THE DEFENDANTS’ HAD A CLEAR CHOICE TO ACT REASONABLY AND END THIS LITIGATION IN SEPTEMBER 2007.

 

307.      At the trial Hirjis’ established in evidence that VR-44 had a very simple and clear choice to make, either to carry out their part of the contract, or be completely relived from their contract. They would have also been relieved from their legal obligations altogether if they had given the responsibility and conduct of repairs to the Hirjis’ in 2007 or 2008. Hirjis’ requested on more than one occasion for the conduct of the repairs, after two failed remediation attempts by VR-44 and their failure to retain properly qualified professionals to carry out the required remediation in Hirjis’ unit in a timely manner. VR-44 breached their duty of care and failed to act reasonably and failed to grant the conduct of repairs to the Hirjis’.

HIRJIS WERE WILLING TO CARRY OUT THE REQUIRED REPAIRS INITIALLY WITH THEIR OWN FUNDS TO BE REIMBURSED LATER AND END THIS LITIGATION IN SEPTEMBER 2007.

 

308.      The trial evidence confirms VR-44 had a choice to act reasonably and could have avoided any risks of liability whatsoever on their part because the Hirjis’ in September 2007 were willing to carry out the required repairs recommended by their qualified structural engineer Mr. Jerry Lum initially with their own funds on same terms and conditions granted to other owners of VR-44 and then get reimbursed in the same manner VR-44 reimbursed other owners particularly the council member of VR-44 and would have ended this litigation in September 2007.

 

309.      The trial evidence confirms VR-44 discriminated against Hirjis’ and chose not to act reasonably and failed or refused to grant the conduct of repairs which resulted in the Hirjis’s enormous injuries. The trial judge suppressed VR-44's violations of Strata Plan VR-44 bylaws under s. 5(1), (2) which establishes the liability on the defendants and their insurers.

 

310.      The evidence confirms trial judge suppressed the findings of facts in the reasons for judgment. The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically made up the facts in the Reasons for Judgment which the trial judge knew to be false. Trial judge abused the judicial office and the public trust and made-up facts in the Reasons for Judgment at paragraphs 167, 168, 172, 174, 175 and 176. The evidence confirms the trial judge acted in bad faith and acted in a manner that is directed to judicial machinery itself, that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. The trial judge states the following;

                                                                                     90

 

311.       The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 167, 168, 172, 174, 175, and 176 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers.

[167] I address two heads of damages claimed by Mr. Hirji because of the emphasis he placed upon them, and the fact they constitute the bulk of his damages claim. Nothing in this analysis, however, detracts from my conclusion that none of the plaintiffs’ claims have been proven.


[168] Mr. Hirji claims damages for a proposed sale of his home that did not complete. His position is that the defendant delayed the completion of repairs which impacted the proposed sale.

[172] Similar problems plague Mr. Hirji’s evidence about the reasons for the sale not going through. When testifying in chief, Mr. Hirji claimed that he was required to provide two engineer certificates to the buyer prior to the subject removal deadline, and that the defendant’s delays in having the repair work completed resulted in him not being able to meet that deadline. However he admitted in cross-examination that there is no such subject written on the contract. At that point Mr. Hirji said he relied on the professional advice of his realtor, Mr. Jamal, about what conditions were necessary to close the sale. Mr. Jamal testified and did not confirm Mr. Hirji's evidence.


[174] I find Mr. Hirji’s evidence about the list price of his unit and the collapse of its sale to be completely unreliable and not believable. I agree with the defendant that Mr. Hirji's position represents an irrational stance, and I find the claim frivolous.


[175] Even if Mr. Hirji’s evidence about the collapsed sale was reliable or credible (it was neither), I have concluded that Mr. Hirji and not the defendant was responsible for all the delays of repair work at his unit and therefore the claim would have failed in any event.


[176] The failure of Mr. Hirji to establish that the defendant was responsible in any way for the collapsed sale of his unit also defeats his claim for lost profits, but there is other evidence that calls into question the veracity of this claim. The defendant’s position is that this claim too was potentially a recent fabrication and irrationally pursued by Mr. Hirji.

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 167, 168, 172, 174, 175, and 176 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

              91

 

C. BREACH OF AGREEMENT / CONTRACT NO. 2.


PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AGREEMENT BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SILVERMAN.

 

312.      At the trial Hirji’s established their prima facie evidence that on July 7, 2009 another hearing was held in Mr. Justice Silverman’s chambers[103]. The Strata’s counsel Mr. Bleay presented the JRS May 12, 2009 report Trial exhibit 55[104] at the hearing. It was agreed by all the parties in front of Mr. Justice Silverman that the recommendations and terms in JRS report would be carried out by the defendants VR 44.

 

TRIAL EXHIBIT 120 DEFENDANTS OUTLINE PART III FILED ON JULY 2, 2009

313.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their prima facie evidence in Trial exhibit 120 strata’s legal counsel Mr. Bleay’s OUTLINE part III of the defendants filed on 2nd July 2009[105] in paragraph 4 Mr. Bleay confirms the following:


The Strata Corporation is prepared to proceed with the scope of work set out in the report attached as Exhibit "T" to the Affidavit of Mr. Hirji sworn on June 11th with the- following amendments to that scope of work which do not detract from the actual scope of work agreed to by the Strata Corporation but rather the administration and management of the day to day repairs:


• The Strata Corporation will appoint Rudy Sedlak as the site supervisor with the authority to choose the general contractor, trades and order all materials;


• The Strata Corporation will, if cost are reasonable, have JRS oversee the project working with Rudy Sedlak and following the joint scope of work;


• The Strata Corporation will fix the outside decks first and then work on the unit after that; and


• The Strata Corporation will put Hirjis’ up in mutually agreeable alternative accommodations while this work is being completed.

____________________

[103] See Chambers hearing transcript of July 7, 2009 page 6, 9 and 10.

[104] Trial exhibit 55 JRS May 12, 2009 report

[105] See [binder 2 Page 147] in Application for leave to Appeal Trial exhibit 120 Mr. Bleay’s OUTLINE part III of the defendants filed on 2nd July 2009

     92

 

314.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their prima facie evidence of agreement reached by all parties pursuant to JRS May 12, 2009 report before Mr. Justice Silverman on July 7, 2009. Following evidence is taken from the Chambers Hearing Transcript of July 7, 2009 that confirms the agreement. Mr. Bleay confirms the following at the hearing on Page 10 of that hearing transcript:


23 MR. BLEAY: Well, just in terms of ordering the repairs

24 that VR-44 Corporation has said they're

25 prepared to carry out pursuant to that May 12th

26 report.

 

315.      Mr. Justice Silverman explained the terms of the agreement to Mr. Hirji at the hearing on page 6:

 

22 THE COURT: 28 Now, let's be very clear. What this document is

29 saying is that they will do all the repairs that

30 is in the report that they think is the one that

31 sets out what obligations they are required to

32 fulfill in terms of repair.

33 MOHD ALI HIRJI: Yes

 

316.      Mr. Justice Silverman at the hearing on page 9 confirms the following:

15. THE COURT: All right. So the stuff that they --
16. you're satisfied that the stuff that they're now
17. offering to fix in this outline of October 2 has
18. moved beyond what -- okay.
19. MOHD ALI HIRJI: They have --
20. THE COURT: So I take it that I've -- I've got you
21. where I think you should be. You're going to
22. permit this -- without any loss of your rights to
23. continue to pursue the claims that are in
24. dispute --
25. MOHD ALI HIRJI: Absolutely.
26. THE COURT: -- you're going to let these repairs go
27. ahead and get fixed --
28. MOHD ALI HIRJI: Absolutely.

                                                                                     93

 

29. THE COURT: -- and you're going to talk with Mr. Bleay
30. or representatives of the corporation about what
31. alternative accommodations you and your wife
32. should get to.
33. MOHD ALI HIRJI: Yes, My Lord.
34. THE COURT: Okay. Now, I think that's where we need to
35. end today. Does that make sense to you?
36. MOHD ALI HIRJI: That makes --
37. THE COURT: All right.
38. MOHD ALI HIRJI: perfectly.

 

317.       The trial evidence establishes the Agreement reached by all parties before Mr. Justice Silverman on July 7, 2009 that the repairs would be carried out by VR-44 pursuant to that JRS May 12th report. VR-44 obtained the quote from Rudy Sedlak for $73,296 pursuant to the recommendations in JRS May 12, 2009 report that was approved by VR-44. Mr. Bleay confirmed at the hearing that VR-44 was prepared to carry out the repairs pursuant to that May 12th report.

​ 

318.      At paragraph 135 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge acknowledged and confirmed the terms of the agreement and states the following;

 

[135] The defendant approved the engineering firm to proceed with the recommendations in the May Report that it decided, based on legal advice, were its responsibility. The defendant received a quote for that work from Rudy Sedlak for $73,296, which was approved. The plaintiffs were given the ability to choose accommodation, to be paid for by the defendant, to allow them to leave the unit while it was being repaired. Originally, the defendant agreed to pay for one month’s accommodation.

 

319.      At paragraph 129 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge contradicts her own finding in paragraph 135 The trial judge’s own reasons for judgment speaks for itself and demonstrate the integrity and the credibility of the trial judge and the integrity, credibility and reliability of the witnesses whom the trial judge throughout the reasons for the judgment have described as credible and reliable witnesses.

 

320.       The evidence confirms trial judge suppressed the findings of facts in the reasons for judgment. The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically made up the facts in the Reasons for Judgment which the trial judge knew to be false. Trial judge abused the judicial office and the public trust and made-up facts in the Reasons for Judgment at paragraphs 129, 158, 163, 164, 161, and 162. The evidence confirms the trial judge acted in bad faith and acted in a manner that is directed to judicial machinery itself, that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. 

                                                                                     94

 

321.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 129, 158, 163, 164, 161, and 162. to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers.

[129] Mr. Hirji testified that the parties had “agreed” all repairs identified in the May Report would be undertaken at the defendant’s expense. There was no other evidence consistent with Mr. Hirji’s version. All of the defendant’s witnesses who had knowledge of events during this time period denied that it had ever been agreed that the defendant would pay for any and all repairs JRS identified in the May Report. This is further confirmed in the documentary evidence including a May 13, 2009 email from the president of the strata council to Mr. Bleay, Mr. Alexandru, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Thornton and others.................

 

322.      At paragraph 158 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge contradicts her own finding in paragraph 135 and states the following;

 

[158] The plaintiffs have failed to adduce any credible or reliable evidence that there was any agreement, much less a contract, between them and the defendant with regard to any repairs. Mr. Hirji claims the May Report amounted to an agreement between the parties that any and all repairs identified in it would be carried out at the defendant's expense. The underlying premise of this position is flawed. The May Report is not a joint report and does not purport to be one. Instead it is JRS’s report, having taken into account Mr. Lum’s opinion. Mr. Lum did not sign the report and in no other sense can it be said to have been a joint report.

​​

323.      At paragraph 163 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge contradicts her own finding in paragraph 135 and states the following;

 

[163] Not only have the plaintiffs failed to prove the basic elements of any contract between them and the defendant, I conclude even the most generous view of the reliable and credible evidence does not come close to establishing a claim for breach of contract.

 

324.      At paragraph 165 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge contradicts her own finding in paragraph 135 and states the following;

 

[165] In my view there is no reasonable basis upon which one could advance a claim for breach of contract. I find this claim frivolous.

 

325.      Trial Exhibit 120[106] Mr. Bleay in outline of VR-44 part III filed on 2nd July 2009 in paragraph 4 confirms the following;

 

"The Strata Corporation will put Hirjis’ up in mutually agreeable alternative accommodations while this work is being completed".

 

326.       Trial Exhibit 55[107]. JRS REPORT MAY 12, 2009 REPORT MISCELLANEOUS ITEM. 2 confirm the following:

____________________

[106] Trial Exhibit 120 outline of VR-44 part III

[107] Trial Exhibit 55 JRS REPORT MAY 12, 2009

                                                                                     95

 

 ​.2 Alternate accommodations, selected by the strata council, will be provided for a maximum of one month, commencing on or about the start date for the repairs, and all costs will be covered by the Strata Corporation.

 

327.      The trial judge in her own findings at paragraph 135 in line 3 and 4 states:

 

"Hirjis’ were given the ability to choose accommodation, to be paid for by the defendant”.

 

328.      The defense counsel Mr. Eged in his closing submissions [108]confirms the following:

 

“The plaintiffs were provided with alternate accommodations of their choice for three months during the repairs on the advice of their legal counsel”.

329.      At paragraph 161 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge disregards the prime evidence put before the trial judge and contradicts her own finding in paragraph 135 and states the following;

[161] At other points during the trial Mr. Hirji implied that on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Bleay had agreed that certain costs or expenses associated with the plaintiffs’ moving out of their unit would be paid for by the defendant. In support of this position, Mr. Hirji relied on a number of invoices that he produced at the trial which related to cleaning, accommodation until all repairs were done,duct cleaning, drape cleaning, packing and transportation of household items, an electrical inspection, and repair to a broken fireplace.

 

330.      At paragraph 162 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge disregards all prime evidence and contradicts her own finding in paragraph 135. The trial judge made up the facts in paragraph 162 and states the following;


[162] Mr. Bleay denied he made any such offers. I found him to be a credible and reliable witness, who testified in a forthright fashion. His evidence was clear on this point. I am satisfied that there is no reliable or credible evidence to establish that the defendant ever agreed to pay any of those costs.

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 129, 158, 163, 164, 161, and 162 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

____________________

[108] Mr. Eged's closing submissions

                                                                                     96

 

D. MAIN REASONS FOR THE DELAYS.

 

TRIAL EXHIBIT 48. STRATA'S ENGINEERS JRS REPORT DATED OCTOBER 7, 2008

331.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their prima facie evidence that confirms the defendants received their Engineers JRS report on October 7, 2008 marked as trial exhibit 48[109]  This was a detailed Structural report and an honest report from the defendants’ engineers. The defendants misled the court and suppressed the evidence from the chamber's judge Honourable Mr. Justice Silverman at the hearing on October 24, 2008. Had the defendant VR-44 acted in good faith and disclosed this evidence to court than this litigation would have ended in 2008 and it would not have resulted in unnecessary delays and additional costs of engineering reports and no one would have suffered any major damages.

 

332.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their evidence that confirms the defendants refused to disclose October 7, 2008 report to the Hirjis’ until March 2009 that the Hirjis’ were entitled to.

 

333.      At the trial the Hirjis’ established the following evidence from hearing transcript of October 24, 2008, before Mr. Justice Silverman. On page 39 it confirms the following:

 

34 THE COURT: When? Before the mediation, because there's
35 no point having it obviously.
36 MR. BLEAY: Well, true enough. When we had discussed
37 the mediation, we had hoped that we would have the
38 repairs done by then, but I can't honestly answer
39 that with any certainty.
40 THE COURT: Never mind the repairs. The report, when?
41 MR. BLEAY: Oh yes, well, I am hoping to have the report
42 in the next couple of weeks. What I'm hoping from
43 there is that then we get a scope of work done.

TRIAL EXHIBIT 50 STRATA'S ENGINEERS JRS REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 26, 2008

334.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their evidence that the defendants obtained water-down report from the JRS engineers on November 26, 2008 Trial Exhibit 50[110]  that eliminated all structural repairs from October 7, 2008 report. The plaintiff’s than legal counsel Mr. Divid Morrison rejected the water down report of the defendants dated November 26, 2008.

____________________

[109] See Exhibit 48 that confirms the defendants received their Engineers JRS report on October 7, 2008

[110] Trial Exhibit 50 water-down report from the JRS engineers on November 26, 2008.

     97

 

335.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their evidence that the defendants and the Hirjis’ engineer will jointly investigate the issues and jointly agree on the required repairs to remediate the Hirjis’ unit that have been neglected since 1991.

TRIAL EXHIBIT 55 STRATA'S ENGINEERS JRS REPORT DATED MAY 12, 2009 

 

336.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their evidence in Trial Exhibit 55 JRS May 12, 2009[111]  that the recommendations in JRS October 7, 2008 report was suppressed from the Chambers judge the Honourable Mr. Justice Silverman at the hearing on October 24, 2008. The evidence confirms that JRS October 7, 2008 report and JRS and Mr. Lum’s jointly agreed repairs in May 12, 2009 report of are virtually similar. 

 

337.      The Evidence at the trial clearly indicates the real reason for delay was due to VR 44 refusal to act on the advice of Mr. Bleay. It did not hire a qualified structural engineer in May 2007. It did not commence a further remediation until August of 2009, two years and three months later. The defendants unreasonably refused to grant the conduct of repairs to the Hirjis’ on the same terms and condition granted to other owners, which resulted in unnecessary delays and loss of sale of the unit and enormous damages suffered by the Hirjis’.

 

338.      The Evidence at the trial clearly indicates that JRS May 12, 2009 report turnout to be more or less similar to JRS report of October 7, 2008. The defendants refused to accept the honest recommendations of their own engineers. This valuable time from October 7, 2008 to August 2009 total of 10 months was wasted because of totally unreasonable refusal of the strata council to accept the honest recommendation of their own engineers and suppressing the October 7, 2008 report from the court and inflicting enormous damages on the Hirjis’ which the defendants were fully aware off.

 

339.      The evidence submitted by the Hirjis’ at the trial confirms that the trial judge was fully aware of the facts that the defendants suppressed the material evidence from the chambers judge on October 24, 2008 hearing that would have ended this litigation in 2008. The trial judge willfully suppressed the facts and unlawfully denied the justice to the Hirjis’ by abusing the trusted judicial office and privileges. 

 

340.     The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 175 and 176 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers.


[175] Even if Mr. Hirji’s evidence about the collapsed sale was reliable or credible (it was neither), I have concluded that Mr. Hirji and not the defendant was responsible for all the delays of repair work at his unit and therefore the claim would have failed in any event.


[176] The failure of Mr. Hirji to establish that the defendant was responsible in any way for the collapsed sale of his unit also defeats his claim for lost profits, but there is other evidence that calls into question the veracity of this claim. The defendant’s position is that this claim too was potentially a recent fabrication and irrationally pursued by Mr. Hirji.

____________________

[111] Trial Exhibit 55 JRS May 12, 2009 [100]

     98

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 175, and 176 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).


TRIAL EXHIBIT 126 STRATA PLAN VR-44 BY-LAWS s. 8

341.      At the trial Hirjis’ established their evidence in Trial Exhibit 126 the Strata plan VR-44 bylaws s, 8 (A)[112] states the following;

 

(I) Repair and maintenance that in the ordinary course of events occurs less often than once a year, and;

 

(II) following, no matter how often the repairs for maintenance ordinarily occurs:

 

(A) The structure of a building;

(B) The exterior of a building;
(C) Chimneys, stairs, balconies and other things attached to the exterior of a building;
(D) Doors, and windows (Including the casings, the frames and the sills doors and windows) on the exterior of a building or that front on or are situated· over common property;
(E) Fences, railings and similar structures that enclose patios, balconies and yards;

TRIAL EXHIBIT 106 STRATA'S ENGINEER MR. SUNDERLANDS REPORT SEPT. 13, 2007

342.      At the trial, the Hirjis’ established in evidence Mr. Sunderland's report of September 13, 2007[113] entered into evidence as Trial Exhibit 106 that states the following amongst other things:


a) ".1 Repair the damage and deficiencies caused by repairs carried out in 2001 as soon as possible to avoid: further damage"


b) ".2 Expose and examine the west end of beam B1 for damage due to the jacking in 2001 and water damage due to the leaks in the upper deck".

____________________

[112] See [Binder 2 Page 122-127] Appellants Application for leave to Appeal Trial Exhibit 126 Strata Plan Vr-44 bylaws s. 8

[113] See [Binder 2 page 110 to 112]Trial Exhibit 106 Mr. Sunderland’s report dated September 13, 2007.

     99

 

TRIAL EXHIBIT 150 STRATA'S ENGINEER MR. SUNDERLANDS REPORT NOVE. 29, 2007.

 

343.      At the trial, the Hirjis’ established in evidence Mr. Sunderland's report of November 29, 2007[114] entered into evidence as Trial Exhibit 150 that states the following amongst other things:


a) "l. Brown stains on the wall below the beam confirmed that in the past water had leaked through the beam pocket, suggesting that the likelihood of decay".


b) "2. Exposure of the end of the beam indicated clearly that serious decay had occurred to the center lamination, with some decay of the two side members. The beam consists of three 2xl0's laminated vertically".

344.      At paragraph 142l in Reasons for Judgment trial judge willfully suppressed the facts and made up the facts that is transparent to any reasonable person or a judge. The trial judge made up the following facts;

 

345.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 142 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers

[142] I. Based on the opinion of Mr. Sunderland, it is more likely than not that this cracking was caused by seasonal differences in atmospheric moisture and was unrelated to water ingress, or the 2001 repairs.

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 142 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

 

346.      At paragraph 135 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge acknowledged and confirmed that the defendants approved the recommendations and repairs in JRS May 12, 2009 report on the advice of their legal counsel. The trial judge confirms and states the following;

[135] The defendant approved the engineering firm to proceed with the recommendations in the May Report that it decided, based on legal advice, were its responsibility. The defendant received a quote for that work from Rudy Sedlak for $73,296, which was approved. The plaintiffs were given the ability to choose accommodation, to be paid for by the defendant, to allow them to leave the unit while it was being repaired. Originally, the defendant agreed to pay for one month’s accommodation.

 

347.      At paragraph 134 in Reasons for Judgment trial judge willfully suppressed the facts and her own findings in paragraph 135 that all the recommendations in JRS May 12, 2009 report were approved by the defendants on the advice of their legal counsel. The trial judge's findings in paragraph 134 confirm the defendants breached the terms of the JRS May 12, 2009 report and blatantly refused to carry out their legal obligations. 

____________________

[114] See [Binder 2 page 133 to 135]Trial Exhibit 150 Mr. Sunderland’s report dated November 29, 2007.

    100

 

348.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 134 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers

[134] Significant repairs were recommended with regard to leveling beam B-1 and leveling the kitchen floor, but the defendant also took the view that neither of those were its responsibility because they related to structural issues within the unit and not common property; nor were the conditions caused by water ingress from common property.

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 134 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

 

349.      The strata plan VR-44 s. 8 (II), (A) imposes the duty on the defendants to repair and maintain “The structure of a building”  The trial judge in reasons for the judgment at paragraph 134 and 142i confirms the defendants refused to fulfill their obligations under Strata Plan VR-44 bylaws s. 8 (II),(A). The trial judge in paragraph 134 states the following; "but the defendant also took the view that neither of those were its responsibility because they related to structural issues within the unit and not common property; nor were the conditions caused by water ingress from common property”.

 

350.      The trial judge confirms the defendants breached the terms of their contract and blatantly refused to act on the advice of their own legal counsel Mr. Bleay who advised them that the repairs in JRS May 12, 2009 report were the responsibility of the defendants. The evidence confirms that the recommendations in JRS May 12, 2009 report were approved by the defendants on the advice of their legal counsel as confirmed by the trial judge in Reasons for Judgment in paragraph 135.

​ 

351.      The evidence confirms the defendants breached the terms of the contract/agreement in JRS May 12, 2009 report agreed by all parties before the Honourable Mr. Justice Silverman on July 7, 2009. The evidence confirms the trial Judge willfully suppressed the facts and the defendants breach and made up the following facts in reasons for judgment and acted in bad faith. The trial judge confirms the following;

352.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 153 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers


[153] The defendant appropriately sought and followed legal advice to determine which of the repairs identified by the engineers it was responsible for. I am also satisfied that Mr. Bleay’s legal advice was sound. The defendant had a duty to repair problems with common property which included, in the plaintiffs’ case, repairs arising because of building envelope failure. The defendant was not responsible for issues relating to the repair, maintenance, or structural integrity of the interior of the plaintiffs’ unit. To the extent there was uncertainty about the source and therefore responsibility for repairs of “structural issues”, I find the defendant’s response and reaction to the engineering reports it received was consistent with the sound legal advice it received.

    101

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 153 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

 

353.      The Trial judge abused the judicial office and the public trust and willfully refused/declined to apply Strata Plan VR-44 bylaws s. 8 (II), (A) that imposed the duty on the defendants to repair the structure of the building. The trial judge suppressed the defendants breach of contract and misstated the facts and made up the facts in Reasons for Judgment to willfully deny the justice to the Hirjis’ and committed fraud upon the Hirjis’ and acted in bad faith and acted in a manner that is directed to judicial machinery itself, that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court.

 

354.      The trial judge in reasons for the judgment suppressed her own findings and fabricated the following facts at paragraphs 163 and 165:

 

355.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 163 and 165 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers

 

[163] Not only have the plaintiffs failed to prove the basic elements of any contract between them and the defendant, I conclude even the most generous view of the reliable and credible evidence does not come close to establishing a claim for breach of contract.


[165] In my view there is no reasonable basis upon which one could advance a claim for breach of contract. I find this claim frivolous.

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 163, and 165 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).


E. VR-44 BREACHED THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT/CONTRACT.

 

356.      The trial evidence established VR-44 breached the terms of agreement pursuant to JRS May 12, 2009 report that was agreed before Mr. justice Silverman on July 7, 2009.

 

357.      The indisputable evidence in the defense counsel Mr. Eged affidavit # 8 filed on November 23, 2015 confirms the trial judge’s findings in paragraph 134 of Reasons for Judgment that the defendants refused to abide by the terms of JRS May 12, 2009 report that was agreed in front of Honourable Mr. Justice Silverman. The defendants breach the terms of their contract as listed in plaintiffs’ Ninth Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim at paragraph 78 and 79[115]

 

358.      The Hirjis’ in their affidavit # 12 brought the trial judge’s fabricated, omitted and misstated facts to the attention of the trial judge and requested the trial judge to correct the facts in the Reasons for Judgment before the trial judge’s order was entered and sealed. The evidence confirms the trial judge unreasonably refused to correct the made-up and misstated facts in the Reasons for Judgment.

____________________

[115] Ninth Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim at paragraph 78 and 79

    102

 

359.      The following evidence in Mr. Eged’s affidavit # 8 at paragraph 38 further confirms the defendants breached the terms of their contract.


"The last head of damages was Hirjis’ claim in respect of the cost of restoring Hirjis’ unit to what Hirjis’ described as its "pre-leak" status. In the course of the litigation,Hirjis’ produced a report dated May 24, 2010 from an engineer, Jerry Lum, who estimated the cost of those repairs would be $41, 198.00 Trial Exhibit 64[116]  Hirjis’ relied on this report at the JSC on December 19, 2013 as providing an accurate estimate of those costs."

 

“Notwithstanding the misgivings I had with respect to the above evidence from Mr. Lum, I considered a contingency of $15,000 for this head of damages."

​360.      The evidence in defense counsel’s sworn affidavit # 8 established the following facts:

 

a) It confirms the fact that the recommendations pursuant to JRS May 12, 2009 report were deficiently carried out; or the defendants refused to carry them out and were not carried out at all as confirmed by the trial judge in paragraph 134.


b) Substandard repairs remained incomplete until May 24, 2010 (and beyond and to date May 2018 remains uncompleted).


c) The evidence confirms that all the defense witnesses who testified under oath that the repairs were completed by the defendants in October 2009 misled the court.


d) The facts in Mr. Eged’s affidavit confirm that JRS December 4, 2009 report is false and inaccurate and the repairs as of July 2010 were not completed.

 

361.      The trial judge in reasons for judgment at paragraph 134 confirms the defendants refused to carry out the agreed repairs that were agreed by the defendants on the advise of their legal counsel. The Trial judge abused the judicial office and the public trust and ignored/refused to correct the made up and misstated facts in the Reasons for Judgment at paragraphs 142s, 139, 163, and 164 before the order was sealed. The trial judge acted in bad faith and acted in a manner that is directed to judicial machinery itself that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court

____________________

[116] Trial Exhibit 64 Hirjis’ engineer, Jerry Lum's report dated May 24, 2010.

                                                                                    103

 

362.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 142(s) 139, 163 and 165 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers

[142] s. The repairs identified in the May Report that the defendant decided were its responsibility were completed by October 2009, and an engineer’s certificate confirming that was received in December 2009.


[139] On December 4, 2009 JRS provided its final report confirming all work was completed. The defendant again received legal advice that its responsibility towards the Hirjis’ for repair and maintenance had come to an end.


[163] Not only have the plaintiffs failed to prove the basic elements of any contract between them and the defendant, I conclude even the most generous view of the reliable and credible evidence does not come close to establishing a claim for breach of contract.


[165] In my view there is no reasonable basis upon which one could advance a claim for breach of contract. I find this claim frivolous.

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 142(s) 139, 163 and 165 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

THE DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLE OFFER TO SETTLE.

 

363.      The trial judge knew and was aware of the facts submitted in the defense Counsel’s affidavit # 8 before the order was sealed that the defendants offered to settle this case for the sum of $210,000[117] At paragraph 47 Mr. Eged confirms the defendants’ willingness to settle the Hirji damages for 0.025 % of the damages suffered by the Hirjis’ and states:

 

“As a result, it was my view at the time that VR44's First Formal Offer was presented, Hirjis’ would have been set to receive a total of more than $210,000 had they accepted the offer. This figure is more than four times what I had assessed as Hirjis’ best day in court in terms of an award of damages if the matter were to proceed through trial”.

 

364.      The trial judge also knew and was aware of the facts submitted in the defense Counsel’s affidavit # 8 that on January 24, 2014, the Hirjis’ then legal counsel Mr. Kevin Morrison advised the Hirjis’ that the offer should be limited under the Insured policy limit of $10 million and if the insurers fails to act reasonably and acts in bad faith to settle under the policy limits then the defendants and their insurers would be liable for all of the damages Hirjis’ have suffered. Mr. Kevin Morrison presented VR44 with a formal following offer to settle in the amount of $9,750,000.

____________________

[117] See [binder 6 page 11-16] defendants offered to settle this case for the sum of $210,000

                                                                                    104

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
File No. 2303
Jan. 24, 2014
Richards Buell Sutton LLP
700- 401 West Georgia Street Vancouver,
BC VSB 581
Attention: Alex Eged
Dear Sirs/Medames:
Re: Hirji & Hirji v. The Owners Strata Corporation Plan VR 44. And re: Offer to Settle

Please consider this an offer to settle pursuant to Rule 9-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
The Hirjis’ hereby offer to settle this action for the sum of $9,750.000.00 payable by the Defendant to the Hirjis’.
All previous offers to settle made by the Hirjis’ are hereby revoked.

The Hirjis’ reserve the right to bring this offer to the attention of the court for consideration in relation to costs after the court has pronounced judgment on all other issues in this proceeding.


Kevin Morrison Law Corporation
Kevin MorrisonKMM/lg

cc. to Phillip Sunderland

 

G. LOSS OF RENTAL INCOME.

TRIAL EXHIBITS 6 AND 7. 

 

365.    At the trial the Hirjis’ established their prima facie evidence of their rental income losses in trial Exhibit 6 and 7[118] The defense witness Ms. Campbell fabricated the following evidence that did not exist at VCS. This evidence confirms that the defense counsel and the witness willfully obstructed the course of justice in a judicial proceeding when they knew that the evidence they are presenting to the court is false and never existed at VCS.

____________________

[118] See Trial Exhibit 6 and 7 in [Application for leave to Appeal Binder 2 pages 150 to 157]

    105

 

366.      The defense witness Ms. Campbell’s cross examinations led by the defense Counsel Mr. Eged on May 4, 2015 testified under oath the following at the trial. The defense counsel Mr. Eged and Ms. Campbell both knew that the evidence they are submitting to the court that the owners’ complaints were date stamped never existed at VCS.

 

FABRICATED TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS MS. LYN CAMPBELL.

367.      The defense counsel and the defense witness knew that their false evidence will obstruct the course of justice in judicial proceedings and will violate the criminal code s. 131 and s. 139 and unlawfully deprive the Hirjis’ of justice by willfully committing fraud upon the court and the Hirjis’. The trial transcript of Ms. Lynlaeh Campbell[119] on page 42 and 43 confirms the following;


42

Lynlaeh Campbell (for Defendants)

In chief by Mr. Eged


40 Q Okay. I'm going to ask you to turn to Exhibit 6 in

41 that binder in front of you please, Ms. Campbell.

42 Okay. Have a look at that document, ma'am. You

43 can see it says at the bottom, "Urgent" by hand,

44 "Attention: Ms. Campbell"?

45 A Yes.

46 Q Okay. And you've seen this before; correct?

47 A In the binders that you gave me, yes.

 

43

Lynlaeh Campbell (for Defendants)

In chief by Mr. Eged

1 Q Yes. And do you have any recollection of seeing

2 this on -- on or near the date indicated on the

3 document of October 6th, 2000?

4 A No.

5 Q Does it bear the stamp that you would expect to --

6 this document to bear if that had been delivered?

7 A No.

____________________

[119] See The trial transcript of Ms. Lynlaeh Campbell [page 42 and 43 ]

                                                                                    106

 

8 Q Do you recall ever dealing with Mr. Hirji in

9 respect of his desire to rent out either whole or

10 part of his unit?

11 A No, I don't.

12 Q Do you recall if this document made it into a

13 folder that you've described as property manager

14 for this condominium, and later into the minutes?

15 A No.

16 Q Do you recall any discussions with Mr. Hirji

17 regarding renting to students?

18 A No.

19 Q Based on the look of this document and your

20 recollection about it, could you say whether or not

21 you received it?

22 A I could not, no. It's ...

 

368.      The sworn affidavit # 8 of the defense counsel Mr. Eged[120] filed in the Court registry on November 23, 2015, established and confirms the concocted testimony of Ms. Campbell and the defense counsel and confirms and establishes Hirjis’ claim for loss of rental income from February 2005 to July 2010 and beyond. Mr. Eged in his affidavit on page 13 Paragraph 37 confirms the following facts before the trial judge’s order was sealed;

 

“37. I had considered an amount of $5,000 for Hirjis’ claim for loss of rental income, that being $100 per month, for eight months a year from February 2005 to July 2010. In my view, this figure represented a reasonable reduction for not having access to a deck on a bedroom rented for $800 per month, during which time the evidence was that Hirjis’ took no steps to mitigate their loss.

​369.      The evidence confirms the fact that the trial judge knew these facts that the witness and the defense counsel have obstructed the course of justice in a judicial proceedings and have submitted the evidence at the trial that never existed at VCS of date stamping the owners complaints. The trial judge was requested to correct the facts in Reasons for Judgment at paragraph 22 before the order was sealed. The evidence confirms the trial judge ignored/refused to correct the facts in Reasons for Judgment before the order was sealed.

370.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 22 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers.


[22] Another example of Mr. Hirji’s impaired credibility is his claim relating to the loss of rental income. Mr. Hirji advances a claim that the defendant’s failure to repair his unit in a timely fashion caused him to lose rental income. The defendant alleges that not only is there no evidence to substantiate a loss of rental income, it is possible the claim was fabricated.

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 22 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

____________________

[120] affidavit # 8 of the defense counsel Mr. Eged 

    107

371.      The trial judge ignored the facts and rules of evidence and abused the judicial office and ignored/refused to correct the misstated facts in the Reasons for Judgment at paragraphs 22 before the order was sealed. The trial judge acted in bad faith and acted in a manner that is directed to judicial machinery itself that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court.


HADLEY V. BAXENDALE RULE.

 

372.      At the trial Hirjis’ in their Ninth Further Amended Notice of civil Claim paragraph 46[121] established their evidence that;


“As a result of the failure and/or refusal of the Defendant VR 44 to properly remediate Unit 1084, Hirjis’ lost the rental income from the two upstairs east side bedrooms, which income was vital for Hirjis’ Ali Hirji's business. The said loss of rental income created a short fall and cash flow problems for Mr. Hirji from 2001 to 2007 and Mr. Hirji's business came to a halt due to cash flow and other problems. Hirjis’ are not seeking any business losses or loss of opportunities suffered from the Strata from 2001 to 2007. But Hirjis’ are seeking full damages from VR-44 Defendants from the time they were put on notice from 2007 to 20I0. Hirjis’ were unable to raise or obtain mortgage, or sell their unit, at market value and as a direct result of the Strata's unreasonable actions Hirjis’ were powerless to raise money to fund Mr. Hirji's foreign exchange trading operation; Hirjis’ have sustained loss of income. By E-mails dated May 21, 2007, August 31, 2007 and September 5, 2007, Hirjis’ put the Defendant VR 44 on notice that the failure of VR 44 to remediate Unit I 084 was causing ongoing and accumulating damages, including loss of trading income, and Hirjis’ rely upon the line of cases stemming from Hadley v. Baxendale, 1854 9Ex 341 156 ER 145.”

​ 

373.      At the trial Hirjis’ established in evidence that the defendants were first put on notice and “special circumstances” of business losses were first communicated to the defendants in writing on May 21, 2007.

 

374.      At the trial Hirjis’ established in evidence that Mr. Hirji warned the defense By E-mails dated May 21, 2007, August 31, 2007 and September 5, 2007 that he was facing large business losses because of the condition of Unit 1084. It is submitted that Hirji more than satisfied the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale for the period from September 2007 to September 2010.

____________________

[121] Hirjis’ Ninth Further Amended Notice of civil Claim para. 46 

    108

 

375.      At the trial Hirjis’ established in evidence on April 28, 2015 the defense witness Ms. Barbara MacLellan testified and confirmed that the defendants were aware of the Hirji’s business losses being an issue in the litigation. On page 56 of the Trial transcript Ms. MacLellan confirmed the following[122] at the trial;

 

56

Barbara MacLellan (for the defendants)
Cross-exam by Mr. Hirji


10 Q Also in the letter in the last paragraph I am
11 putting strata on notice that this is affecting my
12 business.

13 A M'mm-hmm.

14 Q And I would like something done fairly quickly,
15 you know.
16 A M'mm-hmm.
17 Q Would you agree with that?
18 A I see that in the -- there, and I remember that
19 being an issue.

 

376.      At the trial Hirjis’ established in evidence that confirms the Hirjis’ were prepared to forgo all the damages they have suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligence, breach of contract, statutory breach and bulk part of rental losses amounting to around $150,000 and other losses suffered from 2001 until 2007 and end this litigation in September 2007. That would have been in the best interest of the defendants and the Hirjis’ and no one would have suffered any major damages. The evidence confirms the defendants failed/refused to act reasonably.

 

H. CURRENCY ANALYZER SOFTWARE DEVELOPED BY MR. HIRJI.

 

377.       The function of Currency Analyzer is to capture tick by tick quoted and traded prices for each currencies traded on over 200 currency exchanges in the world and analyze the differences against each currencies in millisecond and indicate the best arbitrage or hedging trades to enter into.

____________________

[122] See Trial transcript of Ms. MacLellan on page 56

    109

 

I. LOSS OF INCOME AND BUSINESS LOSSES AND LOSS OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES.

 

378.      At the trial Mr. Hirji established the following evidence that on March 4, 2015 just before the trial Mr. Hirji put his credibility, reputation and only other assets their home on line and wrote the following letter to the defense counsel. The Hirjis' Written Evidence in Chief Para. 234-235[123] The letter/email in essence confirmed the following;


Mr. Hirji has opened a demo trading account and has deposited $500,000 in virtual money in the account in exactly the same way he would have invested in real the account had the defendants acted reasonably and carried out their duty of care and nor breached the strata plan VR-44 bylaws and granted the conduct of the repairs to the Hirjis’ who would have got the required repairs done and sold their unit and acquired $500,000 from the sale of the unit.


Mr. Hirji informed the defense that had he not been prevented from selling his home by VR-44, then he would have invested the same amount of money, $500,000, in his currency trading business from the proceeds of his home in a real corporate trading account, as he had planned, and would have carried out the trades in the same manner carried out in live demo account and would have made identical profits/loss as shown in this live demo account as well as other accounts which were provided to the VR-44.


The proceeds from his home of $500,000 with the market leverage of 100:1 would have placed between $40 to $50 million dollars at Mr. Hirji’s disposal to continue with his currency arbitrage and hedging trading business comfortably and safely. Mr. Hirji provided the evidence of magnitude of losses to Mr. Bleay on at least four occasions and the VR-44 was made fully aware of the consequences of breach of their Statutory Duty/breach of contract/negligence.

 

In order to avoid any doubts, as to the authenticity of the transactions carried out by Mr. Hirji, in a real time environment Mr. Hirji, on March 04, 2015 provided download

instructions, and the password via email of his trading account, to the VR-44 counsel Mr. Eged and Mr. Safarik so that they can monitor the same trading account 24/7, and they can also monitor the trades carried out by Mr. Hirji in real time and easily verify every transactions carried out in the account and profit or loss made on each transaction carried out by Hirjis’.


Mr. Hirji, informed the defense that he will record all the transactions carried out in the account for as long as possible and will present these videos as evidence of his damages suffered or not suffered by him at the trial.

____________________

[123] See [Binder 5 page 444 to 459 Para. 234-235 Hirjis’ Evidence in Chief ] in Notice of Motion to a judge or The Registrar.

    110

 

Hirjis’ as well as the defendants, will be at full liberty to use details of this account in court of law, to establish the damages, Hirjis’ have suffered, or not suffered. The significance of this account and to granting the consent to the defendants to monitor the account 24/7 and record the activity of profit and loss was for the benefit of the defendants as well as Hirjis’ as well as the court. In the event Hirjis’ failed to make a profit in the account VR-44 would be at liberty to produce the CD’s to the court and ask the court to dismiss Hirjis’ claim for business losses.


This would also make it easier for the trial judge, to reach a just, and a fair verdict, and award the appropriate quantum of damages, suffered or not suffered by Hirjis’ from 2007 to 2010, and again from January 2015, to the conclusion of this litigation.


Mr. Hirji will continue to carry out the trades, in this account subject to time permitting, and preparing for the attendance at the court hearing as well as his health permitting due to injuries he suffered in a Motor Vehicle Accident in Sept 2010 when he suffered a concussion. He has recovered 75% to 80% from his injuries but he is still undergoing the treatment on his right shoulder.


J. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE HIRJIS’ RECORDED LIVE ON VIDEOS.

379.       The evidence submitted at the trial demonstrates how Hirji would have made millions of dollars with the aid of his currency analyzer software. It also demonstrates why Hirjis’ were prepared to forgo all the damages they have suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligence, breach of contract, statutory breach and bulk part of rental losses amounting to around $150,000 and other losses suffered from 2001 until 2007, and why Hirjis’ desperately needed to sell their unit and get the required capital so that they can continue with their currency trading business which had unlimited potentials in a market where there is a daily turnover of over five trillion dollars.

380.      The defense counsel raised no objection to the authenticity of the CD’s or its contents or the profits made in the account because the defense counsels were granted full access 24/7 to monitor each transition carried out live in the International monetary markets by Hirji.

 

381.       The defense counsels were fully aware that the recorded CD’s will be submitted at the trial as evidence of business losses that proves Hirji’s burden of proof and enormous losses suffered by Hirjis’ as a result of VR-44 negligence and their unreasonable refusal to grant the conduct of the repairs to Hirjis’.

                                                                                    111

 

K. LIVE RECORDED EVIDENCE OF THE NETT PROFIT OF $2,363,191.60 MADE BY MR. HIRJI UNDER A PERIOD OF A MONTH FROM SEED CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF $500,000

 

382.      The trial judge watched the evidence of loss of income video presentation for a short while. The evidence submitted to the trial judge confirm Mr. Hirji made a net trading profit of $2,363,191.60 in his currency trading account under a period of a MONTH. The recorded evidence confirms from the opening of the account in segment 1 on February 16, 2015 to close of account in segment 25 on March 13, 2015 with an initial investment/deposit in the account of $500,000 Mr. Hirji made the profit as confirmed in the account with the aid of his computer software called currency analyzer with full access granted to the defense counsels Mr. Eged and Mr. Safarik to monitor each transactions 24/7 In Trial Exhibits “O” and ”P”[124].

 

TRIAL EXHIBITS “O” AND ”P” TRIAL EVIDENCE SEGMENTS 1 TO 25. SUBMITTED TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN NOTICE OF MOTION TO A JUDGE OR THE REGISTRAR.

 

383.      Following indisputable evidence speaks for itself and demonstrates the lawless acts of some of the judicial officers of the member state in this case.

 

384.      The Hirjis submits to the Honourable Members of the committee that it is not a function of a Trial Judge to assume a role of a currency expert or a structural engineering expert or assume the facts without evaluating the evidence. Not a single expert witness was introduced at the trial by the defendants although there were several expert witnesses on the defendants list of witnesses to repudiate the evidence of the Hirjis expert witnesses. The function of the trial judge is to act impartially and make an informed decision based on the facts and the evidence submitted to him or her that is credible and proves the point. In order to negate the plaintiffs’ claims for damages submitted in the videos below defendants and or their experts has to demonstrate to the court with convincing evidence that the plaintiffs claim is either not viable or it is frivolous and if the defendants fails to negate the plaintiffs claim with convincing evidence then in law the plaintiffs must succeed regardless of the amount claimed weather it is $1 dollar or $1 Billion dollars if the plaintiffs evidence supports the plaintiff's claim in law than the court has a legal obligation to assess the damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the court must award the damages permit able by law to the plaintiffs. That is the reality in this case and the facts and evidence speaks for itself.  

​                                

385.       The Local Rules of Civil Procedure require that all alleged statements of fact in motions and other filings must be allowed. The trial judge after watching the evidence for few minutes unreasonably refused the Hirjis’ prime evidence to be entered into evidence as exhibits “O” and ”P” despite the fact that the defense counsel raised no objection or disputed the authenticity, contents or profits made by Hirji with the aid of his software recorded live on the CD’s presented at the trial.

____________________

[124] The trial judge unreasonably refused to admit the prime Evidence into record in exhibits “O” and ”P

                                                                                    112

Following Video recordings recorded on 3 DVD disks and the Indisputable evidence of Hirjis losses  was submitted to the trial judge at the trial that is self explanatory. Click on the links below to view the evidence in 25 segments.

 

386.      The trial judge suppressed the real facts in paragraph 181, and 182 in Reasons for Judgment and made up the facts and acted in bad faith and acted in a manner that is directed to judicial machinery itself, that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. The trial judge breached the public trust. The trial judge States the following:

​387.      The evidence confirms the trial judge falsified the evidence/facts in reasons for judgment at para 181 and 182 to willfully deny justice to the Hirjis and unlawfully make them homeless. The trial judge can neither substantiate the falsified findings of facts in the reasons for judgment to the United Nations General Assembly nor to the Human Rights Committee with the evidence submitted at the trial nor can the trial judge justify her unlawful violations of Hirjis fundamental rights and defraud the Hirjis out of their claim for damages against the defendants and their insurers.

[181] I find there is no reliable evidence that Mr. Hirji suffered any business loss, or that if he had, it was related to the defendant’s actions.


[182] The claim itself defies logic and common sense. Mr. Hirji makes the outrageous claim that with seed money of $500,000 (from the sale of his unit) he could have generated $2 million in one month and that the continual reinvestment of that money would result in approximately $5 million of profit monthly. Mr. Hirji extrapolates that he could have turned that original $500,000 into $932,773,410.38 over a three-year period. Mr. Hirji gave some evidence that at one time he had a prospective partner in his business, but some complication prevented that investment from going through.

 

The evidence confirms the trial judge systematically suppresses the evidence at para 181 and 182 and violated Hirjis fundamental rights  to a fair trial and equal benefit of the law that are enshrined under ICCPR Article 2(3) Article 6, Article 9, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 26 that are binding on Canada as well as under the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 7, s. 11(d), s. 15 and s. 24(1).

L. UNREASONABLE DENIAL OF HIRJIS’ REQUEST FOR A FULL DAY'S  HEARING BY THE TRIAL JUDGE.

388.      On January 28, 2016 Mr. Hirji sent an email to court registry and made a request to Madam Justice Sharma for a full day hearing[125] to be heard before February 11, 2016 before the erroneous order rendered on November 6, 2015 is entered and sealed. The trial judge refused the Hirjis’ request.

 

389.      On January 28, 2016 Hirjis’ received the following Email response from SC Scheduling-Vancouver[126] that states the following:

 

"Madam Justice Sharma has reviewed your request and advises that the only issue she may consider with regards to this case is the costs issue which is currently scheduled for February 11, 2016. Madam Justice Sharma has given her decision. If you are not in agreement with the decisions made your recourse is to appeal".

 

390.      On January 28, 2016 the VR-44 based on trial judges deceitful Reasons for Judgment obtained an order for Security for costs for $8,000.

____________________

[125] See [Binder 7 page 91-92 request to Madam Justice Sharma for a full day hearing] Affidavit of Mr. Ryan Shaw filed on Sept 13, 2016 Exhibit “O”

[126] Email Response from SC Scheduling-Vancouver dated January 28, 2016

                                                                                    113

 

391.      On February 16, 2016 the Hirjis’ made a payment of $8,000 in the Supreme Court for Security for Costs.

 

392.      On February 19, 2016, the Hirjis’ filed their Affidavit #12[127] and again brought some of the material facts to the attention of the trial judge that were made-up by the trial judge and pointed out “palpable and overriding errors” that affected the outcome of this case before the order was sealed. The trial judge willfully declined to reconsider and correct the erroneous reason for judgment or re-examine her made-up evidence and perjured testimonies of some of the defense witnesses of VR-44 before the order was sealed. The trial judge disregarded the facts in Hirji's affidavit.

 

M. HIRJIS' RESPONSE AND REQUEST  TO THE TRIAL JUDGE TO RE-EXAMINE THE ERRONEOUS FACTS.

 

393.      On May 24, 2016 Hirjis’ filed their response to the VR-44 requisition[128]  that amongst other things states the following:

 

"The Hirji objects to any order signed by Madam Justice Sharma and dispensing with the Hirji's signature on the order which is based on made-up omitted and misstated facts in the Reason for Judgment rendered on November 6, 2015 and March 30, 2016. Full details of all the relevant paragraphs in reason for judgment of omitted misstated and made-up facts admitted at the trial is stated under each relevant paragraph of reason for judgment in the Affidavit# 13 filed on May 24, 2016 of Mohd Ali Hirji in Exhibit "A"[129].


1. The Hirjis’ appeals and requests the learned trial judge to adjourn this application and re-visit and re-examine the facts and evidence submitted in the trial and the corroborating evidence of the defense witnesses in the trial. The "cogent evidence" in the Hirji's Affidavit# 13 filed on May 24, 2016 clearly demonstrates the facts overlooked by the learned trial judge that proves the defendants negligence and breach of contract and the Hirjis’ case. The learned trial judge has a legal obligation and owes a duty to the Hirjis’ under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Hirjis’ right to equal benefit of the law and prevent this miscarriage of justice.


2. The learned trial judge set a side reason for Judgment rendered on November 6, 2015 and reason for judgment rendered on March 30, 2016 which is erroneous.

​3. The learned trial judge reexamines the facts and Evidence at the trial and renders a fair, just and impartial verdict.

____________________

[127] see [binder 3 page 39] On February 19, 2016, the Hirjis' filed their Affidavit # 12 and again brought some of the material facts to the attention of the trial judge.

[128] See [Binder 4 page 216 to 223 response to the VR-44 requisition] in Notice of motion to a judge or the Registrar.

[129] Affidavit# 13 filed on May 24, 2016 of Mohd Ali Hirji in Exhibit "A".

                                                                                    114

 

394.      On June 3, 2016 based on erroneous and made-up reason for judgment and despite the Hirjis’ strong objections the trial judge failed to recuse herself and acted unlawfully. The trial judge signed the court order on February 29, 2016[130].

 

395.      On June 3, 2016 based on unlawful court order the defendants VR-44 registered a charge on the Hirjis’ home[131]

 

396.      On around June 4, 2016 one of the Hirjis’ Mrs. Hirji underwent an open heart surgery as scheduled[132] The counsels for the defendant as well as the court were made aware of this fact in May 2016.

 

N. THE JUDGE IS OBLIGATED TO RECUSE HERSELF.

397.      The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. Untied States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11,13 (1954).


“Recusal under Section 455 is self -executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances. “Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language (455(a)) imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed. “Balistrieri, at 1202.


Judges do not have the discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should the judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of this “appearance of partiality”, which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are no legal force or effect.

____________________

[130] See [Binder 7 pages 124 to 125 The trial judge signed the court order on February 29, 2016] in Affidavit of Mr. Ryan Shaw Exhibit X pages 124-125.

[131] See [Binder 7 pages 150-152 VR-44 registered a charge on the Hirjis’ home] in Affidavit of Mr. Ryan Shaw Exhibit GG

[132] See [Binder 7 page 145 Mrs. Hirji underwent an open heart surgery] in Affidavit of Mr. Ryan Shaw.

                                                                                    115

 

O. LETTER FILED ON AUGUST 22, 2016 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRY (ADMIRATION OF JUSTICE)

 

398.      On August 22, 2017 Hirjis’ filed the following letter in the Court of Appeal registry[133] and informed the “Administration of Justice” the following amongst other things;

 

“I particularly request this application be heard by Honourable Chief Justice so that he can see for himself how the lives, the reputation, and image of a litigant is destroyed by the Supreme Court trial judge by willfully fabricating the trial evidence submitted in the trial and willfully deprive and inflict enormous damage on the state by fabricating and misstating the facts in reason for judgment”.

 

399.      The evidence confirms the senior officials of the “Administration of Justice” failed to take any steps to prevent the Miscarriage of Justice unlawfully imposed on the Hirjis’.

 

P.   THE COURT OF APPEAL OF B.C IGNORED THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

 

400.      On September 14, 2016 “Administration of justice of British Columbia” assigned Madam Justice Newbury (“the chambers judge”) to hear the Hirjis’ application for extension of time. Mr. Hirji at the hearing submitted his Affidavit # 1 filed on August 19, 2016[134] and copy of his written submissions provided to justice Newbury and defense Counsel Mr. Safarik[135] The Hirjis’ sought an order for extension of time to file their appeal material so that the appeal is perfected in time. Mr. Hirji submitted his written submissions that amongst other things state the following:


"1 The noted exception to the required compliance with the civil procedure is that the rules themselves often contain a rule which permits a court to only where and as necessary in the Interest of justice, dispense with compliance with any rule at any time."


"2. The Hirji respectfully submits that this is such an occasion where the court would be justified in the interest of justice, to dispense with compliance with any rule to prevent this Miscarriage of justice. The onus is on the party seeking to dispense with compliance with a rule to demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice".


"3. The Hirji submits to this Honourable court that: Would it be fair, just or reasonable for this honourable court to impose a significant cost of this appeal on the Hirjis’ when the Hirjis’ have proved their burden of proof and the defendant's negligence and breach of contract with convincing Evidence at the trial"?

____________________

[133] See the letter filed by the Hirjis in the court registry on August 22, 2017 informing the Court of Miscarriage of justice.

[134] See [Binder 5 Page 312 Affidavit # 1 filed on August 19, 2016] in Notice of motion to a judge or the Registrar

[135] See [Binder 4 page 238 to 311 Hirjis’ written submission] in Notice of motion to a judge or the Registrar.

                                                                                    116

 

"4. Would it be fair, just, or reasonable for this Honourable court to allow the defendants legal counsels who have breached their oath of office and fundamental breach of trust of court as officers of the court to abuse the court process and inflict more damages on the Hirjis’ and try and rob them out of their home and all their worldly possession by fraudulent means when the Hirjis’ have proved their burden of proof and the defendant's negligence and breach of contract with convincing Evidence at the trial".


"5. The issue before this Honourable court is not if the trial judge was "palpably wrong" but the issue before this Honourable court is did the trial judge willfully declined to correct her plain and oblivious palpably wrong reasons in the entire Reasons for Judgment brought to the trial judge's attention before the order was sealed and willfully violated Hirjis’ right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom s. 15 and deprived the Hirjis’ of justice and unreasonably imposed the burden of this miscarriage of justice and burden of this appeal on the Hirjis"?

 

"6. The trial judge willfully violated her oath of office and her oath of allegiance to support the constitution of Canada and to uphold the rule of law. The "Cogent evidence" in trial clearly indicates and leaves no doubt in the minds of reasonable and knowledgeable observers or in the mind of any reasonable and knowledgeable judge acting in a judicial manner to uphold the rule of law in accordance with his/her oath of office that the trial judge violated her oath of office and the Constitution".


"7. It is unreasonable and contrary to the Canadian constitution and Canadian charter of rights and freedom s.15 for any trial judge to willfully fabricate omit and misstate the facts in entire reason for judgment and deprive the Hirjis’ of their right to equal benefit of law and the justice which is clear and transparent throughout the reason for judgment".

400.    The Hirjis’ documents and submissions at the hearing establishes some of the “palpable and overriding errors of facts and law” on material facts that affected the outcome of this case and removes the pillar from underneath the trial judge’s Reasons for Judgment that cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence at the trial.

 

401.       The Hirjis’ evidence established the basis for the appeal court's interference. The Chambers Judge ignored and declined/failed to apply the correct legal principal applied in British Columbia (Director of Maintenance Enforcement) v. Reid, 1994 CanLII 1338 (BCSC)[136] and in Healey v. Chung, [2015] B.C.J. No. 158, 2015 BCCA 38[137] and unreasonably declined to grant the leave for extension of time and dismissed Hirjis’ application and ordered the Hirjis’ appeal as abandoned and awarded costs against the Hirjis[138].

____________________

[136] (Director of Maintenance Enforcement) v. Reid, 1994 CanLII 1338 (BCSC)

[137] Healey v. Chung, [2015] B.C.J. No. 158, 2015 BCCA 38

[138] See [Binder 1 Application for leave to Appeal Pages 61-62) chambers judge ordered the Hirjis appeal as abandoned and awarded costs against the Hirjis’

                                                                                    117

 

402.      In British Columbia (Director of Maintenance Enforcement) v. Reid, 1994 CanLII 1338 (BC SC) the court refers to Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1993) 1993 CanLII 4516 (BC CA), 5 W.W.R. 97, Wallace J.A. in a concurring majority decision reviews in detail the principles applicable to an appellate court's review of a trial judge's findings of fact and at page 197 summarizes his conclusions as follows:

 

A 'palpable and overriding error' exists; firstly, when it can be demonstrated there was no evidence to support a material finding of fact of the trial judge; secondly, when the trial judge wrongly overlooked admissible evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court; or thirdly, where the trial judge's finding of fact cannot be supported as reasonable, regardless of what the trial judge saw or heard during the course of the trial. An assessment of palpable error should be made on the totality of the evidence.

 

403.      The Appellate Chambers judge’s dismissal of the Hirjis’ application to extend time on the basis that it is in the interests of justice effectively denies justice for the Hirjis’ and amounts to the same thing, by a different route, as dismissing the application to extend time on the basis of the merits of the appeal which is of course not permitted and effectively amounts to approving the fraud upon the court and void judgment of the trial judge that unlawfully deprives the Hirjis’ of justice and defrauds them out of their claim for damages and their home and make them homeless.

 

BARTA V. CANACCORD CAPITAL CORP. LTD., 1997 CANLII 4026 (BC CA)

404.      The chambers judge ignored her own decision on legal principle established in Barta v. Canaccord Capital Corp. Ltd., 1997 CanLII 4026 (BC CA)[139] at para. 11,12, 13 and 14. The chambers judge aided and abetted the criminal acts of the trial judge and became a party to illegally defraud the Hirjis’ out of their legitimate claim for damages and make them homeless and deprive Hirjis’ of justice and their constitutional rights to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal and an equal benefit of the law.

 

405.      In Barta v. Canaccord Capital Corp. Ltd., 1997 CanLII 4026 (BC CA). the court states at para 12,13 and 14 the following;

____________________

[139] Barta v. Canaccord Capital Corp. Ltd., 1997 CanLII 4026 (BC CA)

                                                                                    118

 

[12] The anomaly, if it is one, is between the Garnons-Williams line of cases and the cases, particularly Poirier v. Poirier, which have held that in deciding whether to grant an extension of time a judge may take into account the question of the degree of merit in the appellant's case. That anomaly, I suggest, is more apparent that real in that it is one thing to take the lack of merit into account as one circumstance, it is another to refuse the extension of time on the sole ground that the case lacked merit. I would hold that, as a general matter, an extension of time should not be refused simply on the basis of lack of merit. I would not attempt to define what other circumstances would be sufficient, but do not doubt that long delay by the appellant could be such a circumstance. The discretion is obviously a wide one. I agree in allowing the review on the basis suggested by the Chief Justice.

​[13] NEWBURY, J.A.: I agree with what both my colleagues have said.


[14] McEACHERN, C.J.B.C.: The appeal is allowed and the time is extended as I have stated.

 

406.      The chambers judge ignored the facts submitted at the hearing and violated Hirjis’ right to a fair hearing and equal benefit of the law by abusing the judicial jurisdiction ultra vires (beyond the powers) or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites under the Constitution and violated the “Oath of Allegiance” and judicial oath of office and failed to uphold the rule of law upheld by the chambers judge in Barta v. Canaccord Capital Corp. Ltd., 1997 CanLII 4026 (BC CA).

 

407.      The indisputable evidence confirms justice Newbury disregarded the facts presented at the hearing and ignored the judicial duties imposed on the chambers judge by the constitution. The chambers judge failed to follow the law and ignored to apply the applicable law submitted at the hearing. The Chambers judge acted in bad faith and aided and abetted and approved the unlawful acts and void orders of the trial judge and became a party to unlawfully defraud the Hirjis’ out of their legitimate claim for damages.


THE CHAMBERS JUDGE VIOLATED ICCPR ARTICLE 9, ARTICLE 14, AND ARTICLE 26.
 

UNLAWFUL ACTS COMMITTED BY PENAL OF JUDGES’ OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF B.C

 

408.      On October 24, 2016 The Hirjis’ filed their Notice of Motion[140]  and Motion book Application to vary an order of justice[141] seeking relief for violations of the Hirjis’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedom s.7, 11(d) and s.15 and sought the remedy from the court under s. 24(1),(2). and s. 52.

____________________

[140] See [Binder 2 page 163-165 Notice of Motion] in Application for leave to appeal filed on October 24, 2016

[141] See [Binder 8] Motion book Application to vary an order of justice filed on November 2, 2016

                                                                                    119

 

409.       The Hirjis’ appeared before Madam Justice Saunders on November 2, 2016. Madam Justice Saunders made orders for the Hirjis’ to appear before the penal of judges for the relief sought in Notice of Motion and the Motion book Application to very an order of justice.

 

410.      On November 17, 2016 Hirjis’ filed their written arguments[142]  to set aside the decision of Court of Appeal Chambers judge Madam Justice Newbury of September 29, 2016.

 

411.      In their written arguments Hirjis’ requested that the Honourable Court set aside the decision of Justice Newbury, sitting in Chambers, which dismissed the Hirjis’s application to extend time and thereby dismissed the within appeal as abandoned.

 

412.      On November 25, 2016 the Hirjis’ appeared before the penal of three judges of court of Appeal of B.C Mr. justice Ian T. Donald, madam justice Mary E. Saunders, and madam justice Elizabeth A. Bennett.

 

413.      Hirji attempted to submit his submissions why the court should overturn the wrong decision of Justice Newbury and attempted to submit the “palpable and overriding errors” of the trial judge that removes the foundations from underneath the trial judges Reasons for Judgment and establishes the violations of Hirjis’ charter rights submitted to justice Newbury that established the basis for the appellate court’s interference.

 

414.      The Division court judges unreasonably declined to hear the facts and the relief sought by Hirjis’s and declined to hear the Hirjis’ full submission on Justice Newbury’s Reasons for Judgment in schedule I and the Justice Newbury’s approval of the void judgment of the trial judge.

 

415.      The penal of Court of Appeal judges refused to accept further evidence prepared for each of the division court judges in Sherlock binders. The panel of judges approved the void orders of the trial judge aided and abetted by the void orders of court of Appeal Chambers Judge Justice Newbury. The panel of judges ignored and failed to carry out their judicial duties and ignored to address the issues in Hirjis’ Notice of Motion filed on October 24, 2016[143] and the relief sought by the Hirjis’ under s. 24(1), (2) and s. 52 for violations of Hirjis’ rights that are enshrined in Charter of rights and freedom to impartial hearing and equal benefit of law.

 

416.      The penal of judges ignore the facts and aided and abetted and approved the unlawful acts and void orders of the trial judge madam justice Sharma, and void orders of chambers judge madam Justice Newbury. The panel of judges became a party to illegally defraud Hirjis’ out of their claim for damages and their lives possessions and their home and make them homeless.

____________________

[142] See [Binder 1 pages 83-88] in Appellants Application for leave to appeal written argument filed on November 17, 2016.

[143] See [Binder 1 page 80-82] Notice of Motion in Application for leave to appeal filed on October 24, 2016.

                                                                                    120

 

417.      The Division court judges failed to follow the law and failed to carry out their judicial duties impartially. The division court approved the void orders of trial judge made into law and dismissed Hirjis’ application and ordered the costs against the Hirjis[144]

 

418.      The penal of judges’ unreasonable refusal and a denial of fair hearing is evidenced by the Court of Appeal Chambers Hearing transcript of November 25, 2015[145] Panel of judges did not ask for an explanation or confirmation or denial of facts on Hirjis’ submissions from the defense counsel and arbitrarily dismissed the Hirjis’ application and awarded costs against the Hirjis’. The panel of judges acted in bad faith and in a manner that is intentionally false and willfully blind.


THE PENAL OF JUDGES VIOLATED ICCPR ARTICLE 9, ARTICLE 14, AND ARTICLE 26.
 

R. UNLAWFUL ACTS COMMITTED BY THE JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

419.      On January 18, 2017, Hirjis’ filed their application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada in two Sherlock binders marked herein as Binder 1[146]  and Binder 2[147]. 

 

420.      On April 3, 2017, All the materials facts and unlawful acts and void orders of lower court judges was submitted by the Supreme Court of Canada court registry to penal of three Supreme Court of Canada Judges namely, The Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin, "CJ" Richard Wagner "Wa" and Clément Gascon. "Ga", for the consideration by the Court.

 

421.      The evidence confirms the Supreme Court of Canada approved the void judgements and unlawful acts committed by the lower court and court of Appeal of British Columbia and made the void orders of lower court into law and dismissed the Hirjis application and awarded cost against the Hirjis. The SCC willfully became a party to fraudulently deprive the Hirjis of justice and unlawfully make them homeless. The SCC approved the following;

1. Void judgment of the Supreme court of British Columbia trial judge Justice Sharma rendered on November 6, 2015[148] and March 30 2016

2.  Void judgment of Madam justice Newbury rendered on September 29, 2016 [149]

of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, and 

3. Void judgment of the panel of Court of Appeal of British Columbia rendered on November 25, 2016 [150] 

 

The evidence confirms the state’s judicial officers of the Supreme Court of Canada acted in a manner that is directed to judicial machinery itself that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. 

____________________

[144] See [Binder 1 page 67-68] Application for leave to Appeal orders of panel of judges dated November 25, 2016 pages 67-68.

[145] see: [Binder 1 page pages 69-79] Application for leave to Appeal Hearing transcript of November 25, 2015

[146] See application for leave to appeal in SCC Marked as Application for leave to appeal Binder 1

[147] See application for leave to appeal in SCC Marked as Application for leave to appeal Binder 2

[148] See [Binder 1 page 7 to 40] judgment of the Supreme court of British Columbia

[149] See [Binder 1 page 51 to 60] judgment of justice Newbury dated 29 Sept 2016

[150] See [Binder 1 page 63 to 66] judgment of panel of Court of Appeal of British Columbia.

    121

 

422.      The court records and evidence confirms that on April 27, 2017, all nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada, Honourable Justice Russell Brown, Honourable Justice Clément Gascon, Honourable Justice Suzanne Côté, Honourable Justice Malcolm Rowe, Honourable Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, Honourable justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Honourable Justice Michael J. Moldaver, Honourable Justice Richard Wagner, approved the void orders of lower courts and aided and abetted and approved the trial judges orders/judgement that is based on "fraud upon the court" and "fraud upon the Hirjis" and in law it is null and void. The Supreme Court of Canada approved the unlawful acts and void order/judgement of judges of Court of Appeal of British Columbia and made it into law and dismissed the Hirjis’ application and ordered costs against the Hirjis[151]

 

423.      The evidence confirms the Supreme Court of Canada judges willfully became parties to defraud Hirjis’ out of their lawful and legitimate claim for damages. The Supreme Court of Canada failed to follow their own established rules and laws and failed to perform and fulfill their judicial duties owed to the Hirjis’ and the Canadian citizens and to the State. The Supreme Court of Canada judges failed to uphold the rule of law according to the Canadian Constitution and according to the international treaties ratified by Canada and dismissed the Hirjis’ application with costs.

 

424.      The Supreme Court of Canada approved the unlawful acts and acts of bad faith and void orders of the trial judge Madam justice Sharma aided and abated by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia chambers judge Justice Newbury’s and panel of three judges justice Ian T. Donald, Justice Mary E. Saunders, and Justice Elizabeth A. Bennett. The Supreme Court of Canada approved the made-up Reasons for Judgment of Madam Justice Sharma’s aided and abated by lower court judges made into law.

 

425.       This case law is now followed and applied by the lower Court judges and the legal counsels throughout Canada against the innocent litigants that will deny justice to countless litigants all over the world particularly the Strata owners who have been place by the state's legislation the “Strata Property Act” at the mercy of some of the corrupt Strata Council Members who looks after their own interest and some of the court judges as demonstrated by this case and will persecute the innocent litigants who appear before the court in good faith in pursuit of truth and justice as the courts have persecuted and destroyed the lives of Hirjis’ in this case for no just reasons.

 

426.       Judicial officers of the Supreme Court of Canada protected the criminal acts perpetrated by the lower court judges and willfully became a party to defraud the Hirjis’ out of their lives possessions and their home and make them homeless so that the defendants and their insurers can escape the huge liability and the lower court judges can escape criminal acts committed against the Hirjis’.

____________________

[151] See [binder 3 page 22] in Notice of Motion to judge or Registrar the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.

    122

 

427.      This fraudulent orders imposed on Hirjis’ by the judicial officers of the highest court of

Canada to enforce the void orders of lower court judges is nothing but lawless acts perpetrated by the judicial officers of the highest court of Canada. The judicial officers of the Supreme Court of Canada willfully violated their oath of office and refused to honor the pledge to uphold the Constitution and uphold the rule of the law of the land as confirmed by the indisputable evidence and the court records.

 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUDGES VIOLATED ICCPR ARTICLE 9, ARTICLE 14, AND ARTICLE 26.

 

HIRJIS' LETTER TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF CANADA DATED MAY 1, 2017

428.      On May 1, 2017 Hirjis’ wrote a detailed 14 page letter[152] to the Chief justice of Canada and informed the Chief justice and requested the chief justice to reconsider the unlawful acts perpetrated by the lower court judges and the failures of all levels of Canadian courts including the Supreme Court of Canada to render justice according to the rule of law of the land and the willful violations of the Hirjis’ rights committed by the courts contrary to the provisions under the Constitution and also violations of basic human rights under ARTICLE 1, 7, 8, 10 and 30 of “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”

“The plaintiffs have proved their burden of proof and the negligence and breach of contract of the defendants but if it pleases the court then the plaintiffs are willing to prove their case and the damages again in the court and prove the defendants negligence and breach of contract and the damages they have suffered with the documents and affidavits already filed in this litigation in supreme court, and court of appeal of British Columbia and Supreme court of Canada in front of a competent, knowledgeable, and impartial trial judge”.

 

429.      On May 4, 2017, Supreme Court of Canada wrote to Hirjis[153] and advised them to file a Notice of Motion for the court to reconsider its decision.

 

430.      On May 18, 2017 Hirjis’ filed their Notice of Motion to a Judge or the Registrar in four Sherlock binders Marked and refereed herein as Binder 3[154], Binder 4[155], Binder 5,[156] Trial Transcripts Binder[157]

____________________

[152] See [Binder 3 pages 23-36] letter to Chief justice in Notice of Motion to a Judge or the Registrar.

[153] See [Binder 3 page 37] in Notice of Motion to a Judge or the Registrar.

[154] See [Binders 3]  Notice of Motion to a Judge or the Registrar.

[155] See [Binders 4] Notice of Motion to a Judge or the Registrar.

[156] See [Binders 5] Notice of Motion to a Judge or the Registrar.

[157] See [Trial Transcripts Binder] Notice of Motion to a Judge or the Registrar.

    123

 

CHIEF JUSTICE OF CANADA PREMATURELY RETIRES

 

431.      On June 13, 2017 Honourable Chief justice Beverley McLachlin prematurely announced she was retiring in December 2017.

LETTER FROM REGISTRAR OF SCC DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2017

 

432.      On November 1, 2017 Supreme Court of Canada informed Hirjis’ confirming the following; “On November 1, 2017, your motion for reconsideration in the above-captioned matter was not accepted for filing by the Registrar[158]

LETTER FROM HIRJI TO THE SCC REGISTRAR DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2017

 

433.      On November 14, 2017 Hirjis’ wrote the following to the registrar[159]


“I confirm your letter of November 1, 2017, received on November 10, 2017 via regular mail declining acceptance of our Notice of Motion for reconsideration after delay of five months by the court and closing our file. It appears our Motion is declined by you on the basis that the court Rule 73 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada states that there shall be no reconsideration of an application unless there are exceedingly rear circumstances that warrant consideration by the court.”


"I respectfully beg to differ with your assessment of the facts and law in this case for the following reasons";

 

"Appeal Court of United Kingdom In the matter of L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 states the following";

"The Supreme Court accepted that there is jurisdiction for a judge to change his or her mind up until the time that an order is perfected; pursuant to CPR rule 40.2(2)(b), this is when the orders is sealed. The question that arose on appeal was whether the judge was right to exercise that power. The Supreme Court rejected the test of "exceptional circumstances" applied by the Court of Appeal, stating instead that the overriding objective must be to deal with the case justly and a carefully considered change of mind may be sufficient (at paragraph 27). One relevant factor will be whether any party has acted upon the decision to his detriment. The Supreme Court was satisfied on the facts of this case that the judgment of 15 February 2012 should stand. It considered but ultimately declined to decide the difficult question of whether a judge in care proceedings may reverse a previous decision after the order has been sealed".

____________________

[158] See Supreme Court of Canada letter informing the Hirjis On November 1, 2017 the matter was not accepted for filing.

[159] See Hirjis letter to The Supreme Court of Canada registrar On November 14, 2017

    124

 

“The issue of reconsideration would not have been an issue in the first place but for the failures of all nine Honourable judges of Supreme Court of Canada to carry out their judicial duties to uphold the rule of law. Their failures to address the issue of trial judge’s willful fabrication omission and misstated material facts in the Reasons for Judgment that deprived us the justice by unlawful acts and by committing a “fraud upon the court” and that constitutes criminal act and that makes the trial judge’s orders VOID, and any subsequent orders including the orders of Supreme Court of Canada void and unenforceable by law and has no legal effect or force”.

 

LETTER TO CHIEF JUSTICE PUTTING ALL JUDGES OF SCC ON NOTICE FOR THEIR ACTS OF BAD FAITH AND UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

434.      Finally on December 04, 2017 Mr. Hirji informed the Honourable Chief justice Beverley McLachlin[160] as well as  all other Honourable judges of Supreme Court Canada and put them on notice for their unlawful acts and their unreasonable and willful refusal to uphold the rule of the law of the land and approving the void orders and criminal acts committed by lower court judges and unlawfully depriving the Hirjis’ of justice. The letter states the following:

 

Dear Judge McLachlin,


"I am writing this letter relating to the decision the Honourable judge made on April 27, 2017 with eight other Supreme Court Judges in our case indexed as Hirji v. The Owners Strata Corporation Plan VR-44 2015 BCSC 2043".


"I am advised to bring this matter once again to your attention and put all Honourable judges on Notice as time is of essence. Our case against ICBC amounting to millions of dollars for loss of income is rejected due to the trial judges made-up Reasons for Judgment and deadline is set for close of business on December 15, 2017. The sole reason for denial of our loss of income claim the defendants argue is due to “The issue of the viability of the Hirji’s currency analyzer program was decided in Hirji v. The Owners Strata Corporation Plan VR44, 2015 BCSC 2043”. 

 

"The Evidence at the trial confirms that the trial judge never admitted or examined the evidence of the viability of Hirji’s currency analyzer program recorded on three DVD CD’s that proves the Hirjis’ currency losses and loss of business opportunities. How did the trial judge come to conclusions without looking at the evidence? The answer is plain and obvious by willfully fabricating the evidence".

____________________

[160] Mr. Hirji letter to the Honourable Chief justice Beverley McLachlin sent on December 04, 2017

    125

 

"It appears that the supreme court of Canada’s failures to carry out its judicial duties according to the oath of office and pledge to uphold the rule of law under the Canadian Constitution by approving the trial judge’s willfully made-up reasons for judgment that constitutes criminal acts committed by the trial judge is more than likely to result in our losses amounting to millions of dollars that will leave us with no choice but bring appropriate charges against the Honourable judges of Supreme Court of Canada and the Government of Canada unless the common sense prevails and the Supreme Court of Canada re-opens our file before the deadline of December 15, 2017 and reexamines the facts closely and quashes the trial judges reasons for judgment."


"I have been advised to inform you that your decision in this case is contrary to the indisputable evidence submitted in our application for leave that constitutes violations of our guaranteed rights under the Canadian Charter of rights and freedom s.15 as well as our right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal which is expressly enshrined by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also violates basic human rights guaranteed under ARTICLE 1, 7, 8, 10 and 30 of “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 ​

"It appears from your decision that you have compromises your oath of office and pledge to uphold the rule of law according to the Canadian Constitutions by willfully ignoring the indisputable facts of the trial judges made-up omitted and misstated material facts that were placed right in front of you to adjudicate. I have been advised that according to the rule of law this amounts to willful failure of the Honourable judge to execute its judicial duties impartially and uphold the rule of law according to the constitution."


"I would also like to request you and respectfully draw your attention to the following indisputable facts that were submitted to you that confirms the fact that the trial judge’s decisions are not based on the finding of the facts and the indisputable evidence confirms the trial judge has willfully made-up omitted and misstated material facts in the Reasons for Judgment to unlawfully deny us the justice"........click on the link to see the full text of the letters.

​ 

LETTER FROM SCC DATED DECEMBER 4, 2017 INFORMING HIRJIS THE MATTER IS NO LONGER WITH IN JURISDICTION OF SCC 

435.   On December 04, 2017 The Supreme Court of Canada informed the Hirjis’ and indicated to them via email[161] that the Supreme Court of Canada no longer has the jurisdiction on subject matter. The Hirjis are left without the remedies and redress by member state Canada. The email from the Supreme Court of Canada confirms the following;

____________________

[161] Supreme Court of Canada informs Hirjis’ that the matter is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada.

    126

 

“Since your application for leave to appeal was dismissed on April 27, 2017, and your motion for reconsideration was not accepted for filing, there are no further remedies available to you in this Court, and this matter is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada. This matter is closed, and no further documents will be accepted for filing”

  

436.      The Hirjis’ claim against Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) for loss of income was lost as a direct result of the Judicial officers failures to uphold the rule of law and their failures to quash the fabricated and void orders of the trial judge as well as void orders of court of Appeal of British Columbia which is unenforceable in law and has no legal force or affect.

 

437.      The Hirjis have suffered additional damages as a direct result of willful and unlawful acts of the judicial officers which the judicial officers knew and were put on notice on December 4, 2017 that this damage will occur.

 

438.       The judicial officers had the jurisdiction to prevent the huge damages on Hirjis. The judicial officers had a legal obligation and a duty to prevent these damages on Hirjis by executing their judicial duties in compliance with the Constitution and by upholding the rule of law of the land based on the facts and evidence that was repeatedly brought to the attention of the judicial officers in no uncertain terms. The evidence confirms the judicial officers of Supreme Court of Canada elected to act unlawfully and willfully inflicted these injuries on the Hirjis.

 

439.      Preliminary and initial loss of  Hirjis income and earnings in a lawsuit against the Driver Mr. Shain Ali and his Insurers the "Insurance Corporation of British Columbia" was estimated by Hirjis’ than legal counsel Mr. Chris Temple at between $24 and $50 Million dollars. The Preliminary estimated loss of Hirjis income by his counsel (in highlighted  paragraph 5) is included in this petition.[162]

 

Summary.

 

440.     The Hirjis submits to the United Nations General Assembly and the Honourable members of the Human Rights committee that the email/Letter addressed to the Hirjis from the Supreme the Court of Canada dated December 4, 2017 speaks for itself. The email/letter in essence confirms the Supreme court of Canada acted unlawfully and as trespassers of the law, and unjustly inflicted enormous injuries on the Hirjis,  by acting unlawfully. The Supreme Court of Canada failed to uphold the rule of law and violated Hirjis' Constitutional rights that are enshrined under the provisions of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and thereby have lost the jurisdiction on subject matter and the Hirjis are left without the remedies, or justice, or redress.   

 

[162] The Preliminary estimated loss of Hirjis income by his counsel is included in this petition

                                                                                    127

 

V. CONCLUSION.

 

441.       This unlawful Miscarriage of Justice imposed on Mohd Ali Hirji and Parin Mohd Ali Hirji Lalani and willfully depriving them and defrauding them out of their legitimate claim for damages by all levels of Canadian courts is an egregious violation of Hirjis' fundamental rights. The Government of Canada has violated the following rights under various provisions of the Canadian Constitution, Canadian laws, and international law by unlawfully defrauding and imposing this Miscarriage of justice on the Hirjis’ and subjecting them to mental and physiological cruelty and sufferings constitutes gross violations of domestic laws and ICCPR treaties ratified by Canada that is binding on Canada.

1. Article 2 The right to legal recourse when their rights have been violated, even if the violator was acting in an official capacity.
2. Article 6 – Right to life.
3. Article 9 – Right to liberty and security of the person.
4. Article 14 – Equality before the courts and tribunals. Right to a fair trial.
5. Article 16 – Right to recognition as a person before the law.
6. Article 26 – Equality before the law.


WE HEREBY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE TO:

442.   Issue an opinion finding on unlawful denial of justice and unlawful acts committed on Hirjis’ by the judicial officers of the court named in this petition to be in violation of Canadian obligations under international law.

443.   The Honourable committee demand on behalf of Hirjis' a well-publicized public apology from the Government of Canada to minimize the damage caused by the dishonest and unlawful acts of the state’s judicial officers that has destroyed Hirjis name, their reputation and their prestige in their community.

 

444.   Hirjis are seeking justice based on the rule of law and on the well established International law that "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity."  Hirjis are particularly relying on the United Nations guarantees under ICCPR and under the Canadian Constitution and the International covenants.

​ 

445.   Hirjis requests the United Nations Human Rights Committee to assess the damages based on the facts the evidence and the rule of law submitted with this communications as the committee may deem just. The committee makes appropriate recommendations to the Government of Canadian and request the member state to honor the guarantees enshrined under the Canadian Constitution as well as honor the guarantees enshrined under the ICCPR covenants ratified by Canada that is binding on Canada. The committee request the member state and point out the reality in this case that had it not been for the failures of the judicial officers of the court to act lawfully and had the judicial officers carried out their judicial obligations and upheld the rule of law according to the Constitution then the Hirjis would have collected the damages they are entitled to by law from the defendants and their insurers.

    128

 

446.    The committee request the member state to award all the permit able damages to Hirjis that Hirjis’ have suffered and endured as a direct result of the failures of the state’s judicial officers to uphold the rule of law in compliance with the provisions of the Canadian Constitution and International obligations that are binding on the member state.

FULL NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSON(S) SUBMITTING THE FORMATION

 

Mohd Ali Hirji and Parin Mohd Al Hirji Lalani

​1084 Lillooet Road,
North Vancouver,
British Columbia V7J 2H8, Canada.
TEL:(604) 985-9383
moh2@ shaw.ca

parin.lalani@ hotmail. Com

http://www. mohdhirji.com
 

 

Mohd Ali Hirji:                                                                    Parin Mohd Ali Hirji:
 

 

Mohd Ali Hirji.                                                                      Parin Mohd Ali Hirji Lalani.

The petitioners                                                                        The petitioner
 

    129

    Mohdhirji.com                        PETITION TO: UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

                                                                       UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY