March 15, 2002 –

March 15, 2002
Ministry of the Attorney General
Ontario Court of Justice (Criminal)
530 Queensway W., Simcoe

Attention: Judge/Justice of the Peace or Whom it May Concern

Information #2

Dear Sir or Madam:

This “information” is sworn in an attempt to address the continued miscarriage of Justice which has now occurred for the second time due to the false evidence provided to Police and to the Courts by David Anderson and Frank Gelinas in respect to Application for Prohibition under Criminal Code Section 111.

The enclosed supporting documentation in my letter of July 11, 2001 request to investigate to O.P.P. Det. Const. Rob Scot confirms the false evidence provided to a police investigation “obstruction of Justice” which provoked the application sworn and executed for the Prohibition Warrant of May 31, 2000 and concluded with the court hearing and dismissal of the application July 23, 2001. See July 11th, 2001 letter.

In respect to the fact that these same false statements and various others, were provided at the trial in May 1996 in the case of Nichols Gravel Limited v. Township of Delhi David Anderson and Frank Gelinas. Please find enclosed other events as researched and listed for Mr. Anderson #1 1-14 and for Mr. Gelinas #2 1– 4

Although some of the events as listed may not be deemed to be conspiracy, forgery and perjury, they are at the least false and speculative misrepresentations of fact and fraud to the Courts which influenced Justice Carvarzan’s decision to dismiss our case and based upon this decision, the dismissal of our Appeal, and Leave to Appeal dismissal without reasons, and the Leave to Appeal Dismissal without reasons by the Supreme Court of Canada without consideration.

In respect to this case, in order to place the events of the past 8 years in understandable perspective please find the following background information of fact:

1. May 4th, 1994 Delhi Township C.A.O. Frank Gelinas based on a falsified document, the Delhi Township 1994 Summary of Aggregate Quotations produced
by David Anderson, libeled Nichols Gravel Limited and its products as published in the Delhi News Record that date.
2. May 16, 1994 letter to council from Gary Nichols received no response. See Letter.
3. Twp. Delhi July 26th, 1994 litigation filed by Nichols Gravel Limited against Township of Delhi David Anderson and Frank Gelinas.
4. This litigation was not filed over money, it was filed to protect the reputation of this 51 year old company and the honesty and integrity of the family which operates the company.
5. May 1996 the litigation heard in the 8 ½ day trial before Justice John Carvarzan.
6. July 23rd, 1996 hearing in Hamilton before Justice Carvarzan further evidence provided by Nichols Gravel Limited confirming by M.T.O. testing the stone quality P.N. of Nichols gravel Class 5 Aggregate met specification. No record. No request for transcript of evidence by Justice Carvarzan.
7. August 23rd, 1996 Justice Carvarzan`s biased decision released dismissing charges against the Township and staff.
8. September 18th, 1996 letter to the Editor.
Conspiracy and Perjury identified in evidence provided by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas. See newspaper letter to the Editor.
9. October 28th, 1996 Deputation by Gary Nichols to Delhi Township Council to provide identified false evidence provided at trial and Council requested to take appropriate action regarding staff. No response.
10. November 1996 Justice Carvarzans’ decision appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
11. February 13th, 1997 Request to Simcoe O.P.P. to investigate Conspiracy and Perjury by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas.
Reviewed by Constable Thomas MacLean and Crown Attorney Lois Aicken. Response: no grounds for Criminal Charges. No investigation. See Police report.
12. April 14th, 1997 Request to investigate to London O.P.P. Staff Sergeant Erskine.
13. Request and file transferred to Detective Const. Robert Scott O.P.P. Brantford to investigate, Conspiracy and Perjury as well as forged and falsified M.T.O. documents.

September 7th, 1997 after 6 months investigation Det. Scott informed Gary Nichols that Crown Attorney Swanson refused to file charges, and instructed Det. Scott not to investigate Ministry of Transportation and to leave it alone. See my letter to the Editor account September 16th, 1997. See reconstructed Police report after F.O.I. request dated May 12th , 1999. No final report until May 12th, 1999. Another O.P.P. cover-up?

August 29th, 1997 Crown Attorney Swanson takes the golden handshake from the province and retires at age 54. Does something smell bad here between these 2 dates of August 29th, and September 7th, 1997? I think so! This timing is too much of a co-incidence to be co-incidence. The Province makes an offer package you can’t refuse, do the deed and retire. If this is not what happened, it certainly looks that way. See Newspaper.

June 3rd, 1999 Divisional Court Appeal Hearing Keenan Somers and Cumming J.J. Appeal dismissed without prior reference to the transcripts of evidence from the trial of May 1996. No transcripts of evidence of June 3rd, appeal, not requested by Appeals Justices. Very neat and tidy. No record of the trial June 3rd, 1999.

November 24th, 1999 Leave to Appeal dismissed without reasons Finlayson Weiler and O’Conner J.J.A. Ontario Court of Justice.

September 28th, 2000 Leave to Appeal dismissed without reasons, or consideration. L’Heureux-Dube, Bastarache and LeBel J.J. Supreme Court of Canada. See court record.

In respect to all of this information, what is most interesting is the apparent negligence of the Justices and the Courts:

1. In the first instance with the transfer of our case from the Ontario Court of Appeal to Divisional Court Hamilton, my own Lawyer was negligent in his decision and agreement to the transfer at the request of the Defense Lawyer Mr. Haney.

2. The courts with the decision of Justice Osborne was negligent in approving the transfer to a court without Jurisdiction, as Divisional Court is restricted to hearing claims of less than $25,000.00, Nichols Gravel Limited claim was for 3 million dollars, which by mistake, or on purpose contributed to further the negligence by Justice Carvarzan, as the value of the claim was not stated in his decision and “Reasons”.

3. Our February 1999 court date deferred and cancelled by “Darren” at Hamilton.

4. June 3rd, 1999 trial date to hear our appeal of Justice Carvarzans’ decision.

Justices Keenan Somers and Cumming J.J. announced at the start, that they did not receive the transcripts of evidence from the trial, and after a brief mumbled discussion with each other, turned back to our lawyer Mr. Brooks and stated, “we have the appeal books as reference, proceed Mr. Brooks,” and continued to hear our appeal without prior reference to the evidence from the trial for the appeal that they were appointed to hear, and after a short recess came back and dismissed our appeal quoting Justice Carvarzans’ decision almost word for word. No comment in respect to the trade libel by Frank Gelinas which provoked the litigation in the first place, which Justice Cavarzan brushed over and did not properly address, or the justification for the discriminatory Council “Direction” not to deal with Nichols Gravel Limited which was quite illegal, as there were no provisions in Township Purchasing Policy for such action and there was no confirming resolution of Council and no written record whatsoever. See Municipal Act Part V11 Section 101 (1) Jurisdiction of Councils – Except where otherwise provided, the Jurisdiction of every council is confined to the Municipality that it represents and its powers shall be exercised by by-law.

In the Ontario Court of Justice “Discrimination and Patronage Government” is not a problem in this province. You must pay your business tax, but we won’t deal with you. Quite unbelievable! See Warrant Distrain of Taxes.

Comment:

In my opinion this leaves a number of pertinent and logical questions unanswered.

1. When we decided to appeal the decision of Justice Carvarzan, my lawyer stated that it was then a requirement that before we could proceed to court with the appeal, that we must produce 3 copies of the transcript of evidence from the trial which was done at a cost of $3,500.00. This provided a single copy of all of the evidence for each one of the 3 appeals Justices. Since there must exist a court regulation, requiring the production of transcripts for the appeal in order to review the evidence, it would logically seem to me that there must be a comparable court regulation stating that the appeals Justices must receive and review the evidence from the trial in order to prepare for, and to hear the appeal.
2. Which brings us to the next question. If the appeals Justices were informed of the trial date and were aware that they had not received the transcripts of the trial, why did they not contact the Registrar of Records of the Court and request copies of the transcripts? My lawyer Mr. Brooks informed me that he expected that at least one of the appeals Justices would read the entire evidence from the trial, but when we got to trial, no one had received the transcripts of evidence, no one had requested the evidence, no one had read the evidence, and then a decision was rendered without knowing the actual evidence produced at trial under oath. This was administration of Justice? No, I think not. This appears to be more like a set up, and now we have to ask the question, was this in fact a conspiracy to obstruct justice in order to cover up for the negligence of the courts and Justice Carvarzan’s speculative wishy-washy law perverted decision?

When all of the facts are considered, this seems to be a very distinct possibility.

This seems to be further confirmed by my inquiry to Divisional Court Recording Clerk Registrar of Records, Deborah Mercer on June 3rd, 1999 when I stopped after leaving the court room to inquire as to what happened to our transcripts. Her response quote: “We didn’t receive them.” unquote. Further investigation confirmed that the transcripts were received 06/04/97 which further confirmed that Deborah Mercer lied to me on June 3rd, 1999.

My lawyer also further advised me that the courts were not allowed to set a court date unless the transcripts had been delivered and were held at the court on file. The notice of trial was dated May 5th, 1999 for court date of June 3rd, 1999 which would seem to confirm that the transcripts disappeared between May 5th, 1999 and the court date, but no other documents in the file disappeared, further compounding the mystery.
My July 16th, 1999 request to O.P.P. Inspector Denckert to investigate as to what happened to our transcripts was not acknowledged and a recent Freedom of Information response, which provided a response letter from Inspector Denckert dated August 31st , 2001 indicated at no time did he file a final report to this investigation request, which indicates to me that there was no investigation, and we appear to have another police cover-up for the negligence of the Justices and the Courts.

After much exchange of correspondence with Divisional Court it was indicated that in fact they had been unable to locate the transcripts and that somehow in fact they were lost. See Letter.

Since there was no proper investigation conducted to definitely conclude who was responsible or what actually took place or happened, I believe in that respect I have a right to speculate an opinion as to what actually happened.

I believe that Deborah Mercer carried out her duties faithfully as she has always done, and provided the transcripts to the appeal Justices, who began to review the evidence, and soon realized what a horrible abomination Justice Carvarzan had delivered in his biased 46 page decision, and then quickly realized that there would be no way that they could justify or support his decision if it was known that they were aware of the evidence from the trial. Thus the disappearing transcripts.

Regardless of whether this assumption is correct or not is purely irrelevant, simply because these Justices knowingly did not follow proper court procedure for the administration of Justice by proceeding to hear the appeal and rendering a decision which they did not have the guts to sign, without a review of the evidence from the trial. That in fact is what an appeal is suppose to address and it was not done.
The appeal was then appealed to Leave to Appeal Justices Finlayson, Weiler and O’Conner J.J. who disposed of it quickly with dismissal without reasons. Then on to the Supreme Court of Canada for another dismissal without reasons, and without consideration, and it was over.

To this point no one has been able to explain to me how it is possible to properly assess and review an appeal without reading and making reference to the sworn transcripts of evidence as provided by the participants at trial.

Do these Justice of the Courts possess some sort of psychic abilities which we are not aware of, or is this just another example of unquestionable overpowering authority comparable to what was encountered from public servants David Anderson and Frank Gelinas and unresponsive unaccountable governments, Municipal and Provincial.
All of what has transpired over the past 8 years was clearly brought into perspective at the pre trial prior to the Prohibition hearing of July 23, 2001, when after my lawyer had discussions with the presiding Judge and the acting Cr. Attorney, the Cr. Attorney proposed to dismiss the application, if I was agreeable to sign a 6 months Peace Bond. This proposal was conveyed to me outside of the court room by my lawyer, but my lawyer stated there was a problem and this matter could not be concluded that day. When I inquired as to what was the problem? My lawyer responded quote: “The court has to bring in another Cr. Attorney from Hamilton as senior Cr. Attorney John Ayre doesn’t want to have to explain to his next door neighbour Frank Gelinas why he did not prosecute the case.” unquote. At that point I could not believe what I had just been told, but with that astounding revelation, the light bulb flashed on, and it became quite apparent in retrospect the process which had evolved within the Justice System regarding our case.

This in my opinion is what happened. After Delhi Township Council declined to take appropriate action to my deputation October 28th, 1996 regarding Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas. I then requested that the O.P.P., February 1997 to investigate Conspiracy and Perjury of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas. When this was reviewed by Constable MacLean and Cr. Attorney Aicken,, no doubt it was taken to Cr. Attorney Ayre who advised to not proceed because his next door neighbour and friend was Mr. Gelinas, and the spin job began. No investigation. No grounds. No charges.

This request was then directed to O.P.P. London, letter of April 14th, 1997 and redirected to Det. Const. Robert Scott, O.P.P. Brantford who took it to Cr. Attorney Swanson who refused to file charges against Anderson and Gelinas. There we find another connection as I understand that Cr. Attorney Ayre was with the Court in Brantford prior to moving to Simcoe, so that most likely Cr. Attorney Swanson and Cr. Attorney Ayre were well known to each other so that all the bases were covered, so that all of the criminal activities were covered up, Justice Carvarzans’ decision was not placed into question and nothing happened to rock the boat.

Then it was on to our appeal to Divisional Court a court without jurisdiction approved by the courts to have our appeal heard and dismissed by 3 appeals Justices who didn’t bother to procure or read the sworn transcripts of evidence from the trial and proceeded to dismiss our appeal, then on to Ontario Court of Appeal, to Leave to Appeal and dismissal without reasons, and then to the Supreme Court of Canada for another dismissal without reasons and consideration.

When we review these facts of our case, what we seem to have, at least here in the Province of Ontario is a Justice System that operates like a good old boys and girls club, with a number one priority not the administration of Justice, but to cover-up for the mistakes and negligence of friends and associates. This has been a most unremarkable, pathetic experience for this family, to find out how our Justice System really works.

What possible incentive in this position of Public Trust, did these Justices have for this most pathetic performance?

In just 8 years, and thousands of dollars blown to the wind as well as a $98,000.00 judgment against our company because we lost the case seeking justice, along with enduring the stress of disgrace and ridicule to this family regarding our substandard ? products and our business, with each decision of the courts seeming to confirm it all to be true, in the end this business and family was spun and blocked at every avenue by the Police and the Justice system, and ultimately flushed down the drain like a terd in a toilet. And what have we learned from this? We have found that in our Canadian Justice system our Charter of Rights is a farce. There is no equality before the law. The reason for this is that our justice system has become government politically correct corrupted, which now provides selective justice before the law. If you become lucky enough to come before a Justice that will not play this game to protect the status quo of Government, you will receive justice, and if you are not lucky in this respect you will received what we received, injustice.

Since our case is only one small isolated case, if this horror story is any indication as to the performance of administration of justice within the Ontario Courts of Justice, we have some very, very serious problems which requires to be addressed in order to protect the integrity of the administration of Justice, and the Judicial system which is expected to properly serve all of the Public interest without pandering to the whims of government. Governments are not always right. If we cannot rely upon our Justices of the courts to apply the laws of our land equally and fairly, then this is not a democracy, but instead a democratic dictatorship without recourse.

We have now received a response, as acknowledged by O.C.C.O.P.S. January 9th, 2002 to our request to investigate of December 17th, 2001, the conduct of O.P.P. officers Simcoe detachment relative to the previous non response to investigate obstruction of justice and criminal activities. The letter from the O.P.P. Professional Standard Bureau dated February 12th, 2002, was as expected just one more O.P.P. spin job none response. See our response March 12, 2002

Thank God that we are living in the best country in the world. Was that Prime Minister Jean Chretien who said that?

I shall be requesting a Judicial inquiry into the performance of all of the Justices involved with our case, and further suggest that a public inquiry into the administration of Justice in Canada would be most appropriate.

Please be advised as a reminder as stated in my May 17th, 2000 letter to Federal Justice Minister Anne McClelland and Minister of the Attorney General Ontario James Flaherty that if nothing was done to resolve these outstanding issues, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed our case, all relevant information would be circulated publicly via the internet.

In that respect any interested party may view and evaluate this corrupted miscarriage of Justice on the internet at http://www.thecomplaintstation.com/

At the date of swearing of the “Information” we request that the courts review the enclosed documentation relevant to the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code and proceed with appropriate charges for “Conspiracy”, to illegal interference with business relations, fraud in respect to forged and falsified documents, as well as libel and perjury by the individuals named.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols, President
Nichols Gravel Limited

P.S. Stay tuned this is only the first episode of this law perverted horror story.
Relevant documentation supplied upon request.

c.c. Prime Minister Hon. Jean Chretien
c.c. Federal Justice Minister
c.c. Premier of Ontario
c.c. Ontario Minister Attorney General
c.c. M.P.P. Toby Barrett
c.c. C.B.C. Disclosure
c.c. W-Five
c.c. Fifth Estate
c.c. All Members of Council Norfolk and Haldimand County
c.c. Various Universities of Law
c.c. Law Society of Upper Canada
c.c. Ontario Trial Lawyers Association President, Mr. Gary Will

Go back.

Leave a Reply