Lorne Honickman, Toronto lawyer engaged in shady behaviour when he represented a male client of his that emotionally abused a women. She had posted how she was treated by this man, just that he lied, was dishonest and used her, and he brought a defamation claim against her.
She alleges that the matter started out unjustly, where he engaged in unethical malpractice by lying about the man’s engagement with the men, and using inadmissible evidence, (her false unrelated harassment charges), as evidence.
I believe I was prejudiced in this case because I was a self-represented litigant and therefore, did not know that criminal charges were inadmissible evidence, since it is only an officer’s opinion and not related to Michael. I will check with the court for dates and get back to you.
Every lawyer knows that judges generally don’t admit criminal charges as admissible evidence for the reasons stated above.
The girl was prejudiced in this case because it was her first case she had ever done and therefore, did not know that criminal charges were inadmissible evidence, since it is only an officer’s opinion and not related to Michael. Lorne Honickman, took advantage of her being a self-represented litigant in her first ever matter. Judges generally don’t admit criminal charges as evidence for the reasons stated above, as it’s not fair to people. The only time it’s relevant and admissible is if its repeated convictions for fraud based charges, to show a lack of credibility in the court or else directly related to the plaintiff, where the plaintiff is suing for that charge ie a s*x assault, or if its a charge relating to that specific plaintiff and it still bears no heavy proof of wrong doing on the defendant’s part, but may be argued in the trial only because they are relevant to the context of the relationship.
The girl asked Lorne to remove; “Ms. Naraine’s conduct has led to criminal charges” or that she would strike it and request that they not use any bail conditions or mention of charges in the trial records or any further materials brought before the court.
Her personal conduct has not led to her criminal charges. Defamation is not harassment. The unrelated complainants deleted deleted many texts and failed to disclose anonymously emailing Jade, which led to her contact, to try to get them to stop, which they then misled the police to take as harassment. Further, the harassment from 2016 would be set aside due to ineffectiveness of counsel. All subsequent breaches were also false. Nothing she had done had led to criminal charges for Michael.
Justice Lederer did not feel to dismiss the motion for injunction for another man he was representing, but instead, granted a two way, no posting or communication order, because he felt that Andrei did not have clean hands and was responsible for harm. Michael also did not have clean hands, but Lorne Honickm provided misleading information to Justice Nishikawa about the men not meeting, claiming that they don’t know eachother and just happened to find the same law firm. That particular judge wasn’t as experienced as Lederer. Lederer didn’t buy what Lorne was saying, but Justice Nishikawa did. Lorne eventually admitted to Justice Lederer, that the men did know each other and were in communication and therefore, the online defamation together as a group effort, and not just by one man. Lorne mostly confused Justice Nishikawa with all of her charges. There was no recourse, so the only way to prevent further similar situations from happening, where litigants are taken advantage of, is by posting this. For the evidence, all you have to do is order a transcript from Justice Nishikawa’s hearing and Justice Lederer’s. You will see how he manipulated Justice Nishikawa, and got run over by Lederer, who didn’t believe anything he said.