ZANETTI v. BONNIEHON

Tina Zanetti, Gina Zanetti vs. Bonniehon Enterprises Ltd. Bonniehon Management Inc, 562816 B.C. Ltd., Paul H. Cody & Andrew James Baillargeon

The litigation originated in a claim of libel, slander, malicious prosecution, breach of contract, obstruction of justice and negligence.

Note, Tina Zanetti and Gina Zanetti, the plaintiffs in the action, had no previous knowledge of court procedures, as they had not ever gone before the Supreme Court or any superior courts prior to their action. In fact the sisters had not ever stepped in a courthouse prior to starting their action.

The sisters would tell you that, each step taken, each letters written, each applications submitted before the Court, each appeals, and for each obstacles that came their way, it was all done through the Grace of God. Their belief in justice manifested itself in many wonderful ways. Their focus on saving their home, and their focus on “truth and justice” was paramount to their success of staying the course.

Within months in litigation, Gina and Tina started to realize that the courts did not welcome self-litigants and as such throughout the proceedings the sisters reminded the judges that the superior courts were courts of equity and that all citizens had a right to the courts.

Following is some of the fraud that was perpetrated on the Court by the lawyer and ultimately the 15 judges, less one, who sat on applications submitted by the defendants’ lawyer and the Plaintiffs:

1. On May 30, 2002, the Defendants applied to the Court under Rule18A, for the removal of 562816 B.C. Ltd, and the Zanettis applied to add the name of Susan Wong to the Style of Proceedings. Madam Justice Morrison dismissed the numbered company --562816 BRITISH COLUMBIA LTD.-- at costs forthwith against the Zanettis ---at a cost of $1,037.00--- and the application to add the name of Susan Wong was withdrawn.

* Due to solicitor client privilige, the lawyer for the defendants is sworn to secrecy regarding Paul H. Cody signing the name of Susan Wong, the allege President of Codys corporation.

2. On August 08, 02, the parties were before the then Justice E.R.A. Edwards. (Edwards J. died in 2007, at the age of 61 years old). The Zanettis’ opposed the 18A application, mainly because of the nature of the claim, being mostly a Defamation action. The court reserved Judgment and on August 19, 2002, Edwards J., Reasons for Judgment was pronounced.

• hthe Judge relied on other rules of court without the knowledge and consent of the parties, for the purpose of satisfying the opposing lawyer, whose only focus was to save the corporations from some form of liability. The blood of the action (Corporations) were struck out from the defamation claim.;

* However Edwards, J. did not strike out the name of Paul H. Cody and Andrew James Baillargeon from the action for reason that both men had failed to swear in their Affidavits that the contents of a published written report were true or denied the allegation of malice. This is to say that the Judge found CODY and his co-conspirator guilty of malice. The Zanettis were set to have their case heard before a Jury in the year 2003 for the rest of their action.

3. On September 5, 2002, the Zanetti sisters wrote a letter to Edwards J., via the Registry for the purpose of reconsideration.

*While awaiting to hear from Edwards, the sisters requested again from the Defendants production of further documents and soon thereafter counsel produced additional documents.

*One document that ought to have been released prior to the Summary Trial was libelous on its face, a letter published to the Vancouver Police-- The letter was published on the corporate logo and signed by Cody's alias Susan Wong;

* The fraud committed in this instance is the intentional failure to disclose by the lawyer. Wherein the Judge relied on other rules of court besides Rule 18A to arrive at his decision, the lawyer still failed in disclosing all evidence prior to trial;

Nothing unusual about lawyers not making full disclosure, since Crown Attorneys are notorious in concealing evidence from the defence.

4. On January 30, 2003, the parties were before Drost J. on a Chambers application to amend the Zanettis Statement of Claim. Drost J. for some reason appeared overwhelmed and within an hour into the hearing, the Judge adjourned the application.

5. On April 11, 2003, the Zanettis were before three panels of judges, namely Mackenzie J.A, Ryan J.A, and Thackray J.A to appeal part of Edwards J.s order. The Appeal was dismissed;

• The fraud committed in this instance is two fold:

a) Following is paragraph 10 of the original action that was struck out by Justice Edwards, in which the sisters were appealing from:

On the 25th day, of the month of January, year 2001, Crokers letter to the Editor of the Westender newspaper, IN THE YEAR 1994 was published jointly and severally by BONNIEHON ENTERPRISES LTD., BONNIEHON MANAGEMENT INC., 562816 BRITISH COLUMBIA LTD., PAUL H. CODY AND ANDREW JAMES BAILLARGEON at a quasi-judicial proceeding, in an attempt to pervert justice. Furthermore, Defendants BONNIEHON ENTERPRISES LTD., BONNIEHON MANAGEMENT INC., 562816 BRITISH COLUMBIA LTD., PAUL H. CODY AND ANDREW JAMES BAILLARGEON jointly and severally knew that the written document was false and malicious and either knew that the document was untrue or was recklessly blind to the truth or falsity thereof.

The decision of Edwards, J. to strike out para 10 of the Zanettis' action was as follows:

Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Statement of Claim assert that in 1994 Mr. Donald J. Croker, then resident manager of the Surfside, published a libelous statement by writing a letter to the editor of the Westender newspaper. In the letter Mr. Croker described the plaintiff Gina Zanetti as a misfit and one of few tenants who were bad apples who spoil it for others. * In the ordinary words of Croker that the plaintiff Gina Zanetti spoiled it for others,meant that Gina Zanetti was interferring with Cody and Crokers criminal activity going on at 1395 Beach Ave. which included, inter alia, prostitution; marijuana gorw ops; Cody and Croker seen going into tenants apartments when the tenants were not home; and stealing tenants mail;

The Westender did not republish the letter. Although Mr. Croker deposes in an affidavit that he slipped a copy of the letter under the plaintiffs door in 1994, about the same time he sent it to the Westender, the plaintiffs deny knowledge of the letter until January 12, 2001. They alleged that the defendants republished it at a quasi-judicial proceeding in an attempt to pervert justice; that is, at a hearing before an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406 ("RTA").

The defendants counsel argued that, in light of s. 3(2)(c) of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, the initial publication by Mr. Croker was no longer actionable when the plaintiffs commenced this action. The plaintiffs argued that the limitation period did not begin until they became aware of the letter in 2001.

Mr. Croker is not a defendant. The Statement of Claim does not allege that the corporate defendants either knew or had imputed knowledge of the initial publication of the letter to the “Westender”. The Statement of Claim does not seek relief as a result of the initial publication of the letter.

Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Statement of Claim merely state the factual basis for the allegation at paragraph 10 that the defendants republished a libelous statement. They do not in themselves disclose a claim or cause of action against the defendants. Therefore I need not determine whether any cause of action arising from Mr. Crokers publication of the letter in 1994 is statute barred.

Mackenzie J.A of the Appeal Court stated in his decision:

. . . The appellants will allege that they did not become aware of the letter containing the libel until 2001 and they propose to rely on the postponement provision contained in s. 6(3) of the Limitation Act. However, defamation is not included in the list of actions that may be postponed under s. 6(3). Consequently the applicable limitation period is 2 years from the publication in 1994. The claim is therefore statute barred.

The court of appeal overlooked the fact that the sisters did not learn of the libelous letter to the Westender until 2001, therefore not statute bar.

In a defamation case --Cimolai v. Hall et al., 2005 BCSC 31 -- the Zanetti sisters case was cited and Madam Justice Holmes stated:

I note parenthetically that it appears from the brief discussion in Zanetti v. Bonniehon Enterprises that wilful concealment, as described in s. 6(3)(e), was not there in issue, and the question before the court was whether other means of postponement were available for the appellants' defamation claim.

Mr. Burnett notes that the plaintiffs in Zanetti v. Bonniehon Enterprises were not represented by counsel, and submits that it cannot be concluded in that context that the court intended, through its brief reasons, to overrule the decision of Mr. Justice Burnyeat in Pootlass v. Pootlass (1999), 63 B.C.L.R. (3d) 305, 32 C.P.C. (4th) 70 (S.C.). Mr. Burnett submits that Pootlass v. Pootlass provides authority for the application of the discoverability principle to a defamation action which is subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act.

This recent case Cimolai v. Hall et al., confirms that the Court does not follow the law as it knows it, and the Court is indeed biased against self-represented litigants pro-se, as even the lawyer for Dr. Cimolai commented on the fact that the sisters were self-represented, therefore he assumed that they had not properly argued the issue of the Limitation Act, and furthermore, even if the sisters had properly argued the Limitation Act, which they did, judges have openly informed Ms. Tina Zanetti that since she was not a lawyer, she was not entitled to cite law, as law is to be cited only by lawyers.

The further fraud committed was with the bill of costs in the amount of almost $10,000.00 for a simple Appeal.

The Appeal Registrar endorsed the defendants bill knowing that it was inflated of more than 40%.and thereby fraudulent on its face ---This is one other illustration on how fraud is committed on litigants represented or not---

6. The amended statement of claim was finally granted by Justice Groberman, who did not allow the lawyer for Cody annd Company to enter evidence that was irrelevant to the application before him.

This is to say that additional libels and slanders were included in the claim against the personal and coporate Defendants. It was the last time Cody was seen scolding his lawyer in the courthouse after she had lost against the plaintiffs to include additional slanders and libels that showed Cody for who he really is.

7. On June 6, 2003, the Zanettis were scheduled to be in Chambers in the lower court, at 10:00 a.m. for two different applications. One was the contempt application, filed on December 16, 2002 against counsel for the defendant Lana K. L. Li and the other application was an application requesting from the court specific documents, including Paul H. Cody working visa, legal status, and pay cheque.

* The hearing commenced not until 11:15-11:30 a.m. as the hearing previously scheduled at 9:45 a.m. was moved later with a different judge.

Ms. Li was represented by another lawyer, Grant Ritchey, for the contempt application. The Justice that ended up presiding for the sisters application was Madam Justice Holmes, who came very close to show her iniquities, by ordering special costs to the sisters, for daring to put an application that showed the lawyers failure to disclose and as a result concealed evidence prior and during trial;

* Madam Justice Holmes also refused to order disclosure from Paul H. Cody, on the basis that the Zanetti sisters did not have any evidence to show that Cody was working and living illegally in Canada since 1991.

* Note that PAUL HENRY CODY, who had attended all Chambers application, including the Appeal court, did not show up in court on that particular application and any other applications thereafter -- Consider that three weeks later, Cody was served with a removal order, after living and working in Canada for 17 years. ---

* Special Costs was not ordered but both applications were dismissed at costs forthwith against the Zanettis and Ms. Lana Li again used sharp practice by inflating the bill to $4,000.00. Later the Registrar cut the bill of costs in half to $2,000.00.

When a bill of costs is reduced to more than 15%, the Registrar is obliged in accordance with the law to award the costs to the other party. section 72(1) of the Legal Profession Act

8. On September 4, 2003, a letter, was delivered to Ms. Li, in respect to her client Paul Henry Cody advising her of her duties, as a law officer, to produce her client for examination.

* Counsel for Cody knew or ought to have known her client was hiding since June 2003;

9. On an ex parte ex parte application Ms. Li obtained permission from the court, to garnish all the major Banks in Canada, in order to satisfy a small debt of $2,000.

10. September 25, 2003, a Notice of Motion was served upon Tina Zanetti to attend an Examination in Aid of Execution scheduled for October 8, 2003 and the first week of October, the sisters served Ms. Li with two Appointments to examine her clients Cody and Wong; and

11. Ms. Li, on behalf of her clients, served the sisters, the response to the application including an Affidavit of Cody allegedly sworn on October 11, 2003 in Blaine Washington, claiming he had been removed since June 30, 2003 from this country, by Immigration Canada.

* Most subjects who are served with removal orders by Immigration Canada go into hiding for one year. This means that the subject does not even go over the US Border, as Immigration Canada do not check whether the subject has indeed left the country or not.

In fact, Immigration Canada is satisfied by a mere phone call from the subject, advising them he has left the country. Only when Immigration Canada escorts their subjects out of Canada, can Canadians be certain that the subject has been removed for good. Career Criminals know how to dodge the system, as setting up delivery addresses, cell phones etc. is a piece of cake.

12. On October 21, 2003, Chief Justice Donald I. Brenner, decided to apply his discretion as oppose to the law, and issued security for costs in the amount of $15,000 against the sisters.

Normally those who are ordered to post security for costs are corporations. Security for Costs is not normally ordered on individuals with no pecuniary means.

In Brenners C.J.s decision he reasoned that the sisters claim was American Style, as such action against a landlord in the USA can be tried before a jury and the damages can be as high as $ 1 million dollars.

* As per the friends of the Court, Brenner C.J.s decision is a step towards the abolition of Equity and Equitable Remedies in British Columbia, which he intends to do in 2010 with the new rules that he is planning to implement under the guise of access to justice.

In plain English language, the B.C. Supreme Court itself have obstructed the course of justice, and as such have violated the Law and Equity Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 253 in every possible way.

The Zanettis abandoned their case due to the $15,000 security for costs imposed on them, and therefore the claim was dismissed.

Article of the Zanetti sisters

13. On December 9, 2003, the sisters went to the court registry to look in the file for the Reasons for Judgment of Brenner C.J. but it still was not filed.

14. On December 10, 2003, the sisters paid a visit to Reportex, a transcribing company, and spoke with the supervisor. According to the supervisor, the Reasons for Judgment had been delivered to the courthouse and to Chief Justice Brenner for editing, on November 17, 2003.

15. On December 10, 2003, a hand written letter was filed at the registry, requesting the available dates of Justice Patrick Dohm, as the sisters had enough evidence to show the court that the tapes had been altered.

16. The office of Justice Dohm replied by advising that he would not be available to see the sisters and that Brenner was not seized to the Order.

17. December 15, 2003, the Plaintiffs went on a short leave application requesting to go before the court on December 18, 2003. The application was granted based on the Affidavit of Gina Zanetti;

18. On December 18, 2003, the Plaintiffs went before Bryan Ralph J. in regular Chambers, on an application to Stay Brenner C.J.s order, until audiotapes of the proceedings of October 20 & 21, 2003 be investigated. Bryan Ralph J. reserved judgment.

19. In the month of January 2004, Ms. Li wrote to Ralph J., trying to mislead him by rushing him to judgment and the sisters wrote to the court to advise that the audiotapes ought to be investigated by the police and/or RCMP.

20. On January 15, 2003, Diana Bennett, of the Westender wrote an article on the Zanettis. Sisters' Fight Over Rental Suite Reads Like a Grisham Novel

21. February 12, 2004, Ralph J., pronounced his Reasons for Judgment by basically not answering to the application before him. 2004 BCSC 198 Zanetti et al v. Bonniehon

22. On February 16, 2004, an application was served upon the Defendants, to go before Ralph J. again as he failed to answer to the sisters application; and

23. On February 17, 2004, another Notice of Motion was served upon the Defendants, to go before Brenner C.J. on a different date, as Ralph J. had given direction to the sisters in his reasons to go back to Brenner;

24. February 25, 2004, on an application by the Plaintiffs before Brenner C.J., Tina Zanetti submitted in Chambers an Argument asking, amongst other things, the Chief Justice to step down from hearing the application in respect to the altered tapes. Brenner C.J. refused to step down and concluded that the audiotapes had not been altered.

25. On February 27, 2004, an indigent status application was filed, to Appeal Brenner C.J.s Orders and it was dismissed.

26. On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, the Zanettis were before Chief Justice Finch, Justice Donald & Justice Lowe of the court of Appeal on a hearing to vary Justice P. Lowry's decision pronounced on March 31, 2004, 2004bcca0184.htm

Prior at submissions, Chief Justice Finch was asked whether he was close friends with Brenner C.J, and his answer was that Brenner, C.J. was a very close friend, but that would not preclude him from making the right decision.

Unfortunately Chief Justice Finch, who micor manages the Appeal Court, was sitting in conflict but that did not appear to make any difference to him, for Justice Finch has a pattern in sitting in conflict with many other cases.

27. The panel of judges at the Appeal Court denied the sisters access to justice on the basis of wealth and rank.

28. Due to the Zanettis action being dismissed based on them not putting up the $15,000 security for costs, the Defendants have not been cleared of any wrongdoing. More