Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Rocky takes on Clubber Lang!

Good Day Readers:

In what could best be described as a sequel  to Rocky III, Toronto-based constitutional expert Rocco "Don't call me Rocky!" Galati has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a client challenging a recent decision by the Canadian Judicial Council (Clubber Lang). For Rocky aficionados you all know how that ended.
Many of you will recognize Mr. Galati as Alex Chapman's legal counsel at the stalled, unmitigated disaster that is the Douglas Inquiry. He has filed a motion in the Federal Court of Canada (still awaiting a ruling) challenging the CJC's refusal to release Guy "The Cat" Pratte's resignation letter after he suddenly scat as the Inquiry's Independent Counsel after receiving what must have been a big, fat, juicy taxpayer retainer.
Remember, never touch a p...ed off cat!

Rocco Galati is no stranger to constitutional/charter law. Back in 2009 he successfully challenged the federal Tax Court of Canada's practice of using Deputy Judges beyond the mandatory retirement age of 75 which was contrary to The Constitution Act of 1867. As a result, several of the old buggers had to leave.

In the current Rocky versus Clubber Lang lawsuit (reproduced below), Mr. Galati is taking on the legal establishment contending the core issue is Canadians' constitutional rights are being slowly eroded by organizations such as the Canadian Judicial Council's practice of "gatekeeping" - dismissing complaints as being frivolous, vexations, or an abuse of process by the organization's Executive Director/Senior Legal Counsel rather than the Judicial Conduct Committee per se.

The Complaint

Because the complaint is 8-pages long we'll summarize its main contents:

(1) On February 13 of this year Toronto-based lawyer Dharamjit Singh e-mailed Canadian Judicial Council Executive Director/Senior Legal Counsel Norman Sabourin regarding the conduct of Ontario's Chief Justice, two Ontario Court of Appeal Judges, a Divisional Court of Ontario Judge, as well as, an Ontario Court Master

(2) Mr. Singh was and still represents plaintiff Nazir Ghany in Ghany versus Federal Express Canada Limited et al (i. e. others). The case began in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on October 19, 2007 File Number 07-Cv-342097PD3)

(3) The litigation is essentially a whistleblower case

(4) The essence of the complaint is a motion brought by the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to add parties. The Master (Barbara McFee) presided over this matter dismissing the request almost in its entirety

(i) The decision was then appealed by the plaintiff which was subsequently heard by Justice J. D. McCombs who also denied the appeal

(ii) Next the plaintiff sought leave to appeal the McCombs' decision

(iii) The three Ontario Court of Appeal Judges cited in the complaint subsequently also denied the request to amend the original statement of claim

(5) Mr. Singh alleged the conduct of all the Judges and the Master was: somewhat deceptive; not according to the rule of law; and displayed a blatant disregard for the prevailing law such as to bring the administration of law into disrepute

(6) Dharamjit Singh further alleged the courts only objective was to decimate the case so it would never see the light of day. Additionally, he asserted the motion contained highly sensitive information which if in the public domain would have caused the current government considerable embarrassment

(7) Details of the sensitive information have already been the subject of an online article, Real threat to U S national security may be along northern border by American journalist Bill Conroy

(8) Mr. Singh questioned the independence of the Canadian media after several local reporters interested in the Conroy article never pursued the research/allegations it contained any further

(9) The Conroy article (CyberSmokeBlog has yet to read) maintains C-TPAT (Customs Trade Partners Against Terrorism) established post 9/11 lauded by the government as a great success has, in fact, been a sham and dismal failure information the Canadian and American governments would not like the public to know. He further suggests the government is more interested in favouring giant corporations than national Security

(10) FedEx had seriously violated the terms and conditions of C-TPAT which was brought to the government's attention but noting was done

(11) Anonymous Canadian Border Security Agency officers had complained they were under pressure from courier giants (principally FedEx and UPS) to expedite parcels since goods must be delivered by strict deadlines or the service provided by some firms is free

(12) One of the parties Mr. Singh unsuccessfully tried to have named in his statement of claim was Frederick W. Smith Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx, as well as, David Bronzcek another senior executive with FedEx

(13) In refusing to add parties to the original statement of claim, all three levels of court deliberately and deceptively sided with the defendants utterly disregarding the law

(14) The proposed statement of claim was attached as Exhibit H

(15) Dharamjit Singh's harshest criticism was saved for Divisional Court of Ontario Judge J. B. McCombs and Ontario Superior Court Master Barbara McAfee for their inappropriate decision making

The Reply
Personal and Confidential

CJC File 12-0584
23 August 2013

Mr Dharamjit Singh
Barrister and Solicitor
1013 Wilson Avenue, Suite 201
Toronto, Ontario
M3K 1G1

Dear Mr Singh:

I am writing in respect of your complaint set out in your letter of 5 February 2013 and your subsequent email letters with attachments of 14 February 2013, regarding the Honourable Warren K. Winkler, Chief Justice of Ontario, Justices Rosenberg, Goudge, and Feldman, of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Honourable J. D. McCombs of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In accordance with the Complaints Procedures of the Council, I referred your complaint to the Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia and Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee of the Council.

As a first matter, you are correct as you indicate in your letter of 5 February 2013, that the Council does not have jurisdiction to consider that aspect of your complaint regarding Ontario Superior Court Master McAfee, since the jurisdiction of the Council is limited to federally appointed judges.

In respect to the judges named above, Chief Justice MacDonald has now reviewed your complaint, and has asked me to provide you with this response.

The mandate of the Council in matters of Judicial conduct is to decide whether or not to make a recommendation that a judge be removed from office in certain specific circumstances. The reasons for removal are set out in the Judges Act and address cases where a judge has become incapacitated or disabled from performing the duties of a judge. This can be as a result of age or infirmity, misconduct, failure to execute the duties of the position or being in a position incompatible with the functions of a judge.

Page 1 of 4

However, the Council is not a court and cannot review a judicial decision and decide if it was right or wrong. The Council's functions do not include a review or reconsideration of the assessment of evidence, the conduct of court processes, or the decisions of judges on issues of fact or law. Such powers rest only with appellate courts including, in certain circumstances, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Your complaint alleges that there has been government influence exercised over the judiciary in a cause in which you have been involved as a lawyer, representing your client, Mr Nazir Ghany. You suggest that the government has interfered because a government program, C-TPAT (Customs Trade Partners Against Terrorism," ... lauded by the Government as a great success is actually a sham and a dismal failure." You suggest that in reality the program has undermined the national security of the United states and that of Canada. You suggest in your letter that the government has sought to cover up activities in violation of the Customs Act and regulations thereunder, on behalf of Federal Express Canada Ltd., and its international parent based in the United States.

Your complaint indicates that you have been representing Mr Ghany in a related court action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Federal Express Canada Ltd., and certain individuals employed by that company, in regard to alleged retaliatory actions taken against Mr. Ghany for opposing the alleged violations of the Customs act and regulations. Your complaint details certain stages in the progress of the action against Federal Express Canada, at which stages your client sought to amend his previously filed Statement of Claim to add as defendants two united States Federal Express executives, Mr. Frederick Smith and Mr David Bronzek, and to make certain other amendments.

You indicate that the addition of the two executives and some of the other amendments which were sought were not allowed by Master McAfee, and again not allowed on appeal before Justice J. D. McCombs in the Ontario Divisional Court. You indicate that when leave to appeal was sought in the Ontario Court of Appeal, the application was rejected by a panel of the Court composed of Justices Rosenberg, Goudge and Feldman, without reasons.

Your letter of complaint indicates:

I first propose to deal with the adding of the allegations as this will demonstrate with irrefutable evidence that Nazir Ghany's case was fixed by all three levels of the court. to demonstrate this, I do not even have to go through all the evidence that was before all three courts. Just an analysis of the decisions made at all three levels of the court and case law suffice.

Page 2 of 4

Your letter does proceed to present the legal basis of your allegation that the case in which you were involved was fixed at all three levels of the court. You provide copies of your factums and arguments on appeal, a copy of he original decision of Master McAfee, and of the decision on appeal of Justice McCoombs. You provide the documentation indicating that leave to appeal the decision of Justice McCombs was refused by a panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal composed of Justices Rosenberg, Goudge and Feldman. You provide other documentation which you claim supports your very serious allegations that the matter in which you were involved was fixed at all three levels of the court.

However, while the documentation provided may provide some support for the legal argumentation which you have made, it does not suggest in any way that there was any sort of improper influence whatsoever upon any of the judicial decisions taken.

You suggest that the judges involved acted deceptively, and that the Chief Justice of Ontario has a group of crooked judges he can rely upon when a crooked decision is needed for a political or any other reason. However, apart from your legal argumentation, you do not provide any evidence or information to suggest in any way that the case in which you were involved was "fixed" by anyone or that anything "crooked" took place.

While accusing the Chief Justice of Ontario of asserting influence on behalf of Government anduutilizing a group of "crooked" judges to do so, you do not establish that in fact he had any connection or involvement with the matter whatsoever. You do not establish nor even allege that he had improper contact with government officials, nor that he had any improper discussions or other connections with the other judges involved nor with anyone involved in government. You do not provide even any speculation upon which it could be sumised that the Chief Justice had such involvement as you have alleged. You do not provide any basis upon which it might be concluded that the judges you have identified were improperly influenced. You suggest that such a conclusion should be drawn because of your disagreement with the decisions taken.

The documentation which you provide instead indicates that your case was presented and independently considered by the courts in accordance with their usual processes. Master McAfee provided reasons for decision explaining in considerable detail the reasons for the decisions taken. At the level of Justice McCombs further reasons were provided, and at the level of the Court of Appeal leave to appeal was refused, as commonly occurs when no serious defect is found in the decisions below. With the exception of your disagreement with the decisions taken, and your legal arguments, you have presented nothing at all to suggest that your arguments were not carefully considered and rejected by the respective levels of courts on their merits alone.

Page 3 of 4

For these reasons, Chief Justice MacDonald finds that your commpaint is entirely unfounded. He is of the view that you are using the complaint process of the Council to once again challenge the legal decisions that were taken to again present your legal arguments, suggesting that no sensible person could disagree. However, the Council has no mandate to review the conclusinons and findings of judges made after hearings. Such matters fall under the judges' desision-making responsibilitees and if they are to be challenged, should be challenged on appeal

Given the above, Chief Justice MacDonald has decided to dismiss your complaint. Because this matter involves Chief Justice Winkler, a member of the Council, an additional step was followed, In accordance with section 6.1 of the Complaints Procedures, your complaint and the proposed reply were referred to Outside Counsel, Mr. Jacques Shore, of the law firm Gowlings. After his review of the matter, Mr. Shore indicated his full agreement with Chief Justice MacDonald's decision and with the reasons outlined in this letter.

In view of the foregoing, Chief Justice MacDonald has directed me to close the file with this reply.

Yours sincerely,
Norman Sabourin,
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel

Page 4 of 4

Rocky versus Clubber Lang

File No T-1557-13


DHARAMJIT SING      Applicant
         - and -



(pursuant to ss. 18-18.1 Federal Courts Act and ss 24, 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982


A PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the applicant. The relief claimed by the Applicant appears on the following page.

THIS APPLICATION will be heard at the time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. The Applicant requests that this appeal be heard in Toronto Ontario.

IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of appearance in form 305 prescribed by the Federal Court Rules, and serve it on the Applicant's solicitor, or where the applicant is self-represented, on the Applicant, WITHIN 10 DAYS of being served with this notice of application.

Copies of the Federal Court Rules, information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238)


Date: September 23, 2013
Issued by: __________
Address of Local Office:
180 Queen Street West Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 3L6

Department of Justice
Toronto Regional Office
First Canadian Place
Box 36
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

And To:
Canadian Judicial Council
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0W8


THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN RESPECT OF the decision of Chief Justice MacDonald, Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council, to commence a proceeding on a day and at a time and place to be set by the Court, pursuant to s 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Court Act R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 as amended, seeking declartory, prerogative and injunctive Applicant's right under s s 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as, his right to the underlying unwritten constitutional rights to the Rule of Law and Constitutalism; from the decision of Chief Justice MacDonald, dated August 23rd 2013, as communicated via Norman Sabourin, Director and General Counsel, of which the Applicant was apprised and informed and which was "communicated" on August 30th, 2013, which decision was rendered at the City of Ottawa, 150 Rue Metcalfe, 15th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8, in Canadian Judicial Council file # 12-0584.


(a) a declaration that:

i) the Council refused to exercise its jurisdiction and refused to conduct an investigation;

ii) the Council refused to exercise its jurisdiction and refused to conduct an investigation;

iii) that the council erred in law, that the blatant ignoring and refusal to apply clear, binding jurisprudence, and knowingly doing so, is independent consideration" by  the Courts in accordance with their usual processes," and not an abuse of their office and institutional bias, executed with knowledge and intent, which conduct is the purview of the Canadian Judicial Council;

iv) That the complaint mechanism of the Judicial Council, of having Judges judging Judges' misconduct, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect and gives rise toa reasonable apprehension of institutional bias, and constitutes a breach of the Applicant's right under ss7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as his rights to the underlying unwritten constitutional rights to the Rule of Law and Constitutalism';

(b) an order (in the nature) of certiorari quashing the decision issued, dated, August 23rd, 2013;

(c) an order (in the nature) of Mandamus returning the matter to the Judicial Council and requiring the Council to reconduct its investigation and review in accordance with the directions of this Court;

(d) solicitor-client costs of this application and such further relief as counsel may advise and this Court grant.


(a) That the Council refused to exercise and otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in fulfilling its statutory duties;

(b) That in so doing, made made perverse adn capricious findings, conclusing and inferences without evidence and its total disregard to the evidence;

(c) That the Council made an unreasonable decision contrary to Baker;

(d) That the complaint mechanism of the Judicial Council, of having Judges judging Judge's misconduct is unconstitutional and is of no force and effect and gives rise to the reasonable apprehension of institutional bias and constitutes a breach of the applicant's rights under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as his rights to the underlying unwritten constitutional rights to the Rule of Law and Constitutionalism;

(e) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise this Honourable Court permit.


(a) the affidavit of or on behalf of the Applicant;

(b) the materials already filed including any record;

(c) a memorandum of fact and law;

(d) such further documentary and/or viva voce evidence as counsel may advise and this Court permit.


Pursuant to Rules 317 and 318 of the Federal Court Rules, that the Tribunal (Canadian Judicial Council) send a certified copy of the following material that is not in possession of the Applicant but is in the possession of the Tribunal (Canadian Judicial Council) to the Applicant and to the Registry:

(1) a copy of any and all documents, memos electronic or otherwise, with respect to the complaint, investigation, and decision at the Judicial Council with respect to the Applicant's complaint;

(2) a copy of the Tribunal's entire file(s) with the Tribunal touching upon the decision the subject of the within judicial review and

(3) a copy of Mr. Jacques Shore's decision "agreeing with Chief Justice MacDonald's," along with his written reasons and/or other notes and file whatsoever touching upon the decision.

THE APPLICANT: Proposes that this application be heard in Toronto in the English language

Date: September 20th, 2012

Signature of Rocco Galati.

Rocco Galati Law Firm
Professional Corporation

Rocco Galati, B.A., L.L. B., LL.M.
1062 College Street, Lower Level
Toronto, ONtario M6H 1A9

Tel: (416) 530-9684
Fax: (416) 530-8129

Solicitor for the Applicant

CyberSmokeBlog: "Go Rocky Go! Go Rocky Go! Go Rocky Go! ....." Sorry Mr. Galati it's just that CSB hopes you give Clubber Lang the whomping of his life!
Nova Scotia Chief Justice Michael MacDonald
His mouth piece Norman Sabourin


Post a Comment

<< Home