– two Goldi claims were “struck” down by a judge in court, for allegedly failing to show cause…
“A. Mr. and Mrs. Goldie recently sued me in Small Claims Court, Newmarket, though they now live in Toronto.
THE COURT: Sorry, what’s the last name?
A. Mr. and Mrs. Goldie, they sold me – sued me, representing their company, Goldie Productions Limited, and they sued me personally themselves. Their two claims were struck because disclosing no cause of action, and….” (Court Trans/Hatfield v Child: Feb 24, 2012)
- Ritchie Sinclair is a longtime acolyte and business associate of Donald Robinson of Toronto’s Kinsman Robinson Galleries, where he has been a private dinner guest, made video presentations, done guided tours, been praised in KRG blogs, thanked as an authority in Donald Robinson’s “expert” reports, etc. They have been “tag team” partners, and the only witnesses on the losing side, in several court cases (Otavnik v Sinclair 2010, Hatfield v Child 2012) where they have sought, unsuccessfully, to convincingly represent the Conspiracy Theorist position. (The partners have already agreed to join up for more joint court performances in 2013).
My Take: Perjury, Delusion, or Dementia?
Just how many false statements is it possible to make under oath, in a couple of sentences?
We are suing Ritchie Sinclair for malicious defamation of our Morrisseau paintings.
He falsely claims the action was launched in Newmarket, when it was initiated in Brampton, which is nowhere near Newmarket, nor even in the same jurisdiction.
He falsely claims we live in Toronto, which we have not, for over 50 years, but have resided for decades in Mississauga.
He falsely claims “two claims were struck,” creating two falsehoods: that the claims were “struck,” or ordered removed which is a total falsehood, and that a judge knocked down our claims, which is another complete falsehood.
He falsely claims “because disclosing no cause of action” trying to intimate there was no merit to our case.
We sued him in August 2011, for maliciously defamation and for devaluing our paintings on his website.
We had protested to him, in February 2012, when he willfully published private information about our mutual Settlement Conference, in total violation of Ontario Court Rules, as he very well knew. Not only that, but he falsified the information that he chose to publish.
Seeking to score points on behalf of the Conspiracy Theorists he published that our two claims “were struck down by the Judge” and “showing no cause of action” which was a total and absolute lie.
We warned him that he was breaching the privacy of our Settlement Conference, and reminded him that he was also breaking Ontario Court rules, as well as making false statements. When we asked him to remove these illegal and false statements from his malicious and defamatory website, he refused, in fact choosing to accelerate the defamation by publishing more stuff.
We protested to the court, in a Motion heard before Deputy Judge KF McCrae, on Dec. 5, 2012 in Brampton, ON.
Judge McCrae sternly upbraided Sinclair, saying what he did was a clear violation of court rules.
He also told him that the information he published was also incorrect. He told him sternly, that “What you said was not true,” and told him, firmly, to remove his misinformation from his website, instantly.
Sinclair argued back, that what he published was true, saying he wanted some time to respond to the Judge’s order.
Judge McCrae grew visibly angry, leaning forward and sternly glared at Sinclair, “I repeat what you said was not true. And I want it gone now!”
The Judge’s manner alarmed even Sinclair, who muttered he would comply.
Judge McCrae awarded us court costs of $150, against Sinclair. Other judges pointedly denied Sinclair’s request for court costs, telling him that they rightfully belonged to us, if we had asked – we didn’t – or awarded them to us without us asking. We weren’t intersted in penalizing anyone or winning cheap shots. We were interested only in courts ruling fairly on material points.
It would be one of 8 rulings out of 8, in which four different judges in public hearings in our case, found in our favour and against Sinclair – Holub (1), McCrae (1), Bobesich (1), and Filkin (5).
Summary of the Motions in Goldi (Plaintiff) v Sinclair (Defendant) – Filed Aug 16, 2011
Plaintiff’s Motion 1 – GRANTED by Dep. Judge Holub – Nov 16, 2012 – The Goldi Productions Ltd. Motion, requesting to postpone the trial, was granted by Judge Holub, because (1) we had not been provided with any printed documents at all by the Defendant, though we had provided all our 11 books of documents in support of the Plaintiff’s Claim, on May 1, seven months before.
The stay was also granted (2) because of the delay in publication of Judge Paul Martial’s finding from the Hatfield v Child case. We had requested the adjournment in our case so we could benefit from and acquire (a) the Hatfield v Child court transcripts and (b) Judge Paul Martial’s finding in that case.
Plaintiff’s Motion 2 – GRANTED by Dep. Judge McCrae – Dec 5, 2012 – The Goldi Productions Ltd. Motion requesting to have the Defendant Sinclair remove (1) illegal – a gross violation of Court Rules – (2) deliberately distorted, and (3) fallacious information about the Feb 8, 2012 Settlement Conference from his web site was granted
Judge McCrae declared the published information was a (1) violation of Court Rules, furthermore that (2) “what you (Defendant Sinclair) said and published was not true,” and that he (3) he wanted it all removed “immediately.”
At Judge McCrae’s discretion – we did not ask – we were awarded Court Costs of $150.
Plaintiff’s Motion 3 – GRANTED by Dep. Judge Bobesich – Jan 24, 2013 – The Goldi Productions Ltd. Motion requesting to adjourn the hearing of the Defendant’s five part Motion was granted because the Defendant Sinclair had not given us the requisite amount of time to prepare a defence.
On Nov 16, Judge Holub ordered Sinclair to file his change of venue Motion by Dec 31, 2012. Sinclair filed it on Dec 28, the year’s last business day, and was given a court date of Jan 24, for a hearing.
Clearly intending to use ambush tactics, the Defendant Sinclair waited almost another three weeks before mailing us notification of our court appearance, so that we would not have adequate time to prepare and file a defence.
The Defendant’s late and delayed posting was a clear and intended violation of court rules, as it did not meet the minimum mailing time necessary for adequate service, leaving us only five days to prepare. We asked for adequate time to respond and the Court agreed, granting us (1) an adjournment and (2) a full month to prepare.
Sinclair’s request asking for us to be docked court costs was denied by Judge Bobesich, saying that court costs were ours, not Sinclair’s, by right, as we were the winning litigant. However, we did not ask for Sinclair to be docked costs.
Defendant’s Motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 – DENIED by Dep. Judge Filkin – Feb 26, 2013 – All five Motions requested by the Defendant Ritchie Sinclair were quashed.
– DENIED – request to change the venue to the Toronto Small Claims Court
– DENIED – request to stay or dismiss the action
– DENIED – request a declaration that the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant
– DENIED – request to seal prohibited information and strike out inflammatory statements
– DENIED – request an undertaking for the plaintiff to provide further particulars
Without our asking JudgeFilkin chose to award us Court Costs of $100.
So far from any judge or court, striking down any of our motions, they have – unanimously – found in our favour in every case.