When can a lawyer be made liable jointly and severally for costs ordered against his client? What are the professional obligations of a lawyer and his/her responsibility to the integrity of the justice system? Update of “The Other Side of the Kingsland Estates Matter” […]and “The Secretive World of Peter Andrew Allard”.
[…]
BU recently published an update on this matter – see Tales from the Courts – “THE OTHER SIDE OF THE KINGSLAND ESTATES MATTER” and “THE SECRETIVE WORLD OF PETER ANDREW ALLARD” XXVII (Update). Now, Healy J of the Ontario courts has issued another decision – see Healy J’s Deciosn, this time on a costs motion by the “Caribbean defendants”. And quite a decision it is too and it answers a lot of the headline questions.
In essence, Healy J has ordered the costs be paid jointly and severally by Mr Donald Robert Best and his counsel, Mr Paul Slansky. This is a highly unusual step and the ruling of the judge leaves no wriggle room for the Law Society of Upper Canada not to commence disciplinary action against Mr Slansky, as it did against Mr Best/Mrs Knox’s previous counsel, William McKenzie aka “Little Billy Goat”. Our searches show that Mr McKenzie is no longer on the list of members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Fairness dictates that we also state that McKenzie had passed retirement age, but he had done that before he undertook at Marjorie Knox’s behest his meritless law suit against Barbados. Fairness also dictates that we point out that Slansky has 30 days to appeal the decision.
Barbados’ legal eagles will now be agog to see if, with Knox’s millions in unpaid costs orders, plus interest, the Ontario judgement can be used to ground arguments to make Alair Shepherd liable for Marjorie Knox/Peter Allard’s costs in Barbados. Of course the Barbados Supreme Court ruled over by a man who has done more damage to Barbados than any other person in living memory, has the option of denying privilege on the Knox and Allard solicitor-client files – the same way Ontario did. But will the Supreme Court grow a pair, provide grounds, first, to get rid of Gibson and, second, to deal with the Allard-inspired/financed assault on our sovereignty and abuse of our courts?
But wait a minute! Isn’t Peter Allard represented in Barbados by none other than Barbados Bar Association president Tariq Khan?! We do believe that is indeed the case. Please feel free to step in, Mr Khan, and comment. We are nothing if not equal opportunity here at BU. Given the stakes for Mr Allard, your client, we have to quietly ponder some of the BA’s recent tactics, although, of course, we ascribe these to mere coincidence, but ponderable nonetheless, wouldn’t you agree, Mr President Khan?
We note that former Mr President Abrahams took legal counsel from then (now former) CJ Simons and the then Registrar, but this was of course explicable since the now Senator Abrahams was then slated to become Simmons’ son-in-law, so, impropriety be damned, it was just a family matter – like Kingsland.
Some people thought this Kingsland situation was not a matter of national importance to Barbados. Think again. How can a deliberate attempt to subvert our justice system and our national sovereignty by forum-shopping it to Ontario and Florida not be of national importance? How can an inaccurate and unsupported and adverse blog campaign not be of national importance? How can the financial support of a candidate, now a member of cabinet (namely Denis Lowe, or as he is better known, “Lowe Life”) by Peter Allard for the collateral purpose of espousing Allard’s wishes not be of national interest. Mind you, Lowe Life, once we applied the heat, quickly got shot of Allard – in the same way that he has shed the platform of integrity legislation on which he was elected and the electorate that gave him a prime seat at the pigs’ trough.
The Kingsland situation has shown up far more than anyone ever expected. We have to wonder what other revelations are in store.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.