Wouldn’t that be the first person any of us would call after hearing their father died? Wendi says this was to tell him Harold had died. Why would he have to know so quickly? Why was he the first person she called. It is consistent with the evidence that the call was to let Norman know that he should make the transfer happen. They didn’t know how long Harold would live. If they had affected the transfer before Harold died, he might have received a statement showing a joint account. They did not want and could not let that to happen. They had to wait until Harold died and backdated the transfer to the day before. That would explain the odd course of this document very much outside of the normal course of business. In the normal course of business any similar type of transaction at most financial institutions would be done right away, or if the circumstances required, within a few days. It would also explain and is consistent with Wendi Laski’s sworn statement on the timing of the transfer.

In little over a week, the account had been transferred into Wendi’s name alone. The evidence on how this was done is contradictory and suspicious.

I am trying to limit myself to BMO’s involvement in the case. To put BMO’s involvement in context, it is helpful to provide a brief overview of the rest of the case. A review of Wendi’s conduct combined and interwoven with BMO’s, shows how frighteningly easy it was for a criminal like Wendi Laski to take advantage of BMO’s corporate culture to aid and abet her in committing the fraud.

There is a lot of evidence to show Wendi’s conversion of the entire estate.  The case is filled with evidence of Wendi’s fraudulent conduct.  She lies in her examinations under oath, she lies in a conversation, recorded with her knowledge and consent, to her brother Wayne about the estate.

Her actions also speak volumes. Wendi lived in Los Angeles. On the advice of the medical staff, she came to Toronto when Harold went into the hospital.

Most of her involvement in the transfer of Harold’s BMO investment account was detailed above. She did the same thing with the Toronto Dominion Bank where Harold kept his accounts. She contacted them. Harold did not. She had them prepare documents for the transfer of the accounts jointly with Harold with right of survivorship to her. An employee of the TD Bank came, at Wendi’s request, to the hospital where Harold signed the documents.

The circumstances surrounding the signing of these financial transfers documents are filled with confusing and contradictory evidence from Wendi and the financial people in attendance. There is no evidence that the documents were properly explained to Harold, or that he even knew what he was signing.

There was other evidence which demonstrates the kind of person BMO was conspiring with, assisting and enabling to commit fraud. One further example was that at her first opportunity, which was the morning of her father’s funeral, Wendi attended at the TD Bank and transferred all the accounts into her name alone at Bank of Montréal.

This is where the case takes its strangest twist. This is where BMO’s fraudulent and abusive conduct is seriously egregious. At Yu’s examination, Mr. Parley, tried to argue that Yu no longer works for BMO and therefore his evidence would not bind them. Norman Yu has always and continues to be represented by BMO’s lawyers. At all material times, he was employed by and acted on behalf of BMO who gave their stamp of approval to and vigourously defended his actions.

In his December 2015 examination, Norman Yu provided details he had not mentioned in the without prejudice meeting.  This was under oath. He gave the only direct evidence, that was relied upon, by a Judge, who was misled, of Harold Laski’s intentions. His evidence was that Harold was upset because Wayne was bullying him. He wanted to leave everything to Wendi.

The other new and significant disclosure was that Wendi was in the room with Norman when Harold gave reasons to disinherit Wayne and give everything to Wendi.

Forgetting for a moment that Wayne had no opportunity to examine Wendy about this, it is very problematic on its face.

If Norman Yu was telling the truth, Wendi would’ve heard the same evidence he heard from Harold directly regarding his intentions. Wendi never raised this evidence on her own. Not once, did Wendy or her lawyers corroborate or provide any evidence of her meeting with Harold and Norman. Not once, did she mention that she had heard her father express his intentions.

One would have to ask why this is so. If Wendi had this evidence, is it believable within the balance of probabilities, that Wendi and her lawyers would not have provided this evidence at the beginning of the litigation

The answer is that Norman Yu was not telling the truth. This evidence when combined with his actions and his dealing with the January 10 transfer direction lead to the conclusion that Wendi and BMO conspired to transfer Harold Laski’s account into Wendi’s name alone thereby defeating Harold’s will. Why he did it one may never know. It appears most likely, that the story was concocted by Norman Yu with some assistance, to cover up Norman and BMO’s suspicious and unusual handling of the documents outside of the normal course of business. It is certainly consistent with his evidence that he wanted to keep the account. There are many other reasons one can think of that would motivate Norman Norman to commit fraud with Wendi.  Whether Norman received money or some other consideration will most probably stay between them.  The fact remains that the evidence shows what they did which was clearly a fraud on the estate and on Wayne.

One thing is clear. Norman Yu’s conduct in conjunction with Wendi’s was suspicious and outside the normal course of business.  The evidence as it stands leads to the conclusion that Norman Yu lied under oath. This, combined with BMO, adopting the actions of, and, protecting Norman Yu knowingly caused serious damage to Wayne Laski

BMO may try to argue that these were mostly the acts of Norman Yu, a rogue employee. The problem is BMO knew or should have known what was going on.  Wayne Laski made it clear to  BMO that there was a problem and he was concerned about their conduct. Through their lawyer’s, they stonewalled and allowed the expensive litigation to continue involving the estate of one of their clients and a current client against an executor and beneficiary to the estate. Knowing this, forgetting for a moment its obligations to the estate of its deceased client, they withheld evidence, which would have, and ultimately did end the litigation.  This while all the parties, including their current client were expending large sums of money engaged in an estate battle.

Even if you assume (contrary to his own evidence) for a moment that Norman Yu was alone with Harold when he expressed the intentions, that Norman Yu claims. Is it believable that Norman Yu would have this information and not tell his client, Wendi Laski, about his conversation with Harold at the first opportunity he spoke with her after Harold’s death? Why would he not tell her that she didn’t have to fight with Wayne? He had evidence that Harold wanted to disinherit Wayne and for her to have all the money.

BMO has even argued that they would not provide the information to Wayne, because he was questioning their conduct. Given their attitude, he had indicated that he might have to bring an action against them if they continued their conduct. They had an obligation to share the information regarding the estate of their client with his executors. If, as it turned out, their conduct was improper and damaging, it was no excuse not to provide the information to Wayne as an executor of the estate.

Wayne eventually had to sue BMO to try and get the concealed information. BMO changed their lawyers, retaining the high powered elite boutique litigation firm of Lenczner Slaght.  Wayne also sued the directors of BMO Nesbitt Burns.  This was done, first and foremost because Wayne felt that the management was responsible for the frauds of BMO and its employees, particularly when the details are available to them. I believe that the people who run these companies are responsible and should do all they can to ensure that this kind of conduct is not done in their name.  The second reason to sue the directors personally was so that they would be able to read what had happened and was happening and be given the opportunity to consider it and do something. They could no longer deny knowledge of the facts. The third reason that the directors were included, was to get BMO’s attention. That it did. Their lawyers wanted the directors to be released and were nice to Wayne until he let the directors out. He did so as not to complicate and slow the progress of the lawsuit. I believe that directors of companies should be held responsible for frauds committed by employees. They should have responsibility for the corporate culture that allows this kind of thing, to occur, without proper oversight. They should be held accountable for the failure to punish offenders and take remedial action to ensure that it does not happen.

They continued the position taken by their client’s previous lawyers that they would not discuss the evidence of Norman Yu nor provide any information. It was this firm, most particularly Andrew Parley, who represented Norman Yu and the BMO in the examinations.

Mr. Parley refused to let Norman Yu answer questions explaining the almost four-year delay in bringing this information forward in the circumstances. He confirmed the irrelevance and insignificance of the information provided by Mr. Yu at the January 2013 without prejudice meeting when he stated for the record that this information was coming out for the first time now.

Continuing the obstructionist policy of BMO and their lawyers, Parley initially refused to let Mr. Yu answer questions involving the July 2012 meeting with Wendi’s lawyer Donald Baker. He eventually acknowledged the meeting but would not provide further detail. I see these as very relevant questions relating to the origin and development of this definitive evidence. It was relevant to this evidence to find out about its evolution, why it took almost four years to come out and why the vigourous efforts to conceal it.

Wendi never raised this evidence of her meeting with Harold and Norman Yu in the entire course of the litigation. Why?

The answer is simple and strongly supported by the evidence. It is not true. Harold Laski did not say those things to Norman Yu. Norman, probably with help, made the story up after the fact to protect himself and BMO for his actions with Wendi and his conduct in mishandling the documents outside of the normal course of business under suspicious circumstances Most of this information only came into the hands of Wayne Laski over time through persistent efforts in the face of vigourous obstruction by Wendi and BMO.

For those questions left unanswered about the content, development, presentation, and four-year delay in revealing this crucial evidence, one must wonder where were BMO’s lawyers? Why did they not ask the obvious questions? Wilful blindness? Perhaps because there are no reasonable believable answers.

There is another issue, related to BMO’s disgusting, fraudulent, callous and abusive conduct, not yet raised. This is the worst thing that BMO did. On top of improper dealings with Wendi to assist her in defrauding the estate and her brother. In addition to making up a story to protect themselves which they allowed to be repeated under oath. Further to allowing that evidence, which they did or should have known was false and would be damaging to Wayne financially to be put before a court in the hearing. They sat Wayne in the room and tried to tell him that his father had lied to him. They told him his father deceived him. That Harold had lied when he confirmed to Wayne and his grand children, his desire and his intentions with respect to his estate. Considering the above, this was not true. It was most cruel and hurtful. Those involved on BMO’s side seemed to have no conscience or concern.

By their own evidence, this information about Harold Laski’s intentions had been intentionally and vigourously concealed by be BMO for almost for four years. According to their evidence it had be concealed by Wendi and her lawyers for the same period as she would’ve heard it with Norman Yu on January 10, 2012.  The truth, supported by Donald Baker’s admission, is that he had heard it, for the first time, in a secret meeting in July 2012. It was only revealed to Wayne just one month before the case was heard. It was not tested by thorough cross-examination in front of a fair and knowledgeable judge where these frivolous obstructive objections would not be upheld and these relevant questions would have to be answered. In almost 40 years of experience as a litigator, it is hard to imagine, given its suspicious history, contradictions, and unexplained four-year delay in bringing it forward, evidence like Norman and BMO’s being given any weight.

The damage done by their egregious fraudulent conduct was explosively devastating financially and emotionally. Wayne fought back. As a lawyer, he could do so. One can only imagine what abusive, self interested conduct they get away with inflicting on people who are not able to challenge them. Given the corporate culture at BMO exposed and encouraged here one can only shudder at the thought of trusting them with your retirement.

In this case, BMO’s defiant arrogance during concealing and covering up their criminal conduct speaks volumes of how they see themselves and their place in society. They demonstrated here that they feel they have right to cheat, lie, and abuse their clients and the public with impunity. They will put those lies before the courts to protect their own interests even when they are wrong. This sense of entitlement is entrenched in their corporate culture where honesty, truth, and good faith are sacrificed to their own financial interests. They do it because they can. They do it because they have the money and power to crush almost anyone who challenges them.

There is another reason for the arrogance of BMO and other large institutions. They are often shown undue deference by the courts. Why would BMO lie? That is a question, in my experience, that is asked by judges as rhetorical. They often don’t seek an answer. It is not the institution that lies.  it is the human beings that are their employees.  Norman Yu made a point of the importance to him of new business. The constant pressure, in the accepted corporate culture, to produce and make money for themselves and their employers is sadly the norm. What lengths will some people go to succeed? It is limited only by the scope of human nature and the ethics of the individual involved. I do not think it is difficult to imagine what some people would do if they made a mistake or did something improper. What would they do to cover it up in the kind of culture BMO has demonstrated in this case?

If BMO, or any other institution, seriously encourages ethical behaviour and, takes proper steps when it is breached to demonstrate that it will not be tolerated, then, although financially responsible for the wrongdoing of their employees maintains their own ethical reputation and does the right thing to make it part of their corporate culture.

Sadly, that is not my experience generally with large institutions. They are arrogant and difficult to deal with.

In this case, BMO is more culpable than Norman Yu. That’s not to say that Norman Yu’s conduct did not demonstrate a complete lack of moral and ethical character. He is certainly someone I would never want to deal with and feel badly for anyone who does. BMO circled the wagons around Norman Yu and whoever at BMO helped and supported him. They embarked on a calculated, fraudulent, harmful course of action. They not only adopted and defended Norman’s conduct, but knowingly pursued of course of conduct which continued to cause compounding damage to Wayne. They continue to defend their conduct to this day. They have learned nothing. They have just become more emboldened. Norman’s conduct must reflect the corporate culture created at BMO. Their strenuous defence of his conduct, as well as their own, made their lack of a moral compass or conscience a clear reflection of that culture. From the top down.

This is the case that cries out for punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded by courts, in addition to the actual damages, to punish and discourage especially egregious conduct. In Canada, the amount of punitive damages is tied to, and generally is not to exceed the actual damages. It will be argued that this approach is woefully inappropriate in dealing with this kind of conduct by large rich institutions like BMO.  There are circumstances where the damage is relatively modest but the conduct clearly requires a punitive award.  For a rich institution, this would be insignificant and would not serve to discourage them or in any way encourage them to amend their behaviour and corporate culture. It would amount to no more than a mere license fee when they got caught. To be true to the intent of punitive damages, in such circumstances, the punitive damages should be significant enough to accomplish their stated purpose. In this case, in the event of a significant punitive damages award, a fund will be set up to assist others who are the victims of BMO and similar institutions.

If you or your parents have your investments with BMO, in my opinion, I would move them. I do not believe that this is by any means an isolated incident. This is just one where they got caught by someone willing to challenge them and follow through. The case continues. All of this will go before a jury who will be able to assess the evidence presented and pass judgement on the conduct of BMO and consequences of their actions.

The only issue that is left between BMO and myself is the issue of whether they owed me a duty, as an executor of the estate, to advise me of this alleged evidence. The law is clear that an executor stands in the shoes of the deceased and is entitled to any information the deceased would be entitled to. I can find no case that says otherwise. It is a well-established a principle

From the beginning, the week after my father passed away, and I discovered that things were not as they should have been, I asked BMO for any information they had on my father’s intention or explanation for the circumstances.

For four years they resisted vigourously sharing that information with me. My argument is that if they told me at the time and were honest and transparent about their handling of the matter that may have avoided the litigation, as their evidence was the determinative factor for the trial judge.

BMO has brought a motion to have my claim struck based on the fact that all of these issues are res judicata having been decided by Conway at the original motion. Conway did not rule on the issue of whether they breached their duty to advise me. In reality they didn’t advise me because it didn’t happen. Had it been true with Wendi in the room, she and her lawyers would’ve had that information before the litigation began. Yet they never once as I have pointed out raised it all in any form other than putting forward the evidence of Norman Yu which they had to know in the circumstances was false.

But even excepting for the sake of argument Conway’s decision, the issue of their obligation to provide me with the information is an important one. If they are allowed to get away with not honoring their fiduciary duty it is a further blot on the judicial system.

The motion itself has had an interesting history with several judges making bias and faulty orders.

When the matter first came up before Judge Chiapata, she made an unusual order, not raised by either of the Counsel, on her own volition to order that there would be no cross examinations on the affidavits. This in a case where credibility is a huge issue. This where affidavits were being sworn by Andrew Parley, who I have accused of improper conduct during the estate summary motion. This certainly would not appear to any reasonable person that being denied the right of cross-examination as I had been denied in the motion certainly would not give one confidence that there was procedural fairness.

I appeared by video Court call for those appearances, as I’m in poor health and have been for some time. I mean treated by several doctors who felt that given the medical issues and treatments that I could not work at all.

The matter came before Justice Wilson. There wasn’t solicitor of 40 years, officer of the court, and a certified medical professional who had provided a note indicating that I would not be able to work for three months. With her superior medical knowledge, Wilson ignored both me and the doctor in essence saying we were lying. She set the motion well within the three months, and made it peremptory on me. That meant I could not seek another adjournment. This order was without factual or legal basis. No one had suggested that the matter was delayed. No one had suggested that I had delayed it. It was sloppy Judgitis clearly demonstrated bias. Given my medical condition, this improper order caused serious health issues to relapse.

The matter was then set by I believe Judge Nishikawa who indicated that the matter would go ahead unless I brought further medical documentation. Just prior to the date for attendance, I was hospitalized For more than a week. I was released Thursday night before Good Friday. I made every attempt to get someone to appear or to set up Court call appearance. None of this was possible Easter weekend.

I sent an email to opposing counsel setting out the details above. I was just out of the hospital and the most recent medical report were not ready. Perhaps Nishikawa should realize that I don’t prepare them.

Nishikawa proceeded in my absence dismissing my claim and ordering me to pay $20,000 in costs. Another decision that certainly does not seem to be judicial.

His decision is now under appeal.

There have been a lot of odd things that have happened in the Estate Case and in my case against  BMO.

I have no choice but to pursue BMO and judge Conway. I am an officer of the court. I believe in justice.

The result of the BMO’s actions and Conway’s corruption resulted in:

  1. fraud committed by BMO and my sister
  2. false and perjured evidence completely contradictory on the central issue is the case
  3. false evidence which had been concealed for four years was knowingly put before the court by lawyers for Wendi. It would be hard for me to believe that BMO’s lawyers did not or could easily have known that this evidence was false
  4. costs were awarded that had nothing to do with the laws costs in the circumstances

That brings such disrepute to the legal system that I must do everything I can to bring it to light and seek justice.

The above is the opinion and experience of the author as a litigant and a victim.