Click here for more. Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM). 13) The breach of Law Society rules also constitute a breach of S.7 Charter Rights and rendered it impossible for the Law Society process to continue. It tainted the process. It was a breach of the due process. It brought the administration of justice into disrepute pursuant to s.24 Charter rights. The rules were breached when a law society representative sent email communication intended for the member to an email address that was an old, unregistered address that was not intended for any such communication. The email was never received. This was also a criminal offence; misfeassnce in public office. As such, the breach of the rules rendered the process untenable, null and void; dismissed. The section 7 Charter breach brought the Administration of Justice into disrepute. The Law Society was made aware of the their employee's malfeasance and breach of the law society rules on the record. It was a breach of law society rules, tribunal rules and section 7 Charter rights were further breached when counsel for the law society brought gun toting intimidatory Law society witnesses to a pre hearing management meeting contrary to the rules that state only counsel may attend. The member was unable to have a fair hearing pursuant to the rules of the society and the expectations of natural justice. This is not chaim (charles) pursuant to Baker v. The Minister of Immigration(1999) that confirms a witness for any party should not be privy to pre-trial or pre hearing discussions pursuant to any pending trial or hearing of the matter. The facts speak for themselves. When the member protested he was told that the belief is Law Society Counsel could bring anyone they wanted for support and that the member had no choice but to participate. The member's published book materials appearing on a Londinium website were brought into the discussion and amounted to an invasion of privacy. This was certainly irrelevant and amounted to a section 8 Charter breach. It was entirely incessantly unnecessary. Click here for more.

APPLICATION

1.  THE APPLICANT MAKES APPLICATION FOR:

a) The setting aside of the ex parte order dated ---for the obtaining of Angel Ronan law firm legal business property. The business is not being wound up. Any suggestion of the same is misleading to the court;

b) It is also for an order declaring the trust as claimed invalid due to uncertainty of subject matter;

3. The Applicant seeks a further order as follows: that any and all materials seized be returned forthwith as the evidence used on motion was false and misleading due to material non-disclosure;
4. The Applicant also seeks an order for a return to the status-quo as of July 10^th, 2020 with all monies returned and any accounts or websites reopened as they are part of a general service including non-law business.

2.  THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION ARE:

1. The Moving party did not make full, fair and frank disclosure to the Court in bringing the application without notice.

b) The evidence used on the ex-parte application was also false and misleading. The Affiant was never advised of the premises being a business address or used for business by any of the residents.

c) The evidence used on the ex parte application demonstrates that the Affiant was mistaken as to the actual facts as business was never conducted in the home. She filed a false affidavit and committed the offence of perjury while uttering false statements. 

d) The physical base of the business was 5000 Yonge Street, Suite 1901, Toronto, Ontario, M2N 7E9 where mail was received and business was conducted including photocopying and the faxing of documents and all client meetings. As such, this was the physical base of the law business and was the only primary and registered business mail address. The Respondent’s information on this issue is misleading. No business mail was received at the home address located in Tonawanda and nor was there any business conducted at the home address of  Aurora.  

e) The Affiant for the Respondent advised in his affidavit dated July 2020 that the Applicant is being retained by clients and that the Affiant has spoken to clients and members of the public to ascertain this. This is misleading and false. Clients and members of the public are never in a position to indicate or provide the details of retainer. No one is retaining the Angel Ronan law business at the present time and nor had anyone retained the law business for any service in the six months prior to July 2020. The affidavit is misleading in that there could be no client or member of the public. The law business has not taken on any new clients. As a corporate entity or as any other business structure, it reserves the right to continue its function with the recruitment of employees for that purpose. If a director, licensee or any other person left the business, it is for the business to recruit or hire persons to continue the business function if so required. Recruitment for such purposes is not of issue or contrary to any professional rules. This will also include any case involving suspension of a firm owner or founder. Licensees are encouraged to seek assistance when appropriate to assist clients and also to do so if suspended. The business will do what is appropriate to continue its function such as hire new employees as required. The rules and guidelines indicate that a member under suspension shall seek the assistance of licensees to fulfill the various requirements of the rules while under suspension and can retain a lawyer for such assistance with agreement for remuneration.

f) If a licensee is retired , he retains a lien on client files where the client has not paid. He has an equitable right to the files as a solicitor and as a general business debt and this right remains until the outstanding fee is paid or settled. The Law Society Act may entitle applications for trust claims. However, when there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. In light of this conflict, the files and all law business property should be returned to the solicitor due to the equitable rights involved. This will include the equitable rights of the business entity that was not served or addressed in the process. The Law Society Act or any trust claimed does not supercede equitable rights.

g) Retiring from regular operations is not tantamount to business closure especially when the business may have more than one function. It can also change services and use its trademarked names for these services.

h) Rule 39.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that states the following: Where a motion or application is made without notice, the moving party or the Applicant shall make full, fair disclosure of all material facts, and failure to do so is in itself sufficient ground for setting aside any order obtained on a motion or application.

i) The corporate nature of the business name, its management, its ownership and its registration is a  rather significant material fact that was not disclosed in any way in violation of rule 39.01(6).  

j) The Angel Ronan business has other functions other than law and should not be encumbered in its entirety. A reporting function is maintained on a yearly basis with Industry Canada and this can only be fulfilled by the owner under its registration. It is submitted that all phone numbers and email addresses should be released to allow the owner and applicant to maintain that function. The registration of the name pre-existed any legal work or business to include various services. The phone numbers are used for other businesses other than law.

k) The member’s licence and licence number is separate and distinct from the business name. As such, requiring the licensee to cease from practicing is sufficient while the right to continue a business with employees is entirely commensurate with the Law Society Act. The issue or matter involving one lawyer in a firm does not necessitate interfering with the entire business or work environment of all other lawyers or potential new hires in the firm or the business being engaged in other services. The rules govern lawyers and legal practice and not the shutting down of businesses which, if shut down, will consist of interference with an individual’s Charter Rights under Section 7. The rules are to regulate and reprimand while the member may choose to either leave the profession or engage in the occupation of business management, hiring individuals and collecting debts outstanding while the occupation of business management is governed under the relevant legislation such as the Employment Standards Act or the CBCA or the OBCA until his license is restored if he chooses to return to practice. Hiring a qualified person to assist a business is acceptable under the Law Society Rules of practice.

l) A trust is only properly constituted when all elements of the trust are

certain. There is uncertainty in the Law Society’s July application for a trust in terms of the subject matter as it refers to business property that “was” in the licensee’s possession. To seek a trust over previously held property in using uncertain language to describe property is a misnomer and does not satisfy the law of trusts, leaving the subject of the trust unascertainable. The intention of the trust is also uncertain in that it suggests the winding up of a business but the owner of the business has not communicated this intention to Industry Canada or any other government service that governs the business and business name registration. Only the owner of property can treat or deal with the property in such a manner as to discuss or create a trust. Identifying Property that “was” or “should be” in possession to seek the formation of a trust is inherently uncertain and no trust can be formed by law with this uncertainty. Also, the object or beneficiary of the trust is uncertain and is not mentioned. It is not clear if the beneficiary is the solicitor, Warren Augustine Lyon who is also the owner of the property. The object of the trust is uncertain. As such, no trust has formed by law. See the case of Henry v. Henry (1999) (ON C.A.) at 13. It cannot be implied and must be clear and certain.  THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST if one is desired in this scenario is to protect client trust money.  IF THERE IS NO CLIENT MONEY that was ever  HELD IN TRUST as in this case where only small block set fees are paid on a finance basis,  there is  no PROPERTY  for protection or to be claimed by a trust by any name  even if it is entitled an administrative trust where all trusts must operate on trust principles including the Quistclose Trust you stupid white gringos who are either already convicts or soon will be. The Law Society knows what firms operate client trust accounts and take payment on trust and also the actual monies held on trust.  If you know the firm in this case does not operate a trust account and never opened or operated a trust one, you filed an unnecessary and improper motion seeking orders that are entirely contemptuous and vexatious based on false evidence and purposes.  

m) If the member is to surrender his license or wind up the law business he will communicate this to the society while the society clearly may prevent the member from practicing law. However, the society can only suspend and revoke a license. They cannot suspend a business entity, a business name or the use of intellectual property for all purposes. As such, the licensee reserves the right to make this declaration in due course as to cessation of his use of a registered business name and of his right to close a business whether it is in law or otherwise. The Law Society does not administer the business name. The name is administered by Industry Canada and the Trademark Act that recognizes a common law legal and equitable right in ownership of business names as intellectual property. As such where there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. The business name is not to be fettered by a Law Society process as the Law Society Act is not an act that administers the ownership or the general operation of business names. The business name and its uses can continue despite any contrary notion. The website www.angelronan.com is a general website for use as a general consultancy. As such, websites should not be hampered as they are redesigned or restructured by the registered owner to ensure they are not associated with law or that they comply with the requirements of a general legal business.

n) All business records and property used in the administration of the business Angel Ronan Consultancy are governed. As a third party, Angel Ronan Consultancy limited has a legal and equitable interest in the items seized and they should be returned. The business is to be administered under legal requirement under the Canadian Business Corporations Act despite the cessation of the member’s legal practice or suspension of the law license. This administration is the duty of the owner of the business while he continues the business for other non-law purposes.

o) The applicant has not practiced law as alleged in the time period discussed and is a general business manager and officer under the fledgling company Angel Ronan International Limited. Any activities carried out by the Applicant in administration of the business are governed by the Canadian Business Corporations Act and are not considered legal services by way of exemption under section 8(1) and section 8(2) of the Law Society Act. This involves the administration of the business only and not the provision of legal services.

p) The Respondent has not established a “strong prima facie case”; all of which is humbly

submitted.

3. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the
Application:

(a)      The Affidavit of the Applicant, Warren Lyon;

(b) . Trademarks Act 1985

(c) Law Society Act 1990

(d)      Such further and other materials as Counsel may advise and this
Honorable Court may permit.

__________

6) As a business entity with any business structure, it reserves the right to continue its function with the recruitment of employees for that purpose. If an office manager, director, licensee or any other person left the business, it is for the business to recruit or hire persons to continue the business function if so required. Recruitment for such purposes is not of issue or contrary to any professional rules. This will also include any case involving suspension of a firm owner or founder. Licensees are encouraged to seek assistance when appropriate to assist clients and also to do so if suspended. The business will do what is appropriate to continue its function such as hire new employees as required. The rules and guidelines indicate that a member under suspension shall seek the assistance of licensees to fulfill the various requirements of the rules while under suspension and can retain a lawyer for such assistance with agreement for remuneration.

7) If a licensee is retired, he retains a lien on client files where the client has not paid. He has an equitable right to the files as a solicitor and as a general business debt and this right remains until the outstanding fee is paid or settled. The Law Society Act may entitle applications for trust claims. However, when there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. In light of this conflict, the files and all law business property should be returned to the solicitor due to the equitable rights involved. This will include the equitable rights of the business entity Angel Ronan Consultancy that was not served or addressed in this process. The Law Society Act or any trust claimed does not supersede equitable rights. 

8) Retiring is not tantamount to business closure especially when the business may have more than one function. It can also change services and use its trademarked names for these services. The matter could conclude and the suspension may come to an end in due course. .

9) Rule 39.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that states the following: Where a motion or application is made without notice, the moving party or the Applicant shall make full, fair disclosure of all material facts, and failure to do so is in itself sufficient ground for setting aside any order obtained on a motion or application.

10) The corporate nature of the business name, its management, its ownership and its registration is a significantly material fact that was not disclosed in any way.
11) The Ex Parte Application has to be set aside when the application centred on the name and its use. It failed to disclose the true and material facts. This included the true business address; 5000 Yonge Street Suite 1901 where the business was situated since 2011.  You failed by not abiding by the rules. 
12) The breach of the law society rules by Law Society representatives amounts to a breach of contract  by the society as the rules constitute a contract between the member and  the society. As such, the Law Society is to pay damages pursuant to Hadley v. Baxendale. The facts speak for themselves; Res Ipsa Loquitor. The member has to be compensated or else you have shamed the profession and brought the society into disrepute. 

13) The breach of Law Society rules  also constitute a breach of S.7 Charter Rights and rendered it impossible for the Law Society process to continue. It tainted the process. It was a breach of the due process. 
        It brought the administration of justice into disrepute pursuant to s.24 Charter rights.   The rules were breached when a law society representative sent email communication intended for the member to an email address that was an old, unregistered address that was not intended for any such communication. The email was never received.  This was also a criminal offence; misfeassnce in public office. As such, the breach of the rules rendered the process untenable, null and void; dismissed. The section 7 Charter breach  brought the Administration of Justice into disrepute.  The Law Society was made aware of the their employee's malfeasance and breach of the law society rules on the record. It was a breach of law society rules,  tribunal rules and section  7 Charter rights were further breached when counsel for the law society brought gun toting intimidatory Law society witnesses to a pre hearing management meeting contrary to the rules that state only counsel may attend. The member was unable to have a fair hearing pursuant to the rules of the society and the expectations of natural justice. This is not chaim (charles) pursuant to Baker v. The Minister of Immigration(1999) that confirms a witness for any party should not be privy to pre-trial or pre hearing  discussions pursuant to any pending trial or hearing of the matter.   The facts speak for themselves. When the member protested he was told that the belief is    Law Society Counsel could bring anyone they wanted for support and that the member had no choice but to participate.  The member's published book materials appearing on a Londinium website were brought into the discussion and amounted to an invasion of privacy. This was certainly irrelevant and amounted to a section 8 Charter breach.  It was entirely incessantly unnecessary.