Cher Monsieur Pierre Roger (Maitre de Cour Superieure d'Ottawa, Canada)
Voyant que mon francais n'est pas de tout parfait, surtout en l'utilisation du vocabulaire juridique, je communiquerai avec vous en anglais.
First, I need to address my concerns about the following:
* NOTE: It is this Plaintiff'/ Respondent's opinion when information is shared by cc-ing the effected parties, information would NOT be prejudicial. In fact it would be greatly cost effective.
The following text is intended to remind yourself, as well as indicate to the astute reader, the discovery of your Case Management's tolerance for allowing Defense Motions (supported by your endorsements) to gradually gain the upper hand.
Thus beg the following considerations:
- You have assessed this Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, stating: "The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is not an example of excellence in drafting".
- Having assessed this Plaintiff's wanting Claim, are you fully cognizant of its matters in issue?
- Or are you torn to focus matters "in the circumstances" between the complexities that present you with an added Counterclaim relating to this Plaintiff's former, now deleted, Blog? (to show good will)
- According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, and your oath of office, do you order your endorsements based on your actual assessment relating to the relevancies of the Claim of contractual non-compliance which are at issue? or
- As a time-challenged Officer of the Court could you possibly be swayed by the directives of a more in-your-face, physically present Defense and their Counsel?
As an active ploy it has been previously and repeatedly suggested by Defense this Plaintiff is "emotionally involved." I have been accused of fabrication, repetition, non-compliance, even of lying.
Unbeknown to me, as a 74 year old, I may well be waning and 'wanting' in my cerebral capacities.
Aware of your latest orders, at this juncture of our 2 year affair, I am prepared to undergo a proven, impartial, professional psychiatric assessment. I can make myself fully available to such a Motion, or Order. In the meantime I continue to ascertain the facts as I encounter and assess them:
Voyant que mon francais n'est pas de tout parfait, surtout en l'utilisation du vocabulaire juridique, je communiquerai avec vous en anglais.
First, I need to address my concerns about the following:
RESTRICTIONS TO COURT ACCESS (as they continue to irritate jurisdictional disparities):
1) I may not contact Case Management directly, or indirectly, since according to Rule 1.09 it is prejudicial. *
2) I can not access my web-site related file #10-49776 online.
3) Domiciled in British Columbia, living on an island, I may appear at the Ottawa Court, in person, may hire legal Counsel, or have an allowable Service operator check my file.
The above restrictions clearly disallow me an equal-opportunity as a Canadian Citizen.
The above restrictions clearly disallow me an equal-opportunity as a Canadian Citizen.
The following text is intended to remind yourself, as well as indicate to the astute reader, the discovery of your Case Management's tolerance for allowing Defense Motions (supported by your endorsements) to gradually gain the upper hand.
Thus beg the following considerations:
- You have assessed this Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, stating: "The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is not an example of excellence in drafting".
- Having assessed this Plaintiff's wanting Claim, are you fully cognizant of its matters in issue?
- Or are you torn to focus matters "in the circumstances" between the complexities that present you with an added Counterclaim relating to this Plaintiff's former, now deleted, Blog? (to show good will)
- According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, and your oath of office, do you order your endorsements based on your actual assessment relating to the relevancies of the Claim of contractual non-compliance which are at issue? or
- As a time-challenged Officer of the Court could you possibly be swayed by the directives of a more in-your-face, physically present Defense and their Counsel?
As an active ploy it has been previously and repeatedly suggested by Defense this Plaintiff is "emotionally involved." I have been accused of fabrication, repetition, non-compliance, even of lying.
Unbeknown to me, as a 74 year old, I may well be waning and 'wanting' in my cerebral capacities.
Aware of your latest orders, at this juncture of our 2 year affair, I am prepared to undergo a proven, impartial, professional psychiatric assessment. I can make myself fully available to such a Motion, or Order. In the meantime I continue to ascertain the facts as I encounter and assess them:
This takes me, Master Roger, to interpret the following:
RULE 77 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT
Purpose
77.01 (1) The purpose of this Rule is to establish a case management system that provides case management only of those proceedings for which a need for the court’s intervention is demonstrated and only to the degree that is appropriate, as determined in reliance on the criteria set out in this Rule.
General Principles
(2) This Rule shall be construed in accordance with the following principles:
1. Despite the application of case management under this Rule to a proceeding, the greater share of the responsibility for managing the proceeding and moving it expeditiously to a trial, hearing or other resolution remains with the parties.
2. The nature and extent of the case management provided by a judge or case management master under this Rule in respect of a proceeding shall be informed by any relevant practices, traditions, customs or judicial resource issues that apply locally in the region in which the proceeding is commenced or to which it is transferred.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This now motivates this Plaintiff to take you, Master Roger, back in time.
CASE HISTORY:
JUNE 1, 2011,
Case Management first came to this Plaintiff's attention.
I received a cc'd FAX addressed to your offices by then Defense Counsel R. MacHaalani. On June 02, I telephoned your office on June 2, and, speaking with Miss Estabrooks, enquired about its receipt. I was informed NO SUCH FAX HAD BEEN RECEIVED.
It will serve as an Exhibit of this Case's several legal anomalies.
MacHaalani FAX:
(For brevity I have decided not to post same and aggravate the issue; suffice to say My 'Self-Representing' was mentioned some 13 times (as if it were some curse), and a plea to Case Management office, concerning my emotional, and non-rational state of mind was made.)
Regardless, although an anomaly in procedural chess play, to me it created the possibility for an actual Case Management involvement. With Jurisdictional Distances not favouring this Claimant, the concept involvement of an impartial, objective Case Management Master could enhance procedures by keeping the Case on its rightful track of 'Due Process.' (This being the Claimant/Respondent's view at the time)
Although there was full acknowledgement of having received this Plaintiff's 35A Written Questions on the previous May 19, 2011, with the Chess game in full play, Defense set out to file their first Motion to dismiss. My attempts to attend by Skype/ telephone were quashed. You ordered me to attend in Person!
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011,
Representing Claimant: 'Company X' ; Representing Defense: R. MacHaalani.
The NOTICE OF MOTION (as filed by Defense on August 15,2011) is for:
(a) An order dismissing the Responding Party's proceeding pursuant to Rules: 3.04(4), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11(b) of The Rules of Civil Procedure;
(b) In the alternative, an Order approving the Discovery Plan etc...
(c) An order granting the Moving Party its costs ...etc
(d) Such further and other Relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.
The ORDER contained the following:
1. THIS COURT ORDERS the Plaintiff withdraws, without prejudice, any motion to have the action managed by the Case Management office;*
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties accept the Discovery Plan attached as Schedule A hereto;
3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties agree to attend a mediation no later than by the end of the year 2011 or another time agreed upon by the parties;
4. THIS COURT ORDERS that Costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge."
(Signed: Master Pierre E. Roger)
* NOTE: Mr. R. MacHaalani in an earlier email to the Claimant: "Case Management is archaic; my client does not want it."
Although the Claimant's request for Case Management was withdrawn by 'Consent,' Defense's Motion request to dismiss the case (see (a) above) was overturned. The Master had no powers to do so.
According to the Plaintiff's legal representation (@ some $2.200): "So that you are aware, the Master advised that he was of the view that this is an appropriate candidate for case management and, but for the provision in the order dealing with it specifically, he would have made that order."
NOTE: Master Roger, sir, is this not showing signs of a Defense hell-bent on NOT wanting the facts to come out at a Trial? Which of these Parties, Sir, are taking up court time?
JANUARY 17, 2012.
Attended by Master Roger, a Defense Notice of Motion for self-representation was heard and allowed. Additionally, with both parties now self-representing, the Master ordered the Case in to Case Management. A Case Conference is to be scheduled by the Plaintiff.
NOTE: This will be the last indication the Plaintiff is playing 'WHITE.'
MAY 9, 2012.
The first Case Conference is convened. Both Defense CEO + CIO are present in court, with Claimant Steen allowed attendance by telephone this time.
Master Roger Endorses, stating the following:
"Affidavits of documents have been exchanged and the Plaintiff served written examination for Discovery in May 2011.
The purpose of this case Conference is to timeline the action to a date by which it will have to be set down for trial."
NOTE: This is the last we see of this order; it is NOT maintained during following conferences. All decisions/ orders prove illusionary, decisions of the moment; none have substance!
The Court therefore orders as follows:
(Plaintiff herewith shortens the Master's text) Both Parties are to revisit the list of questions and provide additional answers and doc. that "they are prepared to provide in answer to these questions. All relevant questions are to be answered as fully as possible." "On consent, by May 18,2012 the Plaintiff will remove any and all statements relating to the Defendant in any of his blogs..." .etc Further Case Conference scheduled for July 18, 2012.
NOTE: Ongoingly, Matters concern themselves with the Blog as Counterclaim. Never a word or reference to the actual, simple, original claim of contractual non-compliance. (???)
JULY 10, 2012.
Defense files 'NOTICE OF MOTION'
The Motion is for: "(a) An order dismissing the Respondent Party's proceeding pursuant to" (see (a) September 13, 2011)
THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:
Plaintiff paraphrases: Re May 9, 2012, Master Roger's order, identifying same over some 9 pages.
- Plaintiff has failed to comply as per instructed at deadline June 28, 2012. Defense finds answers inadequate "to facilitate a fair discovery process," siting "Contradictions with his own answers and blatant lies." Further siting: "The Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim explicit requests for case management have allowed him to leverage the resources of the Court and taxpayers to his advantage without justification."
(f) "In the interest of justice and of all the parties, in order to avoid any further legal cost, potentially reduce court intervention, and whereas the responding Party's claim has absolutely no merit, the moving Party thus requires the Court to order the dismissal of the responding Party's proceedings pursuant to (see (a) above)..."
NOTE: What is intriguing to this Plaintiff (now being reduced to a Respondent's role) is that the Claim continues nowhere referred to. Allowable questions are dealing with the Counterclaim of Defamation and matters beyond and outside the claim in issue. (i.e. NOT RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM AT HAND (WHICH SOLELY DEALS WITH THE NON-COMPLIANT CONTRACT ! NOTING OUTSIDE OF IT! )
JULY 18, 2012
Master Pierre E. Roger orders as follows:
1." The Plaintiff shall review the Defendant's Motion [...] shall answer to the best of his abilities all unanswered questions that he is prepared to answer."
2. ..Defendant shall send Plaintiff a complete list re Blog remnants of names etc.
3. ..Plaintiff shall review Blog and take reasonable steps to ensure Defendant's name no longer appears...etc
4. By August 24, 2012 Defendant shall advise Plaintiff what parts of Motion will not be argued...which questions, in the Defendant's view, remain unanswered...[..]
5. Plaintiff shall serve and file responding materials by Sept 7, 2012
6. Parties shall file a Factum prior to Motion..[dates]
7) Plaintiff may attend Sept. 25 motion by telephone.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
Case Conference adjourned on account of an Act of God - a water main burst. The Court Building is vacated by all, but for Master MacLeod answering incoming calls. However Master Roger having reviewed materials, orders parties to file an Affidavit setting out all of the evidence on which they rely for the motion, and prepare a Refusals and Undertakings Chart, together with a copy of the latest versions of the pleadings. (Statement of Defence and Statement of Claim + a Copy of list questions and answers) Motion maybe scheduled to return for 3 hours at a date to be scheduled by the moving party after October 31, 2012
DECEMBER 6, 2012
ENDORSEMENT (Master Roger)
"This motion is really or primarily a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's action for failing to answer questions asked under rule 35 and for failing to comply with previous endorsements. However, instead of relying on Rules 3.04(4) [etc].. I have nonetheless considered rules [etc].
During the motion, we carefully reviewed outstanding answers and undertakings. I have found that 27 questions and undertakings are outstanding and require better answers..[..etc.]
Regardless, although an anomaly in procedural chess play, to me it created the possibility for an actual Case Management involvement. With Jurisdictional Distances not favouring this Claimant, the concept involvement of an impartial, objective Case Management Master could enhance procedures by keeping the Case on its rightful track of 'Due Process.' (This being the Claimant/Respondent's view at the time)
Although there was full acknowledgement of having received this Plaintiff's 35A Written Questions on the previous May 19, 2011, with the Chess game in full play, Defense set out to file their first Motion to dismiss. My attempts to attend by Skype/ telephone were quashed. You ordered me to attend in Person!
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011,
Representing Claimant: 'Company X' ; Representing Defense: R. MacHaalani.
The following Defense Motion was heard and ordered by Master Roger:
Based on the Claimant's acceptance, Defense's request for a Case Dismissal will be canceled.
The NOTICE OF MOTION (as filed by Defense on August 15,2011) is for:
(a) An order dismissing the Responding Party's proceeding pursuant to Rules: 3.04(4), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11(b) of The Rules of Civil Procedure;
(b) In the alternative, an Order approving the Discovery Plan etc...
(c) An order granting the Moving Party its costs ...etc
(d) Such further and other Relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.
The ORDER contained the following:
1. THIS COURT ORDERS the Plaintiff withdraws, without prejudice, any motion to have the action managed by the Case Management office;*
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties accept the Discovery Plan attached as Schedule A hereto;
3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties agree to attend a mediation no later than by the end of the year 2011 or another time agreed upon by the parties;
4. THIS COURT ORDERS that Costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge."
(Signed: Master Pierre E. Roger)
* NOTE: Mr. R. MacHaalani in an earlier email to the Claimant: "Case Management is archaic; my client does not want it."
Although the Claimant's request for Case Management was withdrawn by 'Consent,' Defense's Motion request to dismiss the case (see (a) above) was overturned. The Master had no powers to do so.
According to the Plaintiff's legal representation (@ some $2.200): "So that you are aware, the Master advised that he was of the view that this is an appropriate candidate for case management and, but for the provision in the order dealing with it specifically, he would have made that order."
NOTE: Master Roger, sir, is this not showing signs of a Defense hell-bent on NOT wanting the facts to come out at a Trial? Which of these Parties, Sir, are taking up court time?
JANUARY 17, 2012.
Attended by Master Roger, a Defense Notice of Motion for self-representation was heard and allowed. Additionally, with both parties now self-representing, the Master ordered the Case in to Case Management. A Case Conference is to be scheduled by the Plaintiff.
NOTE: This will be the last indication the Plaintiff is playing 'WHITE.'
MAY 9, 2012.
The first Case Conference is convened. Both Defense CEO + CIO are present in court, with Claimant Steen allowed attendance by telephone this time.
Master Roger Endorses, stating the following:
"Affidavits of documents have been exchanged and the Plaintiff served written examination for Discovery in May 2011.
The purpose of this case Conference is to timeline the action to a date by which it will have to be set down for trial."
NOTE: This is the last we see of this order; it is NOT maintained during following conferences. All decisions/ orders prove illusionary, decisions of the moment; none have substance!
The Court therefore orders as follows:
(Plaintiff herewith shortens the Master's text) Both Parties are to revisit the list of questions and provide additional answers and doc. that "they are prepared to provide in answer to these questions. All relevant questions are to be answered as fully as possible." "On consent, by May 18,2012 the Plaintiff will remove any and all statements relating to the Defendant in any of his blogs..." .etc Further Case Conference scheduled for July 18, 2012.
NOTE: Ongoingly, Matters concern themselves with the Blog as Counterclaim. Never a word or reference to the actual, simple, original claim of contractual non-compliance. (???)
JULY 10, 2012.
Defense files 'NOTICE OF MOTION'
The Motion is for: "(a) An order dismissing the Respondent Party's proceeding pursuant to" (see (a) September 13, 2011)
THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:
Plaintiff paraphrases: Re May 9, 2012, Master Roger's order, identifying same over some 9 pages.
- Plaintiff has failed to comply as per instructed at deadline June 28, 2012. Defense finds answers inadequate "to facilitate a fair discovery process," siting "Contradictions with his own answers and blatant lies." Further siting: "The Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim explicit requests for case management have allowed him to leverage the resources of the Court and taxpayers to his advantage without justification."
(f) "In the interest of justice and of all the parties, in order to avoid any further legal cost, potentially reduce court intervention, and whereas the responding Party's claim has absolutely no merit, the moving Party thus requires the Court to order the dismissal of the responding Party's proceedings pursuant to (see (a) above)..."
NOTE: What is intriguing to this Plaintiff (now being reduced to a Respondent's role) is that the Claim continues nowhere referred to. Allowable questions are dealing with the Counterclaim of Defamation and matters beyond and outside the claim in issue. (i.e. NOT RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM AT HAND (WHICH SOLELY DEALS WITH THE NON-COMPLIANT CONTRACT ! NOTING OUTSIDE OF IT! )
JULY 18, 2012
Master Pierre E. Roger orders as follows:
1." The Plaintiff shall review the Defendant's Motion [...] shall answer to the best of his abilities all unanswered questions that he is prepared to answer."
2. ..Defendant shall send Plaintiff a complete list re Blog remnants of names etc.
3. ..Plaintiff shall review Blog and take reasonable steps to ensure Defendant's name no longer appears...etc
4. By August 24, 2012 Defendant shall advise Plaintiff what parts of Motion will not be argued...which questions, in the Defendant's view, remain unanswered...[..]
5. Plaintiff shall serve and file responding materials by Sept 7, 2012
6. Parties shall file a Factum prior to Motion..[dates]
7) Plaintiff may attend Sept. 25 motion by telephone.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
Case Conference adjourned on account of an Act of God - a water main burst. The Court Building is vacated by all, but for Master MacLeod answering incoming calls. However Master Roger having reviewed materials, orders parties to file an Affidavit setting out all of the evidence on which they rely for the motion, and prepare a Refusals and Undertakings Chart, together with a copy of the latest versions of the pleadings. (Statement of Defence and Statement of Claim + a Copy of list questions and answers) Motion maybe scheduled to return for 3 hours at a date to be scheduled by the moving party after October 31, 2012
DECEMBER 6, 2012
ENDORSEMENT (Master Roger)
"This motion is really or primarily a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's action for failing to answer questions asked under rule 35 and for failing to comply with previous endorsements. However, instead of relying on Rules 3.04(4) [etc].. I have nonetheless considered rules [etc].
During the motion, we carefully reviewed outstanding answers and undertakings. I have found that 27 questions and undertakings are outstanding and require better answers..[..etc.]
NOTE: During this lengthy Conference, attended by the Plaintiff by telephone, while you, Master Roger, read the undertakings questions - unprepared, COLD, asking Defense for meaning along the way, this Respondent mutters an occasional "OK", "Fine", "Whatever.."
Considering: that the previous orders were made at case conferences without assessing the sufficiency of the answers; that the previous orders were not specific but rather a general request to both parties to ensure that their answers were complete; that the parties are self-represented; that some efforts have been made by the Plaintiff to provide some answers; that most of the outstanding questions are follow-up questions arising from previous answers (there have been a number of follow-up questions) and considering generally the concept of proportionality, what is just in the circumstances is not to dismiss the action for failing to comply with previous orders and not fully answering questions but rather to order that outstanding questions, as they are outlined below, be answered by February 15, 2013.
The above is a fair and reasonable disposition, in the circumstances of this case. The Plaintiff is, however, on notice that he must comply with this order in a timely manner as this court might exercise its discretion differently should a similar motion return. (Made bold by Plaintiff)
The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is not an example of excellence in drafting however, at this stage in the action, the Motion under Rule 25.11 as requested is dismissed, for added reasons as outlined above. This court does not have jurisdiction under Rule 21.01 and is therefore not deciding that part of the Motion.
The Plaintiff prepared a refusal and answer chart, which we used during the motion. It provides information on the current status of questions and undertakings ..[..etc]
It is of course the corresponding questions that must be answered. All questions or undertakings ordered answered have been found to be relevant and outstanding. [etc] "
You, the Master further orders:
"On consent, the Defendant shall preserve the original web site.
On consent, leave is granted to the parties to conduct their mediation session [etc]
A further Case Conference is hereby scheduled for one hour before me on February 27, 2013, at 12:00 noon.
The above is without prejudice to any motion under rule 21 that the Defendant may with to bring. In this regard I wish to confirm my recommendation that the defendant consult with legal counsel before bringing a rule 21 motion."
NOTE: i.e. another Motion request to dismiss the Claim.
Next follows the Master's interpretation of costs;
"My inclination would be to allow costs to the Defendant for this motion in the amount of $1,000.00 all inclusive payable by the Plaintiff within 30 days of today .".[etc] The Master leaves room for email input submissions by parties as to costs here.
Defense, insulted by the Master's meagre amount allowance, presents an invoice for some $11,000
The Master subsequently orders the Plaintiff to pay $2,100.00
NOTE:
The wayward, retired, jurisdictionally challenged 'Respondent' has at long last been confronted with the actualities! You, MASTER, have ordered clearly!
So, after digesting this, Sir, much became apparent to me. Where you, in your office, had started out rightfully office-unbiased (May 9th Conference), by December 6th, you had chosen sides, and put your foot down! On ME!
Digesting this, I realized I needed Jurisdictional representation and began Googling for Ottawa Counsel. Although I thought I had obtained fortuitous Counsel, in practice it proved not to be. My 'Counsel' and I shared several lengthy emails; rhetoric about how I needed to' trust him' etc., so he could do his job. There were a few email warning attempts to Defense about filing any further Motions;
Then, a sudden introduction of new Defense Counsel with a full-blown Case Conference having been held! No warnings - NOTHING! With new demands and orders, based on Defense's:
"The Defendant says that undertakings still remain unanswered."
NOTE: This Respondent surmises, if the Jurisdictionally present Defendant says so:
"IT MUST BE CORRECT, and thus ipso facto APPLICABLE."
This respondent paid Mediation costs of $2,100 + $1,000 retainer + $768,00 to the Mediator.
The respondent is assuming the newly activated motion to be a NEWLY FILED MOTION?
i.e. all is above board and 'Legal'?
DENOUEMENT:
Although I readily give kudos to a legally questionable, yet insistent Defense, as I have indicated previously, my conscience, at this stage, has decided to resist complying to any further demands for answers; answers, to me, completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. Having previously, in good will, gone along at length, and in my assessment gone far beyond any normal sane tolerance in complying, I am at this stage, unable to continue.
With the Geographic distance, and the Court's continued lack of online allowances, my Court access is at best ineptly frustrating. Make a phone call, wait for a response. All is archaic (as Mr. MacHaalani would consider it) My earlier filed Motion was lost in the everlasting ether; you, Master Roger eluded: "I am not aware of it," when I mentioned it. I ask, in the in vain vacuum: "What happened to it?"
As the self-appointed Superior Court Case Management Officer of this case, I await your ultimate summation and ordered directives.
Merci, et bonne Fete du Canada avec ta famille!
Vive la justice = Long live Justice.
The reluctant Respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment