As
a publisher of articles which at times dig deep into the depths of
deceit and dishonesty it is not surprising that there will be those
who wish to silence such endeavours. What Mayorgate has faced at the
hands of Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP on behalf of her
clients, the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home, has
hit new heights of the absurd.
I
will not revisit all the actions of Rachel Slingerland of Martens
Lingard LLP. I will not raise
again the details of illegal documents used by a lawyer, gained in
breach of legislation and law, only to be used as a weapon of threat.
I will not comment on quotations used by this young lawyer where
whole sentences were omitted and only a few chosen words were
selected, as part of her evidence. I will not discuss further
the cowardly attack on an innocent individual defaming her
reputation. All of this has been done under the Rules
of Civil Procedure, Courts of Justice Act, RCP-E18A (July 1, 2007)
Statement of Defence.
A
Statement of Defence had been filed and registered at the Robert S.
K. Welch Courthouse in St. Catharines on April 7th
2014. As per procedures outlined in the Rules of Civil Procedures, a
copy had been delivered on the day to Rachel Slingerland's attention
at the offices of Martens Lingard LLP on Church Street. This
document is some 51 pages in depth, and the official Statement of
Defence has 32 individual numbered points. A full copy of the
document is attached to this article, as nothing is kept secret with
Mayorgate.
The
rules of procedure under the Courts of Justice Act require that a
Statement of Defence is filed within 20 days of being served with a
statement of Claim by the plaintiff. It clearly states in bold print
that, “If you fail to defend this proceeding, judgement
may be given against you in your absence and without further notice
to you.” Yet once the
Statement of Defence is filed and registered, the plaintiff has up to
two years to sit on their hands before deciding to continue with the
threats served. It has been more than seven days without a sound
from Rachel Slingerland.
My
statement which I registered at the courthouse following all the
rules is divided between three main points. First, the defamation of
artist Alexandra Davidoff will be dealt with in the most serious
manner. No part of the accusations by Rachel Slingerland on behalf
of her clients the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home
are based in fact or truth.
Second,
timelines are an important part of law, whether or not one agrees
with them or not. Slingerland's Statement of Claim had its demands
of compliance within a number of days or else. As a lawyer
Slingerland is expected to understand these time requirements,
although apparently that is a presumption that should not be made.
A
Notice of Action was dated February 27th
2014 and signed by Rachel Slingerland. In this notice Slingerland
refers to the Mayorgate post dated January 15th
2014, and of the YouTube video of the same date. Nowhere in her
notice of action is it made clear when any of the Board of Directors
became aware of the article other than the date of the article and
Slingerland's dated letter.
According
to the Libel and Slander Act under Section 5(1)
it states clearly that no action lies unless notice is provided
within six weeks that the alleged libel came to the attention of the
plaintiff. Maybe Slingerland can claim that it is implied that the
date of her letter should be taken as the date for countdown, but
that would be too ludicrous even for Slingerland. She can claim that
she made an error not to clearly state the date, but that would be
too childish. In one example of case law provided Siddiqui
vs. Canadian Broadcasting Corp (2000), 50 O.R. (301) 607 at paragraph
10 it states “That
failure to comply with the requirements in S5(1) constitutes an
absolute bar, not a mere irregularity.” What
that means is that excuses to cover ignorance do not work.
Using
quotes is something that Slingerland does badly, or maybe it is quite
intentional. In Slingerland's Statement of Claim paragraph 23, she
decides that 90% of a paragraph was not necessary to quote. Instead
Slingerland takes only 17 words, puts dot, dot, dot between them, and
voila she had made her point. The paragraph published in the
Mayorgate article had a total of 86 words. In Slingerland's
paragraph 23(a) this is all she wrote and attributed to Mayorgate and
to me, “By-laws... and all those safeguards that have
been put in place... have been disregarded and abused.”
This
is the paragraph as published in the Mayorgate article. “The
Paderewski Society Home is operated as a non-profit entity with a
definitive set of By-Laws and a Board of Directors elected annually.
There are set policies relating to Conflict of Interest, Privacy of
Information, Fraud Prevention, Purchasing and Tendering, and more.
Its by-laws provide a clear guideline to the operation and management
of the Home for the continuing benefit of all. Yet those safeguards
that have been put in place to create harmony and mutual respect have
been disregarded and abused.”
In
Slingerland's paragraph 23(b) she quotes me again, “No one at
Martens Lingard has explained the full facts surrounding the Annual
General Meeting of July 24 2013, nor have they explained any of the
abuse or intimidation.”
Here
Slingerland does take my sentence in full, but she omits one major
point. I had published copies of the letters signed by one Rachel
Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. Anyone reading those letters
would indeed see that no explanation was given.
Why
did Slingerland select less than one fifth of the words that I wrote
to display as a quote? Why did Slingerland then decide to quote my
words relating to a letter by her and yet not state that I had in
fact published a copy of the actual letter? Is deceit not malicious,
and is it not an intended falsehood? Why did Slingerland select 17
words out of 86? Was it to create deception? This was not a single
attempt at ploughing the verbal field by Rachel Slingerland.
In
her paragraph 29(c) Slingerland uses 36 words with the dot, dot, dot
in between. My paragraph as published had 112 words without the dot,
dot, dot. At least this time
Slingerland had a better ratio than in her paragraph 23. Once
again Slingerland omits the fact that I had published copies of not
one but two letters of the period, both signed by Rachel Slingerland
of Martens Lingard LLP. Not only had I published copies of letters
from Martens Lingard LLP but also copied and published two letters
from Niagara Regional Housing.
Speaking
of letters and Slingerland's Statement of Claim, one major point
begins to jump up and down demanding attention. As publisher of
Mayorgate and a journalist, (or if you are sensitive and prefer
citizen journalist), I have dealt with the conflicting issue of
honesty and lawyers on more than one occasion. I must add that it is
as much of a conundrum as the eternal question of what came first,
the chicken or the egg. No answer is right and no answer is wrong.
Lawyers
play that egg game without stop, only their mantra and never ending
chant is “in the best interest of the client.” Slingerland in
her original notice of action had two points of attack, of
accusation. One was my Mayorgate article and video interview of Leo
Skorski and the second, a letter I wrote to the Retirement Homes
Regulatory Authority (RHRA). Slingerland broke the law regarding
this issue and in the end there are consequences that she cannot
escape.
My
Statement of Defence makes it clear that legislation and law had been
breached willingly and knowingly by lawyer Rachel Slingerland. Any
communication I had with the RHRA is confidential. The RHRA had
contacted Niagara Regional Housing (NRH), providing details of my
letter and my confidential information. An investigation by RHRA
confirmed that they had made an error releasing my confidential
details to NRH, and this was set out in writing.
A
member of NRH's staff provided either directly to a private lawyer,
Rachel Slingerland, or through a third party information protected by
legislation and law. I notified both Slingerland and two senior
partners, Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard of the breach of law
committed by Slingerland. Upon receiving the statement of claim all
mention of the details of my letter to RHRA had been omitted.
Since
the RHRA's internal investigation, NRH had dumped a senior staff
member. True NRH will claim it had nothing to do with this
situation, after all it is a part of the Regional Government of
Niagara, and truth is a key in all their operations.
Simply
removing all the details from the statement of claim does not make
anything go away. Slingerland made a decision, when she used illegal
documentation and or information, to break the law and as a lawyer
she has no excuses. This time the mantra of what is in the best
interest of her client will not shelter her.
It
is the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home through
their lawyer Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP who accused me
of making statements that I knew to be false. This Board of
Directors attacked and defamed an innocent individual to try and add
pressure to their intimidation. Through their lawyer this Board of
Directors has claimed that I acted in anger and had intended to be
malicious. Now it is the Board of Directors of the Paderewski
Society Home, as named individually who will face the consequences:
S.
GLOWACKI (DIRECTOR)
K. URYAZ (DIRECTOR)
W. GROBELNY (DIRECTOR)
C. ZAWADSKI (DIRECTOR)
J. KUBICA (DIRECTOR)
V. NAWROT (DIRECTOR)
L.OPIOLA (DIRECTOR)
K. GLOWACZ (DIRECTOR)
F. BARNOWSKI (DIRECTOR)
S. CIELSIA (DIRECTOR)
W. SOCHA (DIRECTOR)
T. SOTOLS (DIRECTOR)
Rev. A GZEMPA (DIRECTOR)
Polish Combatants a. Designated
Representative, S. MAJERSKI
Royal Canadian Legion Polish
Veteran's Branch #418 a. Designated Representative,
Y. GLOWACKI BROWN
Canadian
Polish Society a. Designated Representative, W. GROBELNY
I
am Mayorgate, and Mayorgate will not run from any threat or any act
of harassment. Facts and truth are not what many want in public, but
Mayorgate will continue to do as it has done from its inception.
Mayorgate will not bow its head to anyone! It is time for an open
court, and it is time for lawyer Slingerland to answer some hard
questions.
(click to enlarge)
Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment