Part 6: The Nightmare in Belleville, Ontario

More on the Corrupt Belleville Individuals I’m up Against

Part 1: How a City, Its Insurer, and Law Firm Stole My Life
Part 2: Meet the Property They Are Stealing
Part 3: City of Belleville Dismisses 120 Years of Lawful Use
Part 4: Ever-Changing and Contradictory Statements by the City
Part 5: Meet the Corrupt Belleville Individuals I’m up Against

Thank you for following my story this far.

Now, let me introduce the individuals whose actions have benefited the City against me, prejudicing me every step of the way these past 15 years:

UNETHICAL JUDGE CHARLES T. HACKLAND

Judge Charles T. Hackland, a supernumerary (retired, part-time) judge based in Ottawa, Ontario was abruptly inserted into my 15-year legal battle—after the original trial judge, Justice O’Bonsawin, was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada.

With no prior involvement in the case, Hackland was parachuted in from over 200 km away to hear the Final Oral Submissions and to render the Decision in Phase 1 Trial for a Declaration that the property was a legal non-conforming semi-detached with 4 apartments.

He made his bias clear from the start.

During the January 29, 2022, Case Management Conference, he openly admitted he didn’t want to read the file and hoped for a settlement so he wouldn’t have to rule. This is not justice. This is abandonment of duty.

When my lawyer informed Hackland that the court recording of my Forensic Structural Engineer’s testimony was unusable—rendering a transcript impossible—Hackland refused to order a re-hearing. No re-testimony. No cross-examination. No record. The most critical expert evidence in the case was erased, and he let it stand.

Without a transcript, appeal is impossible. And that appears to have been the point.

Hackland ignored the fact that bifurcation was forced on me without my consent, despite clear case law requiring it. Even he expressed disbelief that corrupt Judge Kershman allowed it—yet he refused to correct the injustice.

Transcript: J Kershman re bifurcation decision Jan 31_ 2020

Jan 31 2020 Judge Kershman - Endorsement re Bifurcation January 31, 2020

The Ottawa Men’s Centre has documented a pattern with Hackland:

“Although he has only been a judge about 6 years, he has attracted a string of complaints from litigants for the usual reasons of making biased decisions. He is not known for having an open mind…”

His actions in my case fit that pattern perfectly.

By refusing to ensure a fair process—by dismissing the need for proper recordings, by ignoring procedural illegality—Hackland didn’t just fail me. He enabled the theft of my property, the silencing of my voice, and the continuation of 15 years of abuse by the City of Belleville and Intact Public Entities.

He didn’t uphold the law. He buried it.

Below is a headshot of Judge Charles T. Hackland who was appointed a Judge in Ontario in 2003, then retired in 2014 to become supernumerary.

I understand that because I was deprived of a transcript and proper recording of the expert testimony, I had every right to a full retrial. Judge Hackland said ‘no way’, and as I could not pay my lawyer to demand a second Phase 1 trial, I was made to do without a pivotal transcript.

Note that the Court will not provide the parties with the Case Conference recordings, so the best I could do was take hand-written notes.

JUDGE HACKLAND & THE SHAM OF BIFURCATION

On January 20, 2023, during a Case Management Conference, Justice Charles T. Hackland openly questioned the legitimacy of the bifurcated trial thrust upon me by corrupt Judge Kershman:

“But I wanted to know, why is this bifurcated? I didn’t think that you could bifurcate? Wasn’t it a contested bifurcation? There’s no such thing, is there?”

The City’s lawyer, Catherine Temple, admitted:

“The law has changed since then… I wouldn’t have gotten it today.”

Even she acknowledged the process was wrong—forced without my consent, in direct conflict with Ontario law. The law didn’t change…it was reaffirmed. The Court of Appeal has ruled clearly: bifurcation requires mutual consent, not judicial convenience.

Yet, despite knowing this, Hackland refused to correct the injustice. He chose to let it stand.

He called the flawed structure “a good idea,” and that they could all just agree to it then and there, ignoring that it was designed to:

• Silence my evidence

• Block critical expert testimony

• Double my legal costs

• Split my case into two trials, not one

And the truth? Temple lied to get the bifurcation approved. She claimed different witnesses would testify in each phase. But now, she admits: the same city “experts” will appear in both. That’s fraud on the court, don’t you think?

Worse, Judge Kershman had prohibited me from submitting my forensic structural engineer’s report after the splitting of the trial in January 2020. Then, when the trial was adjourned and there was lots of time to get it in without inconveniencing or prejudicing the City, he allowed it only after my new lawyer fought for it. Fighting for any justice is always a cost of thousands of dollars. The damage was already done. [Here is the December 17, 2020 Endorsement of Judge Kershman allowing structural engineer report.]

Kershman had ordered that the Phase 1 trial to establish exactly how the building was structured when built in 1906, but as you will learn it was quickly hijacked by the City lawyer and city expert witness to be about reviving withdrawn allegations of building code violations and calling my forensic structural engineer’s professionalism into question. [Here is the March 20^th, 2020 endorsement prohibiting further expert reports.]

Hackland had two chances to restore fairness. He chose neither.

Instead, he protected a broken process, ensured my voice stayed suppressed, and paved the way for a verdict built on silence, erasure, and deception.

This wasn’t oversight. In my view, it was complicity.

During the Case Management Conference on January 20, 2023, Justice Hackland said roughly the following:

Judge Hackland:
… But I wanted to know, why is this bifurcated? I didn’t think that you could bifurcate? Wasn’t it a contested bifurcation? There’s no such thing, is there?

City /Intact Lawyer Catherine Temple:
… at the time I argued the motion, there was faint hope. The law has changed since then. I don’t think we’d get it today.

Judge:
Isn’t it the law that the Court of Appeal said you don’t bifurcate absent consent? Because that’s what the rule says?

Temple:
In the end of 2019 when I brought this motion there was case out of Durham, argued by David Boghossian, that opened it to non-jury matters bifurcated on motion. … kind of the law was in a state of flux. I would agree later, six months later or three months later, wouldn’t have done this…wouldn’t have gotten it.

Judge:
But that’s where we were then. Where does that leave us? Should the matter go forward? Because the Court of Appeal is clear. Do we proceed on a bifurcated trial when you can’t bifurcate? In the absence of consent.

Temple:
Well, of course, that’s a whole other issue, isn’t it? … thinks that was the order made at the time. We don’t go back and start opening up all orders from the past. The law changes constantly. If we go back to Meyer and Bright, I mean, what would poor Mrs. Meyer think when we look at how the thresholds evolved today? She wouldn’t be too – she’d wonder what she did wrong. I don’t see it as an issue. What’s done is done.

Judge:
The only question is, is it that? Is it what’s done is done, or is it where you unbifurcate and just say, we’ve heard the evidence on the declaratory issues, now let’s hear the ??? evidence, let’s hear the rest of it? I’m not advocating that because it wasn’t –the whole idea of bifurcating here sounds like a good one, actually, on its intrinsic merits, leaving aside the rule, because obviously if the declaratory relief was not granted, then there wouldn’t – it would seem to me there wouldn’t be a basis for the tort claim, but I haven’t investigated that at all. I don’t know. I guess they’re – what are the actions against municipal officials for the steps that they took for the – what they put a stop, or the building officials closed down the renovation, essentially, and so they were entitled to do that if the plaintiff’s position is not accepted as to her entitlement to have done that.

Temple:
That would end the tort claim, would it, maybe, in theory? One of the central issues on the tort claim, Your Honor, is whether there was construction taking place. Oh. And that the basis for the charges being laid is building without a permit.

Judge:
I see charges were laid, okay.

My lawyer Arkadi Bouchelev:
… they were subsequently withdrawn, so there is – I think a good portion of the tort claim is based on whether or not those charges should have been laid in the first place.

…On the issue of bifurcation, I wasn’t involved – I was retained after the bifurcation motion was heard. I think what happened was a short period where my client was self-represented, and she had a lawyer who helped her on a limited scope retainer just with the bifurcation motion…

I was surprised that it was bifurcated, given that it was contested. But, you know, ultimately that was the decision, whether or not we have to un-bifurcate and continue. It’s something I haven’t really given much thought. I’d have to speak to my client.

Judge:
Counsel, I would advocate the position that there’s some things we can agree on and then do. And the rule contemplates that. Something we ought to agree on, is leave the bifurcation in place because it’s actually a good idea here. And the rule says you can’t bifurcate except on consent, so it could be on consent. Because surely one wouldn’t want to have a trial about the tort claims in circumstances where the building officials are on the declare relief basis are found to have acted lawfully.

My lawyer Arkadi Bouchelev:
That would be my thought. On the other hand, they’re live claims if the plaintiff was acting lawfully.

THE FRAUD IN THE COURTROOM

During the Final Oral Submissions on May 2, 2023, City lawyer Catherine Temple stood before Judge Hackland and read from a piece of legislation—claiming a critical word was there: “lot.”

But it wasn’t. The law said “parcel.” Hackland nor anyone else for that matter heard her newly installed word ‘lot’.

She read the legislation provision again. Hackland heard nothing too.
No “lot.” No ambiguity. Just a lie.

Finally, Temple admitted: maybe the word wasn’t there.
But, she said, that was how she interpreted it.

You don’t get to invent words in a law, unless you are in Ontario, and particularly Belleville.

Normally you don’t get to conflate terms to twist reality.
And you certainly don’t get to do it in a courtroom—under oath, even if it is a Zoom courtroom.

This wasn’t confusion. It was deception, a clear attempt to defraud the court—and not the first time or last time.

And when my lawyer dismantled her false claim—showing that “lot,” “parcel,” and “piece of land” are not interchangeable—no one held her accountable.

My lawyer in his reply submissions dealt with Temple’s effort to conflate the terms ‘lot’ and ‘parcel’ and ‘piece of land’ so that she could falsely claim that even if there are multiple houses/residences on a parcel of land (semi-detached or townhouses), only one of the houses can have the extra apartments allowed by law:

Then she did it again.

In her Oral Submissions Temple claimed the Canadian Construction Law Dictionary defined “semi-detached” —and read from what she said was that source. It wasn’t.

My lawyer had to correct her: she was quoting an unrelated case decision, pretending it was an authoritative definition.

I checked. I searched the entire dictionary.
No definition of “semi-detached” exists in it that I could find.

And yet—no warning. No sanction. No rebuke from Judge Hackland. Just silence.

As if lies, once spoken in a courtroom, become fact simply because power allows them to stand.

Temple provided her expert a definition of “semi-detached”—a term that didn’t exist in 1906, when my building was built, which was the period the trial was supposed to focus.

And yet, they apply today’s rules to erase 120 years of history. And they manufactured definitions that don’t even exist today.

And Judge Hackland? Silent. Again.

But it didn’t stop there. Temple decided that the 2019 legislation that allows 3 units in each house/residence only applies to one house on a ‘lot’ no matter how many residences are on the ‘lot’. So, if there is a semi-detached (2 houses) or a series of townhouses, only one house/residence of them all would be able to have the extra apartment units.

So, my lawyer tried to point out the absurdity of that interpretation:

And when city expert, Allison Orr, slipped new claims into her testimony—never in her original report—my lawyer pointed this out, but Judge O’Bonsawin didn’t stop her, even though that’s against the rules. I am not supposed to be ambushed and be robbed of the chance to respond.

This wasn’t justice.

---

Thank you for taking the time to continue reading about my nightmare in Belleville.

NEXT: In Part 7, I will continue highlighting the characters who have played key roles in depriving me of all use of my property and depriving 4 families access to updated housing during a housing crisis, for the last 15 years.

You will no doubt ask in what free country could so many superior laws be so thoroughly dismissed by a municipality that has stolen a private property.

With Gratitude for your time,
Grace