As a publisher of articles which at times dig deep into the depths of deceit and dishonesty it is not surprising that there will be those who wish to silence such endeavours. What Mayorgate has faced at the hands of Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP on behalf of her clients, the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home, has hit new heights of the absurd.
I will not revisit all the actions of Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. I will not raise again the details of illegal documents used by a lawyer, gained in breach of legislation and law, only to be used as a weapon of threat. I will not comment on quotations used by this young lawyer where whole sentences were omitted and only a few chosen words were selected, as part of her evidence. I will not discuss further the cowardly attack on an innocent individual defaming her reputation. All of this has been done under the Rules of Civil Procedure, Courts of Justice Act, RCP-E18A (July 1, 2007) Statement of Defence.
A Statement of Defence had been filed and registered at the Robert S. K. Welch Courthouse in St. Catharines on April 7th 2014. As per procedures outlined in the Rules of Civil Procedures, a copy had been delivered on the day to Rachel Slingerland's attention at the offices of Martens Lingard LLP on Church Street. This document is some 51 pages in depth, and the official Statement of Defence has 32 individual numbered points. A full copy of the document is attached to this article, as nothing is kept secret with Mayorgate.
The rules of procedure under the Courts of Justice Act require that a Statement of Defence is filed within 20 days of being served with a statement of Claim by the plaintiff. It clearly states in bold print that, “If you fail to defend this proceeding, judgement may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.” Yet once the Statement of Defence is filed and registered, the plaintiff has up to two years to sit on their hands before deciding to continue with the threats served. It has been more than seven days without a sound from Rachel Slingerland.
My statement which I registered at the courthouse following all the rules is divided between three main points. First, the defamation of artist Alexandra Davidoff will be dealt with in the most serious manner. No part of the accusations by Rachel Slingerland on behalf of her clients the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home are based in fact or truth.
Second, timelines are an important part of law, whether or not one agrees with them or not. Slingerland's Statement of Claim had its demands of compliance within a number of days or else. As a lawyer Slingerland is expected to understand these time requirements, although apparently that is a presumption that should not be made.
A Notice of Action was dated February 27th 2014 and signed by Rachel Slingerland. In this notice Slingerland refers to the Mayorgate post dated January 15th 2014, and of the YouTube video of the same date. Nowhere in her notice of action is it made clear when any of the Board of Directors became aware of the article other than the date of the article and Slingerland's dated letter.
According to the Libel and Slander Act under Section 5(1) it states clearly that no action lies unless notice is provided within six weeks that the alleged libel came to the attention of the plaintiff. Maybe Slingerland can claim that it is implied that the date of her letter should be taken as the date for countdown, but that would be too ludicrous even for Slingerland. She can claim that she made an error not to clearly state the date, but that would be too childish. In one example of case law provided Siddiqui vs. Canadian Broadcasting Corp (2000), 50 O.R. (301) 607 at paragraph 10 it states “That failure to comply with the requirements in S5(1) constitutes an absolute bar, not a mere irregularity.” What that means is that excuses to cover ignorance do not work.
Using quotes is something that Slingerland does badly, or maybe it is quite intentional. In Slingerland's Statement of Claim paragraph 23, she decides that 90% of a paragraph was not necessary to quote. Instead Slingerland takes only 17 words, puts dot, dot, dot between them, and voila she had made her point. The paragraph published in the Mayorgate article had a total of 86 words. In Slingerland's paragraph 23(a) this is all she wrote and attributed to Mayorgate and to me, “By-laws... and all those safeguards that have been put in place... have been disregarded and abused.”
This is the paragraph as published in the Mayorgate article. “The Paderewski Society Home is operated as a non-profit entity with a definitive set of By-Laws and a Board of Directors elected annually. There are set policies relating to Conflict of Interest, Privacy of Information, Fraud Prevention, Purchasing and Tendering, and more. Its by-laws provide a clear guideline to the operation and management of the Home for the continuing benefit of all. Yet those safeguards that have been put in place to create harmony and mutual respect have been disregarded and abused.”
In Slingerland's paragraph 23(b) she quotes me again, “No one at Martens Lingard has explained the full facts surrounding the Annual General Meeting of July 24 2013, nor have they explained any of the abuse or intimidation.”
Here Slingerland does take my sentence in full, but she omits one major point. I had published copies of the letters signed by one Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. Anyone reading those letters would indeed see that no explanation was given.
Why did Slingerland select less than one fifth of the words that I wrote to display as a quote? Why did Slingerland then decide to quote my words relating to a letter by her and yet not state that I had in fact published a copy of the actual letter? Is deceit not malicious, and is it not an intended falsehood? Why did Slingerland select 17 words out of 86? Was it to create deception? This was not a single attempt at ploughing the verbal field by Rachel Slingerland.
In her paragraph 29(c) Slingerland uses 36 words with the dot, dot, dot in between. My paragraph as published had 112 words without the dot, dot, dot. At least this time Slingerland had a better ratio than in her paragraph 23. Once again Slingerland omits the fact that I had published copies of not one but two letters of the period, both signed by Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. Not only had I published copies of letters from Martens Lingard LLP but also copied and published two letters from Niagara Regional Housing.
Speaking of letters and Slingerland's Statement of Claim, one major point begins to jump up and down demanding attention. As publisher of Mayorgate and a journalist, (or if you are sensitive and prefer citizen journalist), I have dealt with the conflicting issue of honesty and lawyers on more than one occasion. I must add that it is as much of a conundrum as the eternal question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. No answer is right and no answer is wrong.
Lawyers play that egg game without stop, only their mantra and never ending chant is “in the best interest of the client.” Slingerland in her original notice of action had two points of attack, of accusation. One was my Mayorgate article and video interview of Leo Skorski and the second, a letter I wrote to the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA). Slingerland broke the law regarding this issue and in the end there are consequences that she cannot escape.
My Statement of Defence makes it clear that legislation and law had been breached willingly and knowingly by lawyer Rachel Slingerland. Any communication I had with the RHRA is confidential. The RHRA had contacted Niagara Regional Housing (NRH), providing details of my letter and my confidential information. An investigation by RHRA confirmed that they had made an error releasing my confidential details to NRH, and this was set out in writing.
A member of NRH's staff provided either directly to a private lawyer, Rachel Slingerland, or through a third party information protected by legislation and law. I notified both Slingerland and two senior partners, Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard of the breach of law committed by Slingerland. Upon receiving the statement of claim all mention of the details of my letter to RHRA had been omitted.
Since the RHRA's internal investigation, NRH had dumped a senior staff member. True NRH will claim it had nothing to do with this situation, after all it is a part of the Regional Government of Niagara, and truth is a key in all their operations.
Simply removing all the details from the statement of claim does not make anything go away. Slingerland made a decision, when she used illegal documentation and or information, to break the law and as a lawyer she has no excuses. This time the mantra of what is in the best interest of her client will not shelter her.
It is the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home through their lawyer Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP who accused me of making statements that I knew to be false. This Board of Directors attacked and defamed an innocent individual to try and add pressure to their intimidation. Through their lawyer this Board of Directors has claimed that I acted in anger and had intended to be malicious. Now it is the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home, as named individually who will face the consequences:
S. GLOWACKI (DIRECTOR)
K. URYAZ (DIRECTOR)
W. GROBELNY (DIRECTOR)
C. ZAWADSKI (DIRECTOR)
J. KUBICA (DIRECTOR)
V. NAWROT (DIRECTOR)
K. GLOWACZ (DIRECTOR)
F. BARNOWSKI (DIRECTOR)
S. CIELSIA (DIRECTOR)
W. SOCHA (DIRECTOR)
T. SOTOLS (DIRECTOR)
Rev. A GZEMPA (DIRECTOR)
Polish Combatants a. Designated Representative, S. MAJERSKI
Royal Canadian Legion Polish Veteran's Branch #418 a. Designated Representative,
Y. GLOWACKI BROWN
Canadian Polish Society a. Designated Representative, W. GROBELNY
I am Mayorgate, and Mayorgate will not run from any threat or any act of harassment. Facts and truth are not what many want in public, but Mayorgate will continue to do as it has done from its inception. Mayorgate will not bow its head to anyone! It is time for an open court, and it is time for lawyer Slingerland to answer some hard questions.
(click to enlarge)