The Fight to Stop Gregg Harney Continues at the British Columbia Court of Appeal

Korea Watches Canada

Welcome to Our Korean Readers 

 

We wish to welcome and thank our many Korean readers for their ongoing readership over these past few months. We are well aware of how the law firm of Shields Harney allegedly misrepresented a Korean businessman and his family who migrated to Canada, invested his life savings and saw those life savings stolen by crooks criminals and gangsters using the Vancouver courthouse to carry out their crimes. That case cannot be discussed here at this time without permission from the family involved.  

 

All Koreans and other persons thinking of migrating to Canada risk losing all their assets to the gangsters that operate with impunity in Canada's legal system. 

 

We hope that our efforts in publishing this blog and our other legal and judicial blogs will assist to clean out the criminals and gangsters that have infected Canada's court system so that Canada will become a safe place to invest and live in not only for immigrants but for long time Canadian residents also.

If you are reading this in Korea you can help by circulating this information.

Thank you.  고맙습니다

 

Back At The Court of Appeal

 

Back at the Court of Appeal in the nasty case of Gregg Harney against Jack English and his family the decision of the Court of Appeal will likely not be released for a few months. 

Several weeks ago, the Court of Appeal requested additional submissions on the issue of the application of the "clean hands doctrine" to the claim by Shields Harney that they are entitled to a big fee on the basis of the equitable principle of quantum meruit. 

 

In Canada, as in most countries with a British based legal system, there are two systems of law, common law and equity. These two systems were once administered by separate courts but, in Canada and in much of what was once the British Empire, the two court systems were merged in the mid-19th century.

Simply put, equity was devised to provide relief in cases where the old common law was unfair. 

 

In the case of Shields and Harney v. Jack English and his family, Mr. Harney is claiming he is entitled to a fee because he did some work, that work had value and even, if he had no contract with Jack English about how much he would be paid, it would be unfair for Jack English and his family to get the benefit of that value and for him to remain unpaid based on the equitable principle of quantum meruit  which, simply put means, that he should be entitled to a reasonable sum of money to be paid for services rendered or work done when the amount due is not stipulated in a legally enforceable contract.

However, there are rules of equity that apply when one is asking the court for an equitable remedy such as entitlement under the principle of quantum meruit and one of those rules is then he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, hence the phrase, the "clean hands doctrine".  Simply put, this means that the court must not grant an equitable remedy where the conduct of the party seeking the  remedy has been cruel, harsh, unjust, unfair, fraudulent, dishonest or otherwise characterized by moral turpitude.

So, the Court of Appeal requested additional submissions from Mr. English on whether or not the clean hands doctrine would disentitle Mr. Harney and the law firm of Shields Harney to any fee whatsoever.

Mr. English submitted his submissions on February 18, 2016 and Mr. Harney is required to file his reply submission by March 3, 2016.

The decisions of the Court of Appeal is expected a few months after that.

The Editors hope to be able to post the submissions of Jack English and Gregg Harney in the coming weeks.