www.injusticeinontario.ca

Page three

Home page   Page two

Update of September 21, 2023,

161. Because my MP Matthew Green has not responded to the registered letter that I sent to his home address on September 01, 2023, I sent him another registered letter saying.

To Mr. Green

On August 13 I sent a registered letter to your home address. But you have not responded back. So, attached with this letter is a copy of the August 13, 2023. and a copy of the decision from the RCMP Complaints Commission.

This is also an update to the letter of August 13, 2023. I have emailed Trudy 5 times saying. See attached for the response that I got from the RCMP Complaints Commission.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

She has not responded back.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He got the registered letter on September 11, 2023, and he         signed for it.

Update of September 22, 2023,

162. Today I began emailing Jagmeet Singh leader of the federal NDP party saying.

To Jagmeet Singh leader of the federal NDP.

My name is Robert Burgiss, My MP is Matthew Green. My MPs staff are giving me the run-around. So I sent a registered letter to my MPs home address explaining how his staff are giving me the run-around. He got the registered letter on August 16, 2023, I then sent another registered letter to him he got it on September 11, 2023, He has not responded back. Can you help?

Please see attached for the two registered letters.

Thanks Robert Burgiss

Update of September 26, 2023, 

163. Today I called my Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) Hamilton Center, New Democratic Party of Ontario, Sarah Jama’s office and they said that they are not going to help me with my problem with the Ontario Ombudsman’s office which covered up my complaint against the Special investigations unit (SIU). Because they are in bed with the Police. Sarah Jama’s office is refusing to tell me where it says that they cannot help me. This makes no sense because if they legitimately cannot help me then they would say where it says that. Please snail mail, email, call and fax them to complain. 630 Main Street East Hamilton, Ontario L8M 1J7  email SJama-CO@ndp.on.ca phone 905-544-9644 Fax: 905-544-5152 

Update of September 27, 2023,

164. If anyone knows why the news media will not do a story on my website please email me. rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca

Update of September 29, 2023,

165. Today I began emailing and calling Romen Podzyhun who is the CEO chair and Co-Founder of Channel Zero Inc. They own CHCH News the email said CHCH News will not let me advertise my website on their channel. My website is https://injusticeinontario.ca/ Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Phone 1-416-492-1592 Ex 226

romen.podzyhun@chchnews.ca

romenp@gmail.com

romen.podzyhun@chz.com

romen.podzyhun@tvchannelzero.com

romen.podzyhun@movieola.ca

Update of September 30, 2023,

166. Today I began emailing  Mirko Bibic President and Chief Executive Officer and President Bell Canada who owns CTV saying.

CTV will not let me advertise my website on their channel https://injusticeinontario.ca/

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

 

Today I began emailing Catherine Tait President & Chief Executive Officer CBC saying

CBC will not let me advertise my website on their channel https://injusticeinontario.ca/

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

She has 3 email addresses so I wrote to all 3.

catherine.tait@cbc.ca

caroline.thebault@radio-canada.ca

cftait@hotmail.com

 

Today I began emailing Tony Staffieri the President and CEO of Rogers Communications, who owns City tv saying.

City tv will not let me advertise my website on their channel https://injusticeinontario.ca/

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of October 02, 2023,

167. Today I received an email from Romen Pozyhan the CEO of Channel Zero who owns CHCH News saying.

Somebody from our Sales Department will be reaching out to you. They are off today for the National Holiday.

Romen

Update of October 12, 2023,

168. Last week CHCH told me that the ad for my website will have to be approved by Thinktv.ca. They said it would take three business days for the approval. On Friday, October 06, 2023, I submitted the ad for my website to Thinktv.ca. Today is October 12, 2023, it has been three business days since I submitted the ad. But I have not heard from them. So, today I emailed Thinktv.ca saying. On October 06, 2023, I submitted an ad for approval but have not heard from you. 

Update of October 14, 2023,

169. On October 13, 2023, I received an email from Thinktv.ca saying.

Dear Mr. Robert Burgiss,

Thank you for your submission. It does not, however, meet Thinktv requirements for broadcast. The call to action is to visit your website, which contains several allegations against named individuals. Approval of this commercial for broadcast would expose Thinktv and its affiliated companies, including the broadcasters, to potential legal action by those individuals.

We would also remind you that Canadian broadcasters have complete and total discretion as to which commercials they choose to broadcast.

We trust the foregoing is satisfactory.

Kind Regards,

Catherine MacLeod
President & CEO

I then responded back saying.

To Catherine MacLeod
President & CEO

RE your email of today.

You cannot be sued for defamation for saying the url of a website that defames someone. To be sued for defamation you have to make a statement that is false. The ad does not make a statement it asks a question. And the truth is a defense in defamation. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled years ago that a hyperlink is not a publication for defamation. If you do not have publication then you cannot sue for defamation. Your rules say the ad cannot be false or misleading, or likely to cause harm or offend viewers. The ad does not harm anyone or offend anyone. The ad just asks a question. The CEO of channel zero said that I could do the ad on the channel CHCH. Here is the ad Are police and Lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario, Canada? See for yourself at injusticeinontario.ca

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of October 16, 2023,

170. Today I received an email from Thinktv.ca saying.

Mr. Burgiss –

I am familiar with the law in this area.  Of course, you can approach any broadcaster directly as our clearance is not required for a broadcaster to accept your ad.

But as I mentioned, please be advised that broadcasters have complete and absolute discretion as to whether they wish to broadcast any advertisement.

Catherine MacLeod

Update of October 17, 2023,

171. Today I began emailing Rob Montanaro​ of Channel Zero who owns CHCH telling him all of what Thinktv.ca said. I then asked him if he would run the ad now?

Update of October 17, 2023, at 645 pm

172. Today I received an email from Rob Montanaro​ of Channel Zero saying.

Hi Robert,
Thank you for your interest in advertising on CHCH-TV. We have reviewed your prototype commercial and the content of your website and, after careful consideration, have concluded that it is not in the station’s best interest to promote your site on CHCH, especially during our news programming.

This decision was not made lightly. We endeavor to present a balanced editorial point of view throughout our newscasts and to adhere to the principles of the CAB Code of Ethics (available here: https://www.cbsc.ca/codes/cab-code-of-ethics/). In our view, the promotion of your material on CHCH would put us in conflict with those requirements, including our obligations in respect of “the full, fair and proper presentation of news & opinion” under Clause 6 and “telling the advertising story so that these shall be simple, truthful and believable, and shall not offend prevailing community standards of tolerability” Clause 13(a).

Yours respectfully,

CHCH-TV Management

Update of October 18, 2023,

173. Today I emailed Rob Montanaro saying.

To Rob Montanaro

RE your email of October 17, 2023,

In your email, you say our obligations in respect of “the full, fair and proper presentation of news & opinion” under Clause 6

Clause 6 says.

It is recognized that the full, fair, and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview, or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment, or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests, or callers.

It says news, opinion, comment, and editorial.

It does not say news, opinion, comment and editorial and advertisement. My website will not be shown on the newscast. An ad for my website will be shown during a commercial break and not on the newscast.

You go on to say in your email telling the advertising story so that these shall be simple, truthful and believable, and shall not offend prevailing community standards of tolerability” Clause 13(a).

You say simple, truthful, and believable, The ad for my website is simple, truthful, and believable,

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of October 18, 2023, at 10 pm

174. Today I received an email from Rob Montanaro saying.

Mr Burgiss

We have concluded that it is not in the station’s best interest to promote your website on CHCH.

Yours respectfully,

CHCH-TV Management

Please write to him and complain. rob.montanaro@chz.com

Update of October 19, 2023,

175. Today I emailed Romen Podzyhun the CEO of Channel Zero who own’s CHCH saying.

To Romen Podzyhun

I heard back from Rob Montanaro​ CHCH-TV Management saying.

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your interest in advertising on CHCH-TV. We have reviewed your prototype commercial and the content of your website and, after careful consideration, have concluded that it is not in the station’s best interest to promote your site on CHCH, especially during our news programming.

This decision was not made lightly. We endeavor to present a balanced editorial point of view throughout our newscasts and to adhere to the principles of the CAB Code of Ethics (available here: https://www.cbsc.ca/codes/cab-code-of-ethics/). In our view, the promotion of your material on CHCH would put us in conflict with those requirements, including our obligations in respect of “the full, fair and proper presentation of news & opinion” under Clause 6 and “telling the advertising story so that these shall be simple, truthful and believable, and shall not offend prevailing community standards of tolerability” Clause 13(a).

Yours respectfully,

CHCH-TV Management

Here is the ad Are police & Lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario, Canada See for yourself at injusticeinontario.ca

I then wrote back saying.

To Rob Montanaro

RE your email of October 17, 2023,

In your email, you say our obligations in respect of “the full, fair and proper presentation of news & opinion” under Clause 6

Clause 6 says.

It is recognized that the full, fair, and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview, or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment, or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests, or callers.

It says news, opinion, comment, and editorial.

It does not say news, opinion, comment and editorial and advertisement. My website will not be shown on the newscast. An ad for my website will be shown during a commercial break and not on the newscast.

You go on to say in your email telling the advertising story so that these shall be simple, truthful and believable, and shall not offend prevailing community standards of tolerability” Clause 13(a).

You say simple, truthful, and believable, The ad for my website is simple, truthful, and believable,

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He then wrote back saying.

Mr. Burgiss,

We have concluded that it is not in the station’s best interest to promote your website on CHCH.

Yours respectfully,

CHCH-TV Management

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Phone 1-416-492-1592 Ex 226

romen.podzyhun@chchnews.ca

romenp@gmail.com

romen.podzyhun@chz.com

romen.podzyhun@tvchannelzero.com

romen.podzyhun@movieola.ca

Update of October 27, 2023,

176. I have emailed Romen Podzyhun the CEO of Channel Zero who owns CHCH 7 times and called them 4 times. Telling him what CHCH said about advertising my website on their channel. He has not answered my emails or returned my phone calls. 

Phone 1-416-492-1592 Ex 226

romen.podzyhun@chchnews.ca

romenp@gmail.com

romen.podzyhun@chz.com

romen.podzyhun@tvchannelzero.com

romen.podzyhun@movieola.ca

177.  Today I emailed Rob Montanaro rob.montanaro@chz.com management at CHCH saying. Why is it not in the station’s best interest to promote my website?

Update  of November 02, 2023,

178. If anyone knows why the news media will not do news stories about police complaints being covered up. Please email me the reason why. rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca 

Update of November 03, 2023,

179. I emailed Tony Staffieri who is the CEO of Rogers Communications which owns City tv saying.

City tv will not let me advertise my website on their channel. https://injusticeinontario.ca/

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed him 20 times. He did not respond back.

Tony.Staffieri@rci.rogers.com

I emailed Catherine Tait President & Chief Executive Officer of CBC Radio saying.

The CBC will not let me advertise my website on their channel. https://injusticeinontario.ca/

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed her 20 times. She did not respond back.

catherine.tait@cbc.ca

caroline.thebault@radio-canada.ca

cftait@hotmail.com

 

I emailed Mirko Bibic President and Chief Executive Officer of Bell Canada which owns CTV saying.

CTV will not let me advertise my website on their channel https://injusticeinontario.ca/

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed him 20 times. He did not respond back.

mirko.bibic@bell.ca

Update of November 04, 2023

180. Today I sent a registered letter to the new RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme saying.

November 04, 2023,

To Mr. Mike Duheme

There is a website that says

January 30th, 2019

“RCMP says it can’t investigate Ford without government request

 QUEEN’S PARK — If Ford succeeds in appointing his ally Ron Taverner as commissioner of the OPP, he could be trying to ensure that neither the OPP or the RCMP will ever investigate him or his government. The NDP is pointing to a letter from RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki that says her police force cannot investigate the Ford government without a request from the Ford government.”

When the old RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said “her police force cannot investigate the Ford government without a request from the Ford government.” She is lying because the RCMP Act section 18 says that RCMP members have to investigate crimes in Ontario, Canada. And there is nothing in the act that says that a provincial government has to ask the RCMP to investigate them for the RCMP to investigate them.

And lying to stop a criminal investigation is obstruction of justice. So can you please launch a criminal investigation into the actions of the old RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki.

Update of November 08, 2023,

181. Today I received a message from the Law Society of Ontario saying.

This letter follows our phone call on November 8, 2023. You contacted the Law Society about Benjamin Robert Cavell (the Lawyer) and your complaint was received by Intake & Resolution on August 4, 2023. I have completed my review of all the information you have provided in support of your complaint. For the reasons explained below, the Law Society will not be investigating your complaint any further.

Reasons for Outcome

Background

You consulted the Lawyer on July 10, 2023 and received a response later that same day, with respect to whether your MPP could write to the Ombudsman’s Office on your behalf about a specific concern you have.

Regulatory Issue Considered

The Lawyer may have failed to provide legal services to the client in accordance with standards of competence and quality.
Explanation

You provided the Lawyer with a summary or excerpt of communications between your MPP’s office and the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario’s office. You also provided a summary of your communications to the Integrity Commissioner, and with your MPP’s office. You did not provide the dates that these communications occurred.

You asked the Lawyer “can my MPP write to the Ombudsman’s office if their decision in my case is wrong and can be revised.”
The Lawyer responded saying “At first blush, the correctness or lack of correctness of the decision made by the Ombudsman’s Office seems to be irrelevant to whether your MPP should, with section 4 of the Member’s Integrity Act in mind, be writing and asking the Ombudsman’s Office to reverse or change a decision.” The Lawyer also says “..if your goal were for your MPP to write such a letter, the path in my mind would be to demonstrate to your MPP the presence of widespread support ….for the decision to be reversed or reviewed.” The Lawyer provides a suggestion: “…a common way to accomplish this is to write a letter that is signed by as many constituents as you can find who share your concerns..” The Lawyer opined: “If the constituency had shared concerns about the decision in question, it would then likely be appropriate for the MPP to write to the Ombudsman’s Office to express those concerns”.

You have said that “The Lawyer Ben lied in his answer”. In response to my request that you explain what the Lawyer lied about, you have told me “He told me I have to write a letter with a lot of people and that’s not true”. You have said “That’s not what the Act says”.

The evidence suggests that the Lawyer reasonably exercised his professional judgment with respect to this issue based on his understanding of the facts you provided to him and his review of the Members Integrity Act. The Lawyer has provided his legal opinion as well as his suggestion for an appropriate next step for you to take. You have not provided any substantiation for your allegation that the Lawyer “lied” to you.

As the Law Society does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment by a lawyer your complaint does not, in my view, raise professional misconduct issues. If you now question the legal advice given or feel that you have suffered a loss as a result, this may be an issue of professional negligence.

The Law Society does not have regulatory jurisdiction to deal with negligence issues. Specifically, the Law Society does not have jurisdiction to:
• Give legal advice on the merits of a negligence claim;
• Decide if a lawyer or paralegal was negligent;
• Decide the amount of the losses or damages caused by any negligence;
• Order that a lawyer or paralegal pay damages for negligence; or
• Order a lawyer or paralegal to correct the problems caused by the alleged negligence.

Outcome

In order to conduct a further investigation, s. 49.3(2) of the Law Society Act requires a reasonable suspicion that the Lawyer may have engaged in professional misconduct (or conduct unbecoming). The information provided does not meet this requirement and as a result, the Law Society will not take any further action in response to your complaint.

Complaints Resolution Commissioner
You may request a review by the Complaints Resolution Commissioner of the Law Society’s consideration of your complaint or the outcome. Additional information about this process can be found at https://lso.ca/protecting-the-public/complaints/complaints-resolution-commissioner. A request for review must be made to the Office of the Complaints Resolution Commissioner within 60 days of the date of this letter.

Yours truly,

Maggie Melnychuk
Counsel, Intake & Resolution
T: 437-780-0247 ext.3420

I responded back saying.

Where does it say that the Law Society cannot decide if a lawyer or paralegal was negligent?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of November 11, 2023,

182. I have emailed Jagmeet Singh Ottawa office 20 times saying.

To Jagmeet Singh leader of the federal NDP.

My name is Robert Burgiss, My MP is Matthew Green. My MPs staff are giving me the run-around I sent a registered letter to my MP’s home address explaining how his staff are giving me the run-around. He got the registered letter on August 16, 2023, I then sent another registered letter to him he got it on September 11, 2023, He has not responded back. Can you help?

Please see attached for the two registered letters.

Thanks Robert Burgiss

Jagmeet.Singh@parl.gc.ca

They have not responded back.

I have emailed Matthew Greens office 20 times saying.

To Trudy

Why did you not write to the RCMP Complaints Commissioner? When you said you would be back on June 12, 2023.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

trudy.morris.435@parl.gc.ca

She has not responded back.

Update of November 12, 2023,

183. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

In your email of August 17, 2023, you said “The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) reiterates its refusal of Mr. Burgiss’ request for review because there is no statutory right of review in cases where the
RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint.

I have read the RCMP Act and cannot find where it says anything about the RCMP Complaints Commission having the right to refuse to do a review where the RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint. So my question is in what section of what act does it say there is no statutory right of review in cases where the RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Reference number R2023-006371

File No. 2022-2976

https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/contact-form

Update of November 16, 2023,

184. On November 15, 2023, I sent a registered letter to the home address of the Premier of Ontario he signed for it today the letter said.

To Doug Ford Premier of Ontario

My name is Robert Burgiss, Back in 2020, I emailed the Attorney General of Ontario at Doug.Downey@ontario.ca  saying.

Hi
Can you please investigate the OIPRD Director for covering up complaints against the police?

Here is what the memorandum of understanding section 5c says

The Director is accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of the OIPRD in fulfilling its mandate and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Director by the PSA, Management Principles, all Directives, and
this MOU.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed him 7 times.

I then began emailing you at premier@ontario.ca saying.

Hi

Below are emails I have sent to the AG Doug Downy asking him to investigate the OIPRD Director for covering up complaints against police. But he does not launch an investigation. So can you please fire the AG?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

But you did not fire the AG. So thinking that your staff have not passed my emails on to you. I am Sending this registered letter to your home address. So can you please fire the AG?

See attached for emails.

Update of November 18, 2023,

185. I have emailed Rob Montanaro of CHCH management 15 times saying.

Why is it not in the station’s best interest to promote my website?

Thanks, Roberty Burgiss

He has not responded back.

rob.montanaro@chz.com

186. I have emailed Romen Podzyhun 20 times he is the CEO of Channel zero which owns CHCH saying.

To Romen Podzyhun

I heard back from Rob Montanaro​ CHCH-TV Management saying.

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your interest in advertising on CHCH-TV. We have reviewed your prototype commercial and the content of your website and, after careful consideration, have concluded that it is not in the station’s best interest to promote your site on CHCH, especially during our news programming.

This decision was not made lightly. We endeavor to present a balanced editorial point of view throughout our newscasts and to adhere to the principles of the CAB Code of Ethics (available here: https://www.cbsc.ca/codes/cab-code-of-ethics/). In our view, the promotion of your material on CHCH would put us in conflict with those requirements, including our obligations in respect of “the full, fair and proper presentation of news & opinion” under Clause 6 and “telling the advertising story so that these shall be simple, truthful and believable, and shall not offend prevailing community standards of tolerability” Clause 13(a).

Yours respectfully,

CHCH-TV Management

Here is the ad Are police & Lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario, Canada See for yourself at injusticeinontario.ca

I then wrote back saying.

To Rob Montanaro

RE your email of October 17, 2023,

In your email, you say our obligations in respect of “the full, fair and proper presentation of news & opinion” under Clause 6

Clause 6 says.

It is recognized that the full, fair, and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview, or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment, or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests, or callers.

It says news, opinion, comment, and editorial.

It does not say news, opinion, comment and editorial and advertisement. My website will not be shown on the newscast. An ad for my website will be shown during a commercial break and not on the newscast.

You go on to say in your email telling the advertising story so that these shall be simple, truthful and believable, and shall not offend prevailing community standards of tolerability” Clause 13(a).

You say simple, truthful, and believable, The ad for my website is simple, truthful, and believable,

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He then wrote back saying.

Mr. Burgiss,

We have concluded that it is not in the station’s best interest to promote your website on CHCH.

Yours respectfully,

CHCH-TV Management

Can you fix this?

He did not respond back.

romen.podzyhun@chz.com

Update of November 20, 2023,

187. Today I received a message from the Law Society of Ontario saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss:

Negligence is a legal issue that must be determined by a court, not the Law Society.  If you obtain a court determination or ruling that a lawyer was negligent, you may provide that to the Law Society for review.

Yours,
Maggie Melnychuk
Counsel, Intake & Resolution

I responded back saying.

Where does it say Negligence must be determined by a court and not the Law Society

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of November 20, 2023, at 3:00 pm

188. Received a response to my question to the Law Society of Ontario they said.

Mr. Burgiss, negligence is a legal issue and legal issues must be determined by a court. This will be my final response to this question. You may wish to seek legal adivce about this matter. I cannot provide you with legal advice.

I responded back saying.

If it really says in some act that the Law Society cannot determine  negligence on the part of a Lawyer then it makes no sense for you to not tell me in what act it says this.

In your letter you say I cannot provide you with legal advice. Where does it say that you cannot provide me with legal advice to answer a question that I have about your decision in my case? It makes no sense that you cannot answer my legal question if I do not understand the reasoning in your decision.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of November 21, 2023,

189. Today I sent a message to the Law Society of Ontario saying.

In a message to you I said.

Where does it say negligence must be determined by a court and not by the Law Society?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

You then responded back saying.

Mr. Burgiss, negligence is a legal issue and legal issues must be determined by a court. This will be my final response to this question. You may wish to seek legal advice about this matter. I cannot provide you with legal advice.

You say. this will be my final response to this question.

So I now have a new question Where does it say that the Law Society cannot give legal advice? The investigators who work for the Law Society are Lawyers so they can give legal advice.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of November 25, 2023,

190. I have emailed Jordan Bitove who owns the Hamilton Spectator and the Toronto star I emailed him 20 times saying.

The Hamilton Spectator and the Toronto Star will not let me advertise my website in their newspapers.  My website is https://injusticeinontario.ca/ I need the ad to say Are police & Lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario, Canada. See for yourself at injusticeinontario.ca

Can you fix this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He did not responed back.

jbitove@thestar.com

Update of November 30, 2023,

191. On November 29, 2023, I sent a message to the Law Society saying.

You said.

“I cannot provide you with legal advice” Please tell me where it says that you cannot give me legal advice not even to explain a decision you made in regard to a compaint against a lawyer.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They responded back saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss:

I cannot provide you with legal advice, as I am not your lawyer and the Law Society does not provide legal advice to members of the public with respect to complaints or outcomes of complaints. This is stated on the LSO website in several places.  My explanation for the outcome of my review of your complaint is contained in my letter to you dated November 8, 2023.  I do not have anything to add to my letter.

Please note that any further correspondence, emails and other communications from you about this case will be reviewed and placed in the file. The Law Society will not respond to any further communications about this case, unless there is new information to support further regulatory proceedings against Benjamin Robert Cavell. 

Sincerely,
Maggie Melnychuk
Counsel, Intake & Resolution

I then responeded back saying.

Where does it say that someone has to be a person’s Lawyer to give them legal advice?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of December 06, 2023,

192. I have been emailing the Bay Observer in Hamilton saying.

Want to advertise my website in your paper. Need the ad to say Are police & Lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario, Canada see for yourself at injusticeinontario.ca

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

A person named John emailed me back saying.

Sorry for the delay, Robert. I finally visited the website and see that it is about a long-standing workplace dispute that did not get resolved to your satisfaction. Unfortunately It is impossible for me to verify any of the assertions in this more than 30-year-old case, and since names of real people are involved I am not going to expose myself to possible Libel or slander. Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

John Best

Publisher – The Bay Observer

I then emailed him back saying.

To be sued for defamation you have to say something that is not true. The ad is true. The supreme court ruled yaers ago that a hyper link is not pubcation for defmation. So in other words you cannot be sued for something that it says on my website. And the ad is not defmatory.

Here is the supreme court case law.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7963/index.do

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He then emailed me back saying.

Aside from the legal issue I will not publish information about a named individual that I can’t verify, and frankly don’t have time to verify.

I then emailed him back saying.

You are not publishing it. I am.

Why not?

You have the time to verify the named individuals in the stories that are on your website. So, how do you not have time to verify the ones on my website?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He then emailed me back saying.

Sorry Rob. Im not going to do it and I wont be answering any more questions. You can still use Google or another social media to promote your website.

I then emailed him back saying.

Is the reason you will not let me run an for my website becuase you are afraid of the police?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He has not responded back.

john@bayobserver.ca.

Update of December 21, 2023,

193. I found advertising for my website. But the ad is not running yet there is a clitch in the system they are working on the problem.

Update of December 28, 2023,

194. The advertising with postmedia fell through. So going to try youtube again. But this time spend more money each month.

Update of December 31, 2023,

195. Today I emailed the Chief of police in Hamilton Frank bergen saying.

To the Chief of police in Hamilton frank Bergen.

Back in January 2023  I emailed you saying. To the Chief of police in Hamilton Frank Bergen

My website http://www.injusticeinontario.ca/ shows that some of your officers are covering up crimes because the courts are swapped and they are under pressure to not add to it. So they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. Covering up crimes is obstruction of justice. You are in charge of all the investigators that work for the Hamilton police and the crime cover ups are happening in Hamilton. So can you please launch criminal investigation?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

You responded back saying

Dear Mr. Burgiss:

This will confirm receipt of your e-mail, with a link to your website http://www.injusticeinontario.ca/.

The material provided does not disclose a basis to believe that there was any criminal act involved on the part of any person.  As such, we are exercising our discretion not to initiate a criminal investigation.

Please cease and desist from sending further e-mails in respect of this matter.

So here is a more detailed explanation of the evidence of the criminal acts by some of your officers.

In paragraph 30 of my website it says that a Hamilton. On September 15, 2019  the officer can be I identified from the officers that worked the front desk on that date. And there maybe a video from the station that day. said that when I went to the east end Hamilton police station the to have a criminal investigation launch into the actions of a person that lied under oath at a civil trail that the person was just correcting their memory when they were reading from a peace of paper from the questions and answers from the discovery for the trail. So the person was reading it off of a peace of paper. And not correcting his memory. The office said that he would not launch an investigation into perjury because the person was correcting their memory and not lying under oat. I told the office that the person was not correcting their memory they where reading the answer off of a peace of paper. But the officer still would not launch an investigation.

The courts in Ontario are swamped and police officers are under pressure to not add to it. So police officers cover up crimes instead of filing charges.

That is the reason that the officer tried to cover up my criminal complaint for perjury.

I then filed a conduct complaint against the officer and the OIPRD throw out my complaint because they said they did not get the copies of the transcripts from the trail that I sent them.

The OIPRD does not handle criminal complaints against police officers. They just deal with conduct complaints against police officers. The reason that I know that the OIPRD does not deal with criminal complaints against police officers. Is because there are no limitation periods on criminal charges in Canada but there is a six month limitation period on filing a complaint with the OIPRD. So if the OIPRD deal with criminal complaints against police officers that would mean that there is a special six month limitation period on filing a criminal complaint against a police officer

The criminal code of Canada section 139. 2 says anyone who internationally attempts to obstruct .justice. So just an attempt to obstruct justice is a crime. And covering up a crime which is what I am saying the Hamilton police officer did is clearly obstruction of justice.

I paid back the money I got for signing the confidentially agreement between me and Magna and all the other defendants.

For a perjury charge you have to have at lest two people to testify to the apposite to what the perjurer said. Or documented prove that the person lied. And there is me and the person who did the answers to the questions for discovery that was under oat. Both of us are saying that there was no fourth complaint. And in the letter that was sent to unemployment insurance it does not say that there was a fourth complaint. The perjurer also had to of lied to help his side of the lawsuit. And in this case the perjurer said the there was a fourth sexual harassment complaint against me. He said this because the last sexual harassment complaint was file on November 23, 1994 and I was not fired until December 12, 1994 So they have to come up with a fourth complaint to justify firing me on December 12,

The perjury happen 21 years ago but the evidence is in written form. So it is just as good as if the perjury happen today.

For perjury you do not have to prove criminal intent on the part of the suspect. Because to prove criminal intent you would have to prove that the suspect know that what they did was a crime. And to prove that you would have to read their mind. And nobody can read minds.

For an obstruction of justice charge you do not have to prove criminal intent on the part of suspect because to do that you would have to prove that the suspect know that what they did was a crime. To prove the suspect knows that what they did was a crime you would have to read their mind and nobody can read minds. So you have to prove that the suspect intended to obstruct what ever they obstructed.

The police services act section 42 (1) says

Police Officers

Duties of police officer

42 (1) The duties of a police officer include,

(a) preserving the peace;

(b) preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention;

(c) assisting victims of crime;

(d) apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody;

(e) laying charges and participating in prosecutions;

(f) executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties;

(g) performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns;

(h) in the case of a municipal police force and in the case of an agreement under section 10 (agreement for provision of police services by O.P.P.), enforcing municipal by-laws;

(i) completing the prescribed training.  R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 42 (1); 1997, c. 8, s. 28.

It says (a) preserving the peace to preserve the peace a police officer has to arrest people who are breaching the peace. For a police officer to arrest people who are breaching the peace they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest. So police officers in Hamilton have to do investigations.

The police services act goes on the say   (b) preventing crimes and other offences for police officers to prevent crimes they have to arrest people that are committing crimes. For police officers to arrest people that are committing crimes they have to first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest. So police officers have to do criminal investigations.

The police services act goes on to say (e) laying charges so police officers have to lay charges where there is enough evidence to lay a charge.

.In this Supreme Court case https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2340/index.do

The court said that police discretion is not absolute. And that it has to be done in the public interest. And in paragraph 35 they say  35 There is no question that police officers have a duty to enforce the law and investigate crimes. So police officers have to do criminal investigations and where there is enough evidence lay charges

Nobody has explained to me how it is in the public interest to not launch a criminal investigation into the perjury case.

You are in charge of all the criminal investigators that work for the Hamilton police. So clearly you can order one or more of them to do a criminal investigation. So please order a criminal investigation into the actions of the officer that tried to cover up my perjury criminal complaint?

If you the chief believe that there is enough evidence for a criminal investigation then you can assign an investigator and I will go to the police station and file a criminal report. Because you cannot file a criminal report by email.

See attached for the transcripts of the trail the UI letter and discovery question and answer. On page 50 of the transcripts is where Geoff is reading from the discovery answers.

If you do not get the transcripts the UI letter and the discovery questions and answer that I am attaching to this email let me know and I will resend them.

If you believe that there is not enough evidence for a criminal investigation then please explain!!!

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of January 01, 2024,

196. About five days ago I set up youtube advertising for my website. But I was only get about five extra hits a day on my website. So today I canceled the youtube advertising.

Update of January 05, 2024,

197. Today I asked for a review of the decision of the Law Society of Ontario in the complaint against Benjamin Robert Cavell saying.

My argument is that Mr. Cavell is incompetent or is lying. Ms. Melnychuk said. “You have not provided any substantiation for your allegation that the Lawyer “lied” to you.” She also does not say that the advice that Mr. Cavell gave me was the right advice.
And Ms. Melnychuk does not say that Mr. Cavell had explained his legal advice that he gave to me to her.

Mr. Cavell said. ““..If your goal were for your MPP to write such a letter, the path in my mind would be to demonstrate to your MPP the presence of widespread support ….for the decision to be reversed or reviewed.”

The Integrity Act does not say anything about there having to be widespread support for an MPP to write a letter to the Ombudsman’s office. A person going into high school can Clearly see that the integrity act does not say anything about there having to be widespread support for an MPP to write a letter to the Ombudsman’s office. And Lawyers go to Law school which is harder then high school. So Mr. Cavell clearly knows that the integrity act does not say that there has to be widespread support for an MPP to write a letter to the Ombudsman’s office.
The words widespread support are not in the integrity act so there is no way that Mr Cavell could have reasonably interpreted it to mean that!!!

If he just got it wrong by accident he would have amended his advice to me by now. So he knows that he is wrong now and still ha snot changed his advice. So he is intentionally wrong and has not changed his advice.

Rule 3.1 of the rules of professional conduct says SECTION 3.1 COMPETENCE

[15.1] The Law Society Act provides that a lawyer fails to meet standards of professional competence if there are deficiencies in

(a) the lawyer’s knowledge, skill, or judgment,

Clearly Mr. Cavell has deficiencies with knowledge, skill, or judgment.

My argument is that Mr. Cavell is ether lying or is incompetent. And ether one of these is a misconduct!!!

Update of January 06, 2024,

198. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

To Michelaine Lahia Chair person RCMP Complaints Commission

Complaint against Dominic Laferrière of the Complaint Intake and Review

I have asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP for a review of the decision of the RCMP professional standers unit. They said in a letter of August 16, 2023 from Dominic Laferrière there is no statutory right of review in cases where the RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint. I have looked into the RCMP act and cannot find anything in there that says there is no statutory right of review in cases where the RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint. I have asked Dominic Laferrière where it says that there is no statutory right of review where the RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint. He has not answered my question. If it does say that somewhere and he does not tell me where it says this then it looks like he is covering up my complaint. So it makes no sense for him to not answer my question. So the fact that he has not answered my question must mean that it does not say that anywhere and that he has covered up my complaint.

My criminal complaint with the RCMP is that the Office of the independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) Covered up my conduct complaint against a Hamilton police officer. Conduct complaints against police in Ontario are done through the police services act. So if someone tries to cover up a conduct complaint against a police officer they are obstructing the police services act. And obstructing a government act is obstruction of justice. The OIPRD said that my criminal complaint against my landlord is better dealt with through the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act. So they throw out my conduct complaint against a Hamilton police officer. What the OIPRD said is not true because the Landlord tenant board does not deal with criminal complaints against a landlord. The police do.

The RCMP said about my criminal complaint with them that they do not have jurisdiction to investigate provincial bodies. This is not true because the RCMP Act section 18  says

Duties

18 It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner,

  • to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed,

Section 18 does not say anything about not investigating provincial bodies.

So Mr. Dominic Laferrière has covered up my complaint!!!

Decisions of the Complaints Commission are not final and can be changed if wrong.

See attached for letter August 16, 2023

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

michelaine.lahia@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca

Update of January 07, 2024,

199. Today I emailed Pierre Poilievre the leader of the Federal Opposition saying.

To Pierre Poilievre Mp Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Leader of the Opposition

Attached to this email are letters I have sent to my MP Matthew Green. Below are emails that I sent to Jagmeet Singh about my MP Matthew Green. giving me the run around. Can you help me?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca

Update of January 10, 2024,

200. Today I emailed Stephen Leach OIPRD Director saying.

To Stephen Leach OIPRD Director

Re complaint against Andrea from the OIPRD.

My name is Robert Burgiss, On October 13, 2021 I filed a conduct complaint against a Hamilton police officer. File # 2020101311537281669 Saying that on August 26, 2020 I went to the Hamilton central police station and asked for an investigation into a lawyer that filed baseless motions to have a lawsuit that I filed thrown out of court.. Which is obstruction of justice. The police officer at the station said that he has never heard of police investigating that kind of thing. So, he did not take a report about it. Andrea from the OIPRD said in a letter of March 02 2021. The police are not obligated to investigate all maters that are reported, especially if there are reservations about what is being reported. Further taking into account the nature of the concerns raised and the passage of time, given that the incident originated approximately 20 years ago, the actions as described in your complaint would not be unreasonable such that an investigation would be warranted. In the circumstance. The Director has decided its not in the public interest to send your complaint for investigation.

I have all the paper work from the motion hearing so, there is enough evidence for a conviction. And it says this in the conduct complaint.

And the officer did not say that there was not enough evidence for a conviction. He said that he has never heard of police investigating that kind of thing.

So Andrea covered up my conduct complaint!!!

See attached for the complaint.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

stephen.leach@ontario.ca

Update of January 16, 2024,

201. Today I began emailing Mark Thompson CEO of CNN saying.

Hi
I own the website https://injusticeinontario.ca/ It shows that police and Lawyer complaints are being covered up in Ontario, Canada. I have tried to advertise my website on news media channels but they would not let me because they are afraid of the police. So, will you let me advertise my website on CNN?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

mark.thompson@cnn.com

Update of Junuary 17, 2024,

202. Today I began emailing Kim Kardahian, Kelly Calarkson and Taylor Swift saying.

Hi
I own the website http://www.injusticeinontario.ca/ it shows that police and Lawyer complaints are being covered up in Ontario, Canada. I have tried to get advertising for my website on news media channels but they are afraid of the police so they will not do the ad. So, can you put a link on your social media to my website?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of January 18, 2024,

203. If anybody out there knows how I can get more hits on my website please email rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca I need to get enough hits for a big enough public outcry that something is done about the corruption. I only get about 2800 a month now.

Update of January 20, 2024,

204. I have forwarded the email that I sent to Frank bergen the Chief of police in Hamilton in paragraph 195. For 15 business days in a row he has not responded back.

fbergen@hamiltonpolice.ca

Update of January 24, 2024,

205. Today I fax a complaint against Darren Mcgreal to the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

Conduct complaint against Darren Mcgreal

Back on September 16, 2022 I filed a conduct complaint against RCMP officer Jim Metropoulos because he refused to launch a criminal investigation into the Office of the independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) for obstruction of justice for covering up my conduct complaint against a Hamilton police officer. Because the RCMP cannot investigate provincial bodies. See attached for complaint.

In a letter from Staff Sergeant Darren Mcgreal of the professional standards unit of Feburary 08, 2023,   See attached for letter. He said.

Members of the public can conduct an internet query on the RCMP in Ontario and review on the website the “About the RCMP in Ontario” category. This section states that the RCMP O Division has primary authority in federal law enforcement

Ontario. The broad Federal Policing mandate is to enforce Federal laws, investigate serious and organized crime and conduct international law enforcement capacity building. Under the “Federal Policing Services” heading on the website, its noted that our operational response is organized into three areas of priority, Cybercrime, Border Integrity and Transnational Serious and Organized Crime Operations. The RCMP Mandate in Ontario is strictly Federal, therefore we do not have the authority to investigate Provincial or Municipal matters or agencies.

please be informed that an investigation into your complaint will not be initiated by the RCMP.

Yours truly,

I responded back on February 13, 2022, saying.

I googled the thing you say in your letter of yesterday. It says

The broad Federal Policing mandate is to:

.Enforce federal laws, secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons and other designated persons;
. investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime and criminal activity related to national security;
.Conduct international law enforcement capacity-building, support Canadian international peace operations and advance domestic police operations through enhanced visibility,
reach and influence abroad.

It says enforce federal laws, And there is a coma after that. So it means that enforcing federal laws is one of the things that they do.

So it means that they have to enforce federal law and secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal
intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons and other designated persons;

It does not say enforce federal laws in regards to secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal
intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons and other designated persons;

It does not say Enforce federal law in regards to investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime and criminal activity related to national security

It also does not say enforce federal laws in regards to Conduct international law enforcement capacity-building, support Canadian international peace operations and advance domestic police operations through enhanced visibility,
reach and influence abroad.

Again if I am wrong about this please explain!!

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Burgiss_LOJ_(NPCD-1) 2023-02-11 (PH).pdf
Date: 2023-02-13 15:55
From: rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca
To: “McGreal, Darren” <darren.mcgreal@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>

The RCMP investigated the Toronto police around 2005. On a request of the Ontario Attorney General. I know of nothing that says that only the Ontario Attorney General can ask for that.

Thanks Robert Burgiss

So, Darren Mcgreal has tried to cover up my conduct complaint against RCMP officer Jim Metropoulos. And he is not allowed to do that.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of January 27, 2024,

206. I have forwarded the email that I sent to Michelaine Lahia Chair person RCMP Complaints Commission in paragraph 198 to them for 15 business days they did not respond back.

michelaine.lahia@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca

Update of February 01, 2024,

207. I have sent the email in paragraph 199 to Pierre Poilievre for 15 business days. He did not respond back.

pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca

208. Today I received an email from youtube saying “We have reviewed your content and found severe or repeated violations of our spam, deceptive practices and scams policy. Because of this, we have removed your channel from YouTube.” I appealed this but the appeal was denied. I did not get any warnings about the volations. I then email them saying Please tell me what part of my channel was in volation and I will take that part down. They have not responded back yet.

Update of February 03, 2024,

209. If there is anyone out there that know of any groups that criticise the news media. Please email me their website URL. Or their facebook name.

rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca

Update of February 05, 2024,

210. I have sent the email to Stephen Leach OIPRD Director in paragraph 200 to him every day for 15 business days. He did not respond back.

stephen.leach@ontario.ca

Update of February 10, 2024,

211. The emails that I sent to Michelaine Lahia Chair person RCMP Complaints Commission in paragraph 206 I have forwarded to the governor general of Canada Mary Simon for 15 business days in a row saying.

The RCMP act section 45.3 (2) says Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

So please read below and fire them.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

mary.simon@gg.ca

She did not respond back.

The Governor in Council is the Governor General of Canada when they are not in Council.

Please copy and past paragraphs 198, 206, and 211 and put them in an email to the governor general’s office info@gg.ca and ask why the GG has not fired the person who covered up the complaint that Robert Burgiss filed. Please forward the email to them every business day for at least 15 business days or until you get a response. The reason that I ask you to forward the email every day for 15 business days is because if you send it one or two times then call them three weeks later and say that you have not received a response they will say resend the email. Thanks Robert Burgiss

https://www.gg.ca/en/governor-general

Update of February 13, 2024,

212. The reason that I am trying so hard to fix the justice system is so I can get Magna management charged with criminal defamation and get back wages from them. So here is what I would have said to the Halton police to get them to lay criminal chages for defamation.

Evidence of Defamation and extortion by Magna

On December 12, 1994 I was fired from my job at Magna International. For sexually harassing a female employee. The reason that Magna wanted to get rid of me was because I stood up to management and they don’t like employees doing that. And other employees were starting to do the same.

The criminal code of Canada section 298 says

Defamatory Libel

Criminal Definition of libel

  298(1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

  • Marginal note:Mode of expression

(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony

  • (a)in words legibly marked on any substance; or
  • (b)by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 262

Marginal note:Publishing

299 A person publishes a libel when he

  • (a)exhibits it in public;
  • (b)causes it to be read or seen; or
  • (c)shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by any person other than the person whom it defames.
  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 299
  • 2018, c. 29, s. 31

Previous Version

Marginal note:Punishment of libel known to be false

 300 Every person who publishes a defamatory libel that they know is false is guilty of

  • (a)an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
  • (b)an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Evidence of publication by Magna

Some time in 1995 Magna sent to unemployment insurance a copy of my termination letter. And a copy of my history with Magna. UI ordered Magna to send the documents to UI . Magna was mandated to send the documents to UI. But they lied to UI and they were not mandated to lie to UI.

Evidence of the documents sent to UI by Magna being defamatory.

  1. In the termination letter it says. We are firing you because you are sexually harassing a female employee of Magna. And in the Bob Burgiss history it says that I was sexually harassing a female employee of Magna.

Evidence that UI know the stuff that Magna sent to them was about me.

 The termination letter had the name Robert Burgiss on it and so did the Bob Burgiss history.

Evidence of the claim of sexual harassment by Magna being false.

 1. In a defamation case the truth is a defense. So if what the defendant said is true they are allowed to say it. But if the defendant chooses the defense of the truth they have to prove at the trail that what they said was true. Because the courts presume that what the defendant said is false. The reason the courts do it that way is because if they presumed that what the defendant said was true before the trail started that would mean that no evidence what so ever is enough to prove that what the defendant said is true. Because there has been no evidence entered into evidence yet because the trail has not started yet. And if no evidence what so ever is enough to prove what the defendant said is true then the plaintiff would never be able to prove that what the defendant said is false. The same thing is true for wrongful dismissal the employer has too prove at the trail that they had cause to fire the employee.

2. When they told me of the sexual harassment complaints against me at work they did not tell me the details of the complaints. And Ronda did not say anything to me about complaints she was filing against me. In fact I stopped talking to her about a month before I was fired because of the complaints.

3. About a month before the civil trial was to begin. Magna’s lawyer asked for a meeting with me and a Judge to try to settle the case out of court. At the meeting I told the Judge that there is no written complaint against me. We did not settle the case. About two weeks later I got a written complaint in the mail with Rhonda’s signature on it and Magna’s lawyer’s also signed the written complaint. In the written complaint it says “that Bob Burgiss asked Ronda out on a date she said that she would have to say no because she is married. I then said that that does no matter” When she was testifying at the trial Magna’s lawyer asked Ronda didn’t he ask you out on a date at some point. She said I can’t remember that right now” Magna’s lawyer could have then handed her written complaint and have her read it into evidence. But he did not. I believe that the reason he did not have her read her written complaint is because he wrote the complaint himself and signed Ronda’s name to it. The two signature’s on the written complaint look like the same hand writing. I did not say to her that does not matter. In 2009 I went to the Halton police to have them investigate Magna for criminal defamation I gave copies of all the documents that I had in relation to the case and the Halton police then emailed Magna’s lawyer. He then sent an email back with all the documentation that they in relation to the case. In the email from Magna’s lawyer is a copy of the written complaint. So I can forward the email to the police. That proves I did not fake the written complaint myself. Why would Magna’s lawyer go to the trouble of making a fake written complaint if there was real sexual harassment going on?

4. In the termination letter it says that we are paying you 4 weeks pay in le of notice. I went down to the Ministry of labor and showed them the termination letter. They said we would like to help you but we take care of you severance and you got your severance. I then asked so if I did not get my severance the ministry could do an investigation to see if I should have got my severance. They said yes. I then asked if you get fired for doing something wrong do they have to pay you your severance. The Ministry said no. So I believe the reason Magna paid me my severance was to stop the Ministry from looking into what happened. And Magna did not want the ministry looking into what happened because there was no sexual harassment going on. And Magna management was making up the sexual harassment complaints. And why would an employer give a sexual harasser four weeks pay for free.

5. I was fired on December 12, 1994 the civil trial happened in 2002 seven years after I was fired. So Magna had seven years to get a written complaint form Ronda but did not. If there was real sexual harassment going on they would have had her sign a written complaint well with in the seven year period.

6. At the civil trial I asked my boss the person who did the investigations into the sexual harassment complaints what did Ronda say that I did or said to her that was sexual harassment. He said it was something about me saying to her that we were seeing each other at work. He said that he did not write down the exact wording of the complaint. Again why would they not write down the exact wording of the complaint if there was real sexual harassment go on? At the trail my boss could not remember the exact wording of the complaint but Ronda was setting in the hallway of the court house and they could have asked her to refresh their memory of the exact wording of the complaint that morning. In fact Magna had seven years to ask Ronda to sign a written complaint and give the details of the sexual harassment. But they did not.

7. Magna said that I was saying to Ronda that we where seeing each other at work. This makes no sense because if we where seeing each other at work she would know this so I would not have to say it to her.

8.Magna is trying to say that I was obsessed with Rhonda. But at the trail Magna’s lawyer asked her if she had any contact with Mr. Burgiss since he was fired from his job. She said no.

9. Rhonda Said at the trail that when she saw me leave on December 08, 1994 she though that was me being fired. In fact I was suspended until further notice. But in Magna’s after Dave of documents there is nothing about when she quit. And they said that there was a forth complaint on December 12, 1994.

10. Magna did a deposition on me. And they did not ask me about the details of the sexual harassment complaints. Like she said you said this and you said that. They also said to me think of every thing you said to Rhonda. Why would they ask me this if there was real sexual harassment go on.

For the person who decided to pay me 4 weeks pay in le of notice and the person who told me about the sexual harassment complaints and to know not to tell me the details about the complaints they had to of both know about these things. So, they must have conspired with each other. So there is also a charge of conspiracy too. At the civil trial Rhonda said that I was sexually harassing her and denied that we were seeing each other at work. The reason she said this was because she did not want her husband to find out about us. I could have impeached her at the civil trial but I risked ruining her marriage and I did not want to do that. I have since learned that she pass away in 2007 so I do not have to worry about ruining her marriage now.

In 2002 I settled the civil case against Magna.

In 2024 I emailed Magna’s lawyer saying that I wanted to pay back the money I got for settling the case. Because I signed a confidently agreement with them and it would stop the criminal charge for defamation. Magna’s Lawyer wrote back to me saying the case was settled and we are not interested in repayment. This must mean that the confidently agreement is void. So there is nothing stopping the criminal case from going forward.

The management at Magna lied to my employer so I would be fired. So it was their lie that caused me to lose my job. So I can go after the management at Magna for criminal defamation and get back wages from them. When the Magna management lied to my employer they did it when they were on the job. So I can go after their employer for back wages too.

 The criminal code of Canada section 346 says

Extortion

  • 346(1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
  • It says accusations it goes on to say induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened accused to do anything or cause anything to be done.
  • So Magna management made up sexual harassment complaints against me to stop me form standing up to management.

Update of February 16, 2024,

213. I have emailed Mark Thompson CEO of CNN saying.

Hi
I own the website https://injusticeinontario.ca/ It shows that police and Lawyer complaints are being covered up in Ontario, Canada. I have tried to advertise my website on news media channels but they would not let because they are afraid of the police. So, will you let me advertise my website on CNN?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed him every day for 15 business days.

mark.thompson@cnn.com

Update of March 02, 2024,

214. I have emailed Neal Mohan CEO of youtube saying.

My name is Robert Burgiss. Youtube suspended my account. I have asked them to tell me what part of my account is in volation and I will tage that part down. But they have not responded back. My channel was Injustice in Ontario Can you help?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed every one of his email address every day for 15 business days.

He did not respond back.

Neal.Mohan@stanfordalumni.org

Neal.Mohan@alumni.stanford.org

Neal.Mohan@doubleclick.com

Neal.Mohan@doubleclick.net

Neal.Mohan@gmail.com

Neal.Mohan@youtube.com

Update of March 27, 2024,

215. Today I began emailing Ken MacKillop from the Governor General’s office saying.

Hi
It says on the Governor General’s website that you are the Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor – Ken MacKillop.

I have emailed the Governor General at mary.simon@gg.ca asking her to fire the RCMP Complaints Commission chair person for covering my complaint against an RCMP officer. Because it says in section 45.3 (2) of the RCMP act. Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

The Governor General did not fire the chair person.

I would like to know why not?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Ken.Mackillop@pco-bcp.gc.ca

Update of March 31, 2024,

216. Today I began emailing Ken MacKillop of the Governor General’s office saying.

Hi

I have been trying to get the Governor General to fire the RCMP Complaints Commission chair person for covering up my complaint against an RCMP officer. Because the RCMP act section 45 .3 (2) says

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council

Decisions of the RCMP Complaints Commission are not final and can be changed if wrong.  The person at the GG office I have been dealing with is named Ludovick. He said when I asked about fire the Complaints chair person that he does not know anything about that. I than ask if he could pass a message on to the GG he said he could not because he does not have her contact information. I then asked for his boss’s email address or phone number  Ludovick  said he could not give them to me because he does not know them. I then asked could he find them out.  He said no.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Ken.Mackillop@pco-bcp.gc.ca

Update of April 05, 2024,

217. Today I added to the email that I sent to Ken MacKillop of the Governor General’s office saying.

The RCMP Complaints Commission said in letter to me after I asked for them to review the decision of the RCMP professional standers unit. “On March 3, 2023, the CRCC declined Mr. Burgiss’ request for review because the request
does not fall within the CRCC’s mandate” They went on to say ” There is no statutory right of review where the RCMP declines jurisdiction” I have looked in to the RCMP act and cannot find where it says There is no statutory right of review where the RCMP declines jurisdiction”

See attached for the letter.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of April 13, 2024,

218. Today I began emailing Joseph Martino SIU Director saying.

To Joseph Martino SIU Director

Sexual assault by Hamilton police officer

On June 13, 2019, I was arrested at City Hall in Hamilton, Ontario. The police took me to the central police station. While a police officer was patting me down, he sexually assaulted me.

These are the reasons why I believe that there is enough evidence for a charge of sexual assault against the Hamilton police officer.

1.    I was arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. The Supreme Court of Canada said in the Fleming v Ontario that beach of the peace is actual or threatened harm. I filed a conduct complaint against the two Hamilton police officers who arrested me. The Hamilton police professional standards branch wrote up a report about the incident. (see attached for report) There is nothing in their report that fits into the definition of actual or threatened harm there is also nothing in the police reports from that day that fits into that definition. So, I was intentionally falsely arrested, which is a kidnapping.

2.    The officer who sexually assaulted me put his left arm up my back to my shoulders causing my right arm to be higher than my left arm after he put me in handcuffs and walked me outside of city hall. Which caused the handcuffs to leave a mark on my wrist. The report from the Hamilton police professional standards branch said that I must have turned my wrists. So, that is what caused the marks on my wrist. I did not turn my wrists. They are saying that to cover up my conduct complaint against the officer. So, they did not say that it was okay for the police officer to cause the handcuffs to dig into my wrists. (The video of them walking me outside city hall is on my dailymotion channel my daily motion channel is called Injustice in Ontario the title of the video is Hamilton City Hall)

3.    The last time I talked to the SIU they said that the tough was accidental tough so it is not sexual assault. If this was true the officer would have apologized right after it happened but he did not. He also would have told his boss about it and put it in his police report but he did not. And he was also looking right at his hands when it happened.

Conclusion

The officer who sexually assaulted me kidnapped me he also intentionally caused the handcuffs to leave marks on my wrist. If he is willing to do these things to me then it is reasonable to believe that he would sexually assault me. And that the tough was intentional and not accidental.

Why does the SIU believe that the tough was accidental? Did they talk to the officer?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Joseph.Martino@ontario.ca

Update of April 30, 2024,

219. On April 26, 2024, I called the Governor General’s office and talked to Ludovick. He said he was in another province so he could walk to his boss’s office and ask him to pass a message on to the G.G. I then pointed out that the number I dialed was a 613 area code and that is Ottawa Ontario so he could not be in another province. He then said that he does not have his boss’s contact information so he cannot pass a message on to him. I then said he could google his boss’s name and find his contact information he said he is not allowed to do that.

Update of May 01, 2024,

220. On April 30, 2024, I called the number I have for Ken Mackillop from the GG office they said that the email that I have been sending emails to is the wrong email address. They then gave me the right email address. So, I began emailing him yesterday. ken.mackillop@gg.ca

Update of May 03, 2024,

221. Today I received an email from the Governor General’s office saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss,

On behalf of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General (OSGG), I am responding to your email. Thank you for your inquiry.

While we appreciate the difficulty of your situation, the OSGG does not possess jurisdiction over the RCMP, nor the CRCC, and cannot assist you in this matter.

Kind regards,

Lëam Laurin-Trehearne – INFO

Office of the Secretary to the Governor General | Bureau du secrétaire du gouverneur général

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive | 1, promenade Sussex

Ottawa  ON  K1A 0A1

Info@gg.ca

I then responded back saying.

It is section 45.3 (2)

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission For the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Establishment and Organization
Marginal note:Establishment

45.29 (1) The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is established, consisting of a Chairperson and not more than four other members, one of whom may be a Vice-chairperson, appointed by the Governor in Council.

Marginal note:Ineligibility

(2) A person is not eligible to be a member of the Commission if that person

(a) is a member or former member; or

(b) is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Marginal note:Appointment consideration

(3) The Governor in Council shall, before appointing a person as a member of the Commission, consider the need for regional representation in the membership of the Commission.

Marginal note:Reappointment

(4) A member of the Commission is eligible for reappointment on the expiry of that member’s term of office.

R.S., 1985, c. 8 (2nd Supp.), s. 162003, c. 22, s. 217(E)2013, c. 18, s. 35
Previous Version
Marginal note:Full- or part-time

45.3 (1) The Chairperson is a full-time member of the Commission. The other members may be appointed as full-time or part-time members of the Commission.

Marginal note:Tenure

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

Update of May 12, 2024,

221. Today I began emailing Justin Trudeau the Prime Minister of Canada saying.

My name is Robert Burgiss, I have written to the Governor General saying.

Hi

My name is Robert Burgiss, I filed a complaint with the RCMP
Complaints Commission. They refused to review my complaint. Saying

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) reiterates its refusal of Mr. Burgiss’ request for review

because there is no statutory right of review in cases where the

RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint.

On March 3, 2023, the CRCC
declined Mr. Burgiss’ request for review because the request does not fall within the CRCC’s mandate. In the present context, it is

important to note that requests for review are subject to

conditions set out in the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act. This Act creates the CRCC and sets out the conditions under which it can have the authority

to accept complaints and review the RCMP’s handling of those

complaints.

There is no statutory right of review where the RCMP declines

jurisdiction.

I have looked over the RCMP Act and cannot find where it says.

There is no statutory right of review where the RCMP declines

jurisdiction.

So, can you please ask the G.G. to ask the commission to rethink their decision in my case.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

The G.G. wrote back saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss,

On behalf of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General
(OSGG), I am responding to your email. Thank you for your

inquiry.

While we appreciate the difficulty of your situation, the OSGG does not possess jurisdiction over the RCMP, nor the CRCC, and

can not assist you in this matter.

You may wish to address your concerns to your constituency’s elected
representative instead.

Kind regards,

Lëam Laurin-Trehearne – INFO
Office of the Secretary to the Governor General | Bureau du
secrétaire du gouverneur général
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive | 1, promenade Sussex
Ottawa  ON  K1A 0A1
Info@gg.ca

I then wrote back saying.

It is section 45.3 (2)

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission For the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Establishment and Organization
Marginal note:Establishment

45.29 (1) The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is established, consisting of a Chairperson and not more than four other members, one of whom may be a Vice-chairperson, appointed by the Governor in Council.

Marginal note:Ineligibility

(2) A person is not eligible to be a member of the Commission if that person

(a) is a member or former member; or

(b) is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Marginal note:Appointment consideration

(3) The Governor in Council shall, before appointing a person as a member of the Commission, consider the need for regional representation in the membership of the Commission.

Marginal note:Reappointment

(4) A member of the Commission is eligible for reappointment on the expiry of that member’s term of office.

R.S., 1985, c. 8 (2nd Supp.), s. 162003, c. 22, s. 217(E)2013, c. 18, s. 35
Previous Version
Marginal note:Full- or part-time

45.3 (1) The Chairperson is a full-time member of the Commission. The other members may be appointed as full-time or part-time members of the Commission.

Marginal note:Tenure

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I have emailed them every business day for 6 business days. And I have called them two times. They did not return my phone calls or write to the Commission.

The Governor General is the Governor in Council.

It says this about who can fire the Governor General.

The Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the prime minister. An exit from this post can only occur through death or incapacitation, resignation, or if the King, acting on the advice of the prime minister, removes the Governor General from the role.

So, can you please ask the Governor General for her resignation?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Justin Trudeau
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

(No postage required!)

Phone: 613-992-4211

Update of May 24, 2024,

222. I have now emailed the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau’s office 9 times and called his office twice. They do not return my phone calls or respond to my emails. Clearly, they are not going to respond.

In this CBC news article done by a reporter named Mark Gollom it says. “Asked last Friday by CBC News whether her government had confidence in Payette, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland offered support for the Governor General’s office and the constitutional role it plays, but pointedly did not express explicit confidence in Payette.

But what is the process for a governor-general to vacate — willingly or otherwise — the role due to controversy? Are there precedents? And what role could Buckingham Palace or the Queen play in such a move?

The Governor General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister. An exit from this post can only occur through death or incapacitation, resignation, or if the Queen, acting on the advice of the prime minister, removes the Governor General from the role.

Experts agree the best solution — and the most likely solution in a case where a governor-general is embroiled in controversy and the government would like them to depart — would be a resignation following the prime minister’s discreet suggestion.”

So, I need as many people as possible to email and call the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, and demand that he says he does not have confidence in the current Governor General Mary Simon.

justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Justin Trudeau House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

(No postage required!)

Phone: 613-992-4211

Update of June 17, 2024,

223. If you have contacted the P. M. please email me and tell me what they said? rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of June 17, 2024 at 7;20 pm

224. If you are contacting the PM’s office keep contacting them until you get a response or they respond to me. You have to be persistent!!!

Thanks Robert Burgiss

Update of July 13, 2024

225. From now on until PM Justin Trudeau does the right thing I will be posting in groups in Ontario on Facebook 30 times a day the message below.

I have filed a conduct complaint against an RCMP officer. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission covered up my complaint. So, I then wrote to the Governor General of Canada. Because the G.G. can fire the RCMP complaints person who covered up my complaint. It says this in the RCMP Act section 45.3 (2). The G.G. did not fire the person who covered up my complaint and did not give me an explanation as to why not. I then began emailing the P.M. of Canada Justin Trudeau. Because if he indicates that he has lost confidence in the G.G. the G.G. would have to resign. I have emailed him about 15 times & called his office about 3 times. They do respond to my emails & do not call me back when I leave a message. justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca Justin Trudeau House of Commons Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 (NO POSTAGE REQUIRED) Phone 613-992-4211 Fax: 613-947-0310, So, I then contacted all the leaders of all the federal political parties & asked them to hold the PM accountable for not doing his job. I emailed them all about 15 times & called about 3 times. They did not respond or call me back. Pierre Poilevre Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0A6 telephone 613-692-3331, Fax: 613-992-1209,Yves-Franscois Blanchet Leader of the Bloc Quebecois Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 phone 1-613-992-6035 Fax 1-613-947-5096, Jagmeet Singh Leader of the New Democratic Party Jagmeet.Singh@parl.gc.ca House of Commons * Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 Telephone: 613-996-5597 Fax: 613-947-0868, Elizabeth May Leader of the Green party of Canada, elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca House of Commons * Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 Telephone: 613-996-1119 Fax: 613-996-0850, Han Dong Independent Han.Dong@parl.gc.ca House of Commons * Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 Telephone: 613-995-4988 Fax: 613-995-1686, Alain Rayes Independent alain.rayes@parl.gc.ca House of Commons * Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 Telephone: 613-995-1554 Fax: 613-995-2026, Kevin Vuong Independent kevin.vuong@parl.gc.ca House of Commons * Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 Telephone: 613-992-2352 Fax: 613-992-6301,

So, I need as many people as possible to contact the PM and the other political party leaders & demand that they do the right thing.

Please pass this message on to every one you know!!!

Update July 31, 2024,

226. I am now posting in groups in Canada. But sometimes I get this message when I post. We limit how often you can post, commemt or do other things in a given amount of time in order to help protect the community from spam. You can try again later.

I am also going to try MP Matthew Green’s office again.

Update of August 01, 2024,

227. Today I went to MP Matthew Green’s office and asked to talk to Trudy. She said that the RCMP respnded back saying that they cannot do anything about what is going on. She then said that she will forward their response to me in an email. I then went home and emailed her saying.

Today I was at your office you said that the RCMP wrote to you and that you will forward the email to me. I did not ask you to write to the RCMP. I asked you to write to the RCMP public Complaints Commission. the Commission said that my complaint cannot be reviewed. I asked them where it says that some complaint cannot be reviewed. But they did not respond back. So can you write to the commission and ask them where it says that some complaints cannot be reviewed?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I also forwarded her a copy of the decision letter from the RCMP Complaints Commission.

Update of August 13, 2024,

228. Today I emailed Trudy at Matthew Green’s office saying.

Today I was at your office you said that the Ottawa office has to deal with the matter. Where does it say that the Ottawa office has to deal with the matter.

On August 01, 2024 I was at you office you said that the RCMP said that there is nothing they can do? Why did you not say then that the Ottawa office has to deal with the matter?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of August 23, 2024,

229. Today I emailed Trudy at Matthew Green’s office saying.

To Trudy

Yesterday I was at your office the guy at the front desk said that he talked to you and that you said you were waiting on a response. So can you please send me a copy of the thing you sent out that you are waiting on a response from?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of September 03, 2024,

230. Today I emailed Trudy at MP Matthew Greens office saying.

To Trudy

Today I was at your office and gave you the details of what the RCMP public complaints commission said about my request for review of my complaint against an RCMP officer. So please see attached for the RCMP public complaints commision decision letter. I their decision letter they said that my request for review could not be reviewed. I have looked through the RCMP act and cannot find where it says that some complaints cannot be reviewed. It says complaints can be reviewed it does not say that only some complaints can be reviewed. I wrote to the commission and asked where it says that some complaints cannot be reviewed. But they did not respond back.

Is MP Matthew Greens Hamilton office going to write to the commission or is the Ottawa office going to write to the commission?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of September 12, 2024,

231. Today I went down to MP Matthew Green’s office and talked to Trudy. She said that the Ottawa office is waiting on a reply from the RCMP complaints Commission as to who they should write to at the Commission about my complaint. I then said that the Commission’s decision letter has a name at the bottum of it.And the decision letter is in an attachment with the emails that I have been sending. Trudy then said that she is not getting the attachments that I am sending. So, I then went back home and printed up a copy of the decision letter and then dropped it off at her office.

I have also began forwarding the emails that I sent to the chair person Michelaine Lahia of the RCMP Complaints Commission at the Commission to Trudy.

Update of October 01, 2024,

232. Today I went to my MP Matthew Green’s office and asked for an update on my case. Trudy said that they still have not heard back from the RCMP Complaints Commisssion. She said they will contact them again.

Update of October 22, 2024,

233. Today I went to my MP Matthew Green’s office and asked for an update on my case. Trudy said they still have not heard back from the Commission. She thinks that they have closed their file on my case. She then said they will hire the MP in the Ottawa area to write to the Commission. I then asked her will Matthew bring this up in the house of commons. She said she will see what she can do.

Update of November 07, 2024,

234. Today I went to MP Matthew Green’s office and asked Trudy if she has talked to Matthew about him bring up my case in the house of commons. She said she has not talk to him all month long but she is having a zoom meeting with him on Tuesday. I then said I will come back on Friday.

Update of November 15, 2024,

235. Today I went to MP Matthew Green’s office. Trudy said Matthew is looking into it. And will be in Ottawa next week. I then said I will come back in two weeks.

If you are going to protest because of the stuff you see in this site the protests must be peaceful!!!

Home page    page two

Donate to Injustice in Ontario

If you have facebook or other social media please go on it and talk about this website. Hopefully if enough people see my website and complain to the government about the corruption the government will do something about it.

Chief of Police in Hamilton fbergen@hamiltonpolice.on.ca

Chief of police in Toronto officeofthechief@torontopolice.on.ca

Attorney General of Ontario Doug.Downey@ontario.ca

attorneygeneral@ontario.ca Toll-free 1 800 518 7901

premier@ontario.ca Phone 416-325-1941

Trudy at Matthew Green’s office trudy.morris.435@parl.gc.ca

Sarah Jama SJama-CO@ndp.on.ca

The Hamilton spectator News Desk 905-526-3420 news@thespec.com

Global Toronto News Tips: newstips@globaltv.com 416-446-5460

Toronto star 1-800-331-8127 or e-mail us at newstips@thestar.ca.

Citynews on Citytv (416) 599-2489

CTV News dotcom@bellmedia.ca (416) 384-5000

CBC news Toll-free (Canada only): 1-866-306-4636

Toronto sun Toll-free:1-800-668-0786

Call and email CHCH news in Hamilton Phone: (905)522-1101 Hours: 8:30 AM – 5:30 PM Monday – Friday and other news media and complain about them not doing news stories about police and lawyer complaints being covered up. contact@chch.com

Because if it is in the news then there will be a big enough public outcry that something will be done about the corruption.

If you have any ideas on what to do to stop the cover-ups or get this in the news. Please email me. rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca

© Copyright Robert Burgiss 2024

Scroll to Top