BC Ombudsperson's Office

Complaint regarding the BC Law Society.

May 05, 2025

The BC Ombudsperson’s Office is a creation of the BC Legislature to hear complaints about the conduct of various creations of the BC Legislature including the BC Law Society. The BC Law Society is provided a monopoly in the provision of legal services to the public under the presumption that the Society will comply with their statutory duty to protect the public. A failure to protect the public and a failure to provide written reasons are failures to comply with their governing statute and requires checking their authority by the Legislature.

In my experience they protected a lawyer who admitted in writing to failing to comply with a court order to provide monthly trust account statements. In addition I provided evidence of fraud on a court order, conspiracy to fix the trial with “my lawyer” and a few other crimes.

The question essentially is - is the BC Law Society fit for purpose. Does it regulate the practice of law and protect the public…

“Authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled.”
Noam Chomsky

Sat, Feb 22, 2025
To: info@bcombudsperson.ca

Please find attached my response to the BC Law Society as well as their general denial letter. I have also attached the attachments included in the correspondence. Given the history of this file I have an actual apprehension of bias that the BC Law Society would protect a lawyer committing fraud and judges would protect the lawyer which compromises my constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. Accountability of the conduct of the lawyer involved is required and accountability of the BC Law Society to comply with their statutory duty to protect the public as authorized by the Legislature in return for their monopoly on the provision of legal services.

7 attachments
DismissalLetterFeb2024.png
DismissalLetterFeb2024page2.png
Gmail - Complaint to the BC Law Society regarding the conduct of lawyer Marta Brus.pdf
contempt of court - Initial email with Marta Brus with offer to settle.pdf
contempt of court - string with Initial email with Marta Brus with offer to settle.pdf
Gmail - BC Law Society Colette Souvage File No. 20241213.pdf
Binder-A-75-24-Complete.pdf
(My submission to the Federal Court of Appeal as an application for Intervener status regarding the enforcement of the Emergencies Act)

Tue, Mar 4, 7:31 PM

Thank you for your communication.

The statutory purpose created by the BC Legislature for the BC Law Society is laid out in Legal Profession Act,

Object and duty of society

3 It is the object and duty of the society to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by
(a)preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons,
(b)ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence of lawyers,
(c)establishing standards and programs for the education, professional responsibility and competence of lawyers and of applicants for call and admission,
(d)regulating the practice of law, and
(e)supporting and assisting lawyers, articled students and lawyers of other jurisdictions who are permitted to practise law in British Columbia in fulfilling their duties in the practice of law.

Permitting trial fixing, fraud by lawyers on court orders and providing no discipline for lawyers who refuse to comply with court orders does nothing to "(a) preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of all persons and (b) ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence of lawyers." There is no public interest in the administration of justice permitting fraud and corruption.

The conduct brings the legal system into disrepute and in this case also led to constitutional failures by the Judiciary protecting the lawyers and the Executive in the form of the Minister of Justice making false and misleading statements as to his duties in order to avoid doing them and instead enforcing the Emergencies Act on Canadians and prosecuting those that protested in the face of constitutional violations in the form of a failure of lawyers at the Attorney General's Office of Canada refusing to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter s 24(1) requesting accountability to Parliament and a refusal to answer a constitutional question properly served. A constitutional crisis caused by lawyers improperly protecting each other.

and

Complaints from the public

26 (1)A person who believes that
(a) a lawyer, former lawyer or articled student has practised law incompetently or been guilty of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming the profession or a breach of this Act or the rules, or
(b) a law firm has been guilty of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming the profession or a breach of this Act or the rules
may make a complaint to the society.

what is professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming the profession if refusing to comply with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements does not fit into this category? Is fraud on a court order professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming the profession or is it practising law incompetently? According to the BC Law Society the public should submit to this abuse without complaint or be subjected to denial of service by all lawyers if one does complain and no protection from the society for these practices. How does that facilitate access to justice? and yes the law society breached the Legal Profession Act in my prior experience in their refusal to provide written reasons for their failure to discipline.

The Constitution of Canada, The Charter 1982 guarantees certain rights and freedoms

The Preamble states, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". The principle of the rule of law is that the law applies equally to all persons.

If a lawyer is not bound to follow court orders then neither should the citizen. If a lawyer is permitted to create fraudulent court documents then so should the citizen. If lawyers can have a society that protects them from criminal investigations then so should the citizens.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Permitting trial fixing, fraud by lawyers on court orders and providing no discipline for lawyers who refuse to comply with court order does nothing to preserve and protect the Charter guarantee of security of the person and does not comply with the principles of fundamental justice of which a lack of arbitrariness is a primary attribute. The procedural safeguards are insufficient to protect fundamental justice. There is no end to the injustices that could be perpetrated under this regime.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Everyone is not secure against unreasonable search and seizure if lawyers are permitted to create fraudulent court documents. There is no end to the injustices that could be perpetrated under this regime.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Any person charged with an offence will not receive a fair hearing if lawyers are permitted to create fraudulent court documents and not comply with the court order of the tribunal equally to that of any other citizen. There is no end to the injustices that could be perpetrated under this regime.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Permitting fraud by lawyers against citizens is cruel and unusual treatment and punishment. There is no end to the injustices that could be perpetrated under this regime.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination

If a lawyer is not bound to follow court orders then neither should the citizen. If a lawyer is permitted to create fraudulent court documents then so should the citizen. If lawyers can have a society that protects them from criminal investigations then so should the citizen, particularly when they are interacting with the legal system. Otherwise it is discrimination to provide a benefit to one member of society and not another, merely because they have a society that allows it.

Canada is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is bound by that treaty which largely enforces that treaty through the wording in the Charter of Rights. These rights are not bound solely in our Constitution; they are principles of International human rights law.

Claiming that the appropriate forum to address my concerns of fraud and corruption is the court which their judicial council claims they can reject all my evidence including the transcript, the best possible evidence for the proving of fraud on a court order is obviously not a fair and impartial tribunal for the determination of my rights and freedoms. The Law Society correctly states that they have no jurisdiction over the conduct of judges. However Marta Brus and everyone else clearly can see that a Tribunal claiming such arbitrary power is unconstitutional which is why she perceived correctly that I would not submit myself to that abuse. For what other reason does she assert for why a reasonable and well informed person as herself would suggest that I would not attend court but for my prior experience in the legal system that I informed her of. More troubling is her assurance that her conduct would be protected which uncovers a disturbing reality that lawyers know that judges and law societies will protect their fraudulent conduct, which is hardly surprising since they are all brought up in the same culture of mutual protection created by the BC Law Society and other systemic failures of oversight. A culture of indifference, tolerance and acceptance of criminal conduct by lawyers does not create a culture that citizens can trust which is essential for the public service of justice. Nobody goes to a court for the just determination of their rights and freedoms to be abused by lawyers. That is the ultimate injustice. There is no end to the injustices that could be perpetrated under this regime.

If the law societies do not see that they have a role in protecting the Charter Rights of Canadians and Judges do not see that they have a role in protecting the Charter of Rights of Canadians and the Minister of Justice does not see that he has a role in protecting the Charter Rights of Canadians then exactly who does protect the Charter? Is it all the responsibility of the Legislatures?

The conflict of interest that I allege on the part of the BC Law Society is that they place more emphasis on protecting a lawyer than in protecting the public. They have a statutory duty to protect the public but they are all members of a society of lawyers. They have no discretion to protect lawyers instead of the public. Discretion necessarily implies there is a choice between valid alternatives, otherwise it is a duty. The law society has no discretion to accept fraud by lawyers. They have a duty to protect the public.

Given that they approved of the conduct of a lawyer not complying with a court order and creating a fraudulent court order in the past creates a precedent that they would do so in the present and in the future. That the BC Ombudsperson Office permitted them to do so in the past without repercussion also creates an actual perception of bias that the Ombudspersons Office would permit the BC Law Society to not comply with their statutory duties to provide written reasons in the present, which is a problem that awaits an answer. The BC Law Society promised to do so in the future and now the future is the present they claim the "concerns fall outside the Law Society's legal mandate", which is a refusal to provide reasons couched in different words but with the same result. A refusal to provide written reasons.

The actual apprehension of bias that I am concerned with is the prior acceptance of the conduct of a lawyer who admitted in writing to the BC Law Society that he failed to comply with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements and the manipulation of the evidence presented before the Bencher's removing incriminating evidence from the file resulting in no discipline for the lawyer. In addition they did not discipline the lawyer for creating a fraudulent court order that did not reflect the judicial order as stated by the Judge. The lawyer in this role is acting as an officer of the court as the Judge removed my right to approve the court order as to form. The B.C. Law Society does not dispute those facts. They allege only that the concerns "fall outside the Law Society's legal mandate". Given that the BC Law Society was permitted to obstruct justice in this manner on a prior occasion including a refusal to provide written reasons what is to stop them doing it again. The same obviously applies to the lawyer that is the subject of the complaint. The BC Law Society provides explicit permission to the lawyer to engage in illegal and fraudulent conduct with the knowledge that they will not investigate and do not see that conduct as being within the Law Society's legal mandate. The protection of the public.

The BC Law Society asserts that they are closing the file under Rules 3-5(3)(a) and (c) which permit the Executive Director to decline to investigate. My understanding is that Gigi Chen-Kuo is the Executive Director and so this decision should come from her office, not from the office of a mere para-legal in the office of Intake and Early Resolution.

The conduct alleged is the crime of extortion.

The element that is typically not met with a claim of extortion using the legal system is the element of "reasonable justification". When there is an agreed upon legal system operating according to agreed upon rules, which for Canada is fair and impartial. However Sara and her lawyer knew that the court was not going to be fair and it was not going to be partial and that makes their conduct abusive and the corrupt use of a public service. A public service which must serve everyone equally. They sought to use a public service for a private gain knowing that they had an unfair and illegal advantage. The same would apply if a bribe was offered except it would be a different part of the criminal code. I am reporting the corrupt use of a public service for the purposes of extortion by accusation with the threat of imprisonment for a consequence of failure to pay. Protecting the integrity of the court from corruption by citizens or lawyers is absolutely essential for the protection of the public and the investigation of that is your role.

For easy reference here is the criminal code.

Extortion

346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

There is also fraud.

Fraud

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

The lawyer knew that the legal system was not operating according to it's constitutional imperatives, advised their client that I would not attend court under the circumstances and together they made false and misleading statements that are manifestly untrue in that they can be proved by the agreed upon facts. For instance, claiming that I refuse to mediate on financial issues is contradicted by the offer to mediate in the letter to Marta Brus and their conspiracy to refuse to mediate upon things prior to bringing them to court.

Furthermore the lawyer knew that the law society had protected fraud by a lawyer in the past and so an actual perception of bias that they could do it again.

The lawyer knew or ought to have known that the lawyer was assisting in illegal conduct, a violation of s 3-109 of the Law Society Rules

Criminal activity, duty to withdraw

3-109 (1) If, in the course of obtaining the information and taking the steps required in Rule 3-100 [Requirement to identify client], 3-102 (2) [Requirement to verify client identity], 3-103 [Requirement to identify directors, shareholders and owners] or 3-110 [Monitoring], or at any other time while retained by a client, a lawyer knows or ought to know that the lawyer is or would be assisting a client in fraud or other illegal conduct, the lawyer must withdraw from representation of the client.

(2) This rule applies to all matters for which a lawyer is retained before or after this division comes into force.

I have not bothered to outline the ethical violations that go along with the criminal violations as they are too numerous to list and the crimes trump the ethical considerations.

Wed, Mar 5, 12:44 March 5, 2025

Dear Trevor Holsworth:

Thank you for your email. Please note that I have assigned your file to our investigations team for further assessment. Please wait for a further response from that department.

If you would like to provide any updates or additional documents by email you may do so via mail@bcombudsperson.ca. You’re welcome to contact our office via the phone 1-800-567-3247 if you have any questions about this email.

March 26, 2025

More Relevant Statutory Sections

BC Family Law Act

"family violence" includes, with or without an intent to harm a family member,
(a) physical abuse of a family member, including forced confinement or deprivation of the necessities of life, but not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm,
(b) sexual abuse of a family member,
(c) attempts to physically or sexually abuse a family member,
(d) psychological or emotional abuse of a family member, including
(i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property,
(ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, a family member's financial or personal autonomy,
(iii) stalking or following of the family member, and
(iv) intentional damage to property, and
(e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence;

Part 2 — Resolution of Family Law Disputes

Division 1 — Resolution Out of Court Preferred
Purposes of Part
4 The purposes of this Part are as follows:
(a) to ensure that parties to a family law dispute are informed of the various methods available to resolve the dispute;
(b) to encourage parties to a family law dispute to resolve the dispute through agreements and appropriate family dispute resolution before making an application to a court;
(c) to encourage parents and guardians to
(i) resolve conflict other than through court intervention, and
(ii) create parenting arrangements and arrangements respecting contact with a child that is in the best interests of the child.

Duties of family dispute resolution professionals

8 (1) A family dispute resolution professional consulted by a party to a family law dispute must assess, in accordance with the regulations, whether family violence may be present, and if it appears to the family dispute resolution professional that family violence is present, the extent to which the family violence may adversely affect
(a) the safety of the party or a family member of that party, and
(b) the ability of the party to negotiate a fair agreement.
(2) Having regard to the assessment made under subsection (1), a family dispute resolution professional consulted by a party to a family law dispute must
(a) discuss with the party the advisability of using various types of family dispute resolution to resolve the matter, and
(b) inform the party of the facilities and other resources, known to the family dispute resolution professional, that may be available to assist in resolving the dispute.
(3) A family dispute resolution professional consulted by a party to a family law dispute must advise the party that agreements and orders respecting the following matters must be made in the best interests of the child only:
(a) guardianship;
(b) parenting arrangements;
(c) contact with a child.

Duties of parties respecting family dispute resolution

9 The parties to a family law dispute must comply with any requirements set out in the regulations respecting mandatory family dispute resolution or prescribed procedures.

definitions
"family dispute resolution professional" means any of the following:

...

(c) a lawyer advising a party in relation to a family law dispute;
(d) a mediator conducting a mediation in relation to a family law dispute, if the mediator meets the requirements set out in the regulations;

...

Complying with duties respecting family dispute resolution

197 (1)If a lawyer is acting on behalf of a party in a proceeding under this Act, the lawyer must provide, at the time the proceeding is started, a statement, signed by the lawyer, certifying that the lawyer has complied with section 8 (2) [duties of family dispute resolution professionals].
(2) A person making or intending to make an application under this Act must comply with any requirements set out in the regulations respecting mandatory family dispute resolution or prescribed procedures.

Conduct of proceeding

199 (1) A court must ensure that a proceeding under this Act is conducted
(a) with as little delay and formality as possible, and
(b) in a manner that strives to
(i) minimize conflict between, and if appropriate, promote cooperation by, the parties, and
(ii) protect children and parties from family violence.
(2) If a child may be affected by a proceeding under this Act, a court must
(a) consider the impact of the proceeding on the child, and
(b) encourage the parties to focus on the best interests of the child, including minimizing the effect on the child of conflict between the parties.

Misuse of court process

221 (1) A court may make an order prohibiting a party from making further applications or continuing a proceeding without leave of the court if satisfied that the party
(a) has made an application that is trivial,
(b) is conducting a proceeding in a manner that is a misuse of the court process, or
(c) is otherwise acting in a manner that frustrates or misuses the court process.
(2) If an order is made under subsection (1), the court may do one or more of the following:
(a) make the order apply
(i) for a specified period of time, or
(ii) until the party has complied with an order made under this Act;
(b) impose any terms and conditions respecting the granting of leave to make further applications or to continue a proceeding;
(c) require the party to pay
(i) the other party for all or part of the expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred as a result of the party's actions, including fees and expenses related to family dispute resolution,
(ii) an amount not exceeding $5000 to or for the benefit of the other party, or a spouse or child whose interests were affected by the party's actions, or
(iii) a fine not exceeding $5000.