Crimes
of Arrogance: Lawyers
lacking professionalism
by denying access
to justice based
on the truth.
Arrogance makes frequent
appearances in the
Margaret Hicks struggles
with BMO Insurance's (AIG
Life of Canada) lawyers
who demonstrate a lack for integrity,
transparency and
accountability in this
case. They act like
captains of a ship who,
'when they
end up on the deck, they
usually possess an
exaggerated sense of
entitlement.'
Their actions are not
representative of the
democratic principals of
the "Rule of
Law."
Blaney
McMurtry is a legal firm who have ties
to Roy
McMurtry
a former Chief Justice
of Ontario and Bill
McMurtry
who was a tireless
crusader for social
justice. Its' hard not
to have respect for
both Roy and Bill for
what they have
accomplished for the
justice systems in
Canada and particularly
the province of Ontario.
However, in this case it
is in my opinion "quite
the opposite" for
members of Blaney
McMurtry.
For arrogance, it's hard
to match the main lawyer
who is responsible for
defending BMO Insurance
(AIG Life of Canada)
based on her
actions. In any
democracy you must focus
on the main issues - THE
RULE OF LAW. Civil
courts in Ontario cannot
address items of concern
that are covered by the
Criminal Code of Canada.
Based
on the ‘real
evidence’ we find it
hard to believe, that
anyone would think
Margaret Hicks filed a
statement-of-claim for
$3,000.000.00 because
her skin condition
caused her to “itch”
and that effected her
ability to perform her
duties.
That is clearly
the intent of their
motion of record
and affidavits that has
forced us to abandon the
case and seek justice in
the criminal courts
first.
Quote
from the affidavit of
Elizabeth J. Forster
which is clearly not
why Margaret filed
her statement-of-claim.
(3) This
claim arises from
allegation that the
Defendant constructively
dismissed the Plaintiff,
Margaret Hicks, from her
employment with the
Defendant. Ms
Hicks alleges that in
2001 she began
exhibiting symptoms
related to a medical
condition that
interfered with her
ability to perform
certain duties of her
employment. Ms.
Hicks alleges that upon
learning of her medical
condition the Defendant
engaged in improper
conduct that caused her
emotional distress and
physical harm. Ms
Hicks further alleges
that the Defendant's bad
faith conduct aggravated
her medical condition
and prevented her from
being able to continue
with her
employment. Ms
Hicks claims that she is
entitled to damages for
intentional or
negligence infliction of
emotional distress and
anxiety as well as
breach of her employment
contract and wrongful
hiring.
For
whatever else is in
dispute, Margaret's skin
condition was never part
of her claim or had any
bearing on her ability
to perform her
duties. The
evidence clearly
indicates that. It
is my opinion that she
thinks she occupies and
elevated place in the
justice system.
The above quote of (3)
is criminal in nature.
Margaret Hicks is a
women who's husband
(myself) does all the
legal work. I do
not have legal
training background and
we do not have a
lawyer. With that
in mind we felt we would
have very little chance
to convince a judge that
she (Blaney McMurtry's
lawyer) was lying under oath,
which is a very serious
criminal offence.
Who would believe
us. And if we did
lose there is no way we
could comply with the
order. And by not
challenging the motion
in civil court Margaret
Hicks avoided the scenario
of a Judge protecting
a Judge. This way
when we get to criminal
court a judge will not
be inclined to favour
the motion record
findings based on a
Civil Court official
ruling. Now at
least it will be a clean
slate in the criminal
courts to judge it as
"Perjury and
Fabrication of
Evidence."
After
consultation with her
current physiciatrist
shortly after her Oral
Discovery process
Margaret was advised to
rely on the privacy laws
of
Canada
to answer only questions
that were subject to her
statement of claim.
“She stated
insurance companies are
notorious for trying to
mislead people about
their customer’s
claims by
misinterpreting
doctor’s notes.”
We are also
concerned that the
misinterpretations could
affect her current
claims for disability
benefits because of the
ruthless tactics used by
BMO
Insurance’s (AIG Life
of Canada) that caused
her to wait 8 months for
the disability benefits
that she was entitled
to. If we
answered the questions
that were not related to
the statement of claim
and the intent of the
Rules of Civil Procedure
that are clearly defined
then those answers could
have been misrepresented
and effect her current
claim.
Margaret Hicks was
misled by her to offer
to take certain
undertakings to answer
questions that were not
related to her case. It
is Margaret's position that she
complied with all the
rules of Civil Procedure
and the Oral Discovery
process and supplied all
answers to questions
that were based on the
rules and their intent
for the truth about this
case.
In
addition, AIG Life of
Canada (BMO Insurance)
were self-insured when
Margaret Hicks got her
short and long term
disability benefits for
the major depression
that was caused by their
actions.
Surely, their
legal firm, are well
aware that people do not
and cannot get
disability benefits for
“Lichen Planus.”
In
addition, Margaret Hicks
did not resign her
position until 5 months
had past from the time
she last worked to the
time she received
threatening letters from
AIG.
She put her
resignation in because
her mental health was
declining rapidly at
that time.
Mainly because of
the stalling tactics
used to deny her, her
disability benefits and
was done so at the
recommendation of her
doctors.
Their motion
record (returnable June
1, 2010) is further
evidence of our
allegations of abuse of
process in unnecessary
delay and procedural
unfairness by them
failing to consider all
of our submissions to
them concerning this
motion record. This
motion will close the
case in Civil Courts for
now and open the door to
lay criminal charges
against members of
Blaney McMurtry and
employees of BMO
Insurance for perjury,
conspiracy to commit
fraud, obstruction of
justice and fabricating
evidence.
|
