Tuesday, September 18, 2012

The appeal!

Good Day Readers:

This afternoon it was a trip to the Federal Court of Canada on Broadway Avenue (Winnipeg) which will be the subject of an upcoming posting. From there on to The Law Courts Building. Here's a copy of Alex Chapman's appeal. Two key filings a Factum and Book of Authorities have been registered but, as explained by the helpful staffer, they're currently before the Judges who will decide the case and will not be released to the public until after a decision has been handed down.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

File No. AI 12-30-07831

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN
JACK ANTHONY KING
(Plaintiff) Respondent
-and-
ALEXANDER LENARD QUACCOO CHAPMAN
(Defendant) Appellant

__________________________________________________
NOTICE OF APPEAL
__________________________________________________

Alexander Chapman
P.O. Box 2083 Station Main
Winnipeg, MB  R3C 3R4
Tel: 204-782-8558
Appellant

TAKE NOTICE that a motion will be made on behalf of the defendant ALEXANDER LENARD QUACCOO CHAPMAN before the Court of Appeal, as soon as the motion can be heard, by way of appeal from the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Martin of the Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, pronounced on the 4th day of July, 2012, and filed on the 6th day of July, 2012, whereby the learned judge did order:

1. Summary (final) judgment in favour of the Plaintiff (Respondent), Jack Anthony King, in the amount of $25,000.

2. The defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff in this motion, in the amount of $15,000.

On the appeal, the court will be asked to set aside the said judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Martin with costs on the following grounds:

1. The Learned Judge erred in law in finding and enforcing the purported breach of a "settlement agreement" negotiated by the parties' lawyers, in that the agreement was entered into for the purpose of concealing evidence of a criminal breach of trust (contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada as set out in inter alia R. v. Boulanger, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 49), namely the admitted sexual harassment during the course of the solicitor-client relationship by the plaintiff against the defendant to which the plaintiff plead guilty before the Law Society of Manitoba, which agreement in turn constitutes an obstruction of justice contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. The Learned Judge erred in law, for the reasons set out in number one above, in finding and enforcing the purported breach of a "settlement agreement" negotiated by the parties' lawyers, in that the agreement was entered into for the purpose of concealing evidence of a criminal breach of trust (contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada as set out in inter alia R. v. Boulanger, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 49), namely the admitted sexual harassment during the course of the solicitor-client relationship by the plaintiff against the defendant to which the plaintiff plead guilty before the Law Society of Manitoba, which agreement is contrary to public policy.

3. That the judgment was obtained through an abuse of process by the plaintiff (Respondent).

4. That the defendant (Appellant) was denied a fair hearing due to the incompetence of counsel who was retained to deal with the matter before the Court and failed to represent the Defendant with required competence and diligence amounting to a breach of natural and fundamental justice.

5. The Learned Judge erred in law, in that the Defendant did not breach the settlement agreement.

6. Such further or other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may allow.

Note: The Notice of Appeal was dated July 28, 2012 and signed by Mr. Chapman. Copies were sent to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal and Jack King c/o William Gange of Gange Goodman & French.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home