June 10, 2014





Regarding decision of Mr. Justice Schulman on "Form Fillers" released on June 2014.

would like to clarify that I have never collected legal fees from my survivor clients
beyond those amounts approved through the IAP system. I have never received payments from
third parties as a portion of monies they may have collected from survivor clients and have
never paid a portion of a client's settlement entitlement to anyone other than the clients and

there has been no court ?nding otherwise.

I have worked with a form ?ller organization and the original concept proposed by them involved
my owning a 25% interest in that company. But that interest was abandoned very early in my
involvement in the process as soon as I recognized problems with the concept which was over a
year before we enaged in our ?rst hearing and about 13 months before the incidents being

reported ?upon.

I worked with First Nations Residential School Solutions Inc. because I found them to be a
useful resource in identifying clients in remote communities, providing interpretation services,
cultural sensitivity and communications. Often our clients were dif?cult to locate and the
assistance of was helpful. We continue to ?nd such assistance helpful, but it is now
provided through a full time employee of the firm who works out of our office.

were advised that their contingency plan was unacceptable for a number of reasons
and that they were to invoice our of?ce for payment for their services.

All clients were also advised that the contingency agreement with was unenforceable
and they were not required to pay any monies other than our approved fees. Not only did I
advise every client before releasing money to them but it was and still is the practice of each
adjudicator at the end of a hearing, to advise claimants that they are not to pay any fees to other

third parties.

After we learned of the actions to collect fees from the clients we severed our relationship with
FNR-SS and voluntarily paid to these clients the amount that had collected from them.
ceased operating soon after those incidents and to the best of our knowledge no further

incidents have occurred since October 2012.

shared with me at the time of confronting them that notwithstanding my comments. they
believed they had a contract with these clients. However, they did not participate in the Court
process. I have apologized to each client and to the Court for these incidents.

Regarding the elderly lady, I dispute significant aspects of her version of what transpired. i did
not speak to her directly because we could not locate her. She was located by When
she did attend my of?ce she was advised by me that she had no other fees to pay to other
parties and she left our of?ce with her bank draft and the person who travelled with her and no
one else. What I can also advise is that all clients have been offered the option of coming to our

of?ce in Winnipeg to receive their settlement payn'isnts or to deal with it by mail and about 90%
choose to come to our of?ce. This practice has continued and there have been no similar

incidents following these in Octo her 201 

In regards to the decision of Mr. Justice ESchulman. it is true that Ghief Adjudicator sought
direction from the Court regarding the role of ?form fillers? and the types of contracts form fillers
were having clients execute. And it is true that the conduct by the form ?llers our of?ce was
working with was the record utilized for the purpose of seeking court directions on these issues
that affected many parties. The Court decision is givmg directions in an area the Settlement
Agreement was not clear on (is: ?form ?llers?) and there were various opinion and lack of clarity.
The subject activities all happened away from our office and no representatives of were
in our office at the times of meeting these clients. When their conduct was brought to our

attention we disengaged with that company.

We support the goals of this process in protecting the interests of the disadvantaged and we
provided little opposition through this Court process other than to clarify our limited involvement
in the unfortunate incidents that transpired. I also recognize the Court's need to exercise
caution to ensure that this conduct has not since reoccurred by monitoring of our clients? monies
and full disclosure. I am con?dent that no similar incidents have occurred since the events of

October 2012 and the disclosures and enquiries will verify this.

I also point out that Mr. Justice Schulman has not commented on the differences between our
version of events and those of the lady client. The events regarding what happened away from
our of?ce, which represent the substantive factual background of Mr. Justice Schulman's
decision, were not contested by us because we had no knowledge of these events.