Timothy Durkin stays in Canada for the time being. Not by a decision or by a ruling from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB, represented by Trent Cook) but rather by delay. The can-of-consequence has once again been kicked down the metaphorical road, as Durkin’s journey in Canada (and through Sooke) continues. He was the manager of the Sooke Harbour House, oversaw its demise, and was recently coined a liar and a “Garden variety bully” by a supreme court judge who directly held Durkin liable for $4M in a 56-day lawsuit Durkin himself initiated against the owners of the Sooke Harbour House (who, by the way, haven’t yet seen a penny).
This is the outcome of a two-day hearing that took place over December 7 and 8, 2020, to review Durkin’s admissibility in Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) through Mason Cooke alleged that Timothy Durkin (represented by Erica Olmstead of Edelmann Law Firm) is inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of serious and organized criminality, relating back to a Ponzi scheme in Alabama.
(Read Jason Proctor of CBC’s article of yesterday’s portion of the hearing, here.)
According to documents submitted to the tribunal, Durkin is a permanent resident of Canada and is a British citizen.
Just after the noon break on December 7, Mason Cooke put the question to Durkin, Are you a Canadian citizen? Much to the surprise of the IRB and the CBSA, Durkin answered, “I believe I am.”
From paraphrasing notes CBSA: Are you a Canadian Citizen D: I believe I am. I made an application a year ago. CBSA: In his landing document, he is entered as a landed immigrant. [To Durkin:] Were you sworn as a Canadian Citizen? Durkin: No, I haven't been sworn. But because my parents were here in 1948 I may have a birthright to Canadian citizenship. My dad was with the RCAF between 1946-1950. I was born in Britian, and we came back to Canada in 1952 when I was 18 months old. I would have a birthright to Canadian citizenship according to legislation. IRB turned to Olmstead and asked for her input. Is this a late application? Why is this the first we are hearing of this? He's had an experienced law firm at his disposal for a very long time. Erica: A formal application has been made (note: for citizenship, not for this hearing). It's the minister's case, they have to prove Durkin is not a Canadian citizen. CBSA: If he is a Canadian citizen, Immigration no longer has the power to hear this case. Something should have been preemptively brought forward. There is nothing in the systems that indicate that Durkin is a Canadian citizen. It is unreasonable that this information is held back and then put forward out of the blue.
This exchange proved to be the most contentious, as the IRB does not have jurisdiction to rule over Canadian citizens. It was later revealed that the application for citizenship was made in January 2020. Olmstead referenced the application as “complicated” and didn’t go into details. Never once was it stated at the trial that one or both of Durkin’s parents were citizens (in which case, the application would not be complicated, there’s a straightforward provision for children of Canadian citizens). At the end of the second day of this hearing, Olmstead and Durkin both noted that they received confirmation of the application, but have not heard anything further.
IRB, represented by Trent Cook, was extremely frustrated by Olmstead’s failure to disclose this application. Although the trial resumed, and although Trent Cook was prepared to make a ruling based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the conclusion of the trial was hung on the matter of citizenship.
“You wasted my time.”
“You wasted my time,” Trent Cook of the IRB said to Olmstead at the end of the two days. And not only did she waste his time, but also that of the minister, and the CBSA officers who were on the case.
Olmstead persisted, the burden of proof rests with the CBSA.
Responding to Olmstead’s stance that the burden of proof of citizenship rested with CBSA, Trent Cook of IRB made a strong statement about integrity, saying there’s the letter of the law and then there’s the right thing to do. The right thing to do, he suggested, was to disclose this information that they have had for 11 months now.
Mason Cooke representing the CBSA was equally frustrated. He noted that had Olmstead requested an adjournment based on an application for citizenship, the minister would have agreed. The CBSA does not go after Canadian citizens. Given that, Mason Cooke said it seems unreasonable to proceed with this question outstanding. He doesn’t have a copy of Durkin’s application, nor does he have the basis for the application, so he can’t provide a submission on this. He recommended an adjournment until the matter of citizenship is resolved.
Olmstead maintained that the burden of proof rested with CBSA to prove that Durkin was not a Canadian citizen. This application bomb was going to be a part of her closing argument.
The basis for Durkin’s citizenship application was threefold:
- First, they would request for grant of citizenship based on Durkin’s parents (section 3, based on the parent’s Canadian citizenship to a child born outside of Canada, this would apply if one or both of Durkin’s parents were a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth).
- Second, they would challenge the Charter interpretation of the term, citizenship, that they submit is broader than currently defined by the Citizenship Act; and,
- An alternative grant for citizenship.
The immigration lawyer Erica Olmstead representing Durkin repeatedly indicated that she had withheld this information because the legal requirement of the burden of proof was with the CBSA minister to prove that Durkin was not a citizen.
Trent Cook of the IRB noted he was reserving his decision on how to proceed and would provide it in writing. So, as per usual, this is to… be… continued.
Today’s hearing was to be held on Nov 4 and 5, 2020, and it was originally supposed to occur in November 2019 but was delayed because Mr. Durkin undertook the time-consuming project of suing Sooke Harbour House Inc. and self-represented, that lawsuit was ridiculously and excruciatingly prolonged and lasted over half a calendar year. That ridiculous lawsuit was ultimately met with a scathing ruling that included more allegations of criminal conduct by the presiding Justice.
The CBSA has been interested in Mr. Durkin since at least 2018, as covered in this SPN article Canada Border Services claims manager of Sooke Harbour House is wanted for fraud (Nov 2, 2018). The highlights of that article are as follows.
American court documents (Case 1:13-cr-00117-WS-C Document 224 Filed 07/26/16) show that on December 20, 2013, following a jury trial, David Petersen was on trial for his own participation in a Ponzi scheme along with with Yaman Sencan, Stephen Merry and by accusation Tim Durkin, that resulted in diversion of $1.5 million from investors/victims into defendants’ pockets.
Referred to as the “fugitive defendant,” Durkin, while never tried, was mentioned throughout the trial of Petersen. “[T]he Government did not prove up a different conspiracy omitting the fugitive defendant, Tim Durkin, but rather ‘mentioned Durkin’s participation in the scheme throughout the trial’.”
Again, according to the above 2013 court document, the FBI had filed an Interpol Red Notice and entered an arrest warrant into NCIC in an attempt to apprehend fugitive defendant Tim Durkin.
It is important to note that Durkin, while indicted was never apprehended, was not tried, and has not been convicted of any crime. Many instances of alleged criminal activity occurring in Sooke have been reported to the Sooke RCMP, but they have yet to lay charges on anything.
- Human serial suer strikes again: Durkin files a defamation lawsuit against Capital Daily
- Administrative hearing date set for alleged fraudster Timothy Craig Durkin: May 16, 2022
- Security Commission alleges Vancouver Island man sold fake ownership interest in Sooke Harbour House
- Scammers Timothy Durkin and Rodger Gregory personally held responsible for “Special Costs”
- How a shyster was allowed to destroy lives and operate with impunity right here in Sooke
- Timothy Durkin’s admissibility hearing again adjourned until September 13, 2021
- Ramblings continue, hearing concludes on application for special costs: Timothy Durkin and Rodger Gregory
- Timothy Durkin’s admissibility hearing adjourned until April 2021
- Court costs waived for Philips (plus a few choice descriptors of Durkin)
- Application for Special Costs on hold for Gregory; Durkin ends with arguments, accusations and self-pity
- Basran rules: Philips’ lawyers awarded proceeds from sale of Sooke Harbour House, Durkin denied
- Timothy Durkin feels dropped 10,000 feet into a battleground (of his own making)
- Timothy Durkin among those asking for money on the sale of Sooke Harbour House
- “You wasted my time” Kicking the can down the road continues for Timothy Durkin; no decision, more delay
- Scheduled admissibility hearing for Timothy Durkin obfuscated, observers on trial
- “Garden variety bully” Durkin found responsible, directly held liable for $4M
- Former manager of a Sooke hotel sues Facebook for $50Million
- Sooke Harbour House sells for $5.6M in court-ordered sale
- Rumour confirmed, owner of Sooke PocketNews being sued
- Opportunity to appeal definitively denied, Durkin’s deportation hearing to proceed
- Courts rule against Tim Durkin’s request to have a deportation hearing overturned
- Canada Border Services claims manager of Sooke Harbour House is wanted for fraud