Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:13 pm
I was debating on the title of this discussion. For a while I favoured;
Andrew Miracle - Batshit Craziness overwhelms Canadian court.
But that just doesn't fit into the serious professional approach I try to take in my Quatloos postings. Not to say that it isn't accurate, just that it focuses on only one aspect of Andrew Miracle's Federal Court of Canada litigation. Which, on review, is actually the only aspect of this litigation.
He's very litigious. Once I started looking into his legal affairs I was as overwhelmed as the courts. And it's gone into some very unexpected areas that has resulted in my posting, for the first time, heavily redacted documents. Not that anyone can't do exactly what I did and walk into a Federal Court of Canada registry and pick up an unredacted copy but I'm not going to post details about the children involved in the case.
However I'm getting ahead of myself. First, why Andrew came to my attention. It started with the Rocco Galati / COMER discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10450
After COMER lost it's lawsuit but before the decision was released I periodically went to the Federal Court of Canada website for any updates on the file. And on one check I found this;
The first and most obvious step was to check Andrew Miracle out on CanLII. He's had some experience with litigation;
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2003 CanLII 19327 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/5vmz
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 41345
http://canlii.ca/t/1lzrq
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 2305 (ON CA)
http://canlii.ca/t/1jpzl
Maracle v. Brant, 2008 CanLII 13368 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/1wb3m
Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant, 2008 CanLII 45007 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/20mt2
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte v. Brant, 2009 ONCA 581
http://canlii.ca/t/24qgh
Estate of Maracle v. Bay of Quinte et al., 2010 ONSC 4975
http://canlii.ca/t/2c7n1
Maracle v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 2010 ONSC 5217
http://canlii.ca/t/2cqks
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 5682
http://canlii.ca/t/2d2dt
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 4056
http://canlii.ca/t/2cjkq
ING Insurance Company of Canada v. Miracle (Mohawk Imperial Sales and Mohawk Liquidate et al, 2011 ONCA 321
http://canlii.ca/t/fl4r9
Mohawks (Bay of Quinte) v. Maracle, 2013 ONSC 4733
http://canlii.ca/t/g04cp
Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant, 2014 ONCA 565
http://canlii.ca/t/g8856
Andrew Clifford Maracle (a.k.a. Sir Andrew C. Miracle and Andrew Clifford Miracle) v. R. Donald Maracle, Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte on behalf of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Council and all members of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, 2015 CanLII 8565 (SCC)
http://canlii.ca/t/ggh5h
The Miracle/Maracle confusion in the casenames is explained by this quote from one of the above cases;
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2003 CanLII 19327 (ON SC)
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 2305 (ON CA)
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 41345
These three related to an illegal sign Miracle put up for his business. It was removed, he sued and lost and appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. CanLII 2305 (ON CA) is the appeal decision.
Estate of Maracle v. Bay of Quinte et al., 2010 ONSC 4975
Miracle was not a party to this litigation. He represented his mother's estate in an action against an insurance company for compensation for water damage to an unoccupied property. The court did have some comments about Miracle's credibility;
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 5682
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 4056
ING Insurance Company of Canada v. Miracle (Mohawk Imperial Sales and Mohawk Liquidate et al, 2011 ONCA 321
These three can be disposed of with a quote from 2011 ONCA 321;
Resulting in;
However the comment that the decision brought to an end to an 18-year legal dispute over the property was somewhat premature since Miracle is still fighting it six years later. Losing all the way but still fighting. I'll stop this post at this point. My next post will cover the land issues behind the Statement of Claim. A very roundabout way of getting to a $2,000,000,000,000,000 or $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 claim against the government of Canada. It all depends on how you define a quadrillion. A more subjective issue than you might think. No wonder I failed math in university.
Andrew Miracle - Batshit Craziness overwhelms Canadian court.
But that just doesn't fit into the serious professional approach I try to take in my Quatloos postings. Not to say that it isn't accurate, just that it focuses on only one aspect of Andrew Miracle's Federal Court of Canada litigation. Which, on review, is actually the only aspect of this litigation.
He's very litigious. Once I started looking into his legal affairs I was as overwhelmed as the courts. And it's gone into some very unexpected areas that has resulted in my posting, for the first time, heavily redacted documents. Not that anyone can't do exactly what I did and walk into a Federal Court of Canada registry and pick up an unredacted copy but I'm not going to post details about the children involved in the case.
However I'm getting ahead of myself. First, why Andrew came to my attention. It started with the Rocco Galati / COMER discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10450
After COMER lost it's lawsuit but before the decision was released I periodically went to the Federal Court of Canada website for any updates on the file. And on one check I found this;
Who is that and how does he fit into COMER? How was it a related case? I checked it out and found this batch of litigants.Related cases
T-195-16 ANDREW MIRACLE ET AL. v. THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ET AL. Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions]
Who the hell were all these people and what did they have to do with COMER? Turned out they had nothing to do with the COMER lawsuit but I had to do a fair amount of research and another visit to the Federal Court of Canada registry to find that out.2016-02-01 Ottawa Statement of Claim and 2 cc's filed on 01-FEB-2016 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Deputy Attorney General of Canada Section 48 - $2.00
Party Name
MIRACLE, ANDREW
HSBC (& AFFILIATES)
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (THE)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
BANK OF CANADA (THE)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA (THE)
CHALUPNICEK, TIM
BELL, ZANE
PROVINCE OF ALBERTA (THE)
CROWN IN RIGHT OF CANADA (THE)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO (THE)
HOWEL, AMANDA CORNEILLE (AKA)
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE (THE)
BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP
MARACLE, BARBARA
MARACLE, WILLARD
REYNOLDS, ROBERT J
ALGONQUINS OF ONTARIO (THE)
MARACLE, R DONALD (CHIEF)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (THE)
The first and most obvious step was to check Andrew Miracle out on CanLII. He's had some experience with litigation;
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2003 CanLII 19327 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/5vmz
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 41345
http://canlii.ca/t/1lzrq
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 2305 (ON CA)
http://canlii.ca/t/1jpzl
Maracle v. Brant, 2008 CanLII 13368 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/1wb3m
Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant, 2008 CanLII 45007 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/20mt2
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte v. Brant, 2009 ONCA 581
http://canlii.ca/t/24qgh
Estate of Maracle v. Bay of Quinte et al., 2010 ONSC 4975
http://canlii.ca/t/2c7n1
Maracle v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 2010 ONSC 5217
http://canlii.ca/t/2cqks
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 5682
http://canlii.ca/t/2d2dt
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 4056
http://canlii.ca/t/2cjkq
ING Insurance Company of Canada v. Miracle (Mohawk Imperial Sales and Mohawk Liquidate et al, 2011 ONCA 321
http://canlii.ca/t/fl4r9
Mohawks (Bay of Quinte) v. Maracle, 2013 ONSC 4733
http://canlii.ca/t/g04cp
Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant, 2014 ONCA 565
http://canlii.ca/t/g8856
Andrew Clifford Maracle (a.k.a. Sir Andrew C. Miracle and Andrew Clifford Miracle) v. R. Donald Maracle, Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte on behalf of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Council and all members of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, 2015 CanLII 8565 (SCC)
http://canlii.ca/t/ggh5h
The Miracle/Maracle confusion in the casenames is explained by this quote from one of the above cases;
While that's a hell of a lot of litigation it largely has a common core, a small shopping mall on reservation land. I'm not going into great detail on the underlying litigation but enough to get us to the Federal Court Statement of Claim because it is largely, although not entirely, related to the above litigation. The litigation can be reviewed in groups. I'll start by grouping and explaining the non-core cases;And Andrew Clifford Maracle, also known as Sir Andrew C. Miracle and Andrew Clifford Miracle (“Miracle”)
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2003 CanLII 19327 (ON SC)
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 2305 (ON CA)
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 41345
These three related to an illegal sign Miracle put up for his business. It was removed, he sued and lost and appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. CanLII 2305 (ON CA) is the appeal decision.
2005 CanLII 41345 is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting his leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. It was rejected with the terse comment;M owned and operated a shopping plaza near a major highway and also owned land abutting the highway. He affixed a 400- square-foot sign to a tractor-trailer parked on his land a few metres south of the highway advertising his plaza. The Minister of Transportation applied for a warrant authorizing officers to enter onto M's property and remove the sign on the basis that it did not comply with s. 38(2)(e) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Section 38(2)(e) prohibits signs (other than a single sign not more than 60 centimetres by 30 centimetres in size) being placed within 400 metres of controlled-access highways unless authorized by a permit issued by the Minister. M alleged that s. 38(2)(e) infringed his freedom of expression, contrary to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Minister's application was granted. M appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed.
Maracle v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 2010 ONSC 5217The application for an extension of time is dismissed, but, in any event, the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C40235, dated February 2, 2005, would not have succeeded.
Estate of Maracle v. Bay of Quinte et al., 2010 ONSC 4975
Miracle was not a party to this litigation. He represented his mother's estate in an action against an insurance company for compensation for water damage to an unoccupied property. The court did have some comments about Miracle's credibility;
(iii) Andrew Clifford Miracle
[29] Mr. Miracle is the plaintiff’s representative and key plaintiff witness. He is 66 years of age and is a businessman. . . . . . .
[30] Mr. Miracle was caught out in numerous inconsistencies and incongruities, some peripheral and some integral.
[31] He could not explain why it was that Jasmine, the youngest and least connected person on site, made the call to the broker. He could not explain why she disclosed the cause of loss to be a malfunctioning furnace and frozen pipes.
[32] Mr. Miracle denied having knowledge of delivery of the Power of Attorney to the broker on March 21, 2005. I don’t know why he would do that. The Power of Attorney was cobbled together within days of ostensible discovery and on notice from the broker (De Silva) that they needed someone with authority to represent Mrs. Maracle’s interests.
[33] Mr. Miracle testified to signing the statement compiled by the adjuster during an interview at the insured premises on April 11, 2005 without reading its contents. In the statement he confirmed his understanding that the furnace appeared to have malfunctioned, that he discovered the flood after his return from Cuban vacation at the end of January 2005. He said he had instructed a brother to effect repairs. Much of what he stated in 2005 is distinctly different than his testimony today.
[34] His testimony was exposed to inconsistencies between examinations for discovery and trial and from one part of trial testimony to others in respect to his knowledge of the insured home well water flow capacity, the type of pump, the depth of water in the basement and when he learned of the cause of the water release.
[35] Mr. Miracle did not know when the damage occurred. Initially he tied it temporally to a trip he took to Cuba at the end of January 2005. He then declared that he had been to the house in or about the second week of February when he noticed Mr. Mintz on site so the loss must have been thereafter. When he filled out the proof of claim he indicated that the loss occurred in or about January 2005. In the end he confirmed that he did not know when the loss occurred.
[36] Mr. Miracle’s evidence is that the source of the water escape was the cold water line to the main floor bathroom sink. There was some confusion as to when he first discovered the source. Every witness who entered the home on or after March 11, 2005 was struck by the mould growth and none was interested in spending too much time in that environment. In the final analysis that is the only evidence pertaining to the source of the water escape.
Next batch;Discussion
[46] Mr. Miracle was not a credible witness. Although most of the discrepancies in his testimony arises relative to the issue of whether the loss was the result of an insured peril the tainting carries over to the live issue of intent to return. I have trouble accepting anything Mr. Miracle posits without objective or independent confirmation. Inconsistencies involving material matters about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken can demonstrate carelessness with the truth. A witness who is not credible cannot deliver reliable evidence.
[47] Mr. Miracle’s position is that although his mother was resident or living in the long term care facility after July 2004 and although no one has resided or lived in the home after June 2004 he and his mother never forfeited the intention of her homecoming. He asserts that there were regular overnights and day visits at all material times. The furniture, his mother’s clothing and even food remained in the home. He is disturbed that he was not informed about the vacancy permits or the resulting change in coverage on February 10, 2005. He argues that the house was never vacant as defined in the policy and that the defendant cannot establish the damage occurred after that date.
[48] He asks me to accept that he was actively pursuing engagement of a nanny to provide home care for Mrs. Maracle and that it was a viable plan. He did not produce any documentation to buttress that claim. He says that he visited his mother every second day in the nursing home, yet professed to be unaware of the extent of her impairments. There is no evidence that he engaged Mrs. Maracle’s physician to test out the viability of this plan. He declares that the reason for the attendance March 11, 2005, was to show the home to Jasmine with a view to the insured premises becoming the inaugural marital home for Jasmine and Andrew’s son. That goes directly to the issue of vacancy between sets of occupants as defined in the policy.
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 5682
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 4056
ING Insurance Company of Canada v. Miracle (Mohawk Imperial Sales and Mohawk Liquidate et al, 2011 ONCA 321
These three can be disposed of with a quote from 2011 ONCA 321;
The insured operated a convenience store and gas bar. Gasoline from an underground storage tank on his property allegedly migrated onto adjacent lands owned by Canada. Canada sued him for damages, alleging strict liability, nuisance and negligence. The plaintiff was insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy which excluded coverage for losses "arising out of the actual, alleged, potential or threatened spill, discharge, emission, dispersal, seepage, leakage, migration, release or escape of pollutants" from the insured's lands or premises. The insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured on the ground that Canada's claim was excluded from coverage. The application judge dismissed the application on the ground that, as the insured was not an "active industrial polluter" and as the claim was based on the insured's alleged negligence, the pollution exclusion clause did not apply. The insurer appealed.
Resulting in;
A quote from this decision gives an idea of Miracle's property which was the subject of the remaining jurispruence;[4] For the following reasons, I would allow the appeal and grant ING a declaration that the claims asserted in the action are excluded by the pollution liability clause.
This clears away the underbrush and leads us to the litigation which eventually resulted in the Statement of Claim that I picked up at the Federal Court registry. The remaining cases are detailed and complex but can be boiled down to this short article Published on January 15th, 2010 in the Quinte News;Miracle's business and the insurance policy
[5] Andrew Miracle owned two businesses on Highway #2 within Tyendenaga Mohawk Territory near Desoronto and Shannonville, Ontario. In 2001, ING issued Mr. Miracle a CGL policy to insure his first business location, which included a donut shop, convenience store, jewellery store, gift shop, apartments and a full-service gas bar. In 2002, Miracle opened a 24-hour self- service gas bar at a second location. That business was added to the CGL policy. The policy provides broad coverage for bodily injury and property damage, but the exclusion clause provides that the insurance did not apply to: [page244]
http://www.quintenews.com/?s=Andrew+Cli ... mit=SearchIt may be the end of the line a for a successful business on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that the appeal by Andrew Clifford Miracle and Mohawk Liquidation has been dismissed with costs meaning Miracle must pay the Band Council 600-thousand dollars and close up the Highway-2 store and gas pumps immediately. The decision brings an end to an 18-year legal dispute over the property which began when Shawn Brant and his father constructed a building on the property despite the fact they didn’t own it. Brant later sold it to Miracle. A judge ruled in 2008 that Miracle had full knowledge of his risks when he purchased the property. There’s been no comment from Band Council on when they will assume ownership of the property. Meanwhile, about 90 employees of Mohawk Imperial Sales are planning to band together to protest the possible closure of the business.
However the comment that the decision brought to an end to an 18-year legal dispute over the property was somewhat premature since Miracle is still fighting it six years later. Losing all the way but still fighting. I'll stop this post at this point. My next post will cover the land issues behind the Statement of Claim. A very roundabout way of getting to a $2,000,000,000,000,000 or $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 claim against the government of Canada. It all depends on how you define a quadrillion. A more subjective issue than you might think. No wonder I failed math in university.