Special Angel Ronan LEX SCRIPTA Precedent. Click here.

Special Angel Ronan LEX SCRIPTA Precedent.

AFFIDAVIT OF Andrew Sarforcbas

I, Andrew Sarforcbas of the City of Toronto make oath and say as follows;

 A)  That I seek the dismissal of the matter scheduled to proceed on October 20^th and 21^st, 2020 due to the fact that I am not capable of receiving a fair proceeding. Two pre-hearing management conferences were conducted with an employee of the Law Society present and this employee, John Rae, was not counsel. However, he is a witness for the Law Society as indicated.

 B) The pre-hearing management conferences took place on August 19^th 2020 and September 15^th 2020.

C)  His presence as a witness has tainted the whole entire proceeding and a fair hearing on October 20^th and 21st 2020 is not possible.

D) I was in attendance at the meetings with Susan Novagena and contributed accordingly. These were long meetings that lasted for more than one hour with all of the details of the case and the various issues being discussed in complete detail. I objected to his attendance but it is not clear why he remained as I did not find this fair and it is contrary to the rules in addition to the utmost expectation and requirement of procedural fairness.

 E) A fair hearing is not possible as he attended on both occasions where the strength and weaknesses of the cases were discussed in detail.

F) This is critical as the whole entire case was discussed in detail. He did not contribute to the proceedings, was not entitled to participate and should not have been present as a witness. However, his presence as witness was an abuse of process and renders both proceedings unfair and incapable of being heard.

G) His presence during those meetings and the disclosure of the various details related to the arguments of the member and of his case is significant in terms of its irregularity and the irreparable harm suffered by the member in these proceedings. It is incurable and as such both proceedings under number 2020  and  2028 should be dismissed.

H) His presence as a witness on the days mentioned was contrary to every administrative law requirement and Law Society jurisprudence that must ensure a fair proceeding and fair process.

I) The Failure to observe natural law principles offends the expectation of natural justice and the tribunal's inherent obligation to abide by the requirements of natural justice as outlined in administrative law and set down as the procedural obligation  to be abided by all Courts and tribunals in the case Baker vs. The Minister of Immigration (SCC) 1999.