August 16, 2021 – Justice Goldstein Reads Gwendolyn Adrian’s Reasons For Sentencing

Note: Any normal, human being would simply state: When you said that at my Small Claims testimony I admitted spite, knowledge of trespass, saved a neighbour’s foundation rock as a souvenir, admitted I had no permission to drill my gate post hole on my neighbour’s land, etc. etc. we’re defamatory…..PLEASE consider quoting my words which you will have Michael Simaan swear are defamatory….FIRST! Just make me think you have a license. DO NOT JUST SAY TO ME: “YOU LIED OVER THERE💁🏼‍♀️AND ITS *SO* DEFAMATORY THAT IF I TYPE THE EXACT WORDS EVEN *ONCE* THE STATEMENT WILL BECOME TRUTHFUL, SO DONT ASK! YOU CANNOT TRICK ME INTO QUOTING THE ACTUAL DEFAMATION AND PROVING WHY IT IS A LIE.

Any Justice is certainly permitted to accept for consideration “Draft Reasons For Sentencing” written by the other party in a contempt sentencing. The question is “Can/Should” a Justice publish all or part of a DRAFT as if it is his own words.

My legal issues ALL rotate around DRAFTED orders, DRAFTED breach of recognizance terms, lawyers write it up and a justice is then to read and incorporate ONLY what words he agrees with.

It is the emailed statement of Ms. Gwendolyn Adrian of Kramer, Simaan, Dhillon LLP to be sent to her intended client that if I do not supply my facts as “Affidavits signed by a lawyer” that my words are ignored. So what she does is take my truthful statements and simply ignores them. She then drafts what is left.

Justice Goldstein carefully extracted from her draft only the words he could defend as true facts in the evidence before him. When he was assigned, he admitted he had absolutely no knowledge of the matter, that the guilty finding was already made, and he had only to set the appropriate sentence.

So one assumes he read ALL of the evidence transcripts. So he could assess the findings himself.

He then stated he agreed with the following evidence that he had read himself:

This was a small disagreement, I believe he called it, between homeowners Duncan and Buckles

He then described how the simple dispute became a grand scheme, confused, embarrassing.

He went on to assert that “…Mr. Lepp never filed a defense.” But later, he would describe how I pleaded to J Archibald and then J. Schabas to permit my previously filed defense, a few days late and BEFORE Buckles’, to be a pleading. I cannot have done both of 1) NOT FILED A DEFENSE, and then 2) Moved for removal of default in my defense. He read those kind of words, but he had had no time to read all the evidence.

He did get it right that the order to me was to NOT be defamatory, not to lie about Ms Duncan. I never once lied, but, what I DID DO was point out basic, conceptual differences in a sworn plaintiff’s claim to some sworn testimony in Small Claims court.

I recall J Goldstein talked about the decision in SCL Duncan ats Buckles. He referred to it as a big won for Duncan when the actual decision was “Claim DISMISSED”, he could not rule on the claim for future loss of house value due to the fence.

In Ontario, the Small Claims Court hears claims for money owed under a variety of agreements, including unpaid accounts for goods or services, unpaid rent, and loans. Damages can also be claimed, including property damage, personal injuries, and damages for breaches of contract.

 But in each case, you can only sue for the recovery of money: for example, it is not possible for a judge in this court setting to require a gallery to reinstate a cancelled exhibition. The costs associated with exhibition could be claimed, but not the mounting of the show itself.


How the Superior Court of Justice defines the role of Small Claims

About the Small Claims Court

The Small Claims Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice, and handles nearly half of all civil claims in the province.  

The Court has civil jurisdiction

over monetary claims

up to $35,000,

and provides an efficient and cost-effective forum for Ontarians to

bring or defend these claims. 

The Rules of the Small Claims Court provide for streamlined procedures so that cases can be determined at a lower cost and in less time for litigants than cases commenced in the Superior Court.

One must assume that Justice Goldstein was ecouarged to believe all of Ms Adrian’s draft. That Small Claims was set up to provide property line resolutions, future loss of profit, how fence posts are installed. It is not.

Justice Goldstein is not as experienced in Small Claims as he is in SCJ, so he believed Ms’ Adrian’s draft. The draft said that once Small Claims ruled the fence legal, He then said something like “that ends it” forever. But, Small Claims actually DISMISSED the Buckles motion, it did NOT decide the motion and any words said by the justice are NOT orders, they are his personal opinions only, he never signed them and published them.

BUT, Ms Adrian wrote those drafted words and J. Goldstein accepted, read and signed them for the first time to me August 16, 2021. If it was NOT the first time, he certainnly forgot a lot of them.

Other major facts he got wrong by taking them as TRUTHS instead, from a biased draft:

  • I did not file a defense – Yes, I did, a few days late but still before Ms Buckles. I moved to have my defense allowed of of default. – Now how can BOTH thises statements be true at teh same time. Did I file a defense> Yes. Doid I move to get ot out of defualt. Yes. Did J Schabas heard my 137.1 pleading? No, he doid not know he was obliagtrd to hear it and not move the matter along at all until he did so. Instead, J. Schabas assumed a “default” overrode S. 137.1 in its totality. Whereas, s.137.1 is clear: “Once plead, the entire mater is FROZEN until a ruling is made. J. Schabas did NOT FREEZE the matter until 137.1 was heard, he simply BYPASSED the 137.1 pleading and decided to NOT hears s.137.1.
  • I commented on Bob Aaron’s article, the one based on the “Newmrket” lawsuit by Adrian. She included that in her DRAFT as “promienent real estate lawyer ROBERT Aaron. He’s Bob.
  • That “I” accused Duncan’s fence as “blocking the gas line.” NO, I certianly stated my opionion of it, BUT, It was the Gas Company who issued a read tag in Ms Bukles’ furnace because they could not get access to the gas line for an inmspection for a leak as reported.
  • Marnee Buckles lost her Small Claim in a big way. Yes, her claim was DISMISSED, teh Justice had no jurisdiction to grant money to Ms Buckles today for the loss of money in the theoretical future sale of her home.

And then I recall that J. Goldstein said J. Schabas is some type of an expert on how or even IF S. 137.1 even applies in this matter. That is enough for an appeal on its own, but, J. Goldstein was not finished. He stated as facts that he knew the sequence of events:

  1. Tina builds what she knew to be a legal fence and gate post.
  2. Buckles complained about the gate
  3. Duncan hires a surveyor who finds the gate trespasses.
  4. Duncan moves the gate.

Actually, the sequence was:

  1. A 12 inch wide gate post hole was drilled into Buckless land with asking permission at all. The removed soil was replaced by concrete.
  2. Buckles complained about the post being in her land, Ms Buckles ordered it removed and presented no alternative idea
  3. Gate post was taken out, the gate had NEVER been installed yet.
  4. Duncan hires a surveyor, he marks an approximate line with wooden sticks.
  5. Duncan builds an 2 meter high fence with higher posts, and the face of the planks set to be one inch from the surveyed line (as an “exception”probably related by Mandie Crawford, Bylaws Manager) because she believed that meant she did not have to discuss the fence design and construction with her neighbour. The fence was on Duncan land above and below ground, and also was on Buckles’ land AT and below ground, it was straddling ON the property line, the cement and post on one side, the rest of the cement on Buckles’ land and had to be announced to a neighbour by registered mail 14 days ahead of any planned work.
  6. Duncan in SCL: “If she had just let me keep the fence post (on Ms Buckles’ land) none of this would have happened.”
  7. Ms Buckles first saw the fence on return from a trip.
  8. A gas smell in the Buckles house brought the gas company repairmen who red tagged the line now blocked behind the new fence.

OK, enough of the minor stuff he believed. Let’s think about his “impression of my health. I had told him I took 11 pills every day for high blood pressure, gout, and other unnamed ailments. Justice Goldstein then expressed doubt he should be sending a 72-year-old male to prison. He suggests that if only I had told him details of my ailments, that he would have dropped some part of the sentence. That doubt was well deserved. The prison at Metro East is simply the most unsafe, cruel and insensitive gathering of human beings I have ever seen.

The Only Thing You MUST Know About Metro East

  1. The prison does NOT supply masks and does NOT demand masks be worn

Now, they also execute a wide range of lawbreaking, and are adept at simply removing the Charter Rights of all prisoners.

Here is where I have the best evidence that the DRAFT was provided by Ms. Adrian.

J. Goldstein sees an error, he see that her draft, which wanted to come out at HALF of what she asked for… 6 weeks. But he knew if he ruled “21 days” I would simply sit and behave in my cell and I save 7 days. So, he stopped, noticed her mistake, and said out loud he was removing my good behavior time. He ordered I serve all 21 days.

THEN, he gave Ms Adrian free advice he cannot give me. He suggested to her that she speak to a criminal lawyer about how to get me ordered to attend Zoom SMALL CLAIMS COURT in prison. Now, he has decades of knowledge of how prisons work. They do not permit you to bring court documents into your cell. At least I was refused them for 21 days. So then he asks ms Duncan to draft orders to make me attend.

So, he just wasted two hours of Master Frank’s work. And frankly, that could have been avoided by ordering the prison to let me have my property in my cell. My Bloof pressure device, cort papers, eyedrops… were all refused to me.

He put the Guards at the risk of bad acts by me, because I had no requirement to follow rules. I was to serve all 21 so my behaviour did not matter.

And so much more was simple stated incorrectly. The appeal will have it all.