Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Ontario Superior Court Sends Nelson Barbados Case Back To Barbados Court ~The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part XVIII

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

BU has just received the published decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Nelson Barbados Group Limited Vs Barbados and others case. The sum of it is that Ontario has refused jurisdiction, stating that Barbados alone has jurisdiction to try the case.

The Ontario court has come down heavily in favour of the Barbados courts, judiciary and the Chief Justice and equally heavily against their detractors. We noted with some surprise that Barbados Underground is referred to (implied) as having been accused, along with one of our contributors, of theatenening conduct, an accusation that appears to have been  dismissed by the Ontario court.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

14 responses to “Ontario Superior Court Sends Nelson Barbados Case Back To Barbados Court ~The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part XVIII”

  1. David Avatar
    David

    Seems such a waste of money to arrive at a decision which seems commonsense.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Ontario court, with the advantage of ALL the evidence before it, has upheld the integrity of Barbados’ courts, judges and chief justice. It has also refused to reduce Barbados’ status as a soverign independent nation to that of a vassal state of Canada. As you say, David, “such a waste of money to arrive at a decision which seems commonsense.”

    I would estimate that in monetary terms, we are looking at millions of dollars. Millions that might have been much better spent in alleviating the lot of Bajans in this time of global recession. OR of ensuring the well-being of some wildlife at Graeme Hall or some other such nature sanctuary. OR of protecting Sam Lord’s Castle, a part of the national heritage of Barbados.

    There is something basically out of whack here. There are moans from certain parties about how government ought to step in and assist financially (with taxpayers’ money of course) with the protection of our natural and historic heritage. And these are some of the very same people who have assisted in the waste millions of the taxpayer’s money bringing a meritless case already tried with all its appeals exhausted, out of its correct jurisdiction. A blatant attempt at forum-shopping for which the Barbados taxpayer has been paying the bill.

    And they expect us to take them seriously? On any matter?!

    The Ontario judge has asked the very important question, “Who is the Plaintiff?” And answer is there none. The Plaintiff has refused to answer. This “improper refusal” leaves us with the right to speculate. Who are the shareholders of Nelson Barbados Group Limited? Is one of them John Knox, Nelson’s mouthpiece? Could other shareholders be the daughters of Marjorie Knox, they who own the Keltruth Blog and, as rumour has it, Barbados Free Press? Could Marjorie Knox herself be a shareholder of Nelson Barbados? Is Nelson Barbados a shell company incorporated in Ontario solely to give the appearance of legitimacy for this lawsuit? We simply do not know and Mr. Mckenzie and his client are refusing to enlighten us, which is bad. And they are refusing to enlighted the Ontario court, which is worse.

    The Knox family has taken what was a sordid and regrettable family squabble and (with considerable non-Bajan help)parlayed it into a matter of National expense. They have tried to heap infamy on us all – and they have failed.

    The comfort, if comfort there is, derives from the fact that in spite of all the selective and scandalous reporting of Keltruth and Barbados Free Press in furtherance of their sordid agendas, this Ontario court decision negates in its entirety the harm the Knox family and Barbados Free Press have tried to do to Barbados, its government, its judiciary, its Chief Justice, its industries and its off-shore sector. Overseas investors, who certainly would not have relied on the vitriolic outpourings of sources like Keltruth and Barbados Free Press in any case, now have the advice of their investment advisers resoundingly confirmed – that Barbados does indeed operate as a fully functional soverign independent nation and an important and responsible member of the international community.

    Will the “legitimate” organs of the Barbados press give the matter some “fair comment” coverage now BU has led the way? Or will they once again hide themselves behind the cowardly and inappropriate claim of “sub judice”? Don’t hold your breath?

  3. David Avatar
    David

    It is interesting to note the Attorney General making the point in parliament today that defamation will be discussed in parliament shortly. He is of the view that people should feel free to criticize court decisions or people in public life without having to worry about paying out money. Maybe then our Fourth Estate will start to honour their profession.

  4. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    David I was pleased to hear that too.

  5. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ Anonymous:

    Thanks for that analysis. I could not have said it better. I wonder if the Judge is going to do anything about McKenzie and his waste of the Ontario Courts’ time, by bringing this frivolous action?

    I am glad it is finally over. From the case history quoted and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is unlikely that MacKenzie can bring this case in another province. It was suggested during examinations that this was his goal.

  6. Inkwell Avatar
    Inkwell

    David,

    In civil suits such as this, the presiding judge has to make a ruling as to the distribution of costs.

    What was his ruling?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    @Inkwell, I refer you to the last two paragraphs of the Reasons. The judge has asked for a hearing for costs to be scheduled. So no costs order yet. The hearing is to be scheduled.

    Costs will be awarded to the defendants, but the question is what sort of costs. In Canada, there are two types of costs. Partial indemnity (which is about 40% of what you have actually spent) and substantial indemnity (which is supposed to be the whole amount).

    If you refer to the penultimate paragraph, you will see that a Mr Ranking (one of the lawyers) is asking for substantial indemnity costs awarded against Nelson and, failing Nelson, against Mr McKenzie himself. Other defense lawyers will certainly jump on this bandwagon.

    Is Mr Ranking likely to get his wish? On the substantial indemnity costs, I would say yes without doubt. It is something usually only available for frivilous actions and this is certainly one such.

    Will costs be awarded against Mr McKenzie himself? VERY unusual for this to be done. However, this is a case the hearing of which in Canada was dependent on one motion – that as to whether Canada had judicial jurisdiction to try it in the first place. The hearing of that motion has been frustrated and delayed by Mr Mckenzie for some years to the financial detriment of all of the defendants. It might also be argued that Mr. Mckenzie has failed in his duty to the court itself. The answer is that it is so unusual an order that I do not know. But I am prepared to give good odds that Mr McKenzie will be landed with the costs order personally. Given the recital in the Reasons of cases underway in Barbados brought by or against Marjorie Knox, someone here ought to try to recover costs against some of the lawyers here. That would certainly put the cat among the pigeons and Sir David Simmons and his judicial staff might find themselves spending far more time at the beach cooling out.

    @Pat. It should be over and I agree with you and can see no grounds for appeal in the decision either. I also think the judge has closed the door to the action being re-filed anywhere in Canada – or anywhere else. However, we seem to be dealing with idiots and so we cannot rule out an appeal. For any appeal to be heard, all the costs in the motion would have to be paid first and within a certain time frame. These costs must run to millions and I am predicting that the costs awarded will top $1 million. An appeal will therefore depend on if Nelson and its backers are prepared to cough up more money that they never expect to see back.

    Some time ago, I read here on BU that Marjorie Knox had been loaned $24 million against the security of her shares in Kingsland, so clearly money (or the loss of it) is not any sort of consideration to whatever and whoever Nelson Barbados comprises. Except, of course, when it comes to crying “poor-mouth” in respect of Graeme Hall. So, on the one hand we have unlimited funds for an action doomed to failure the motiviation behind which could only be deepest and darkest revenge…while on the other these same people cry that they have no money to continue to support a nature reserve that benefits, not just Barbados, but the global eco-system. Interesting. Perverted, but interesting.

  8. Can't Blame them for Trying Avatar
    Can’t Blame them for Trying

    After the bogus decision made by the Barbados courts in the case of I’Akobey Maloney, and the lack of an inquest into the deaths at Arch Cot.

    It seems like the court system here is set up to protect those in power.

    Have you not seen who is named in the action? Do you honestly think that there will be a fair court ruling in Barbados on this matter?

    Ask yourselves these questions then find fault in the peoples attempt to try to get the case heard overseas.

    Forget all the long talk Anonymous/BWWR; we all know your stake in this.

  9. David Avatar
    David

    @Can’t Blame them for Trying

    You blame the courts because an Arch Cot matter didn’t reach the Court?

    If the evidence presented to the Coroner did not allow her to make a decision again you want to blame the Court?

  10. Can't Blame them for Trying Avatar
    Can’t Blame them for Trying

    I dont blame the court for Arch Cot because it has yet to come before the courts which is what I take issue with. I do however blame the courts for their tardiness and indifference. I also think it is wrong that judges should be allowed to be politically connected especially in a country our size.

    I think the people of Barbados put up with a lot of abuse from the people in power because they know if they ever had to take them on legally they have no chance of winning.

    Which brings me back to my point: Do you honestly think that there will be a fair court ruling in Barbados on this matter? Or on any matter pertaining to the government or to those who govern?

  11. Can't Blame them for Trying Avatar
    Can’t Blame them for Trying

    Forgive me for posting twice but in the case of I’Akobey Maloney. He died! Someone must take responsibility. Not a fall man but the force as a whole. In the good old USA it would be called a wrongful death and the family could expect compensation (although if it was my son; no amount of money would exstinguish my anger).

    Whether or not he was killed by police or if it really was an accident or if it was suicide. He died while in police custody.

  12. NelsonBarbadosAffair Avatar
    NelsonBarbadosAffair

    WOW… I’m from Orillia, Ontario, Canada, and can’t believe that this has been kept out of our local, regional and national news. (Sniff, sniff…. oh- oh…)

    Just so you know it’s now news on the legal blogs at least. This was just posted at http://www.lawbuzz.ca — watch, comment, and update as you wish!

    ——————————————-

    Has anyone read Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy’s May 5th, 2009 decision?

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii22563/2009canlii22563.html

    Ouch.

    This one wasn’t very flattering either:

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii16079/2008canlii16079.html

    If you don’t what all of this is about, and want some background, a reader’s digest version can be accessed at:

    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/ontario-superior-court-sends-nelson-barbados-case-back-to-barbados-court-the-other-side-of-the-kingsland-estate-court-matter-part-xviii/

    We’re talking a lot of dough here.

    We’re also talking about the Court’s apparent rejection of a host of crazed conspiracy theories put forth by members of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

    We’re also talking about utterly indignant, and what Justice Shaughnessy deems are also utterly “unfounded” allegations of conspiracy and corruption against a sovereign commonwealth, feverishly made against a prime minister himself, and indeed the entire judiciary itself, in an ill-fated attempt to continue to pervert justice to a self-serving end, by officers of our Courts, IN OUR Courts.

    Odd that it has not received more news in the Barrie-area, given that this is where the elusive plaintiff shares an office with his counsel. Orillia–to be precise.

    My understanding is that the infamous student-at-law acting in these matters shares the same name as a former Georgian College Student who used to work for a Saudi Prince.

    Which Prince that actually was needs to be carefully considered, however, given that news stories suggest the same “security guard” – turned student, claimed more than $100,000 in a settlement where he claimed to have been involved in an illicit espionage conspiracy funded by the Canadian Government where he posed as a security guard at a hotel in Cairo whilst spying on his target.

    Check yourself:
    http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/view.asp?id=34

    Need your tinfoil yet?

    Throw satellite piracy, Donald Best, William MacKenzie, Supreme Court of Canada, Nelson Barbados Group, Saudi espionage plot, and Marc Lemieux through google a bit and you’ll sound just as crazy as Black Women Can Read—oh wait, they’re right on this one!

    Can it really be possible that the same players (the ones still alive, that is) could be somehow permitted to get away with this. It seems so.

    While so many in Barbados are calling for disbarment action already, how long does it really take, if it is even possible, in order that unethical conduct that brings the administration of our judiciary into disrepute such as this can be sanctioned.

    And who pays for it?

    For now, anyway, it appears that’ll be the Orillia firm personally. (That’s the firm who no longer appears to vacation in Barbados).

    Comments?

  13. NelsonBarbadosAffair Avatar
    NelsonBarbadosAffair

    Has anyone read Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy’s May 5th, 2009 decision?

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii22563/2009canlii22563.html

    Ouch.

    This one wasn’t very flattering either:

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii16079/2008canlii16079.html

    If you don’t what all of this is about, and want some background, a reader’s digest version can be accessed at:

    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/ontario-superior-court-sends-nelson-barbados-case-back-to-barbados-court-the-other-side-of-the-kingsland-estate-court-matter-part-xviii/

    We’re talking a lot of dough here.

    We’re also talking about the Court’s apparent rejection of a host of crazed conspiracy theories put forth by members of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

    We’re also talking about utterly indignant, and what Justice Shaughnessy deems are also utterly “unfounded” allegations of conspiracy and corruption against a sovereign commonwealth, feverishly made against a prime minister himself, and indeed the entire judiciary itself, in an ill-fated attempt to continue to pervert justice to a self-serving end, by officers of our Courts, IN OUR Courts.

    Odd that it has not received more news in the Barrie-area, given that this is where the elusive plaintiff shares an office with his counsel. Orillia–to be precise.

    My understanding is that the infamous student-at-law acting in these matters shares the same name as a former Georgian College Student who used to work for a Saudi Prince.

    Which Prince that actually was needs to be carefully considered, however, given that news stories suggest the same “security guard” – turned student, claimed more than $100,000 in a settlement where he claimed to have been involved in an illicit espionage conspiracy funded by the Canadian Government where he posed as a security guard at a hotel in Cairo whilst spying on his target.

    Check yourself:
    http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/view.asp?id=34

    Need your tinfoil yet?

    Throw satellite piracy, Donald Best, William MacKenzie, Supreme Court of Canada, Nelson Barbados Group, Saudi espionage plot, and Marc Lemieux through google a bit and you’ll sound just as crazy as Black Women Can Read—oh wait, they’re right on this one!

    Can it really be possible that the same players (the ones still alive, that is) could be somehow permitted to get away with this. It seems so.

    While so many in Barbados are calling for disbarment action already, how long does it really take, if it is even possible, in order that unethical conduct that brings the administration of our judiciary into disrepute such as this can be sanctioned.

    And who pays for it?

    For now, anyway, it appears that’ll be the Orillia firm personally. (That’s the firm who no longer appears to vacation in Barbados).

    Comments?

  14. David Avatar
    David

    BU understands that this matter has been appealed in Canada for those who want to believe it!

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading