All posts by suewrongdoers

BC Courts Confirms: Valid OATH is Mandatory

This is a big deal. The electronic signature process has been used frequentlyand YOU can challenge your documents if the electronic signatures and improper oath procedures were used in your case. The final court decision rested on an informant swearing the Information not being familiar with the contents, and the timing of the oath, reconfirming the importance and necessity of the OATH in all instances (think about that).

That means you have to speak upcomplain.raise the issuewill you?

Even law students can go to court with claims and complaints about a process of law and win.

You can go to court with claims and complaints and win. It has been done.

When properly presented and demonstrated..

SCBC Appeal Decision http://canlii.ca/t/gh7bh PDF

On appeal from: An order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, dated July 18, 2014 (R. v. Delalla, Surrey Registry, Docket #203329-1K).

Provincial Court Decision not available online

UPDATE Sept. 14, 2017

CASE: Alexander Jesse Delalla

Information number: 203329-1-K

Surrey Provincial Court Registry

Date of the Judgement: July 18, 2014

http://www.law.ubc.ca/news-events/ubc-law-news/court-victory-ubc-law-student

Court Victory for UBC Law student

Many law students dream of arguing a case before the courts and successfully changing the law. For one UBC Law student, this opportunity came before he had even graduated.UBC Law Upper-year student Dave Ferguson was working at the Law Students’ Legal Advice Program (LSLAP) this past summer. LSLAP is a non-profit society run by law students at UBC that provides free legal advice and representation to clients who would otherwise be unable to afford legal assistance, and gives law students invaluable opportunities to work on real cases under the supervision of practicing lawyers.

The case involved the status of electronic signatures in oaths used as evidence in court. The Criminal Code of Canada and the common law mandate a particular procedure to be followed when an Informant swears that they have reasonable grounds to believe an individual has committed a criminal offence and a Justice of the Peace attests to the Informant’s oath. This careful procedure for swearing charging documents ensures that the Crown cannot arbitrarily put individuals before a court of law.

Many court registries in BC now get Informants and Justices of the Peace to use electronic signatures in order to sign charging documents as proof that they have sworn and attested to the oath, as opposed to regular old pen-to-paper signatures. Electronic time stamps are affixed to the electronic signatures which indicate the exact moment when the signature was entered on the document.

Mr. Ferguson challenged the validity of the charging document in the case of his client on the grounds that the time stamps on the electronic signatures showed that the proper oath-swearing procedure had not been followed.

I argued that the incorrect sequence spoke to the very proof of the oath itself, which is a fundamental safeguard in place to ensure that an individual is free from arbitrary harassment from the State, Mr. Ferguson explains. I stated that this defect meant that the document should be declared void.

The trial judge at the BC Provincial Court agreed with him and said the time discrepancy went to the very essence of proof of the oath itself.

The judge also noted concerns regarding the way informations were sworn based on the evidence that came out in cross-examination.

He was arguing the case in relation to a particular client, but it turned out that this is a wide-ranging systemic defect. The effect of the case could mean that many sworn oaths under the defective process could be rendered invalid. TheCrown has now appealed the decision to BC Supreme Court, however Ferguson has heard that the Crown has taken steps to ensure that the correct procedures for swearing charging documents are followed in the future. They have also re-sworn charging documents with the same defect as in this case.

Assistant Professor Mary Liston, a UBC Law faculty member who specializes in public and administrative law, says, Dave is a smart, articulate and committed student who made a really novel and clever argument that the defect was not merely a technical issue but indeed had the legal effect of voiding the oath itself, and the judge agreedDave’s experience shows that even a relatively mundane file can have real justice ramifications and lead to improvements in access to justice. This underscores the importance of the legal representation and services that LSLAP provides to low-income communities in Vancouver.

Although he was the one to take it to court, Mr. Ferguson is quick to point out that the original idea for the challenge actually came from a fellow student, Mikhael Magaril (who has since graduated). It was Mr. Magaril who originally worked on the case and suggested that there could be an important legal argument to be made in relation to the electronic signatures. Mr. Ferguson is also grateful to his supervising lawyer, Ms. Leslie Anne Wall, and his fellow LSLAP volunteer, for their ongoing support and advice.

I think this whole experience is a testament to the value of LSLAP to students and to the public, Mr. Ferguson said. A creative idea from Mikhael, a lot of research, drafting and practice, and moral support and advice from Leslie Anne and other students throughout the process led to some real change to the legal system in BC. I’m very proud to have had such a great opportunity while still a student.

UPDATE Sept 14, 2017 do you think an oath is important?

The Provincial court decision was appealed the Crown lost. The false oath was confirmed.

[49] What is fatal to the validity of an information, however, is where it is clear the jurat was signed by the JP before the informant makes the oath. This becomes problematic in the context of a bulk swearing in, as the oath is taken in advance of the informant viewing any of the informations on his screen and typically without having any knowledge or information about the charges. At this time, the oath is nothing more than a promise by the informant to tell the truth after he has examined the information available to him.
[50] where the informant swears his oath before examining any of the details concerning the information, or has no knowledge concerning the charge. In such a case, it is hard to accept that the oath was properly given at the time the bulk oath was administered, as the informant could not possibly have personal knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe the offence was committed.

[52] In this case, the parties testified that the usual practice in laying informations is for the informant to take an oath when he first enters the swearing room. The oath given is a promise to tell the truth about each information as it is presented to the informant and to the JP. At that point, however, Mr.Ellard had not seen the Information, nor had he been provided any details concerning the alleged offence. Mr.Ellard could not possibly know his oath to be true; his oath was, in reality, only a promise to tell the truth about facts unknown to him at the time he swore the oath. The oath could thus not be complete until Mr.Ellard informed himself of the circumstances of the alleged offence and acquired reasonable grounds to believe the offence had been committed and communicated that fact to the JP. As JP Fullerton completed the jurat before Mr.Ellard reviewed any materials concerning the offence or said anything regarding the Information, she was certifying that the Information had been sworn before it had, in fact, been sworn.

[53] This was not a technical defect. As Durno J. held in EPR Services Inc., the jurat is evidence of the fact that the oath was administered. In the case at bar, the evidence before the Provincial Court revealed that the jurat was not in fact evidence that the oath had been administered. This case is distinguishable from the cases cited by the Crown, as unlike in those cases the evidence here establishes that the oath had not been made at the time of the defect.

[54] In summary, after considering the authorities cited by the parties on this appeal, I have concluded that had Mr.Ellard been properly informed of the details of the Information at the time he gave the bulk oath, then the order of signatures on the Information would not affect the validity of the Information. Where, as here, the informant was not informed of the details of the offence when the bulk oath was administered, the oath cannot be true or complete unless the informant properly informed himself of the circumstances and thereafter provided an oral confirmation of the oath. I am not satisfied that signing the information completes the oath; the signature is merely the informant’s confirmation that the information is sworn under oath. However, if it were determined that a signature could stand in the place of an oral confirmation and completing the oath which I do not accept then I would hold that the order of signatures does matter for the reasons given by Oulton P.C.J. and Haliburton J. in King, as the JP cannot certify the oath was administered until it has, in fact, been completed.

[55] For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

[56] The accused argued an additional ground to dismiss the appeal: that Mr.Ellard did not have reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence set out in the Information.

[71] I do not accept the submission that Mr.Ellard had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence outlined in the Information. He did not speak to any of the investigating officers or Crown counsel prior to swearing the Information, and candidly acknowledged that he did not have any information that could have informed him of the relevant details concerning the offence. He assumed that the Crown had drafted and approved the Information and believed this assumption was sufficient to form his belief that the offence described in the Information had been committed by the accused. It strains credulity to suggest that the informant could reasonably form the belief that the accused committed the offence independently of reviewing any information concerning the details of the offence except for the draft of the Information.

[72] I do not accept the Crown’s contention that because the Information appeared on the screen and was apparently generated by Crown counsel, the informant could rely on that fact as a basis for swearing that he had reasonable grounds to believe the offence had been committed, thus satisfying the requirements of the Code in laying an information. The organizational structure described by the Crown on this appeal, while administratively convenient, does not, in my view, meet the minimum threshold required by the Code. The laying of an information is an important state action that should not be undertaken before an informant is informed by some reliable source about the details concerning the offence alleged in the draft information. I adopt the reasoning in Kamperman in refusing to accept that an informant can be sufficiently informed of the circumstances of an offence by simply reviewing the draft of an information on a computer screen without obtaining any additional information concerning the offence. When an informant swears an information relying on nothing more than a draft information prepared by the Crown, the informant’s statement that he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that the offence was committed is incorrect and amounts to a false oath.

[75] I conclude that the Information was based on a false oath and does not comply with the requirements of ss. 504, 788 or 789 of the Code. It was therefore not properly laid and is a nullity

CANLii SCBC Decision on the appeal of the Provincial Court decision

http://canlii.ca/t/gh7bh PDF- https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc592/2015bcsc592.pdf

MEMBERS ONLY CONTENT! Please sign up to see it!

Advertisements

All Officials ARE Liable for Illegal Acts, Bad Faith, Excess Jurisdiction, US Supreme Court Confirms

gavel+moneyIn what I would call a confirmation of the law, not a NEW ruling, the US Supreme Court One lays down the law for all to see, and USE if you choose.

One of the BIG legal fantasies promoted by governments and officials is the idea of officials’ having ‘immunity’ from prosecution and no liability so they are not held liable for their corrupt and illegal actions.

Don’t buy the LIE.

Judges are liable, cops are liable, corporate officers are liable, ANY official is liable when:

1. they are performing any actions while in office, not defined by their office or,

2. any action that is defined by their office but is done in BAD faith or,

3. any action taken is illegal by nature.

Any actions that they take NOT defined by their office or illegal by their nature are considered to have been done outside of their office therefore done in their private capacity and therefore they are fully liable, in their private capacity, without any protections of their office.

Unfortunately this lie of ‘immunity’ is also repeated unknowingly by people, again and again, who have a real case against government officials and therefore do not pursue very valid claims.

A recent US Supreme Court decision clarified and confirmed that the government and their agents can be held liable and accountable for wrongdoing carried out by officials in its employment while on the job.

Officials ARE Liable for Bad Faith and Illegal Acts, NO Immunity

This should be a a no brainer but in the land of legal fictions and unaccountable government officials being protected by legal processsomeone FINALLY took the issue to the US Supreme Court for a common sense confirmation which lower level courts are now bound by.

This is a fundamental principle of law that nobody is above the law including all government actors. The government immunity clause only applies to government actors when they are performing their actions of their office defined by their office in good faith.

Any actions that they take not defined by their office or illegal by their nature are considered have been done outside of their office therefore done in their private capacity and therefore they are fully liable in their private capacity without any protections of their office.

So in effect the government is also liable for having employed them, their supervisors are liable for improper training and oversight and the actions carried out while they were employee and the individual is liable personally also.

In this particular case the complaint and Millbrook had been denied hearings for his claims that the lower courts and submitted a hand written, in pencil, complaint to the Supreme Court of the United States. Less than 1% of Supreme Court applications are heard by the court. I’m certain that this particular case was heard because it addresses a fundamental aspect of law and the only point of protection for a private person from the abuses of any government actor.

If you take the time to read the articles about the case you’ll find the disgusting actions of government lawyers and lower courts protecting the corrupt and abusive actions of government actors creating a series of faulty case law decisions that perpetuate the idea that violence and criminal actions by government actors is protected.

Millbrook filed a handwritten petition, in pencil no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a rare show of magnanimity, the Court agreed to hear his case and assigned a lawyer to represent him. Curiously enough, after the Court announced it could hear the case, the U.S. Justice Department-which had defended the government’s actions at every level of the judicial proceedings, including asking the Supreme Court not to take the case-did an about-face and switched its position to argue that the FTCA does apply to prison guards as law-enforcement officials.

Sadly much case law is biased garbage designed to allow corruption to continue as most people do not have the time, stamina or money to challenge bad decisions to higher and higher courts where the real law might be heard and decided.

This case ultimately should be a watershed decision to open the doors for all manner of complaints against abusive and corrupt actions by government actors, the legal profession and officials as it now clearly confirmed by the Supreme Court that they do not have protection for their illegal and unlawful actions.

MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES ( )

477 Fed. Appx. 4, reversed and remanded.

Canada

Odhavij Estate v Woodhouse https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2104/index.do

  • 54. It is reasonably foreseeable that the officers’ failure to cooperate with the SIU investigation would harm the appellants. As the Chief was responsible for ensuring that the officers cooperated with the SIU investigation, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Chief’s failure to do so would also harm the appellants.55 The next question that arises is whether there is sufficient proximity between the parties that a duty of care may rightly be imposed on the Chief. It may be that the appellants can show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the alleged misconduct would result in psychiatric harm, but foreseeability alone is an insufficient basis on which to establish a prima facie duty of care. In addition to showing foreseeability, the appellants must establish that it is just and fair to impose on the Chief a private law obligation to ensure that the defendant officers cooperated with the SIU. A broad range of factors may be relevant to this inquiry, including a close causal connection, the parties’ expectations and any assumed or imposed obligations. See for example Norsk, supra, at p. 1153; Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860, 2000 SCC 60, at paras. 51-52; and Cooper, supra, at para. 35.56 In the present case, one factor that supports a finding of proximity is the relatively direct causal link between the alleged misconduct and the complained of harm. As discussed above, the duties of a chief of police include ensuring that the members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act. In those instances in which a member of the public is injured as a consequence of police misconduct, there is an extremely close causal connection between the negligent supervision and the resultant injury: the failure of the chief of police to ensure that the members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act leads directly to the police misconduct, which, in turn, leads directly to the complained of harm. The failure of the Chief to ensure the defendant officers cooperated with the SIU is thus but one step removed from the complained of harm. Although a close causal connection is not a condition precedent of liability, it strengthens the nexus between the parties.57 A second factor that strengthens the nexus between the Chief and the Odhavjis is the fact that members of the public reasonably expect a chief of police to be mindful of the injuries that might arise as a consequence of police misconduct. Although the vast majority of police officers in our country exercise their powers responsibly, members of the force have a significant capacity to affect members of the public adversely through improper conduct in the exercise of police functions. It is only reasonable that members of the public vulnerable to the consequences of police misconduct would expect that a chief of police would take reasonable care to prevent, or at least to discourage, members of the force from injuring members of the public through improper conduct in the exercise of police functions.58 Finally, I also believe it noteworthy that this expectation is consistent with the statutory obligations that s. 41(1)(b) of the Police Services Act imposes on the Chief. Under s. 41(1)(b), the Chief is under a freestanding statutory obligation to ensure that the members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act and the needs of the community. This includes an obligation to ensure that members of the police force do not injure members of the public through misconduct in the exercise of police functions. The fact that the Chief already is under a duty to ensure compliance with an SIU investigation adds substantial weight to the position that it is neither unjust nor unfair to conclude that the Chief owed to the plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure that the defendant officers did, in fact, cooperate with the SIU investigation.59 In light of the above factors, I conclude that the circumstances of the case satisfy the first stage of the Anns test and raise a prima facie duty of care. If it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant officers’ decision not to cooperate with the SIU would injure the plaintiffs, a private law obligation to ensure that the officers cooperate with the SIU is rightly imposed on the Chief. Consequently, the only issue that is left to consider is whether there exist any broad policy considerations that ought to negative the prima facie obligation of the Chief to prevent the misconduct.

McCrea v. White Rock (City), 1974 CanLII 1147 (BC CA) CanLii

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council wikipedia

46 It is now well established in Canada that the existence of such a duty is to be determined in accordance with the two-step analysis first enunciated by the House of Lords in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728, at pp. 751-52:

First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter – in which case a prima facie duty of care arises.

Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.

originally published May 2014, updated May 2017 on private-person.com/blog

All Officials ARE Liable for Illegal Acts, Bad Faith, Excess Jurisdiction, US Supreme Court Confirms

gavel+moneyIn what I would call a confirmation of the law, not a NEW ruling, the US Supreme Court One lays down the law for all to see, and USE if you choose.

One of the BIG legal fantasies promoted by governments and officials is the idea of officials’ having ‘immunity’ from prosecution and no liability so they are not held liable for their corrupt and illegal actions.

Don’t buy the LIE.

Judges are liable, cops are liable, corporate officers are liable, ANY official is liable when:

1. they are performing any actions while in office, not defined by their office or,

2. any action that is defined by their office but is done in BAD faith or,

3. any action taken is illegal by nature.

Any actions that they take NOT defined by their office or illegal by their nature are considered to have been done outside of their office therefore done in their private capacity and therefore they are fully liable, in their private capacity, without any protections of their office.

Unfortunately this lie of ‘immunity’ is also repeated unknowingly by people, again and again, who have a real case against government officials and therefore do not pursue very valid claims.

A recent US Supreme Court decision clarified and confirmed that the government and their agents can be held liable and accountable for wrongdoing carried out by officials in its employment while on the job.

Officials ARE Liable for Bad Faith and Illegal Acts, NO Immunity

This should be a a no brainer but in the land of legal fictions and unaccountable government officials being protected by legal processsomeone FINALLY took the issue to the US Supreme Court for a common sense confirmation which lower level courts are now bound by.

This is a fundamental principle of law that nobody is above the law including all government actors. The government immunity clause only applies to government actors when they are performing their actions of their office defined by their office in good faith.

Any actions that they take not defined by their office or illegal by their nature are considered have been done outside of their office therefore done in their private capacity and therefore they are fully liable in their private capacity without any protections of their office.

So in effect the government is also liable for having employed them, their supervisors are liable for improper training and oversight and the actions carried out while they were employee and the individual is liable personally also.

In this particular case the complaint and Millbrook had been denied hearings for his claims that the lower courts and submitted a hand written, in pencil, complaint to the Supreme Court of the United States. Less than 1% of Supreme Court applications are heard by the court. I’m certain that this particular case was heard because it addresses a fundamental aspect of law and the only point of protection for a private person from the abuses of any government actor.

If you take the time to read the articles about the case you’ll find the disgusting actions of government lawyers and lower courts protecting the corrupt and abusive actions of government actors creating a series of faulty case law decisions that perpetuate the idea that violence and criminal actions by government actors is protected.

Millbrook filed a handwritten petition, in pencil no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a rare show of magnanimity, the Court agreed to hear his case and assigned a lawyer to represent him. Curiously enough, after the Court announced it could hear the case, the U.S. Justice Department-which had defended the government’s actions at every level of the judicial proceedings, including asking the Supreme Court not to take the case-did an about-face and switched its position to argue that the FTCA does apply to prison guards as law-enforcement officials.

Sadly much case law is biased garbage designed to allow corruption to continue as most people do not have the time, stamina or money to challenge bad decisions to higher and higher courts where the real law might be heard and decided.

This case ultimately should be a watershed decision to open the doors for all manner of complaints against abusive and corrupt actions by government actors, the legal profession and officials as it now clearly confirmed by the Supreme Court that they do not have protection for their illegal and unlawful actions.

MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES ( )

477 Fed. Appx. 4, reversed and remanded.

Canada

Odhavij Estate v Woodhouse https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2104/index.do

  • 54. It is reasonably foreseeable that the officers’ failure to cooperate with the SIU investigation would harm the appellants. As the Chief was responsible for ensuring that the officers cooperated with the SIU investigation, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Chief’s failure to do so would also harm the appellants.55 The next question that arises is whether there is sufficient proximity between the parties that a duty of care may rightly be imposed on the Chief. It may be that the appellants can show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the alleged misconduct would result in psychiatric harm, but foreseeability alone is an insufficient basis on which to establish a prima facie duty of care. In addition to showing foreseeability, the appellants must establish that it is just and fair to impose on the Chief a private law obligation to ensure that the defendant officers cooperated with the SIU. A broad range of factors may be relevant to this inquiry, including a close causal connection, the parties’ expectations and any assumed or imposed obligations. See for example Norsk, supra, at p. 1153; Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860, 2000 SCC 60, at paras. 51-52; and Cooper, supra, at para. 35.56 In the present case, one factor that supports a finding of proximity is the relatively direct causal link between the alleged misconduct and the complained of harm. As discussed above, the duties of a chief of police include ensuring that the members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act. In those instances in which a member of the public is injured as a consequence of police misconduct, there is an extremely close causal connection between the negligent supervision and the resultant injury: the failure of the chief of police to ensure that the members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act leads directly to the police misconduct, which, in turn, leads directly to the complained of harm. The failure of the Chief to ensure the defendant officers cooperated with the SIU is thus but one step removed from the complained of harm. Although a close causal connection is not a condition precedent of liability, it strengthens the nexus between the parties.57 A second factor that strengthens the nexus between the Chief and the Odhavjis is the fact that members of the public reasonably expect a chief of police to be mindful of the injuries that might arise as a consequence of police misconduct. Although the vast majority of police officers in our country exercise their powers responsibly, members of the force have a significant capacity to affect members of the public adversely through improper conduct in the exercise of police functions. It is only reasonable that members of the public vulnerable to the consequences of police misconduct would expect that a chief of police would take reasonable care to prevent, or at least to discourage, members of the force from injuring members of the public through improper conduct in the exercise of police functions.58 Finally, I also believe it noteworthy that this expectation is consistent with the statutory obligations that s. 41(1)(b) of the Police Services Act imposes on the Chief. Under s. 41(1)(b), the Chief is under a freestanding statutory obligation to ensure that the members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act and the needs of the community. This includes an obligation to ensure that members of the police force do not injure members of the public through misconduct in the exercise of police functions. The fact that the Chief already is under a duty to ensure compliance with an SIU investigation adds substantial weight to the position that it is neither unjust nor unfair to conclude that the Chief owed to the plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure that the defendant officers did, in fact, cooperate with the SIU investigation.59 In light of the above factors, I conclude that the circumstances of the case satisfy the first stage of the Anns test and raise a prima facie duty of care. If it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant officers’ decision not to cooperate with the SIU would injure the plaintiffs, a private law obligation to ensure that the officers cooperate with the SIU is rightly imposed on the Chief. Consequently, the only issue that is left to consider is whether there exist any broad policy considerations that ought to negative the prima facie obligation of the Chief to prevent the misconduct.

McCrea v. White Rock (City), 1974 CanLII 1147 (BC CA) CanLii

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council wikipedia

46 It is now well established in Canada that the existence of such a duty is to be determined in accordance with the two-step analysis first enunciated by the House of Lords in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728, at pp. 751-52:

First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter – in which case a prima facie duty of care arises.

Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.

originally published May 2014, updated May 2017 on private-person.com/blog

Straightline Results 1-855-979-7464 Excellent Five Star Review by Greek I.

http://shermanlive.com 1-855-979-7464

Straightline Results Reviews Vancouver

New Review

Our customers have an easier time reviewing us on popular review sites, and we’ve received loads of 5-star reviews & awards on Yelp, UrbanSpoon & TripAdvisor. We couldn’t be happier! We highly recommend Sherman in helping you market your reputation to grow your business!

Straightline Results

Vancouver

CANADA