VIS CV-22-89804_EOMO-01_Gonen Snir_Defence

Filed/Served: Fresh A-A Statement of Claim CV-22-89804

Online Version: Fresh A-A Statement of Claim

work-in-progress > Books of Documents: #1 #2 #3 #4

(back to court-enabled fraud as this Civil Action progresses)

ONTARIO

SNIR’s STATEMENT OF DEFENSE

b e t w e e n

Deirdre Moore (plaintiff)

and

Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP (defendant)

Snir Law Office (defendant)

Para #	Statement	Type of error, omission &/or malicious obfuscation

001	The defendant, Snir Law Office (“Snir”), denies all allegations made against Gonen Snir and Snir Law Office in the fresh as amended statement of claim save as expressly admitted herein, and denies that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief claimed therein or otherwise.	Ridiculous. How can he deny paras. (insert para numbers) when the evidence is posted right beside the allegation?
	Child Protection Proceedings
002	Snir Law Office is the business name of the law firm of Gonen Snir, a lawyer licenced by the Law Society of Ontario. Mr. Snir acted for the plaintiff for a limited time as set out herein.	Malicious Obfuscation. Snir “*acted” for the plaintiff (“Moore”) as he served* the best interests of her estranged husband John Kiska (“Kiska”).
003	At the time of Mr. Snir’s retainer, the plaintiff and her former husband were involved in child protection proceedings brought by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”) under the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (the “CYFSA”), concerning their two children. They were also embroiled in matrimonial proceedings under the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp) and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.	Malicious Obfuscation. Snir was provided with the evidence of their illegal 20190201 child abduction as well as the numerous false affidavits that were used to illegally rip Moore from the lives of her children, Sean Kiska and Cate Kiska (“Sean & Cate”). False. The Divorce Act was circumvented by Kiska’s multiple accomplices* who utilized the Family Law Rules section of the Courts of Justice Act to deny Moore and Sean & Cate any protection from the multiple forms of abuse that Kiska had been dishing out for years. *Including, but not limited to: Wade Smith, Tracy Engelking and Julie Audet
004	On or about February 6, 2019, Justice Parfett made a temporary order placing the children under the care of their father subject to the terms of a temporary supervision order. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer was ordered to provide independent legal counsel to both children.	Malicious Obfuscation. Snir was made aware that this order was illegally obtained and unlawful as it sub-delegated minimum access to the CAS. Malicious Obfuscation. Snir was made aware that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) fully ignored the results of its own four-month investigation that resulted in a 2018 recommendation that Moore be awarded sole custody of Sean & Cate … to their utter demise.
005	On or about April 8, 2019, Justice Macleod made a final order finding the children in need of protection, pursuant to section 74 of the CYFSA. Justice MacLeod ordered that the children remain with their father under the terms of a supervision order. Justice MacLeod also granted a restraining order against the plaintiff.	Malicious Obfuscation. Snir was well aware that these orders were also illegally-obtained: no court documents were properly served or filed as Moore was being illegally-detained by Dr. Paule Kemgni while her 3-bedroom was being emptied via an Eviction Scam without her knowledge (so that she could later be declared “homeless” for Kiska’s benefit.)
006	Mr. Snir had no involvement in the above events.	Malicious Obfuscation. Snir was made well aware of the illegality of the orders described at his paras. 003 – 006 *prior* to being retained and assured Moore that he “was the best” at combatting the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“CAS”); as did his accomplice/co-defendant, Joseph Addelman (“Addelman”).
	Snir’s Retainer
007	On or about November 19, 2019, the plaintiff retained Mr. Snir pursuant to a written retainer agreement to represent her in the ongoing matrimonial and child protection proceedings. The retainer agreement contained a term that the retainer did not commence until the plaintiff provided at her own expense a $250,000 mortgage to Mr. Snir as she otherwise had no funds available to pay for Mr. Snir’s retainer.	True. Malicious Obfuscation. The retainer agreement included many other scandalous, if not illegal, terms as evidenced at para. X of online *Fresh* Claim.
008	At the time of Mr. Snir’s retainer, the plaintiff was subject to an order restraining her from contacting her former husband or the children.	Redundant. This was already addressed at para. 005 rebuttal above.
009	At the time of Mr. Snir’s retainer, the plaintiff denied all allegations of mental challenges being made against her in the proceedings and she agreed to the terms of Mr. Snir’s retainer voluntarily and without duress.	Malicious Obfuscation. Moore denied all allegations of mental challenges made against her and continues to deny them; as does anyone from her support system including, but not limited to, Dr. Iris Jackson, Jessica Poloz, Catherine Sullivan and FName LNAme. Snir was made well aware of Kiska’s psychiatric abuse that facilitated a label of mental illness as he was provided with the continuing record for FC-15-2446 which contained her 2017 Factum and Affidavit that assisted in her winning a precedent-setting motion to seek damages for crimes and torts in a family court setting. (See Summer’s decision … link to CanLII.org) False. Without access to her corporate savings and with CAS breathing down her neck with a malicious Summary Judgment Motion that was scheduled while Moore was illegally detained following criminal acts of Kiska (false criminal allegations/conspiracy to prosecute) and some of his other accomplices, Moore had no choice but to retain Snir. Including, but not limited to ….
010	On December 19, 2019, Mr. Snir appeared as counsel of record for the plaintiff in response to a motion for production of records brought by the Society, in a decision reported at Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. D.M., 2019 ONSC 7509 (CanLII).	Malicious Obfuscation. Snir neglected to file the Motion for which Moore had provided a commissioned, evidence-laden Affidavit and then lost a motion which should have been easily won: one which resulted in documented-abuser Kiska obtaining all of her personal medical files.
011	The relationship between the plaintiff and Mr. Snir broke down thereafter. The plaintiff made it impossible for Mr. Snir to represent her as she refused to accept his advice, provided him with unreasonable directions, and made unfounded allegations against him. On March 11, 2020, Mr. Snir requested that the plaintiff agree to end his retainer. The plaintiff refused to do so.	Malicious Obfuscation. Snir refused to bring any motions on her behalf, advised Moore to “give Kiska sole custody because he has it anyways” and stated that she “would do a better job” if she represented herself. Then, he asked to be removed from both files which would have triggered his illegal “automatic lump sum payment” of $60,000 for being removed from the file.
012	On or about August 27, 2020, Justice M. Smith made an Order removing Mr. Snir as the plaintiffs lawyer of record in the child protection proceedings and in the matrimonial proceedings.	Malicious Obfuscation. The orders were illegally-obtained in family court via a temporary Motion that violated multiple laws.
013	The plaintiff represented herself thereafter.	False. The following month, *another* of Kiska’s accomplices, Malcolm Savage (“Savage”) orchestrated her re-arrest shortly before the Summary Judgment Motion was to be heard; accordingly, she was again forced to hire another [insert noun of choice], Cedric Nahum (“Nahum”) to represent her against the CAS as she was confined to a jail cell for another three weeks due to quarantine and shenanigans by Mike Boyce (“Boyce”).
	Summary Judgment Motion
014	The Society was granted leave to bring a summary judgment motion in the child protection proceedings and sought a custody order of the children. The father consented to the Society’s motion and brought his own motion for an order that the plaintiff be restrained from approaching and communicating with the children.	Malicious Obfuscation. The CAS was illegally granted leave to both schedule a trial and a Summary Judgment Motion (“SJM”) against Moore (despite all evidence against Kiska contained in the 2015-2020 family court continuing record and OCL’s 2018 report) by ex-CAS employee and Kiska accomplice, Justice Tracy Engelking. Well, duh. Of course he did. Kiska was “going for the jugular“, remember? The entire process was illegal: two individuals involved in a toxic divorce cannot be a “Respondent”. Plus, the Divorce Act has federal paramountcy for the CAS’s pithy, child-abusing CYFSA. Any two-bit lawyer would have known this … & so did Snir.
015	On December 11, 2020, on the review hearing of the custody and restraining orders (granted some 20 months earlier by Justice Macleod in April 2019), Justice Fraser granted the motions brought by the Society and the father for the relief they respectively requested.	Malicious Obfuscation. Moore was released from her orchestrated arrest merely three weeks before her materials were due and *without* her computers, files or luggage as Kiska’s accomplices at the Ottawa Police Services Board (“OPSB”) refused to transport them when they arranged for her re-arrest in St. Catherine’s and her eventual transport back to Ottawa. Kiska’s Motion: illegally “piggy-backed” that of the CAS’s illegal motion, relied on a false affidavit that contained defamatory libel and was served *after* Moore’s response would have been due and was heard when Moore had little time left to prepare commissioned documents … during COV-19 reduced hours. Mary Fraser granted the motions by giving substantial weight to the CAS’s and Kiska’s evidenced lies and zero weight to Moore’s corroborated evidence of severe domestic violence and child abuse by Kiska. She is just as guilty of #TDVCA as all other judges listed in Column E, Row 2 of the Ottawa Swimlanes. (Note that the posting of my evidence against Mary Fraser has been criminalized; however, I will be presenting it as evidence at some point during this Civil Action or its Appeal or its Request for Leave to Appeal. It is currently stored at www.twb.rocks under password protection)
016	Justice Fraser concluded that the children continued to be in need of protection and granted summary judgment ordering that the children be placed in custody of their father pursuant to section 102 of the CYFSA, with the ancillary relief of a restraining order and an access order, with access in the discretion of the father. The Ontario Children’s Lawyer representing the children, supported the order as being in the best interests of the children and consistent with their views and preferences.	Malicious Obfuscation. Mary Fraser is just another crooked judge as was evidenced in Moore’s appeal documents, a list of which is available at Book of Documents #1. Malicious Obfuscation. The OCL are just as complicit as the CAS as is evidenced in Moore’s appeal documents, a list of which is available at Book of Documents #1.
	Divisional Court Appeal
017	The plaintiff appealed the decision of Fraser J. to the Divisional Court and was granted leave to file fresh evidence.	It was Mary Fraser, but otherwise … true. The three-panel judge ignored all of Moore’s fresh evidence as well; thus, incriminating yet another three SCJ judges.
018	On December 20, 2021, the Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal in the child protection proceeding in a decision reported at D.M v. The Children ‘s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2021 ONSC 8360 (CanLII) (the “Decision”).
019	As a ground of appeal, the plaintiff alleged that she had received ineffective assistance of counsel from Mr. Snir. The Divisional Court considered and rejected this ground of appeal, finding that there was no miscarriage of justice in the run up to the summary judgment motion in which the plaintiff represented herself, that there was no identifiable incompetence, and that there was no reasonable possibility that Justice Fraser’s decision could have been different.	False. The allegation of mis-representation was against Nahum, who was equally as deceptive an “actor” in the cesspool that is 161 Elgin Street. The criminality of this 3-judge panel was noted at para 017 rebuttal above. Regardless, if Moore had had a legitimate lawyer in December 2019 when Snir was retained, there never would have *been* any SJM. (Hence, this Civil Action.)
	No Liability for the Plaintiff’s Claims
020	Mr. Snir and Snir Law Office deny all allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional suffering, malice and all other claims made by the plaintiff. In the alternative, even if Mr. Snir provided legal services which in any way, whatsoever, fell below the standard of care to which his action were subject in law, which is not admitted but specifically denied, no error or omission on his part was in any way causative of any damages incurred by the plaintiff.	LOL LOL
021	Snir Law Office denies that the plaintiff has suffered any losses or damages, as alleged or at all, or that were caused or contributed to by any act or omission on Mr. Snir’s part.	LOL
022	In the further alternative, if the plaintiff has suffered any losses or damages, which are not admitted but expressly denied, such losses or damages were caused or contributed to by the plaintiffs own negligence and conduct including that outlined in the Decision. Snir Law Firm pleads and relies upon the provisions of the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1, as amended.	LOL LOL
023	Snir Law Office denies all allegations of defamation made against Mr. Snir in the statement of claim. The statement of claim fails to plead the requirements for defamation.	Perhaps, an amendment is required to address this deficiency.
024	Further, Snir Law Office denies all allegations of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional suffering and/or malice. Mr. Snir’s conduct did not intentionally or negligently cause or prolong any suffering and mental distress.	LOL LOL
025	The within action against Mr. Snir and his law firm is a collateral attack on the appeal Decision of the Divisional Court, is untenable, frivolous, vexatious, and is an abuse of process.	LOL
026	Alternatively, the plaintiffs claims against Snir Law Firm are statute-barred pursuant to the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, as amended.	Wrong again, Snir.
027	In any event, the damages claimed by the plaintiff are excessive, exaggerated, speculative, unforeseeable, remote, unmitigated, and/or otherwise unrecoverable at law.	False. You should also be behind bars and forbidden from practicing #TDVCA ever again.
028	Snir Law Office asks that this action be dismissed with costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis as a result of the baseless allegations pleaded against Mr. Snir.	Of course you do. All shysters do.