Fall Guy, Rob Hyndman, Perjured and Embarrassed Himself
Imagine your freedom, your life’s work, and your assets are all on the line and you’re relying on the truthful testimony of others to exonerate yourself. But instead, you must sit there and listen to untruthful testimonies and undeniable lies.
According to Canadian criminal law, everyone commits PERJURY who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false. Basically, perjury is what happens when a person lies or makes statements that are not truthful while under oath. Certainly, people can have different interpretations of the same event perhaps caused by differing perspectives. But sometimes it’s black or white with only one way to be perceived. People who lie while under oath think it’s nothing serious, however lying under oath corrupts the legal process and for this reason it’s a very serious criminal offense, especially when the lie alters the outcome of a motion, or the case. A person found guilty of perjury can be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of 14 years.
From reading court documents we are quite certain that Mr. Rob Hyndman, president of the OPFFA, knowingly perjured himself. On February 22, 2018, Mr. Hyndman submitted an affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court Of Justice (Court file number CV – 16-5-50104). Mr. Hyndman stated in his sworn testimony that Mr. Colin Grieve owned assets, in the jurisdiction, in the form of a property (a home) in Burlington, Ontario, that was valued at $365,000 in the year 2009, and another property (a home) in Etobicoke that was purchased for $203,000 in 1994.
Keep in mind the purpose of Hyndman’s testimony was to attain a Mareva injunction. A Mareva injunction, also known as a freezing order, is used to prevent a defendant from dissipating assets prior to the end of a trial. For a Mareva injunction to be granted, among other criteria, the plaintiff must show that there’s a serious risk the defendant will remove property or dissipate assets. With his testimony, Mr. Hyndman was trying to show that Colin Grieve owned assets in the jurisdiction and that Colin Grieve was laundering money through these properties. A strategic byproduct of Hyndman’s testimony, and their pursuit of a Mareva injunction, was that it made the defendants spend precious funds fighting the Mareva injunction, which leaves less money to fight the actual civil suit. Lawsuits are much like a war of attrition, the side that goes broke first loses.
There’s a serious problem with Hydmands affidavit. The statement he made about Colin Grieve ‘s assets was a complete and utter lie, and Hyndman knew it. It’s true, a Mr.Colin Grieve does own those two properties, it’s just not the Colin Grieve named in this lawsuit. In fact, each of those two properties is owned by a different Colin Grieve. From the documents which accompanied Hyndman’s affidavit (Mortgage information, Purchase Agreement, Service Ontario Records) it was clear to see that these two homes were not owned by the Colin Grieve named in this suit. The true owners had different dates of birth, and one was married to a woman with a different name. It’s shameful that Hyndman would perjure himself, but it’s disgusting that Hyndman would involve two innocent families in this case, people who have no idea that their homes have been implicated in a civil lawsuit.
But it becomes even more interesting. Later on in 2018, when the criminal pretrial was taking place, Hyndman and his lawyer, Rahool Agarwal, knew that Hyndman would be called upon to be cross-examined in regards to the lies within his affidavit. Weeks before this was to take place Hyndman was diagnosed with PTSD and opioid addiction. He was sent out of the country to a rehabilitation facility located in Maryland. Rahool Agarwal then sent a letter to the judge (it will be posted down below) stating that Mr. Hyndman would be at the Rehabilitation Center for several months and as a result, Mr. Hyndman would not be available to be cross-examined on his affidavits. Agarwal also stated that he proposes to withdraw Mr. Hyndman’s affidavits and provide a replacement affidavit from a different OPFFA representative,which turned out to be Ann Bryan. Remarkably, in Ann Bryan’s word for word affidavit those two properties were removed, which confirms (1) the ploy, and (2) confirms they knew they had been found out. But incredibly, Ann Bryan executed the exact same ploy, but this time she implicated Paul Atkinson. In her sworn testimony she stated that Mr. Atkinson owned a property located in London, Ontario. This was another despicable lie. The OPFFA and Bryan knew this property did not belong to Paul Atkinson. In fact, they’d hired a private investigation firm to investigate Grieve and Atkinson and the firm’s report stated this London property did not belong to Paul Atkinson. But it didn’t matter, Bryan submitted her sworn affidavit with the London property included, thereby (1) misleading the court, and (2) implicating another unknowing and innocent family.
Not everything is as it appears. But if you pay attention to everything the truth will reveal itself.