This page contains information on what is now happening in 2021.

JUNE 2021 Brampton CV21-1933

After experiencing bias from the Ottawa Court, we agreed to transfer the case to Brampton where we expected to get a fair hearing.  The motion triggered an massive response from the plaintiffs' and more lawyers were retained to strike out the motion. We now have two competing judicial regions that will decide who has the judicial control on a very controversial case that has gone against individual freedom and rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JAN 2021- FEB 2021 CROSS EXAMINATION

Scheduled litigation events held in Jan & Feb are as follows: 

(a) Cross-Examination ( JAN 19 - Feb 26 ) Participants

(b) Mediation

This next events are:

March 23-24, 2021Hearing of the Applications  (1-1/2 days).

We can only comment on the results of the cross examination. The new results reinforces the respondent's  belief that there is an ongoing  criminal conspiracy after analyzing conflicting statements between the perpetrator's team. Everyone cross examined have to submit an undertaking documentation to support what they stated in the sessions. From the defense side, we have submitted our undertaking, but the documents that we expected from the Plaintiff's parties are overdue, and the respondents are not sure if they will be submitted at all or hours before March 23, 2021 hearing to prevent more analysis that will counter the perpetuator's attack.

105 Ottawa Court Conflict PPT rev021.jpg

The cross-examinations of all parties on their respective affidavits produced various conflicting statements, gaps, and omissions. These resulted in counsel asking parties to give formal Undertakings to produce documents or exhibits to support what they deposed at the cross-examination or fill in gaps in their recollections.
 

A big surprise was Leonard Burnstein, who deposed his letter dated September 6, 2017, addressed to Logan Katz LLP (Gary Katz) is not a capacity assessment: it is only an opinion. Burnstein deposed he did not follow the Capacity Assessment Office guidelines for conducting capacity assessments because his letter is only an opinion.
 

On July 21, 2017, readers will recall that TD Canada Trust (Mark Lalonde) issued a suspicious activity report to Joe and Gary Katz about withdrawals from Joe's Investment Account totaling $1.45 million.
 

Joe was shocked by the amount of these withdrawals, which he found inexplicable. He did not withdraw the money, so he asked his 2011 attorneys Joy Overtveld and Gary Katz to explain these transfers of $1.45 million. They refused to account to him for them..
 

Instead, Logan Katz LLP (Gary Katz) hired capacity assessor Leonard Burnstein to assess Joe's capacity to manage his property and personal care and provide them with an opinion on both.
Joe's 2011 attorneys Joy Overtveld and Gary Katz, and a Logan Katz LLP accountant gave Burnstein almost all the information about Joe and his corporation Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. that Burnstein used to write his adverse capacity opinion about Joe.

 

Gary Katz brought Burnstein to Joe's home to interview Joe. Katz introduced Burnstein as a Logan Katz employee who would advise Joe on investments. Halfway through the interview, Joe decided Burnstein did not know what he was talking about and asked him to leave
 

Joe's 2011 attorneys for property Joy Overtveld and Gary Katz gave a copy of Burnstein's adverse capacity assessment opinion to each of Joe's banks and financial institutions' relevant representatives. Joe's 2011 attorneys told each, because of Burnstein's letter about Joe, they could no longer deal with Joe. Instead, they must deal only with Joe's 2011 attorneys for property.
 

Responsive to receiving Burnstein's letter about Joe, the recipients caused their institutions to stop dealing with Joe and, as requested, these institutions started to deal only with Joe's 2011 attorneys for property. As part of this process, these institutions immediately terminated all Joe's online access to his accounts so that he could no longer review them over the Internet from his bed.
 

Joe's 2011 attorneys for property used Burnstein's letter as a dangerous weapon to enable them to underhandedly―in breach of their statutory  fiduciary duty, their statutory duty of good faith, and their statutory duty to act only in Joe's best interest and for his benefit―exert absolute control over Joe's person and deprive him of all his property, civil rights, and legal status. It has caused enormous irreparable injury to Joe, his financial situation, and his enjoyment of life. Joe's 2011 attorneys for property have used Burnstein's adverse capacity opinion to deceitfully evade accounting to Joe for the $1.45 million they transferred out of his TD Canada Trust Investment Account. Joe's 2011 attorneys for property also used Burnstein's adverse capacity opinion to deceive Joe's financial institutions, Services Canada, and the public into handing over control of all of Joe's assets to them.
 

Joe says TD Canada Trust should have verified the authenticity and legal effect of the document presented to them because it affects millions of dollars in Joe's accounts.
Gary Katz and Mark Lalonde are good friends, and TD Canada trust should investigate if any improper activities took place due to their friendship.

 

More recently, the 2011 attorney started to refer to Burnstein, a social worker, as "Dr Burnstein" to impress the Court and the public by giving them the misimpression  that he is a highly qualified professional with academic accreditation.
 

In Cross-Examination, he deposed that he did not have any medical background to accurately interpret the medical reports about Joe provided to him.
In August 2017, Burnstein's letter recorded he found Joe, partially disabled and bedridden and, since February 2016, entirely dependent on his 2011 attorneys for personal care, in a filthy and unhealthy situation. Tito found Joe in the same condition in August 2018 when he telephoned me and asked me to help him. Burnstein's observation in 2017 and my observation in 2018 confirms my belief that Joe's 2011 attorneys for personal care were not doing their job correctly. Rachida found Joe in the same state, which she attributes to lack of proper care management. Tito had to provide Joe's caregiver with grocery money for food starting in August 2018. Rachida was delivering meals to Joe from December 2018 until February 9, 2019 when the 2011 attorneys lock her out and prevented her from visiting her husband, which situation has continued to the present.  

 

Joe deposed that he sent Joy about 20 emails asking her about the transfers and that Joy told him she does not know who made these withdrawals.
 

In her cross-examination, Joy deposed that she was not aware of the email from TD Canada Trust (Mark Lalonde, Vice President) that triggered Joe's concern about the conduct of his 2011 attorneys for property. Joy deposed that the confrontation between her father and her was about a City of Ottawa Work Order to repair the garage door on Joe's Waverley St. property.
 

There will be more statements here once we received copies of the documents from all parties' Undertakings.

THE MEDIATION.


We cannot provide detailed information discussed during Mediation, as everyone signed a non-disclosure agreement. We believe, however, that we are free to discuss the focus of the Mediation.
 

Joe's 2011 attorneys have spent more than $600,000 of Joe's money, from Joe's account which they control, to pay for their legal fees defending his Action No. CV-18-78751-00 and asserting their Applications Nos. FC-19-1504, CV-19-81051, and No. CV-19-81713-0ES0 and Action No. CV-20-82769  against Joe's best interest, written instructions, and wishes.
 

On Joe's side, he has spent about $60,000 in disbursements and $172,000 on legal fees that are pending and will likely fall on Tito's list of liabilities, since he advanced the retainers from his own pocket. Because Joe's 2011 attorneys for property control is money, Joe is not able to contribute a cent of his money to assert his claims against his dishonest 2011 attorneys for property.  Joe and his wife opened a joint account with HSBC to access his pension and old-age benefits. The instant his attorneys found out about this, they stopped Joe's pension and benefits from being deposited in the account and have accused his wife of theft.
 

Both parties agree that the disbursements are unsustainable. The defense is very much aware of the consequences if the Mediation fails. The 2011 attorneys believe the Court will rule in their favour and declare Joe mentally incapacitated based on the affidavits provided by Dr Sarazin and Burnstein and supporting documents provided to them from Dr Levenstadt, Joe's family physician. Joe's marriage and racial innuendos drove a broad rift in the negotiation.  The refusal by the attorneys for the respondents rights to communicate with Joe was also a factor.
 

The 2011 attorneys are sure that the "passing of accounts" will be provided to Joe, bypassing the auditor that Joe retained and the report should be undisputed. This unsatisfactory process violates Joe's rights and the requirement that his 2011 attorneys for property comply to the standard specified in the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and Ontario Reg. No. 100/96, §§5(1) and 5(3). Why is the Court ignoring and even overruling laws that the Legislature of Ontario enacted to protect elderly persons?  
 

The message directed to the respondents is that the Judge will award the 2011 attorneys their costs and saddle Rachida and Tito with their $600,000 costs of the litigation, plus $250,000 (CV20-82769) in damages. This terrified Rachida and Tito, who felt that the mediator was on the opposite team and not negotiating but playing their role with threats and a sledgehammer.