Ivan
Bernardo lawyer reviews
Practice Area:
Antitrust
Practice Area:
Civil Litigation
Firm:
Miller Thomson LLP
Phone:
403-298-2425
Profile updated: 7/20/16
Submit profile update
Rating: 2.2 (1-5)
based on 10 reviews.
Lawyer Ivan Bernardo
has a poor overall rating on LawyerRatingz.com.
The following postings have not been substantiated by LawyerRatingz.com.
Submit a news article about this lawyer
Rate this lawyer
| KEY |
Date |
|
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
|
|
|
|
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
SYSTEM: 2 negative duplicate or disallowed ratings automatically removed |
|
|
|
|
SYSTEM: 2 negative duplicate or disallowed ratings automatically removed |
|
|
|
|
"Victory for Calgary Medical Cannabis Patient Keith Gall - YouTube" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBCyK... |
|
|
10/2/19 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
Ivan is an absolutely top notch lawyer and the anonymous negative posts on this site are dead wrong, posted by the exact people he protects the public from.
|
|
|
|
7/18/19 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
The negative comments contained in a lot of these posts are directly associated with the caliber of individuals that were being prosecuted under Alberta's most powerful piece of legislation, the Public Health Act. Mr. Bernardo is an excellent lawyer and his record on successful prosecutions will certainly verify that success. I have no sympathy for slum landlords or owners of filthy food establishments.
|
|
|
|
2/12/19 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
I agree with other persons this lawyer is good at making inappropriate and inflammatory comments against Alberta landlords. I saw the court documents that an AHS inspector filed a false inspection report as evidence to support this lawyer to sue a landlord couple. Beware this person.
|
|
|
|
8/29/17 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Alberta Health Services v Bhanji, 2017 ABCA 126 http://canlii.ca/t/h3f0h
|
|
|
|
3/4/17 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Conclusion
(15) Considering the nature of this prosecution, the comments made by Counsel for the Crown
in his opening statement, to which counsel for the Defendant objected, were inappropriate
(16) ... The comments of the Crown in his opening statement in those areas were premature and inappropriate.
(17) The comments made by the Crown regarding the alleged motive of the Defendant compelling him to breach the Public Health Act were inflammatory and went well beyond the proper ambit for an opening statement. Any opening statement by a Crown should consider the following: the Crown has a duty to ensure a fair trial process; the comments should be consistent with a dispassionate and careful review of the evidence; and the comments must not exaggerate or unfairly characterize the evidence to the prejudice of the accused.
http://canlii.ca/t/gs6z6
|
|
|
|
2/17/17 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
An excellent lawyer protecting the public from unscrupulous and greedy landlords and restaurant owners!
|
|
|
|
1/2/17 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
He is so bad because he took advantage of self-represented persons for grabbing money in the court. Thanks to the judge's integrity and fair judgement that saved my aunt $7,000. Now the court ruling is made public at http://canlii.ca/t/gl6rr R v Zeeba Supermarket Ltd, 2015 ABQB 585 The judge said "In imposing the fines on the individual accused, it will be clear that I have not accepted or shown deference to what Mr. Bernardo characterized as a joint submission. I am very familiar with the case law with respect to joint submissions. I was startled, as I believe Mr. Bernardo noted, to hear a sentencing position being pressed by prosecuting counsel as a joint submission where the accused are unrepresented by counsel. ... I simply do not believe it can be characterized as a joint submission, as we have come to know that in law. Even to undertake that kind of negotiation with an unrepresented accused is a problematic matter, for counsel on behalf of the Crown.".
|
|
|
|
7/27/16 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
It's good to see that some of the Judges from the Edmonton courts centre are aware of this lawyer's behavior. Hopefully to see the same from happening in the Calgary courts centre.
This lawyer's ethic and integrity is very bad. Too much negative comments about this lawyer's conduct and personality and the public can do almost nothing about him. He is very experienced in exaggerating and unfairly characterizing the evidence to the prejudice of the landlords by taking advantage of that Alberta Health Services is government and so-called implementing the Public Health Act. He quite often intentionally withholding the truth about a rental property that had been renovated or purposely ignoring the facts that the landlords are in the process of doing renovations. He just tried his best to characterize every landlord is a slumlord in the court by misrepresentation. Alberta Health Services should be looking into this lawyer's conduct to protect AHS’s reputation.
|
|
|
|
7/26/16 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
(2) ... counsel for the Crown made comments in the following areas: (a) the Defendant had a prior record of violations of the same or similar provisions of the Public Health Act; LOL. I bet he must be very good at using this comment attacking landlords in the court and it's hard for the landlords to fight back. Poor Landlords. Does this guy's home don't need maintenance or renovation from time to time? so by using his logic he also has a records of violations!!! hahaha ...
(b) the prosecutorial policy of the Crown only pursued prosecution as a “last resort”. "last resort"??? LOL. He must be kidding! (c) the statement “AHS alleges that the case involves an absentee landlord that was fixated on maximizing possible revenue by stuffing as many tenants into the housing premises as possible without any regard for the safety of those occupants.” It doesn't seem he has evidence to support this but exaggerate or unfairly characterize the evidence
|
|
|
|
7/20/16 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
(17) The comments made by the Crown regarding the alleged motive of the Defendant compelling him to breach the Public Health Act were inflammatory and went well beyond the proper ambit for an opening statement. Any opening statement by a Crown should consider the following: the Crown has a duty to ensure a fair trial process; the comments should be consistent with a dispassionate and careful review of the evidence; and the comments must not exaggerate or unfairly characterize the evidence to the prejudice of the accused. (13) The Court deals with many prosecutions of alleged breaches of provincial enactments. ... In either case the Crown is bound by the same professional standards discussed in the Code of Professional Conduct.
|
|
Rate this lawyer
|
|
