A TORONTO JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, CAUGHT ACTING CORRUPTLY. I HAVE POSTED A COURT DOCUMENT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED, BY HIM AND WHICH HE DID NOT DO. YET HE SENT, THE DOUCUMENT, TO THE PARTIES, UNSIGNED.

 THE LATEST CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, WHO HAVE ACTED, AGAINST ME, AS PART OF THE OVERALL, ATTACKS, THAT I HAVE FACED, FROM THEM.

THIS CORRUPT, ONTARIO JUDGE, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, COURT, IN TORONTO, ACTIONS SPEAK, FOR THEMSELVES.

MY NUMBER ONE CHARGE, AGAINST HIM, WAS IN MAKING A FINAL DECISION, ON MY URGENT MOTIONS, FOR WHICH HE ALSO LACKED THE JURISDICTION, TO DO SO, AS THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE. FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER. HE THEN MADE HIMSELF, BOTH THE TRIAL JUDGE AND ALSO THE CASE CONFERENCE, JUDGE AND ALSO PROCEEDED, TO ACT AS BOTH, HEARING ORAL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, WHO HAD NEITHER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR STATEMENTS, NOR ANY RESPONDING MOTION MATERIALS.  ALL THIS CORRUPT JUDGE NEEDED, WAS THEIR ORAL STATEMENTS. HE ALSO SPENT A LOT OF TIME, ROLLING HIS EYES AT ME, AS IF TO SAY, "I DON'T WANT TO HEAR, FROM YOU". BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HAD ALLOWED THE RESPONDENTS, TO SPEAK, WITHOUT HIM, ALSO INTERUPTING THEM, AS HE HAD THE HABIT, OF INTERUPTING ME, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE. INCLUDING, MUTING MY MICROPHONE. AT ONE POINT, I TOLD THIS JUDGE, TO RECUSED HIMSELF, FROM MY CASE, BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS BIAS AND SHOWING NO INTEREST, IN THE HARM DONE TO ME, BY THE RESPONDENTS, IN LOCKING ME OUT OF MY HOME. HE EVEN TOLD ME, TO TAKE MY MATTER TO THE LTB, WHICH HE ALSO KNEW, WOULD NOT HEAR THE MATTER, ON MY BEHALF. THAT ONLY THE COURT, COULD GRANT ME THE RELIEF, THAT I HAD SOUGHT, FROM THE COURT. AND THE FINAL STRAW, WAS THE ENDORSEMENT, THAT HE HAD THE CLERK SENT TO ME, THAT HE ALSO DID NOT SIGNED, OR HAD THE DOCUMENT, FILLED OUT COMPLETELY, BY THE COURT. (See the evidence, posted below, of the document, which I had also blackened out, the details of it, from the public. I wanted the public to see, the document that the judge had written his statements about, without bothering to sign it. Or even to have the documents, prepared properly. And to mock me and the situation, this same judge, Obrien Chamlers, and the clerk, also wanted me to served the respondents, the same document, of his endorsement, without him actually signing and making official, that document.

A Superior Court of Justice 

judge in Toronto, Ontario Canada

WHAT THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, DID AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, TODAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2023.

1. HE BROUGHT UP AND WENT INTO MUCH DETAILS, ABOUT AN OLD CASE, THAT I HAD FILED, IN THE DIV. COURT, AGAINST BARNEY RIVERS INVESTMENT LTD. TWO YEARS AGO AND THEN USED THAT CASE, AS A REFERENCE, TO MAKING HIS DECISION, TODAY, TO NOT GRANT ME, THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER, THAT I WAS SEEKING, WITH THE URGENT MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED. 

2. HE HEARD FULL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, WHEN THEY HAD NOT EVEN FILED, ANY RESPONDING MOTION MATERIALS, WITH THE COURT. INCLUDING, AN AFFIDAVIT, YET ACCEPTED, THEIR STATEMENTS, AS THE TRUTH. 

3. HE MADE THE DECISION, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, HEARING, TODAY, THAT THE URGENT MOTION, FOR A MANDATORY ORDER, WAS ALSO NOT GOING TO GO, TO A HEARING, OR TRIAL. THAT HE WAS GOING TO END, THE MATTER, RIGHT THERE, AT THE CONFERENCE HEARING, BY DENYING, THE ORDER SOUGHT. SO HE WAS BOTH THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE AND THE TRIAL JUDGE, ALL IN ONE. WHICH IS NOT HOW, THIS MATTER, IS TO BE HANDLED, BY THE COURT. 

4. HE BANNED, ALL RECORDING OF HIS ACTIONS, KNOWING, THAT HE WAS GOING TO ACT CURRUPTLY, IN THE MATTER AND WANTED NO RECORD, OF HIS ACTIONS, TO BE MADE PUBLIC.

                                        5. HE MADE A SECOND ENDORSEMENT, OF HIS                             DECISION, OF THE CASE CONFERENCE, THAT WAS HEARD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2023, AT 8:30 A.M.  AND WHEN I HAD ASKED FOR ANOTHER COPY, THINKING THAT I HAD LOST THE COPY THAT WAS SENT TO ME, HIS ASSITANT THEN SIMPLY ASKED, FOR THE ENTIRE ENDORSEMENT, TO BE RECALLED.  THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE JUDGE, SHOWED A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, WHEN HE OPENLY DISCUSSED, A PREVIOUS CASE THAT I HAD IN THE DIVISIONAL CASE, THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT CASE AND HOW HE HAD USED THAT CASE, TO DETERMINED THE OUTCOME, OF THE PRESENT CASE. TO MOOT THE CASE AND TO PREVENT IT FROM HAVING, A HEARING. 

NOTICE THAT THIS COURRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, DID NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT, THAT HE HAD THE COURT, SENT TO ME, SO THAT I COULD SERVE IT, ON THE RESPONDENTS. HE ALSO LEFT OUT, OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION,

SUCH AS THE RELIEF SOUGHT.

HE ALSO DISMISSED, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, AN URGENT MOTION, FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, TO STOP THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, AFTER I WAS LOCKED OUT OF MY HOME, BY THE LANDLOD,

MORE ABOUT THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS

HE IS ALSO, A DEFENDANT, WHO WILL BE FACING CHARGES, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRMINAL, AGAINST ME.

AS A CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, HE HEARD FULL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, WITHOUT THEM, PUTTING THEIR RESPONS

This judge, acted as a case conference judge, when I had filed an urgent motion, for an interlocutory injunction and for a mandatory order, after being illegally forced out of my home, without an eviction order. As a case conference judge, he, then "heard the case", including, the hearing of evidence, from the witnesses and then made his decision, that the matter will not go for a hearing, and decided, not to grant the interlocutory order, that I was seeking, to stop the landlord's actions, against me. This judge also had never considered, that harm done to me, as a result of the actions of 

He also read out loud, to all of the participants, at the case conference, that was held this morning, a prior case, that I had filed, against Barney Rivers Investments, Ltd. two years ago, which he had dug up and read at the case conference. And also based his decision on, which was that I should apply to the When I mentioned that his actions, had prejudiced me, by discussing a previous case, at the case conference, that was also not before the court, today, and was a case, that before the Div. Ct, two years ago, he said nothing. He also made the clerk read out loud, at the case conference, about the prohibition, of recording a hearing, just to make sure that his corrupt actions, will not be exposed. He was wrong!!. 

I am exposing, the fact that this judge, aside from his personal bias and attacks against me, acted against the administration of justice. He had the clerk sent me an endorsement document, WHICH THE JUDGE, OBRIEN, CHALMERS, also did not sign, or had the clerk filled out, the endorsement form. that the court had instructed me, to serve a copy on the other parties. I have posted page 1 and 2, of the documents here, on my blog.

UPDATE:  A SECOND ENDORSEMENT, OF THE CASE CONFERENCE, HEARING, ON NOVEMBER 7, 2023, WAS SENT OUT TO ME, ON NOV. 8TH, BY EMAIL AND WAS RECALLED, BY THE JUDGE'S ASSISTANT, ANNA MARIA TIBERIO. 

See the conversation below

Recall: Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J

Inbox

Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) Nov 8, 2023, 12:21 PM (5 days ago) to me Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) would like to recall the message, "Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J".

Nov 8, 2023, 12:21 PM (5 days ago)

 

Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>	Nov 9, 2023, 5:39 PM (4 days ago)
to Anna

Could you explain, why you would recalled this document?.  I am actually, demanding that you do, as part of this legal process and my right to know this information.

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 12:21 PM Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca> wrote:

Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) would like to recall the message, "Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J".

 

HERE IS THE FULL CONVERSATION: 

 

Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>	Wed, Nov 8, 12:03 PM (5 days ago)
to Civil

Could you send me that document again?. I can't seem to find it. I am here referring to, the endorsement of the judge, Chalmers O.

 

Thanks

 

Valerie Guillaume

Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto	Nov 8, 2023, 12:27 PM (5 days ago)
to me

Good afternoon,

 I do not have the endorsement from the last case conference.

Please reach out to the judicial assistant for a copy of the endorsement.

 

 

From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Sent: November 8, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca>
Subject: Re: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J

 

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Could you send me that document again?. I can't seem to find it. I am here referring to, the endorsement of the judge, Chalmers O.

 

Thanks

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 11:32 AM Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com> wrote:

I will do so.

 

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca> wrote:

Good morning,

 

Please reach out to the judicial assistant for a copy of the endorsement.

 

From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Sent: November 8, 2023 10:59 AM
To: Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca>; palacemason@gmail.com; BPARDIS@BIJANPARDIS.COM
Subject: Fwd: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J

 

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To: the Superior Court of Justice

     Civil Urgent Matters

 

This is a reminder, to my earlier email to you, in regards to getting the judge's endorsement, for the case conference hearing, regarding the urgent motions, that was held yesterday, on November 7, 2023. As I had mentioned previously, A CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, CANNOT MAKE ANY FINAL DECISION, ON THE MATTER, SINCE HE IS NOT THE TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY THE TRIAL JUDGE, CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION, ON THE URGENT MOTIONS.  AND THAT WOULD ALSO  BE DONE, AFTER A HEARING. A case conference judge, as Chalmers O. was yesterday, do not have the jurisdiction, to determine, the final outcome, of those matters that I have before the court, currently. First of all, he was privy to information, at the case conference hearing yesterday, that a trial judge would not have. Case conference hearings, are also not generally recorded and an oral hearing on a motion, by a trial judge, is recorded. The judge also cannot be both a trial judge and also the case conference judge, on the matter. That is against the law and practices of the court. In one of my other previous matters, that was before the Divisional court, I had to ask the case conference judge, Justice Corbett, to recused himself, from being the trial judge, in my civil matter, before that court. In fact, he even recused himself, from continuing to be the case conference judge, with regards to that matter. At the case conference hearing, with the judge, Chalmers O. I also asked him, to recused himself, because of his personal bias and I will follow the practice of the court and put my request in a motion, for him to removed himself, from being the case conference judge, who is monitoring the case. And he also certainly, will not be the trial judge, handling my urgent motions, as well. While the court has continued to delay, the hearing of my urgent motions, that are before the court, I also continue to suffer harm, which is not the purpose of the court to do, regarding my legal rights. 

 

I choose to disregard, the case conference judge, Chalmers O. about the finality of my urgent motions, since the urgent motion, has not been heard as yet, outside of the case conference, which was not intended to be a trial. Instead of having the respondents, give their evidence at the trial, or by way of a sworn affidavit, as part of their written responding motion record, the case conference judge, had them rambling on about their evidence, which he also took as the truth, without them swearing or affirming, under oath, to tell the truth. Needless to say, there was a lot of things that were wrong, with the case conference judge's actions, yesterday, that will also be investigated.  I also have the option, to have the Ontario Judicial Council, investigate his actions. This judge knows the difference, or ought to have known the difference, between the two roles, that are mandated by the practices of the court and also under the law, concerning a case conference hearing, by a judge and a trial hearing, by a trial judge. A case conference judge, manages the case and can also, if the parties consented, resolved some of the issues, before a trial. Whatever is discussed at a case conference hearing, is almost never heard at a trial. This is also one of the reasons, why a judge who manages a case conference, cannot also be the same judge, who conducts the hearing, or trial, on the motion that was filed. Such a trial would not be a fair one.  

 

I am still expecting, that my urgent motions be heard, preferably, by a difference case conference judge and also that a trial date, be also set for a hearing on the urgent motion, since this case conference judge, has now asked that the respondents, be served with the urgent motion. And it is no longer a motion, that was made without notice. Likewise, the respondents are now mandated, under the Rules, to serve their responding motion materials on me and to then file it with the court. After which a hearing, to decide the outcome of the case, will be then set by the court. 

 

I am expecting the court, to respond to this inquiry, so that my matter can proceed, as it should, in the court.

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J
To: Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca>, Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <Civilurgentmatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca>

 

There was a case conference, that was held this morning, by the judge, Obrien Chalmers and the matter will be looked into further. As the case conference judge, he has taken it upon himself, to claim that the urgent motions, will no longer go any further, with the court. He has no legal jurisdiction, to do that, since he is not the trial judge, who is hearing the motions. A case conference judge, cannot hear evidence at the case conference and then to make a decision, on the motions, to end it.  His actions will be investigated, by the Ontario Judicial Council. He lacked the jurisdiction, to make any kind of final outcome, with regards to the urgent motions, that I have filed with the court. And he cannot be both the case conference judge, and also the trial judge, on the same case. 

As such, I would like a hearing, scheduled for my urgent motion, as this case conference, obviously, did not go in my favor. Either, another judge has to be assigned to this case, since I have also asked this same judge, Chalmers, to recused himself, from the case. The court must continue to proceed with this matter, since a case conference judge, cannot end the matter, without a hearing first, on the matter. And that is the role of the trial judge and not the case conference judge,in order to make sure that the process was fair to me. You can provide me, with the judge's endorsement, in writing, for todays, case conference hearing and I need that asap, in order to proceed with my complaint, against that judge, as well as to proceed with the matter, before the court.

 

Valerie Guillaume

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J
To: Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca>

 

I will be filing a complaint, with the judicial council, against the judge, for issuing this document, that he also did not sign, knowingly, as part of his corruption.

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:47 PM Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca> wrote:

Good Afternoon,

 

On behalf of Justice Chalmers, attached please find the endorsement on the above-noted matter.  If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

 

Please confirm receipt of this e-mail.

 

Thank you

Anna Maria Tiberio

Judicial Assistant to Justice Lococo, Justice Nakonechny,

Justice Chalmers, and Justice Pinto

361 University Avenue, Room 140

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T3

Tel: (416) 327-5284

 

PLEASE NOTE:

Under Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no party to the proceeding and no party’s lawyer shall communicate about the proceeding with a judge out of court directly or indirectly unless (a) all the parties consent in advance to the out-of-court communication or (b) the court orders otherwise.

Judges have asked that you comply with Rule 1.09 and cease from sending any communication directly to them, whether by e-mail, letter, or otherwise.

Thank you

 

ReplyForward