Opening the door for the B.C. Law Society

to repair their involvement in my miscarriage of justice

Unfortunately the mother of my children took advantage of my legal dispute with the Judiciary to take me to a court that she knew would be unfairly partial to her because she had witnessed my efforts to seek justice even with the best evidence possible accompanied by failure.

I made a complaint regarding the conduct of the lawyer who advised and represents her to the BC Law Society. The email was acknowledged received and a further response due around Dec 18, 2024 but we wait…

SENT BY EMAIL OCT 18, 2024

To: professionalconduct@lsbc.org

Dear Sir/Madam,

I believe that the conduct of Marta Brus represents a failure to adhere to her requirements to promote the interests of justice and the promotion of suits on frivolous notions and brings the legal system into disrepute and is an abuse of duties and process.

I attach two letters that I have sent in regards to this matter. The letters demonstrate that her duty to attempt to negotiate and mediate in good faith, prior to bringing matters to Court was specifically avoided because of a correct perception that the bias of the Court would create a more beneficial outcome. I also attach my brief as Intervener in the Federal Court of Appeal debating the enforcement of the Emergencies Act.

Her advice is provided to her client in the attached Affidavit of Sara Rainford. I presume that a lawyer would be deemed a well informed observer but perhaps her status as a member of the law society removes her from the membership of the status of a member of the public. Marta Brus's advice was that given the nature of the allegations, it is unlikely that he would attend. The allegations would be uncontested and an injustice would occur, as planned.

Unfortunately the evidence also implicates the BC Law Society in a failure to protect the public interest and comply with the governing statute of the BC Legislature which is a criminal offence and a failure to self-regulate in accordance with the law. Obviously my trust in this process which has significant impacts on my legal rights and in which I have no rights to a fair and impartial hearing, is zero.

Unfortunately the Attorney General's Office is equally failing to protect the public and conducting a prosecution knowing the unfairness and partiality of the tribunal as well as failing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter, their governing constitution.

A failure to protect the public interest in the access to justice crisis.

Ms Brus's failure to realize that I would assert the Charter to protect fundamental justice and the public's right to a fair and impartial trial is also shared by the BC Law Society who protected lawyers obstructing justice, committing fraud on a court order and failing to comply with court orders to provide monthly trust account statements.

The Canadian Judicial Council also asserting that judges had discretion to reject the transcript used to correct an improperly drafted court order and could instead call upon the Plaintiff to protect her lawyer committing fraud.

Resulted in my requesting the Minister of Justice to correct the CJC and his failure to do so and my serving David Lametti with the enforcement procedure of the Charter requesting accountability from the MOJ which they denied because there was no defence. Which led me to requesting a writ of mandamus on the MOJ and the judge's failure to attend court at all on the day assigned, which was Feb 14, 2022, when David Lametti enforced the Emergencies Act upon Canadians...knowing that accountability was being requested.

And Marta Brus right in the center of the mess knowing the outcome was going to be a miscarriage of justice because she informed her client of what a reasonable well informed person would do, which is not attend a court which was in conflict with its governing agreement, the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Marta Brus should be disbarred for her failure to protect her client from allegations of abuse of process, other lawyers who rely on the trust that Canadians have in their constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial, the court for bringing a matter that could have been resolved by mediation as it obviously brings the court into disrepute and to Canada for bringing disrepute to our constitution by purposefully dragging this matter into the court system.

Of course I have a reasonable apprehension of bias in the fairness and impartiality of the entire process, given that when push comes to shove there is no evidence that I can present to protect myself from fraud and corruption within the legal system. That has been confirmed not only by the Canadian Judicial Council but by the BC Court of Appeal which claimed that allegations could be dismissed as conspiracy theories, no matter what the quality of evidence is presented.

The legal system has a duty to protect fundamental justice to promote fair and impartial trials. It is a constitutional imperative. The legal system has an obligation to serve the public under the constitutional constraints. A breach in the Charter requires a restoration of the breach. The breach has not been restored. The denial does not provide access to justice. The denial promotes fraud and corruption as legitimate tools rather than abuses of duties and process.

Trevor Holsworth

BC Law Society
January 24^th, 2025

Thank you for your letter which I received today. In your January 16, 2025 email you stated that you would send the correspondence by mail as your encrypted email attachment could not be scanned for viruses. Thank you for your apology regarding your delay in responding. My initial complaint was made on October 18, 2024 and a response was stated to be expected within 6 weeks which would be early December. I did not receive a response to my follow up email of December 30, 2024. It appears your hurried response was only sent in response to my phone call or my complaint to FMEP. Is this a pattern I can expect in our future communications?

Since I provided you with my postal address it has been confirmed, your question is irrelevant.

I am concerned that Marta Brus knows that fraud and failing to comply with court orders is the accepted standard of the BC Law Society that I would be subjected to the same. The Judiciary through the Canadian Judicial Council claims that they can legitimately ignore the transcript and call upon the Plaintiff to protect her lawyer committing fraud on a court order and that too is acceptable so I would be clearly be vulnerable to the same occurring, since there are no safeguards to protect fundamental justice to ensure our constitutionally guaranteed fair and impartial trials. My concern at this stage is that the BC Law Society is in a conflict of interest given the previous failure to comply with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act of BC, to provide written reasons for failing to discipline. The significant delays and failures to respond so far are indicative of the larger problem. Please advise how the BC Law Society intends to resolve the conflict of interest? I have an actual apprehension of bias regarding the conduct of the BC Law Society to comply with their duty. I have an actual apprehension of bias regarding the conduct of Marta Brus because she is aware that she could commit fraud on a court order or not comply with a court order and there is nothing that I could do about it as the BC Law Society and the Judiciary would protect her as they have done, in my experience.

Thank you for acknowledging my allegation that Brus failed to communicate with me to settle as required by the BC Family Law Act.

4 The purposes of this Part are as follows:

(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;

But in your letter you state, “Brus has no obligation to respond to you...”

In my letter of August 3, 2018 to Marta Brus attached to this email,

“I am however open to resolving issues with Sara. Please let me know where the $24,000 figure comes from as it differs from the $13,038 that I calculate and I will attempt to make the payments as per the schedule”

There was no further communication prior to bringing this matter before the court as required by the BC Family Law Act s 4 (b) and by the terms of the Separation Agreement s 2(b) and s 23.

In the affidavit of Sara Rainford it states,
“48. My income in 2018 was $ 53,893.07. I am a part time paramedic in the New Denver Are. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "K" is a copy of my 2018 T4 Slip and income summary.”

and

“49. Our Agreement indicates that we exchange our tax returns every year by July 30th to deal with child support recalculation. Trevor has never provided his information.”

The affidavit of May 14, 2018 in support of the application to the Court is the first time that a request for child support recalculation exists. There was no attempt to communicate prior to bringing this matter before the court as required by the BC Family Law Act s 4 (b) and by the terms of the Separation Agreement s 2(b) and s 23.

The same applies to the affidavit of May 14, 2018 in support application to the Court to change the terms of the custody regime.

“51. Trevor and I currently have a week on week off parenting time regime, however this is very difficult to maintain during the winter months when Trevor's business is at its peak. There are often times that he can't be relied on to take XXXX and ZZZZ for his entire specified time, i am advised usually at the very last minute after i have made plans. I am asking that the parenting time arrangement outlined in paragraph 8 (c) of the Agreement be set aside and replaced with:”

There is no evidence of communication provided regarding the children prior to bringing this matter before the court as required by the BC Family Law Act s 4 (b) and by the terms of the Separation Agreement.

“9 d) If the parties do not review the child support as provided above, or review the child support and do not vary it in writing, both parties are deemed to consider that the child support continues to satisfy the requirements of the Federal and British Columbia Child Support Guidelines.”

I am under no requirement to provide anything as I considered that the child support continues to satisfy the requirements. (Although to be honest I didnt have any choice and was in an obvious power imbalance in the negotiation of the Separation Agreement.)

The clauses of the Separation Agreement breached are Section
2. b) if a dispute arises regarding this Agreement, the parties shall try to resolve it through the collaborative law process or mediation, and if resolution by one of those means fails, then through the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
8 u) if the parties cannot agree about important decisions about the children the parties will attempt to resolve differences of opinion through the collaborative law process, a parenting coordinator, or mediation, before resort to the courts.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION

s 23. If the parties cannot resolve any issue arising from this agreement they will attempt to resolve the issue through mediation before making any application to a court.

If Marta Brus has communication that shows that she, or her client, made any effort to communicate prior to bringing these matters before the Court then she should produce them or agree to the default in complying with the terms of the Statute and the Separation Agreement.

You state, “you also have the right to take steps in the matter to address that in the forum of your litigation”, which is not true as the evidence in my submission to the Federal Court of Appeal clearly demonstrates. I can present the transcript to a judge to correct a fraudulently written court order and the judiciary asserts they can ignore that and call upon the recollection of the Plaintiff and prefer that to the transcript to protect her lawyer committing fraud. So, fundamentally I have no rights to address that in the forum of the litigation, which is why I am bringing it up here. I disclosed an actual apprehension of bias of the Judiciary, I cant protect myself from fraud by a lawyer no matter what evidence I provide which is a clear example of partiality or bias. Fundamentally it is also unfair as I cannot correct miscarriages of justice and abuse of power or fraud.

This is also why I ticked the box regarding “conflict of interest” because it is the conduct of the Law Society protecting a lawyer committing fraud on a court order, refusing to comply with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements and refusing to provide written reasons, which created this situation.

If you could provide some details on your professional qualifications that would be much appreciated. Please advise of anyone else that was consulted in the preparation of the response from the BC Law Society.

Thanks for your legal advice to seek independent legal advice. “I will not represent you now, or ever.” and “there is no-one in my office that would present that evidence” was the response when presented with my experience.

The issues that you did not reference at all in your response include.

1. “Unfortunately the evidence also implicates the BC Law Society in a failure to protect the public interest and comply with the governing statute of the BC Legislature which is a criminal offence and a failure to self-regulate in accordance with the law. Obviously my trust in this process which has significant impacts on my legal rights and in which I have no rights to a fair and impartial hearing, is zero.”
   The question of how the BC Law Society is “protect[ing] the public interest” by their 2007 decision to refuse to provide written reasons why they did not discipline a lawyer is not addressed. “The legal system has a duty to protect fundamental justice to promote fair and impartial trials. It is a constitutional imperative. The legal system has an obligation to serve the public under the constitutional constraints. A breach in the Charter requires a restoration of the breach. The breach has not been restored. The denial does not provide access to justice. The denial promotes fraud and corruption as legitimate tools rather than abuses of duties and process.” I made an allegation of trial fixing in the past and witnessed a cover-up by the BC Law Society and a refusal to comply with their statutory duties. What's to stop that occurring again. Nothing.

2. “Marta Brus's advice was that given the nature of the allegations, it is unlikely that he would attend. The allegations would be uncontested and an injustice would occur, as planned.” because of an actual perception of bias given the evidence that Judges would ignore all my evidence and protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order or allow a lawyer to not comply with a court order which would make my participation in the adversarial process meaningless. “Marta Brus right in the center of the mess knowing the outcome was going to be a miscarriage of justice because she informed her client of what a reasonable well informed person would do, which is not attend a court which was in conflict with its governing agreement, the Canadian Charter of Rights.” and “Of course I have a reasonable apprehension of bias in the fairness and impartiality of the entire process, given that when push comes to shove there is no evidence that I can present to protect myself from fraud and corruption within the legal system. That has been confirmed not only by the Canadian Judicial Council but by the BC Court of Appeal which claimed that allegations could be dismissed as conspiracy theories, no matter what the quality of evidence is presented.”

The summary of the new issues for your further response.

3. Communication required prior to bringing matters to Court to comply with the terms of the BC Family Law Act and the Separation Agreement.

4. How you intend to resolve the conflict of interest and actual bias of the BC Law Society due to the prior decision to not discipline a lawyer who admitted in writing to not complying with a court order and the refusal of the law society to provide written reasons as required by the Legal Professions Act. Under this standard the public is wondering what is professional misconduct; or conduct unbecoming the profession?

5. How the conduct of Marta Brus' is not professional misconduct; or conduct unbecoming the profession?

6. Details on your qualifications and consultations with supervisors.

Thank you for sending me the Law Society brochure entitled, “Concerned about the conduct of a Lawyer”. We are all interested in what standard is to be expected of lawyers. As the evidence in my submission to the Federal Court of Appeal regarding the legality and constitutionality of the Emergencies Act enforcement outlined previous interactions with the BC Law Society where I made allegations of trial fixing, failures to comply with court orders and fraud on a court order. The lawyer involved admitted in writing to the failure to comply with a court order but the BC Law Society provided no discipline for his conduct and refused to provide written reasons for their failure to comply with the statutory requirements.

Legal Profession Act of BC
“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 person”

Please advise how the object and duty of the Society is being upheld when the Society refuses to provide written reasons for it's decision to protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order and refusing to comply with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements and subsequently refusing to mediate in accordance with the BC Family Law Act and the Separation Agreement prior to bringing the matter to court to take advantage of the fact that I have an actual experience of bias in the administration of justice. The dismissal by a judge of the best evidence that any Canadian could provide, the transcript used to protect myself from fraud on a court order by a lawyer and the subsequent protection of that judge by the Canadian Judicial Council.

I will equally permit you a time limit of two weeks to respond to this communication. Please send by regular mail if you are sending attachments which are unable to be scanned for viruses because they are encrypted.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The B.C. Law Society promptly replied

leaving Canadians completely vulnerable to fraud by lawyers in their quest to access justice. Police wont investigate, AG’s decline to respond, dismiss private informations without investigation, and judges will reject the transcript and prefer the Plaintiff’s recollection to protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order. The Minister of Justice will not investigate a judge who protects a lawyer committing fraud and the Canadian Judicial Council says it is within the discretion of a judge as if that discretion is absolutely boundless. When I requested accountability through a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice to do his duty and report to Parliament the Judge didnt show up and the Minister enforced the Emergencies Act on Canadians.
The BC Court of Appeal claimed it was a conspiracy theory and this didnt reflect reality. That was untrue and the judge knew it but unless there is consequence for failures of “good behavior” why wouldnt they protect their friends and screw the public.

The judicial decision at the BC Court of Appeal was an obstruction of justice. Simply removing the critical fact that the evidence was, [the transcript] changes the entire narrative & proves the conclusion is reality. We had explicit conversations on this issue before the court and she had the letter from the Canadian Judicial Council claiming that judges could ignore the transcript to protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order. She knew that the public would disapprove but did not care. In the provincial court when I asked the CRA agent how he felt about the fairness of a trial in these circumstances the judge refused to allow him to answer. They know the answer.

It’s a shell game. A poker game with rigged cards, crooked players and a house that is in on the take. There should be no immunity from prosecution provided to decision makers at the law society. That is unconstitutional. A claim to be above the law. The legislator should revoke the exception. It is not justified in a free and democratic state and it clearly empowers corruption without consequence.

So, On March 1st 2025 I responded.

I am in receipt of your latest letter which arrived very prompt in contrast to your previous communication.

I note that the letter says it is CONFIDENTIAL and the previous one said that it was PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL but then you state that you are forwarding our communication to the lawyer that is the subject of the complaint, Marta Brus. You are explicitly providing Marta Brus with permission to commit fraud with the knowledge that you will not discipline that conduct.

I made the comments regarding the Judiciary to outline the failure of constitutionality in the conduct of the Judiciary. I do understand your jurisdiction but given that the members of the Judiciary are drawn from the members of the Law Society and the Law Society is explicitly permitting fraud to be conducted by lawyers creates an obvious environment where Judges are educated that lawyers are not to be disciplined for fraud.

I do note that you assert that you are closing the file. I did request details regarding who else was involved in the decision making but did not receive further details but you did quote the Law Society Rules stating that the Executive Director may 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? or are you making that decision without the Executive Director's oversight? Otherwise I would expect the decision should come from the authorized statutory decision maker.

As mentioned previously to you in regards to your claim that the proper forum for alleging lawyer misconduct including fraud on a court order is the court but the evidence demonstrates the Judiciary will protect lawyer misconduct by ignoring all the evidence that any Canadian could provide, including the transcript. Clearly not a fair and impartial tribunal so a decision from that court would not be constitutional so would have no force or effect so would be irrelevant for anyone's purpose.

In your letter you claim that "if a party fails to comply with an order you have options available to you. There is no evidence of an order directed personally against the lawyer." But in my previous experience with a lawyer and the B.C. Law Society your office protected two lawyers one of whom had a court order for monthly trust account statements which was never complied with and an subsequent application to the court by "my lawyer" for the opposing lawyer to comply with that court order within 24 hours but there is no record in the court of that hearing ever taking place despite the lawyers claiming that it had and your office claimed that there was no misconduct. And as previously noted the Judiciary protected the lawyer for his failure to comply with a court order and the Canadian Judicial Council protected that conduct. So clearly I have no options.

I look forward to our continued communication.

I didnt bother to inform them that the BC Ombudsman and the BC Legislature have been informed of our communication in my further quest for accountability for fraud and corruption and constitutionality in the BC legal system. But clearly the BC Law Society has no interest in protecting the public from fraud by lawyers and do not see a role for themselves in the guarantee to the Public of fair and impartial trials. That apparently is someone else’s responsibility…

Some other posts that are relevant include

This was one of the first hearings on the child support issue. The lawyer quit work and quit being a lawyer within the week.

This is the “trial” that landed me in jail for 80 days.

This is my first experience with Justice Sicotte in regards to my initial protest July 16, 2021

This is part of my experience in jail

This is my complaint regarding the conduct of the judge. not from the trial but prior to that.