top of page

The Honourable Marc R. Labrosse, was appointed a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Ottawa) in January 2014. Justice Labrosse received a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Ottawa in 1994 and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1996. He practiced with the Ottawa law firm of Vice & Hunter since 1996. The former office was located in 344 Frank St..


His honour's main practice areas were municipal law, civil litigation and corporate law.


On Nov 15, 2018, we contacted W. R. Hunter if they could represent Joe in his legal action against his attorneys. The firm refused because they were conflicted.


As Joy Overtveld's law firm was located at 327 Frank St, 60 meters from Vice and Hunter, we assumed that the client was Joy Overtveld. Her clients were real estate landlords issues which may have involved collaborations of  Marc Labrosse, who was practicing municipal law.  However, this is very difficult to confirm because of privacy laws and lawyer and client confidentiality rules without police support.  

The Judge's document below contained many inaccurate and misleading information extracted from the highly questionable affidavits of the adverse party. We have addressed these inaccuracies by inserting our counter arguments under "OBJECTIONS" and "COMMENTS" sub-titles to the block of paragraph(s) after each citation.

His Honour did not include evidence that was available to him which supported Joe's mental capacity.

CITATION: Overtveld v. Overtveld, 2023 ONSC 460

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-81051

DATE: 2023/01/25








and GARY KATZ, in their capacity as powers of attorney for property for Gilles Jozias Overtveld and JOY OVERTVELD and TODD OVERTVELD in their capacity as powers of attorney for personal care for Gilles Jozias Overtveld




– and –







Yasmin M. Vinograd and Meagan Jennings, for the Applicants

Miriam Vale Peters, for the Respondent Gilles Jozias Overtveld

Dalkeith Palmer and Latania Dyer for the Respondents Enrique M. Jurado and Rachida Youmouri

Nobody appearing for The Public Guardian and Trustee



HEARD: March 10 and 11, 2022




[1] Since 1977, Gilles Jozias Overtveld has operated a successful property  management company known as Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. (“Gi-Las”). Through that company, he acquired several properties that provided revenues from residential and commercial tenancies. The value of the Gi-Las portfolio of properties has been estimated, in parts of the evidentiary record, at approximately 20 million dollars, subject to some mortgage financing. Also, the value of Gilles’s personal investment portfolio was estimated at several million dollars in other parts of the record.


[2]  In 2011, Gilles Overtveld signed a continuing power of attorney naming his two children  and his accountant as attorneys for property. He also signed a power of attorney for personal care naming his children as attorneys for personal care.


Court evidence were presented that the Power of Attorney was created without his consent and coerced by his business accountant Mr. Gary Katz, CPA to protect his business. The accountant was one of the 3 beneficiaries of the POAs  that usually bears a conflict-of-interest inference.  Mr. Katz also told the donor, Gilles J. Overtveld that it is a standard document that he can revoke anytime. Gilles did not understand the power of the documents that he was signing.

In December 2018, Gilles challenged the validity of POAs on the basis of:

  • He was coerced and misled by what a Power of Attorney document is. He effectively signed all his rights on the stroke of signature executed in March 2011.

  • Under the SDA Act ’92 (Substitute and Decision Act) the POA documents should be witnessed in the PRESENCE of two witnesses who were never present when he signed it.

  • The POA documents were fraudulent witnessed by Mr. Chuck Rotenberg and his wife as they were present. The SDA requires that the Power of Attorney mus be signed by two witnesses present to be valid. Mr. Rotenberg is a lawyer who lost his license to practice in 2014 after pleading guilty to a breach of trust charge.

  • No copies of the POAs were given to Gilles. He only remembered of it’s existence after eight years later when they resurfaced following a dispute wuth his attorneys. The attorneys then  presented  copies of the documents to Ms. Natividad, who was<> GillesJ’ lawyer.

[3] In December 2016, Gilles authorized a share transfer whereby he transferred the controlling shares in Gi-Las to his children Joy and Todd Overtveld. Joy then assumed the role of managing Gi-Las’s properties in 2017.


Gilles' lawyer Mr. George Windsor and his wife have repeatedly ask for a copy of the share transfer document in court but this were never presented. Gilles was certain that they created without his authority. If it exists, it was most likely  created using the disputed 2011 POA for Property which would have exhibited confrontation against his interest.

[4]   On September 6, 2017, Leonard Burnstein, a capacity assessor, prepared a Letter of   Opinion following an assessment of Gilles and concluded that Gilles did not meet the minimum

standards necessary to manage property or to manage any domain of his personal care. Mr. Burnstein did not opine on Gilles’s capacity to grant or revoke a power of attorney.



  • Leonard Burnstein was a privately paid assessor who misled all of Gilles’ associates including the bank the Gilles has lost his mental capacity. Mr. Burstein is licensed to practice capacity assessment under the guidelines of the Ontario Capacity Assessment Office of the Attorney General.Mr. Burnstein did not follow any guidelines and presented an opinion resembling a official report. Gilles and his legal support provided all the evidence why Leonard Burnstein is one of the most unreliable assessor that we have encountered. Here are the reasons why.

  • Mr. Leonard Burnstein was presented to the court as Dr. Leonard Burnstein. This is a misrepresentation which he later admitted was a mistake as he does not have the academic qualification to deserve the professional “Doctor” title.

  • He admitted that he was paid only to provide a private opinion and he is not compelled to carry his assessment according to the rules of the AG office. This is contentious as the format of his report mentions his credentials to make his report creditable. He created a very destructive opinion of Gilles in less than 30 minutes of talking to him about the family trust and the CRA unrelated to any of the items that he reported on. His report was suspiciously written by someone else other than himself.

  • Mr. L. Burnstein did not introduce himself as an assessor, but made Gilles think that he is an employee of Logan and Katz Chartered Accountants, as he came with Mr. Katz during the short interview. He misrepresented himself.

  • When confronted about the reports in a cross-examination hearing, he said that his report is only a private opinion and that the materials were provided to him by the 2011 POA beneficiaries.

  • Gilles’ lawyer, Mr. George Windsor had experienced the impact of Leonard Burnstein opinion to one of his elderly clients. He describes him as a paid capacity assessment assassin. His client passed way before the case was resolved. The same fate repeated itself to the fate and death of Gilles Overtveld now.

  • Gilles’ legal support and wife believes the Leonard’s Burnstein report was used to seize all his assets from his bank.


In our opinion Mr. Leonard Burnstein license to kill or injure the victims should be revoked. We have interviewed and talk to many assessors licensed by the Ontario Capacity Office of the AG and some have told us in confidence that there is a problem with the current system that is besieged by undue influence and expected to provide an adverse opinion against the victim. It is now common for them to have the individual use a lawyer to go between for the contract to diminish the perception of conflict. There is no facility in Ontario to complain against the behavior of the licensed assessor except to the college where their training was held.


In January 30th, 2019 the Judge M. Labrosse opened the first Civil Court Management hearing with his earlier remark that he will not entertain the findings of the all assessors in the court because of conflicting findings. We were somewhat disappointed as we have spent almost $10,000 for a lawyer to provide us with an assessor who will interview Gilles without undue influence. We were then shocked that the judge’s judgement summary was mostly based on Leonard’s opinion that the findings of our assessor, Dr. Barbara Collins, who acted professionally and without prejudice, are insignificant.


[5] In the fall of 2018, Gilles was further assessed by Dr. Francine Sarazin, a designated  capacity assessor, and she concluded that he was incapable of managing his property and personal care in respect of his health and safety. She also concluded that Gilles did not have the capacity  to grant or revoke a power of attorney for property and that his capacity to grant or revoke a power of attorney for personal care was “borderline, at best.”



Again Dr. Francine Sarazin was contracted to provide official validity to Mr. Leonard Burnstein private opinion. She followed the guidelines of the Capacity Assessment Office, but her findings included the opinions of Mr.Leonard Burnstein disputed fake opinions.   


[6]   On November 2, 2018, Dr. Barbara Collins, a capacity assessor, assessed Gilles solely for his capacity to assign or revoke a power of attorney and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to overturn the presumption that Gilles was capable of assigning or revoking a power of attorney for property.



We found Dr. Barbara Collins the most professional of all the assessors that we interviewed. She ensured that she will not be subjected to undue influence by refusing to meet with any of us. She insisted that her service contract be prepared by a 3rd party lawyer. During the interview, Tito Jurado was allowed to assist Gilles  because of his disabilities of organizing the materials that are needed for the interview, for Gilles to be able to understand the value of his properties, a prerequisite of the process. As the materials needed were extensive, comprising of more than 100 units and 10 buildings, it is impossible for an ordinary person to keep the facts in their head without reference documents.  Tito Jurado was not allowed to coach Gilles or talk without being asked during the interview.  She was highly trained to perform an almost clinical analysis of the situation which reflected on her work.  After she completed her work, she refused to talk us until she submitted her findings to the lawyer who acted as an intermediary.  Unlike Dr. F. Sarazin, she refused any attempts to change any of her findings.

[7]  In November 2018, Gilles executed a new continuing power of attorney appointing his  friend Tito Jurado and his then lawyer Michael Rappaport as his attorneys for property. On December 18, 2018, Gilles executed a new power of attorney for personal care appointing his new wife Rachida Youmouri as his attorney for personal care. Several new wills were also drafted for him but not signed. The existing will leaves his estate to his two children, Joy and Todd. The draft wills either leave his estate to Joy, Todd and to the Respondent Ms. Youmouri or disinherited his children completely.



After Gilles got married again, he had to execute an new will as Ontario Law at that time invalidates the old will. The Judge even brought this up during the CCM hearing. However, extreme actions were exercised by the disputed 2011 POA beneficiaries to disrupt the process for Gilles to create a new will. This includes interring with his communication and privacy abilities, installing camera and control of his cell phone and email accounts. They examined his laptop to find any drafts of his will while he is asleep. They also brought out an action to annul his marriage to ensure that Gilles will not have any reason to make a new will because of the impact of missing funds that remained unaccounted. Gilles was making sure that he would be covering and equitable distribution of his assets and have requested to obtain a copy and review his old will, but it was nowhere to be found.

However, Gilles was able to make a new will on the 12th December 2018, properly signed, witnessed and notarized. However, this was done before his marriage on the 17th December 2018 and would have been invalidated by the Ontario Rule.  This rule also invalidates the previous will of Gilles. The Judge has provided  a contentious date that Gilles was mentally incapable as of 17th of September 2017 without the benefit of a medical professional. The judgement invalidates all the legal events that happened after that date, as if it never happened.  How can a Judge erase time?

[8]       Gilles met Ms. Youmouri in the Fall of 2018 and married her on December 17, 2018.

[9] Since December 2018, the parties to this Capacity Application have been embroiled in a number of different litigation files which all touch, in some part on the issue of Gilles’s capacity.

[10]   The Attorneys have commenced this application. They have applied to pass their accounts as attorneys for property and they have commenced a matrimonial proceeding to challenge Gilles’s marriage to Ms. Youmouri. Conversely, Gilles is purported to have commenced actions against the Attorneys for both the management of Gi-Las and his affairs. Much of this has been done through the Respondent Mr. Jurado with the help of others.


The passing of accounts is usually a procedure after the death of an individual. Gilles however welcome the results as everyone were confused of who is being paid, who are they working for and an accounting of where are his assets. Gilles' request for an audit was summarily denied. Mr. Jurado was there to help because of a business agreement that was signed and Gilles’ request for Mr. Jurado to fund him until his case is resolved.  Both parties completely underestimated the underlying issues of the case which they thought would be resolved if a few months after all the evidence were presented.

[11]  For the reasons set out herein, I conclude that as of September 6, 2017, Gilles was incapable of managing property and incapable of personal care. Further, as of November 6, 2018, he was incapable of granting or revoking a power of attorney. Decisions on his behalf should be made by the attorneys, appointed pursuant to the 2011 POAs.


There are two parts to managing property. One is to continue actively managing his Gi-Las realty management that was being operated by Bytown Management Realty and they were replaced by Joy Overtveld in 2016.  Gilles was only involved at reviewing the financial reports and played no active role in the day-to-day operation.  The second part is personal finances, where he was maintaining an investment portfolio with TD Wealth that was worth about $5M and was growing and trending successfully.

Yes, he has not managed his company directly, as he has a company that does that. His personal assets were being managed by TD Wealth until he got an alert letter dated July 2017 from TD that $1.45M was unaccounted for from 2016 to 2017. Gilles confronted his daughter Joy who took over his company in 2016, who denied knowing anything about the missing funds. Gilles started to make preparations to fire her and was contacting property management companies. On Sept 17, 2018 Leonard Burnstein had him declared mentally incapacitated.

Factual Background

[12] Gilles Overtveld was born in the Netherlands on June 4, 1928. At the time of hearing this application, he was 93 years of age. Joy Overtveld and Todd Overtveld are his only children. Gary Katz is Gilles’s long-time accountant for over 30 years.


[13] Gilles is a retired electrical engineer. In 1977, he founded a successful property  management company, Gi-Las, which owns several residential properties and two commercial properties in Ottawa.

[14]  Joy has been working for Gi-Las since 2008 and on a full-time basis since 2011.  Over  time, Gilles started to transfer the management of Gi-Las to Joy. On December 1, 2016, Joy assumed a more active role in managing the Gi-Las properties but Gilles was involved in decision- making. The Attorneys did not assume the full management of Gi-Las or of Gilles’s personal finances until 2017-2018.



Joy was not working full time for Gi-Las since 2011 since Bytown Realty Management was formally operating the company. Joy was still involved with helping Kam Tong Chan’s properties and his family.

Joy filed a court application CV17-73847 against Kam Tong Chan to annul his 2011 marriage to Nicole Presentey, after Kam Tong Chan became a palliative care patient. After his death, Joy was awarded proceeds of his estate. 


[15] On March 14, 2011, Gilles executed a continuing power of attorney for property appointing Joy, Todd and Mr. Katz (collectively, the “Attorneys”) as his attorneys for property (the “POA for Property”). That same day, he also executed a power of attorney for personal care appointing Joy and Todd as his attorneys for personal care (the “POA for Personal Care”) collectively the “2011 POAs.” Gilles submitted the POA for Property to two banks shortly after it was executed.



As stated from our response to the Judge’s statement on paragraph [2] , we outlined critical and legal reasons why the March 14, 2011 Power of Attorney for Property and for care is not valid as they violated the rules of the SDA Act’92.


[16] On March 26, 2014, Gilles suffered an acute middle cerebral artery stroke that resulted in eight (8) days’ hospitalization.  The stroke was described by his physician as moderate to severe.



The medical records submitted to his private medical doctor and the court stated that he suffered form TIA. From the Source: Mayo Clinic: A transient ischemic attack (TIA) is like a stroke, producing similar symptoms, but usually lasting only a few minutes and causing no permanent damage.

However, he will be prone to have to a a stroke later in his life, but he did not have a stroke or hospitalized for TIA again for at least nine years.

[17] Following the stroke, the Attorneys, primarily through Joy, state that Gilles  began  exhibiting cognitive changes, including decreased judgment and decision-making capacity, diminished multitasking abilities, tangential thought processes and changes to his personality.



Gilles was bewildered why his daughter Joy would try to convince the doctors that he suffered a serious stroke and it should be noted on his medical file. There was heated confrontation between his daughter and him in the hospital about she is trying to do.  He did not suspect that her action is a sinister prelude of what is to come after he signed the 2011 Power of Attorney. The hospital records stayed that he suffered from a TIA in 2014 until

[18] The Attorneys take the position that Gilles continued to make all business decisions related to Gi-Las and his personal assets, including a share transfer in December 2016, where the controlling shares of Gi-Las were transferred to Joy and Todd. During this time, he continued to manage his personal care needs, continued to ride his tricycle to the YMCA and continued to reside on the third floor of his walk-up apartment at 325 Frank Street, a property owned by Gi-Las.


The share transfer documents have not been presented despite repeated requests for disclosure. (Read Judge’s previous statement paragraph [3]).  It cannot be fact unless it is disclosed as evidence.



[19] On February 12, 2017, Gilles suffered a fall and as a result, became bedridden and housebound. He moved to the second floor of 325 Frank Street, and one year later, to the main floor. His care needs have since expanded to 24/7 care provided by personal service workers and a live-in caregiver, Maritess Llagas (“Tess”).



Gilles was disabled and that is a fact. However he was still mentally active and continued to entertain his friends as reported by Mr.Bunstein in his opinion dated 17.September 2017. It is also a known fact that Gilles has a female student who visits him for dinner and keeps him company to watch movies on TV. It is also a known fact that this student would take home the left over meals to feed her brothers and sisters, as they are all orphans. Is charity a sin that has upset Mr. Burnstein?  Mr. Burnstein also listed  payments to his ex-wives listed in the items as questionable excessive expenditures.  


Rachida found Gilles in a very deplorable condition with his bed falling apart. They got married in 17th December 2018.  Rachida took over Gilles care to nurse him back to health while Maritess was away vacationing in the Philippines. Rachida cut off fast food meals and replaced them with home cooked meals.  

Meanwhile, Rachida was getting ready to move into the 2nd floor of 325 Frank St that was operating as an AirB&B by March 1, 2019 as the  2nd floor needed some repairs. Tito helped to hire contractors to do the repairs. However, by Feb 2019, Todd has changed the locks on the 2nd floor warning Rachida that the property belongs to Gi-Las, and that she has to apply to be a tenant. It is evident that they do not recognize her marriage and get her locked out.  However, she still could come and visit Gilles. She also managed to convince Todd to get his father a new bed that was delivered in Sept 2019.  On March 2020 Todd changed the main locks to disallow her visits because of the Covid-19 health mandate. Each time she tried to visit, the Ottawa Police were called to warn her that she was trespassing.       

[20] The Attorneys have testified that Gilles suffered a precipitous cognitive and behavioural decline between February and July 2017. His behaviour, interests and demeanour changed significantly. His body was very weak and his memory loss accelerated. In the spring of 2017, he could no longer remember to take his medications without supervision.


Gilles always had a caregiver staying in his apartment. It is the caregiver’s responsibility to feed Gilles, give him his prescribed medication, fix his bed and assist him to go to the bathroom and monitor that he does not fall.  It is not Gilles task to remember to take his medications. The facts being presented here by the Judge are unsustainable and should be supported by medical observation from his physician. He only spoke to Gilles once or twice in Jan 30th, 2019 CCM hearing when they met for the first time. Since that date, no provision was made for Gilles to be informed or invited to join other CCM hearings. The court is treating him like a dead object. The facts being presented here alludes a building up a scenario that Gilles did not have capacity since 2017 which implies the years that followed until his death is immaterial and outside the scope of the charter of rights and freedom. 

[21] By May 2017, the Attorneys state that Gilles had expressed his own concerns regarding his memory. Joy and Todd state that they began acting pursuant to the POA for Personal Care in mid- 2017.



This is false and it is sad to see a judge give credence to the statements made by the said attorneys and again rationalizing on the magic year that it all started in year 2017. We feel, that there were criminal violations and activities that occurred between the following years which were presented and submitted in a petition to the Parliament on March 2022 with a signature of 27 petitioners. Theft of millions of dollars, obstruction of justice, tampering of communications, false confinement, are just a few to mention.

[22] The Attorneys advance that medical records indicate that Gilles suffers from Alzheimer’s dementia, predominantly vascular with mixed Alzheimer’s disease. The Respondents Youmouri and Jurado dispute such a conclusion.


Everyone suffers from some form of dementia with age. However as of 2022, Gilles mind is still resilient. He can still speak 4 languages perfectly, English, Dutch, Spanish and German. As a ham radio, he can still work with 9 words per minute on morse code and design and repair electronic circuits. He remembers and describes every patent that was awarded to him. We have recordings of his messages and audio conversions on

[23] On September 5, 2017, Gilles was assessed by Mr. Leonard Burnstein, a designated  capacity assessor. On September 6, 2017, Mr. Burnstein provided a Letter of Opinion in which he opined that Gilles did not meet the minimum standards necessary to manage property or to manage any domain of his personal care; that Gilles was impaired in his ability to appreciate the consequences of any financial decision or lack thereof; and that Gilles was vulnerable to potential financial exploitation and/or abuse by unscrupulous people.



On our response to the Judge’s statement in paragraph [4]. Mr. Burnstein is the most unreliable and unscrupulous assessor that we have come across. We have talked to many of them in our search for a trusted assessor.

[24] Mr. Burnstein has indicated that he was not performing a capacity assessment pursuant to the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 (“SDA”) and that his assessment of Gilles was only a Letter of Opinion on Gilles’s capacity. As such, he was not required to comply with s. 78(2) of the SDA.


If this is the Judge’s statement of a fact, then he should not use any of Mr. Burnstein opinion that do not follow the standards and guidelines of the SDA act. The opinion is a critical document that will dictate the life and death of the an individual, as it was allowed to happen twice in Mr. Burnstein records that we are aware of. There could have been other unfortunate death that occurred due to his work. 

[25] The evidence establishes that Gary Katz was present for the first 10 minutes or so of the Burnstein assessment. Mr. Katz testified that he would have introduced Gilles to Mr. Burnstein but Mr. Katz was unable to describe with precision the information that Gilles was given. As for Mr. Burnstein, he testified that he would have introduced himself by name and explained that he was a capacity assessor and that he was asked to do an assessment regarding a letter of opinion, specifically regarding his capacity to manage finances and personal care decisions. However, no evidence was provided regarding whether Gilles was advised of the significance and effect

of a finding of incapacity or that he had a right to refuse to be assessed as set out in s. 78(2) of the SDA.

Mr. Burnstein stated that Gilles was happy to speak to him.


It is good to accept the fact that Mr. Katz brought Mr. Burnstein to perform a mental assessment on Gilles. Mr. Katz is looking forward to having an adverse capacity report to submit to Gilles banks and other institutions. Mr. Katz intention here is suspiciously clear. As a purported POA beneficiary he will be able to convince the bank to close Gilles’ accounts with the help of his close friend, the TB Bank VP Marc Lalonde. And the action worked. All of Gilles’ financial  assets were transferred to a Private Trust which they set up and control. In Nov 2018, they now have the war chest to take over the Gi-Las which is worth more than $40 million today. It would have been a slam dunk, but Tito Jurado got in the way. Gilles marriage to Rachida created a bigger headache for the attorneys which was noticeable during the first CCM hearing of 30th Jan 2019. Several legal actions and claims were made to discourage Rachida and Tito to abandon Gilles. Offers were made via intermediaries offering substantial compensation if we settle.  We did not, as we promised Gilles that we will never let him down and we were afraid that he would die in misery if we did. Unfortunately, we are sorry that he  was moved and hidden away from us and died in misery. 

Mr. Leonard Burnstein as described by Gilles, never introduced himself as a capacity assessor. Leonard behaved and acted like he was working for Mr. Katz.

[26]    Mr. Burnstein’s meeting with Gilles lasted 1.5 hours, during which Gilles did not express  a desire to terminate the interview or a refusal to engage in the discussion. Gilles had numerous business documents, bank records, letters and emails accumulated in his apartment. During the interview, he showed Mr. Burnstein various documents to support his perceived successes and plans.


False fact. It lasted 30 minutes. Gilles and Leonard talking a family trust and Leonard asking why Gilles did not complete it. The family trust was never completed as CRA frowned on the concept of income sprinkling. Leonard did not know that it was Mr. Katz who advised Gilles to cancel it. Gilles was annoyed with Leonard whom he regarded as an idiot and terminated the conversation.  

[27] Following Mr. Burnstein’s opinion, Joy, in her capacity as Vice-President of Gi-Las, assumed control of the management of the business. Joy continued to provide Gilles with updates on the business and with documents he requested to review. Gilles remained the President of Gi- Las until November 21, 2018.


This statement is false. This is always a point of contention. Gilles complained that he is not getting the reports and have to guess the financial health of the business by viewing the statements from the banks. 

However, by Nov 2018 his ability to view the statements were terminated.


[28] The evidence of the Attorneys is that between September 2017 and August 2018, they became concerned that Gilles was being taken advantage of both financially and personally.


In August 2018, Gilles did not have access to any cash. He had to ask Tito for a loan and some money to top up his grocery bills. Tito advanced thousand of dollars to procure legal services.

Our efforts to continue inserting our comments are stopping here. comments  We are troubled by the style, contents and repeated length narrative that are repeatedly stated in this document were written by another author. The style matches the narratives of Joy Overtveld’s affidavits. We also cannot ignore the fact the Joy Overtveld, a lawyer and Judge M. Labrosse former office as a lawyer for Vice & Hunter LLP were almost next door to each other on the same street. Both individuals were practicing similar area of practice in Municipal and Residential Law. We believe that a close association exists between the two individuals, where the Judge should have recuse himself to avoid perception of conflict of interest.

We have exercised our diligence and currently suffering from the fact that Gilles Jozias Overtveld died in misery without obtaining freedom for almost five years.  Our backs are against the wall and feel that we have to respond or find ourselves to suffer from the court claims, actions and applications filed against us.

How a marriage can be annulled against the wishes of husband and wife is also a factor in the myriad of questionable actions of the CCM – Civil Case Management which were improperly applied in the management of the cases filed contrary to Rule 77.  Gilles never was confined and without getting a trial for almost five years until his demise. We have a hundred reasons to explore how the Charter of Rights and Freedom failed to protect our rights in the Canadian Justice System. 

[29] Gilles requested higher and more frequent sums of cash and/or was attempting to make e- transfers to individuals with whom he had no prior contact and was unable to account for the money. Gilles expressed fear that a woman was coming into his apartment and stealing from him. He was also emailing with a Russian scammer who was trying to extort money from him. Gilles hired a contractor to perform a roof repair on one of Gi-Las’s properties, despite the fact that this contractor had previously doubled the price midway through a project, threatened Gilles, demanded cash up front and had gone personally bankrupt. The work performed in July 2018 by this contractor invalidated the existing warranty on an adjoining roof. In addition, Gilles shared confidential Gi-Las information with his personal trainer and other caregivers and asked them to explain the financial information to him. As a result of this behaviour, and an unexplained disappearance of funds, on August 16, 2018, Gilles’s access to his personal bank accounts was terminated and the Attorneys started acting pursuant to the POA for Property.


Our efforts to continue inserting our comments is stopping here.  We are troubled by the style, contents and repeated length narrative that are repeatedly stated in this document were written by another author other than the Judge. The style and contents matches the narratives of Joy Overtveld’s affidavits. We also cannot ignore the fact the Joy Overtveld, a lawyer and Judge M. Labrosse former office as a lawyer for Vice & Hunter LLP were almost next door to each other on the same street. Both individuals were practicing similar areas of practice in Municipal and Residential Law. We believe that a close association exists between the two individuals, where the Judge should have recuse himself to avoid perception of conflict of interest.


We have exercised our diligence and currently suffering from the fact that Gilles Jozias Overtveld died in misery without obtaining freedom for almost five years.  Our backs are against the wall and feel that we have to respond or find ourselves to suffer from the court claims, actions and applications filed against us.


How a marriage can be annulled against the wishes of a couple is also a factor in the myriad of questionable actions against the CCM – Civil Case Management which were improperly applied in the management of the cases filed contrary to Rule 77.  Was Gilles confined and held without getting a trial for almost five years until his demise for marrying someone? We have a hundred findings to explore how the Charter of Rights and Freedom failed to protect our rights in the Canadian Justice System.  Was he held captive to prevent him to writing a new will? 

Heading 6
bottom of page