103. NO ONE is driving the bus!

VIEWS@8031

Reminding viewers that where I, as a Self-Representing Canadian Citizen, had quick and ready email contact with the Case Management Master's Department, my communication with the Divisional Court has been curtailed; NO emails allowed.

I may either leave a telephone message with the Divisional Secretary and receive a response at no particular time-slot (this generally becoming a lengthy response left on my machine), or I may write a letter, the answer to which, again, is left as a message on my telephone.

Part of my sojourn here is to HELP improve the system, so that everyone gains. I feel that  while reaping the benefits of a democracy, one has a certain responsibility to be active in its  process. As it stands today, we are rapidly turning in to a police state not unlike the ones we are all so vehemently opposed to. We seem to have lost the driving care to stand up for our innate rights. By doing so, we are allowing the more abusive elements to take over. 

As we are beginning to realize: BiG BROTHER IS IN THE HOUSEI  and he ain't moven out unless we all stand up and tell him to take a hike, and NEVER come back!

Recall my Posting Number 78. I may re-post an adjusted version in the next while.

I have mentioned other organizations that are doing productive work towards keeping at least a semblance of our Democracy alive. So, If you CARE, I need your help and input. Although fairly fit, I came close to running on empty towards the deadline of having the Appeal papers served and filed in March. Sitting on my butt for many hours creating this, is NOT a whole lot of FUN! OK, back to educating myself...

____________________________________________________________________

"About the Divisional Court

The Divisional Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice and is one of the busiest appellate courts in Canada. The Divisional Court hears statutory appeals from administrative tribunals in the province, and is the primary forum for judicial review of government action in Ontario. The Divisional Court also has some jurisdiction regarding civil and family appeals.

Every judge of the Superior Court of Justice is also a judge of the Divisional Court. Appeals to the Divisional Court are generally heard in the judicial region where the matter originally arose. A proceeding is usually heard and decided by a panel of three judges, but may be heard by a single judge in some circumstances.

The Divisional Court is scheduled to hear matters at various times of the year in each of the judicial regions in Ontario, except in Toronto where the Divisional Court sits regularly throughout the year.

To locate a court in your area, please see the List of Ontario Court Addresses on the Ministry of the Attorney General’s website."

____________________________________________________________________________

Building the Argument. (Does the following include Masters?)

"A matter for appeal or a complaint?

In brief, the Canadian Judicial Council investigates complaints about an individual judge’s inappropriate conduct, not a judge’s decision in a court case.

Every year, judges in Canadian courts make hundreds of thousands of decisions on matters ranging from procedural issues to determining important points of law. When one party in a legal dispute thinks the judge made the wrong decision, the justice system allows that person to appeal to a higher court. For example, if you think that a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reached the wrong decision in your case, you can appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Judges can make mistakes. An appeal court can reverse or vary the decision made by the judge who heard the case. The fact that an appeal court overturns a judge’s decision does not mean that the judge’s conduct was improper or that the judge should be removed from office. It simply means that the appeal court believed the judge made a mistake about the law or the facts of the case.

All judges are expected to uphold a high standard of personal conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom. So, aside from the decision the judge reaches in your case, the judge must be impartial when hearing your case, be respectful and courteous throughout the proceedings, and maintain a high standard of integrity. For example, it is appropriate for members of the public to ask the Council to investigate complaints about judges who are thought to have shown biases based on race, gender, or religion. Complaints can arise from judges’ comments in the courtroom, from speeches or interviews given outside the courtroom.

____________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Re Above. "Inappropriate Conduct" (in my situation as a Self-Representing Litigant, the dismissal of my case as a result of 2 Case Management Masters opinions.
Are Masters subject to the same scrutiny?) 

The first, and main Master's decision (having gone through 5 Conferences), to dismiss the Case because Defense, continuing to NOT be satisfied with my answers to their ongoing Discovery questions, by filing repeated Motions, were insisting I continue to answer what, to ME, were COMPLETELY CASE IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS! 

Siding with Defense, I had been ordered to answer what were ultimately decided by the Master to be relevant questions. This after a 3 hour plodding through questions about other Web-Developers, their contacts, and qualifications; my Marketing Plan; my Business Plan; and the need for my Bio and my educational qualifications and background.   It was decided all was 'Relevant in the Circumstances.' 

"Under the circumstances all questions are relevant and shall be answered." So was the Master's order on December 07, 2012, + I was ordered to pay costs for Defense's last Motion. By February I felt I had complied, even beginning my Bio at my BIRTH. Just in Case, I did not want to leave any STEEN unturned. And, YES, I was definitely beginning to be pissed off with the system! And so, likely, was the Master  - with me.

All had ZERO to do with the FACTS, nor, in my view, the relevance of the case.
So, while quoting the duties, boundaries, conflict of interest, and manipulation of procedure, my argument in the Divisional Court will be about how case-representing Counsels and its representing Masters of the Court, neither followed, nor abided, by the Rules as set out. 

That, in the end, on September 20, 2013, in a SPECIAL HEARING, when the Senior Master would not guarantee me that answers to the latest set of questions would be the END OF IT; that, in my opinion, we were ready to proceed to Trial - having all necessary documents and pre-requisites long ago in place - I realized there would NEVER be an end to it; that my DEATH could well precede my due process TRIAL. 

Thus, holding up the Rules of Civil Procedure, true proportionality, fairness of equal consideration and due process to a higher standard, I refused and was dismissed. 
_  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 This Appellant's argument will be he was misappropriated by the system.      
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BELOW a part article throwing some light on the system…

"….Some 220 or so in a downtown Vancouver hotel ballroom at the invitation of the Canadian Bar Association pondering the crisis in the legal system: It’s too slow, too costly and the outcomes aren’t necessarily just — just outcomes.

Perhaps the key issue, as delegates were told, is the lack of a justice system CEO — there’s no one person in charge, so no one owns the problems that have developed.

  Justice Cromwell said in a luncheon address: “In a sense, no one is driving this bus … (and) we have to start by defining the problems.”

 The country’s legal and governmental structure is built upon the concept of silos, where information is tightly held and data moves within but not outside."