Otavnik vs Thunder Bay Art Gallery





Again, I helped facilitate a donation of Norval Morrisseau paintings’’ in 2004 to the Thunder Bay Art Gallery (TBAG) in 2004.  Again, they selected the paintings subject to this suit, they applied to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board (CCPERB) which was of course approved. Carmen Robertson told the TBAG that the donation(s) were “fakes”. I pointed out to the TBAG that the source of my paintings were the same as their collection of Susan Ross paintings’’ etc. The bottom line is that I told the TBAG that they had to either support me (or Carmen Robertson) but they could not sit on the sidelines. They choose to do nothing so I sued them.




This lawsuit is simple. I facilitated a family donation of paintings’ by Norval Morrisseau to the Thunder Bay Art Gallery (TBAG) in 2004. Yes, 2004. The paintings’ were selected by the TBAG, approved by their curator (Mr. Glenn Allison) and of course approved by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board ) CCPERB) and of course Revenue Canada. These paintings’ were called “fakes” by Carmen Robertson. She has the burden of proof to prove they are “fakes” and has provided no such evidence or defense in her filing’.




David Voss came to Toronto in the late 1990’s and Maslak McLeod to try to see his NM paintings’
Joe told David that he couldn’t sell the NM painting he had as fast as he wanted him too and he referred him to Randy Potter (of Kahn Auctions). David did business with Randy and DR sent a PI to Thunder Bay to locate Randy’s source. David sold paintings to DR but when DR wanted David to cut out Potter and just sell to him David said no (in an affadvit) and then DR started the whole “fake’ Norval Morrisseau narrative.
Go to the link that says “Proof of David Voss”
Letter dated Jan 2012 to Rolf Schneiders from Jonathan Sommer. Statement of facts that he dealt with David Voss for fifteen (15) years and David Voss provided him with paintings and he did business with him (David as previously mentioned supplied Kahn then Potter Auctions ran by Randy Potter. In the doc “There are no Fakes” RP discussed his relationship with DV.
Now the provenance given to Kevin Hearn it lists Rolf Schnediers and Robert Voss who is of course David Voss as in his real name Robert David Voss, some people call him Robert some people call him David. Expert Report by Carmen Robertson, RS tells her he knows of David Voss but not Robert Voss but heard of a Voss family in the TB area. Is anybody this stupid I mean really.
My legal name the name of my BC is Joseph Otavnik but people call me Joe. So if someone asks do you know of a Joseph O would people say No but I heard of an Otavnik family name in Oshawa. I mean really.
 
 




First of all I want to mention the Whent Case which was a case that was in the Tax Court of Canada
DR (Don Robinson) gave testimony in it but I will leave that to a separate video.
DR buys 28 paintings’ by Norval Morrisseau for $53,000 from Randy Potter (Kahn Auctions in Pickering) then moves to Cobourg and renames it Potter Auctions. DR then hires a PI to find the source of Potter’s Morrisseau paintings’ which turns out to be David Voss. DR tries to convince DV to sell to him and DV refuses to do so. DR thus cannot corner the market.
DR then enlists Marry Whyte of the National Post to write an article about his DR’s discovery of “fake” NM paintings being sold to KA. He never discloses to MW or the reader the fact that he bought 28 paintings for $53,000 thinks they are fake but never asks for his money back. (DR did ask for his money back on a $250 dollar painting from KA for another artist but not $53.000 for what he calls “fake” Morrisseau’s. Copy of the refunded cheque for $250.
After the article in the NP Dr sends out a letter to his clients’ informing them of his discovery of “fakes” being sold at KA and advises his clients’ to be very careful. (He of course did not disclose his own paintings that he bought at Kahn Auctions and resold  at his gallery KR).
At the same time DR is promoting RS as a Expert on NM on his website KRG. Little does DR know that while he is promoting RS, RS on his website is calling paintings from one of KR publications’ NM Travels of the House of Invention” as “fakes’.  So RS is an expert on NM calling paintings in KR publication as “fakes” which believe it or not are hanging in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC. I am not making this up as it has been confirmed in court via the direct testimony of DR and SC.
I have included a Letter to the PM from RS and I will let the reader come to whatever conclusions he/she may think. Mind you SR is the person who DR and KRG claim as the Expert on NM.
Also, a brief mention on this page of a painting DR buys from Waddington’s which will be in a separate video.




First of all I want to mention the Whent Case which was a case that was in the Tax Court of Canada
DR (Don Robinson) gave testimony in it but I will leave that to a separate video.
DR buys 28 paintings’ by Norval Morrisseau for $53,000 from Randy Potter (Kahn Auctions in Pickering) then moves to Cobourg and renames it Potter Auctions. DR then hires a PI to find the source of Potter’s Morrisseau paintings’ which turns out to be David Voss. DR tries to convince DV to sell to him and DV refuses to do so. DR thus cannot corner the market.
DR then enlists Marry Whyte of the National Post to write an article about his DR’s discovery of “fake” NM paintings being sold to KA. He never discloses to MW or the reader the fact that he bought 28 paintings for $53,000 thinks they are fake but never asks for his money back. (DR did ask for his money back on a $250 dollar painting from KA for another artist but not $53.000 for what he calls “fake” Morrisseau’s. Copy of the refunded cheque for $250.
After the article in the NP Dr sends out a letter to his clients’ informing them of his discovery of “fakes” being sold at KA and advises his clients’ to be very careful. (He of course did not disclose his own paintings that he bought at Kahn Auctions and resold  at his gallery KR).
At the same time DR is promoting RS as a Expert on NM on his website KRG. Little does DR know that while he is promoting RS, RS on his website is calling paintings from one of KR publications’ NM Travels of the House of Invention” as “fakes’.  So RS is an expert on NM calling paintings in KR publication as “fakes” which believe it or not are hanging in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC. I am not making this up as it has been confirmed in court via the direct testimony of DR and SC.
I have included a Letter to the PM from RS and I will let the reader come to whatever conclusions he/she may think. Mind you SR is the person who DR and KRG claim as the Expert on NM.
Also, a brief mention on this page of a painting DR buys from Waddington’s which will be in a separate video.
 

This is just background Information for now as I will post the Entire Plaintiff’s Claim and Defense shortly.

Background

The plaintiff was interested in donating some of his and his families’ art collection of Norval Morrisseau and contacted the Thunder Bay Art Gallery hereinto refereed to as the TBAG in 2004. The TBAG were interested, I send them photographs of the artwork I would be willing to donate. The TBAG choose the artwork they were interested in from the photos. I then arranged to personally meet with the TBAG and bring with me the paintings’ they were interested in. I did so, the TBAG choose the paintings’ they were interested in after inspecting them at the TBAG.  I left them with the TBAG and completed the application process involved with the Canadian Cultural Export Property Review Board hereinto referred to as the CCEPRB. The plaintiff worked with the TBAG, the TBAG applied to the CCEPRB. The TBAG’s senior curator approved the donation, so did the Board of the TBAG.  The TBAG applied to the CCEPRB, staff at the CCEPRB preformed their due diligence, it was approved by staff, and then approved by the full ten (10) member(s) Board of the CCEPRB, and the application was approved. Title to the four (4) paintings was then transferred to the TBAG and then Revenue Canada issued the appropriate certified tax receipt. The plaintiff and his family was happy and I assume so was the TBAG.

Everything was fine until 2014 when the TBAG allowed Carmen Robertson access to the four (4) donated paintings. This visiting professor then proceeded to call them “fakes” and communicated that to the staff of the TBAG. Moreover, she further disseminated her opinion in a series of lectures posted on YouTube and in university seminars/presentations across Canada. The plaintiff had no knowledge of this until he found a copy of her Export Report for an unrelated court case. The plaintiff subsequently sued Carmen Robertson and after two (2) no shows at settlement conferences.

The Plaintiff then approached the TBAG and asked for a clarification with respect to Carmen Robertson and the donation by his family, but received no response. The plaintiff has clearly communicated to the TBAG, that the TBAG either support the position of Carmen Robertson or that of the plaintiff, the application by the TBAG and approval of the CCEPRB and Revenue Canada.

The plaintiff will seek damages for defamation and breach of fiduciary duty in the amount of $25,000 which is the limit of Small Claims Court. The other members of the plaintiffs’ family will be suing for more than ten (10) million dollars in District Court. The plaintiff’s family are well known donors of art in the art community and the treatment and lack of support from the TBAG have damaged their reputations among the designated organizations and in the wider art world.

At this point you have to ask yourself, What is going on? The gallery who accepted, verified and authenticated the donation in question (the TBAG in 2004) no longer stands by it? Why have they thrown the main curator (who I will not name for the moment) who approved it at that the time under the bus? The paintings’ in question were again approved by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board (CCPERB) staff and then entire Board then Revenue Canada etc? Moreover, the defendant will offer no witness (or experts etc) to back her claims nor is she going to testify according to her lawyer. (The CCPERB) will testify and re-affirm there approval of the orginial donation in again 2004 -but the defendant will offer to evidence at all?

The City of Thunder Bay has had a long history of racism which is well documented and known. Why is Sharon Godwin protecting Carmen Robertson? Why does Sharon Godwin believe Carmen Robertson over that of the original curator, Board of Directors’, the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board staff and then full ten (10) member Board.

I am in the process of communication these facts to both National and International newspapers, The United Nations’, the First Nations’ community in Canada etc. I will get answers.

                                     Pustina V R, 96 D.T.C. 1594, [1996] 3 C.T.C. 2542

Gary Lamont Donations in the Pustina, Whent et all vs. Her Majesty the Queen (Tax Court). (Issue at trial is valuation of the block donation for tax purposes and not the authenticity of the artwork para. 7). The paintings are/were are signed on the back in black dry ink and approved by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board (hereinto referred to the CCPERB). The court transcript clearly identifies Mr. Gary Lamont (at para 26 and para 27) as the source of some of the paintings’ that were donated to the various galleries and institutions which were 100% certified as 100% authentic.

As per Page 16 and page 23 some of the paintings’ went to the following Institutions

I cannot determine which of the paintings’ donated to the above came directly from Gary Lamont but some obviously did as they were part of the total donation(s) as per the above.

Don Robinson testifies as an “Expert Witness” but court finds Joe McLeod more Credible as per paragraph  84 . Moreover, at para 101 the court clearly states that “ I have stated why I place little reliance on Mr. Robinson’s appraised value of $1,105,000.

Don Robinson and the start of the Narrative of Fake Norval Morrisseau paintings’

National Post Article

National Post article and “fake” narrative started by Don Robinson. Robinson is calling paintings’ from Kahn Auctions “fakes”. He fails to disclose to the writer (and his clients’) that he bought 28 paintings’ for $53,000 but didn’t ask for his money back even after calling them “fakes”. (He does however, ask for a refund for a $250 for a painting he thinks is “fake” also bought as Kahn Auctions). See enclosed affidavits’ and sales receipts. Don Robinson was forced in trial to admit to these facts.

Please now refer to Don Robinson’s  letter to his clients’ informing them of his discovery of these “fake” Norval Morrisseau paintings’ he discovered were being sold at Kahn Auction. (He conveniently forgets to tell clients’ he bought from the same place he called fakes and then re-sold them in his gallery –all from Kahn Auctions.

Ritchie Sinclair calling paintings’ in Don Robinson’s (Kinsman Robinson) “fakes” from his book Norval Morrisseau: Travels to the House of Invention”. Only problem is that they are hanging in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC. (Yes, folks that Smithsonian).

When asked in court about this Ritchie replied “They (the Smithsonian) should have asked me as I am the Expert”.

Ritchie Sinclair letter to the Prime Minister.

Yes indeed folks. The “Expert” that Don Robinson and Carmen Robertson relied upon in his own words to the Prime Minister of Canada.

DON Robertson the RAT Below please find correspondence between Don Robinson and the RCMP. You can clearly see Robertson asking the RCMP to check on his competitors. Please notice how he asks them to check and see if they are signed on the back in dry black ink as he is pressing the narrative that those signed in the back as such are fake. Please also note how Robinson uses an alias for his email.

We don’t needing no stinking Provenance! Robinson purchase at Waddington’s but presents it as being acquired directly from the artist when he resells it in his gallery.

The plaintiff was interested in donating some of his and his families’ art collection of Norval Morrisseau and contacted the Thunder Bay Art Gallery hereinto refereed to as the TBAG in 2004. The TBAG were interested, I send them photographs of the artwork I would be willing to donate. The TBAG choose the artwork they were interested in from the photos. I then arranged to personally meet with the TBAG and bring with me the paintings’ they were interested in. I did so, the TBAG choose the paintings’ they were interested in after inspecting them at the TBAG.  I left them with the TBAG and completed the application process involved with the Canadian Cultural Export Property Review Board hereinto referred to as the CCEPRB. The plaintiff worked with the TBAG, the TBAG applied to the CCEPRB. The TBAG’s senior curator approved the donation, so did the Board of the TBAG.  The TBAG applied to the CCEPRB, staff at the CCEPRB preformed their due diligence, it was approved by staff, and then approved by the full ten (10) member(s) Board of the CCEPRB, and the application was approved. Title to the four (4) paintings was then transferred to the TBAG and then Revenue Canada issued the appropriate certified tax receipt. The plaintiff and his family was happy and I assume so was the TBAG.

Everything was fine until 2014 when the TBAG allowed Carmen Robertson access to the four (4) donated paintings. This visiting professor then proceeded to call them “fakes” and communicated that to the staff of the TBAG. Moreover, she further disseminated her opinion in a series of lectures posted on YouTube and in university seminars/presentations across Canada. The plaintiff had no knowledge of this until he found a copy of her Export Report for an unrelated court case. The plaintiff subsequently sued Carmen Robertson and after two (2) no shows at settlement conferences that trial is finally set for Feb 29th, 2019.

The plaintiff then approached the TBAG and asked for a clarification with respect to Carmen Robertson and the donation by his family, but received no response. The plaintiff has clearly communicated to the TBAG, that the TBAG either support the position of Carmen Robertson or that of the plaintiff, the application by the TBAG and approval of the CCEPRB and Revenue Canada.

The plaintiff will seek damages for defamation and breach of fiduciary duty in the amount of $25,000 which is the limit of Small Claims Court. The other members of the plaintiffs’ family will be suing for more than ten (10) million dollars in District Court. The plaintiff’s family are well known donors of art in the art community and the treatment and lack of support from the TBAG have damaged their reputations among the designated organizations and in the wider art world.

                                                                                         -2-

1) As per Exhibit #1 please find a copy of the original application form for the donation in question in 2004. Please refer to the approval of the paintings in question by the TBAG curator Mr. Glenn Allision.

2) The plaintiff is unaware of any changes to this application as submitted by the TBAG to the

CCEPRB in 2004.

3) Title of the paintings’ passed to the TBAG and the certified tax receipt was issued by Revenue Canada.

 4) The plaintiff was never contacted by the TBAG with any concerns with respect of the four (4) donated paintings which the TBAG and its’ staff personally selected.

5) The plaintiff was in contact with Sharon Godwin of the TBAG and communicated the results of Hatfield v Child decision as per Exhibit #2 as of March 25th, 2013.

6) The plaintiff further communicated the decision of White v Sinclair of August 10th, 2015 as per Exhibit #3 to Sharon Godwin of the TBAG.

7) The plaintiff had no idea that the TBAG was told by Carmen Robertson that the donated paintings’ by the  plaintiff  in her opinion were “fakes” until the plaintiff was told about it by a third party in August 2017.

                                                                                                -3-

8) It is clear that the TBAG in the least, had a fiduciary duty to inform the plaintiff what Carmen Robertson had communicated to them before the plaintiff was told by a third party.

9) Title of the paintings’ may have passed to the TBAG, however the plaintiff was still owed a duty of care and should have been informed of the allegations made by Carmen Robertson. The plaintiff was owed a duty of care to at least be able to defend his donation and reputation.

10) Enclosed please find a copy of the Expert Report by Carmen Robertson as per Exhibit # 4.  It clearly confirms the fact that they are/were the paintings’ donated by the plaintiff and called “fakes” by Carmen Robertson as per Exhibit # 1.

11) Carmen Robertson began her examination of the paintings owned by the plaintiff in 2014, a full ten (10) years after the donation and approval of all the prescribed bodies as set forth by the required process.  I would point out that the decision in Hatfield v Child as of March 25th, 2013 was already in the public record and known to researchers, collectors and the wider public.

12) Since the TBAG is among the approved list of designated organizations approved by the Federal Government and should know the strict vetting procedures involved, the TBAG should have been more skeptical of the findings’ of Carmen Robertson given past court decisions and even the RCMP.

13) Even after the judgment as per Exhibit # 5 in Hearn v MacLeod et al, dismissed her report, testimony and evidence of Carmen Robertson, the TBAG would not acknowledge that to the plaintiff.

                                                                                                -4-

14) As per Exhibit # 6 please find a copy of an email and the attachments that were sent to the TBAG in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit. The TBAG never acknowledged nor responded to this reasonable attempt to avoid litigation. (The attachment referred in the bottom is a copy of Exhibit # 5).

                              Forensic Reports

15)  Since 2002 and up to September 2017 there have been at least 61 paintings’ by Norval     Morrisseau which have been reviewed by three (3) different qualified forensic handwriting experts.

16) The experts as referred to above are Mr. Kenneth John Davies (Hawkeye Studios), Mr. Brian Lindblom (Document Examination Consultants’ Inc) and Dr. Atul K. Singla (World Wide Forensic Services Inc.).

17) As per Exhibit’s 7 through 9 please find a copy of their resumes and qualifications.

18) As per Exhibit # 10 through 12 please find a copy of some those forensic reports which are representative of the entire portfolio of handwriting reports/analysis.

19)  As per Exhibit# 13 from Brian Lindblom a forensic report which the plaintiff used in a lawsuit vs. Mr. Gabe Vadas, the then manager of Norval Morrisseau. Mr. Vadas claimed that Norval Morrisseau did not sign the back of his paintings’’ in black dry brush ink. This report refuted that position. In the end Mr. Vadas paid me out for the full balance of my claim $10,000 + costs as per Exhibit# 14.

                                                                                                -5-

20) The source of this painting as per point 15) is/was the same source of that of the paintings’ subject to this suit. They came from the same supplier/source and are similar in terms of date, style, format, composition and all signed the same way. (Mr. Rolf Schnieders (1)  and Mr. William Wallace (1) and Randy Potter Auctions (2)).It has further come to the plaintiffs’ attention that Mr. Schnieder and Mr. Wallace have also donated paintings to the TBAG and even supplied Helen E. Band with paintings which are also in the permanent collection of the TBAG.

21) Of the 61 paintings’ that have been forensically highlighted in various court cases, I know that at least 51 of them also came from the same source with the same features as explained above.

22) As per Exhibit# 2 in the Hatfield v Child case, Mr. Atul Singla was deemed as “Expert Witness” . His testimony was preferred to that of Mr. Don Robinson. Mr. Robinson stated that Norval Morrisseau again didn’t sign the back of his paintings’ in dry black Ink. The court rejected this.

23) From bottom of page 34, top of page 35 (Exhibit # 2) in the decision of Judger J. Martial in Hatfield v Child (SC-09-87264) of March 25th, 2013

                “The Court finds that there is overwhelming evidence that Norval Morrisseau signed

                paintings in black dry brush. The eye witness testimony of his brother Wilfred Morrissesau

                Who lived with him for substantial periods of time in the North and elsewhere and who

saw him sign in black dry brush paint is convincing and credible. The testimony of Marlowe Goring supports his testimony in regards to the practice of the artist signing paintings in black brush.”

24) In the Hearn Case CV-12-455650, as per Exhibit # 5 paragraph 129, on the issue of the so called dry brush signature is contradicted by the findings in paragraph 130 and paragraph 131 of the same Exhibit.

                                                                                -6-

25) In White v Sinclair, SC-10-109226-00, White won a $25,000 judge plus $3750 in costs against Sinclair. Sinclair’s position was that White was selling fakes because again they were signed on the back in dry black ink.

26) The TBAG still claims that Carmen Robertson as an expert on the works’ of Norval Morrisseau despite all these court decisions and forensic reports which were widely disseminated and available to anybody who would have searched for such information before her report which claimed fake paintings through my donation to the TBAG.

27). As per Exhibit # 5 in the Hearn Case CV-12-455650, it is clear the judge preferred the testimony of Mr. Kenneth Davies over that of the Carmen Robertson in the Hearn case.

28)  In fact, the judge pointed out many inconsistencies in Carmen Robertsons’ own testimony and analysis in paragraph 132 in which he calls her testimony ambiguous at best and even contradicted by Norval Morrisseau himself as per paragraph 134 in Exhibit # 5.

29). I would further point out that every judge who has heard the Morellian analysis has rejected that in favour of forensic handwriting.

30). Carmen Robertson went out of her way to personally travel to the TBAG only to call the donated paintings’ fake. She took this proactive action on her own accord and the TBAG should have protected the interests’’ of donors like the plaintiff over that of a visiting professor given the evidence in the public record.

                                                                                                -7-

31) The TBAG in the least should have had final say over and report used by Carmen Robertson especially after knowing that Carmen Robertson was doing so in the context of a court case.

32) The plaintiff has only ever communicated with Sharon Godwin of the TBAG. How Sharon Godwincan take the positionthat she believes Carmen Robertson over that of the plaintiff, over the curator of the TBAG (Glenn Allison) and others’ in the vetting process is a complete mystery to the plaintiff.

33) By refusing to affirm the donation of paintings’ arranged by the plaintiff, the plaintiffs’ reputation within the entire scope of all Class “A” organizations and the wider art world has been damaged.

34) The plaintiff has helped other applicants’ through the Class “A” donation system as per Exhibit # 15 where the plaintiff facilitate a donation of several paintings; by Norval Morrisseau in his hometown where he is well known in the Art community.

35) The above donation was to the Robert McLaughlin Gallery hereinto referred to as the RMG and those paintings’ donated now from part of the permanent collection of the RMG.

36) It should be noted that even that donation was from the same source as the paintings’ donated to the TBAG in 2004 and also went through the same strict vetting process.

37) The plaintiff had to withdraw a planned donation to the RMG (of another artist-not NorvalMorrisseau) in Aug 2017 due to the plaintiffs’  discovery of his family’s’ donation of 2004 was being called “fakes” in a high profile case.                                                                           

                                                                                -8-

38) The defendant knew that this case and the whole issue of “fake” paintings by Norval Morrisseau was/is being closely watched even after the failed arguments from people like Carmen Robertson have been disproven in court, the plaintiff did not want to proceed with the cloud over him and his family.

39.Not only has this false information about “fake” Norval Morrisseasu paintings’ been present in the art world  been disproven by forensic experts and the court but also by the RCMP. Enclosed please find a copy of the findings’ of an RCMP investigation as per Exhibit # 16. This is what was provided by the RCMP under a Freedom Of Information Request by the plaintiff.

40) As per Exhibit #17 please find on page 8 paragraph 17 the assertions of Carmen Robertson in an affidavit for the Hearn Case CV-12-455650

(a) The paintings referenced by Mr. Otavnik were not donated by him;

(b) Mr. Otavnik has written to them regarding said paintings and, in the opinion of that gallery, some of the key statements he made in that correspondence were untrue;

(c) That gallery is no longer of the opinion that the said paintings are authentic; and they are undertaking an investigation into this matter.

41) The plaintiff has never claimed that he was the applicant. He has and maintains that he is in charge of his family’s’ art collection and he personally facilitated the donation directly with the TBAG. This is not only clear on the application but in his communication with the TBAG.  His family donated the

paintings’ through the plaintiff and his sister received the tax benefit.

                                                                                                -9-                         

42) If the TBAG believes the plaintiff has not been honest with them they have not communicated that to him as per point (b).

 43) With respect to point (c), this is all the plaintiff has requested from the TBAG . If they (the TBAG) truly believe the donated paintings’ are “fakes” then please communicate that to the plaintiff.  

44) With respect to any supposed investigation the TBAG has a fiduciary duty to disclose these findings’ to the plaintiff.

45) The Expert Report produced by Carmen Robertson was rejected in the Hearn Decision by the judge.

46) The paintings in the report are/were those donated by the plaintiffs’ family which were in the Expert Report.

47) Again, It was the defendant who choose to select these paintings’ for their permanent collection. The TBAG choose the very paintings’ they now deem fake according to the affidavit of Carmen Robertson.

48) In summary, the TBAG choose the paintings’, their head curator, Board of Directors of the TBAG approved them. Again, as previously communicated the paintings’ were then vetted and approved by the CCEPRB and Revenue Canada, the RCMP etc. Moreover, two (2) of the paintings were obtained by collectors Rolf Schnieders and William Wallace who even supplied paintings to Helen E. Band. Despite this evidence the TBAG seems to believe Carmen Robertson.

                                                                                                -10-

49) As per Exhibit # 1, page 2 please see the valuation of the donated paintings, at $33,500 Cdn.  This provided the donor with a tax credit against taxes payable of approx $14070 (42% of $33,500). Moreover, since it was done under the CCEPRB there is no adjusted cost base. The donor does not pay a capital gain on the increase in value of the paintings. The donor receives the Fair Market Value X approx. 42% which is the combined value of the Federal/ Provincial Tax Credits.

50) The plaintiff had to forgo an approx $50,000 fair market donation to the RMG or $21,000 for the value of the tax shield lost.

51) The entire value and potential tax credit shield of all the Norval Morrisseau  paintings ’owned by the plaintiff and his family has been put in question due to the inaction/negligence of the TBAG.

51) The plaintiffs’ reputation has been tarnished due to the failure of the TBAG to stand up and defend their submission to the CCEPRB. The wider art world is aware of my donation and the silence of the TBAG which puts my art and my reputation in disrepute.

Proof of the existence of David Voss and the fact that this was not disclosed by Jonathan Sommer to either Carmen Robertson or his client Kevin Hearn.

THIS SUBMISSION CONSISTS OF TEN (10) Pages (ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED)