Wednesday, March 23, 2016

J.P. vs MCFD - Pedo dad "B.G." granted an appeal by Justice Bennett nearly four years after trial — WELL beyond the normal 30-day limit

February 24, 2016

The big news is that pedo-dad has recently been allowed to appeal the original finding by Mr. Justice Walker nearly four years ago June 25, 2012, that B.G. sexually abused his 3 kids. Nearly FOUR YEARS after the fact!!! What's up with that?

The reason Justice Bennet gives is B.G.'s shiny new lawyer discovered that a bogus U.S. "expert" Dr. Claire Reeves who was discovered to have fake credentials (Reeves was mentioned 8 times by Justice Walker who stated that her evidence was not challenged, "that a child's physical cruelty to animals" and a "child masterbating" are "symptoms of sexual child abuse").

Lets just ignore the standard of care "expert" Frandanna (aka Fran Grunberg) that MCFD dug up from Langara College who was vigorously challenged, why, she cobbled together hundreds of pages of opinion that Justice Walker (her name mentioned 54 times) deemed crap.

In a current lawsuit appeal by the government in a B.C. where the MCFD child protection lost in BC Supreme Court on July 14, 2015 to a mom and her four kids, the father who was found to have sexually abused his four kids, has joined in on the Province's / MCFD appeal, and was granted the right to appeal Justice Walker's original Jun 23, 2012 conviction by Court of Appeal Madam Justice Bennett.

The Province is absolutely desperate to win this appeal, so they are pulling out all the stops, employing their most experienced lawyers, and apparently approved at the highest level by Premiere Christy Clark to spend unlimited taxpayer funds and win, no matter what the cost or time involved.

The Appeal was heard in November 2016, the reserved judgment STILL has not yet been delivered.

If the finding of misfeasance of the main social worker William Strickland, which effectively strips him of qualified immunity, were to stand, this precedent would be a first in Canada, potentially opening up the floodgates for lawsuits against unscrupulous lying social workers.

Madam Justice Bennetts ruling February 24, 2016

Justice Bennet's February 24, 2016 ruling for B.G. says:
"A father, B.G., unrepresented at trial, seeks an extension of time to appeal an order in a family case more than three years out of time." 
"The trial judge found that B.G. sexually abused his children and these findings were incorporated as facts in a second civil trial where he was found to also have sexually abused his youngest child over a different time period."

"Held: Application granted." 
"Although granting an extension of time in the face of a three-year delay is extraordinary, this case is extraordinary and the interests of justice overwhelmingly favour it." 
"There is evidence that an expert tendered by the mother at trial to prove the abuse was a fraud. The “expert” not only may have lacked bona fide credentials and experience, but her opinion relied on a debunked and inadmissible scientific theory." 
"This evidence permeates the judgment, including the sexual abuse findings. The evidence and findings were incorporated into the civil trial, which is properly under appeal, and relied on there to make additional findings that the father sexually abused another of his children." 
"Disallowing the extension could result in the “expert’s” evidence standing in the family trial and challenged in the civil trial under appeal."
Pedo dads justification was that, during the main trial, one bogus expert was used (out of several), and that expert was mentioned in the 341-page reasons for judgment. The suggestion was that the judge "relied" on this past evidence because her credentials were bogus, thus, the finding of abuse by the dad on his kids is now suspect.


The appellant appeals two convictions for sexual interference. It was alleged that the appellant inappropriately touched two children on a number of occasions and in one instance, touched one child’s genitals after removing her clothing in a darkened room. The case came down to credibility of the appellant and complainants. Held: Appeal allowed; new trial ordered. The trial judge’s finding that the appellant lacked credibility rests on an error-laden foundation. Part of the trial judge’s finding that the appellant was evasive during questioning is illogical on the record. The trial judge concluded that the appellant was generally not credible, in part, because he rejected his evidence of the darkened room incident. The trial judge rejected this evidence through illogical or irrational reasoning.

MCFD is desperate to win the appeal

If you look at the sheer volume, variety of applications (one from the West Coast LEAF [Legal Education and Action Fund for women]  to intervene was rejected by Justice Bennett) along with high-priced legal talent involved in this appeal, it is plainly obvious the Province is absolutely desperate to win the appeal.

Keep in mind that the Province did not appeal the finding of B.G.'s guilt regarding abusing the fourth youngest child. The Province left B.G. to conduct his own defence in the appeal. The Province is no longer holding his hand as they did since 2010.

Where did unemployed-for-6-years B.G. get the money to appeal?

The sudden ability by B.G. to pay off his past child support arrears and hire a lawyer to joint the appeal raises another question. Precisely how does a dude who allegedly didn't work and claimed poverty throughout both trials, for six years, now suddenly have the funds to pay the Vancouver law firm Miller Thompson for an appeal? A 5 day appeal, is a hugely expensive task when you consider the massive volume of material a lawyer would have to spend months to examine.

Is B.G.'s new employer is aware of the massive fight by the Province to defend him (just to save their own skin, to clarify) after he was legally found to have abused four of his own kids in two separate trials?