VIEWS@ 9964
In anticipation of creating my argument for the Appeal Hearing, like playing chess, I am challenged to understand the type of rhetoric to use. As Mr. Novice SRL Citizen, I am up against the Masters.
Chess, with its defined up-front nature, is confined by strict Rules. The immediacy of the open-board visual playing field does not allow for any slight of hand. Every action is finite; click; move.
Courts of Justice seem more prone to the game of 'cards.' Now you see it, then you don't. A slight of hand, a cleverly inserted diversion, a concoction of puzzling verbal diatribe, a technicality, each leaves room for perpetual adjustment; hence the need for open 'argument'. The theatre of the Court!
The following is a quote sample of what will be one of my Appeal Exhibits. It is part of the transcript from the September 20, 2013, 'Special Appointment' with Ottawa's Master Macleod.
____________________________________________________________________________
Page 22 (COURT= Master Macleod)
THE COURT: "But what I'm being asked to do is strike out your claim and allow the counterclaim to continue.
STEEN: Well, you will do whatever you feel the need to do, Master.
THE COURT: Well, here's the difficulty, as I understand it, what you're telling me is, you just refused to follow Master Roger's order.
STEEN: No. I did not.
COURT: ...and that you disagree with it.
STEEN:
*1) I explained it very clearly in my rebuttal, why ultimately at the final May 8th conference, again, with a whole new motion - which didn't start out as a Motion - which was something, I'm not even understanding what it is. It's a requisition for a long motion, something... It's not easy sir, to be out here in this different jurisdiction and to - handle these affairs by mail and I have been continually suggested that I hire counsel, and when I did, we were further in - I and I can - yeah, I was further in the mud than before.
COURT: Well, that's the other problem, isn't it?
*2) Y
our counsel agreed to this order, did he not?
STEEN: I know, he didn't help me one bit.
COURT: Right. So having consented to the order that's the same as you consenting to it. You can't then suddenly say well, I'm now changing my mind. It is a court order. You didn't appeal it. I know you are saying now that you want me to review what Master Roger ordered,
*3) but I don't have the jurisdiction to do that."
(NOTE: I did, again, try to file a Motion, questioning the Order; NONE of any of my Motions were ever acknowledged! And WHY is every official's excuse: "I don't have jurisdiction to tackle this?" If Masters don't have jurisdiction over Rule 21, how is it that ultimately the case was dismissed - by a Master? Or was discovery sufficiently dragged out to exasperate me in the end, and thus allow for dismissal based on my refusal to continue to comply in perpetuity, claim relevance be damned.)
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
To any Party on a Question of Law
21.01 (1) (2) A party may move before a judge,
To Defendant
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;
Capacity (b);
Another Proceeding (c)
Action Frivolous, Vexatious or Abuse of Process
(d) the action is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, and a judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly.
(NOTE: If indeed as Master Roger stated in his December 06, 2012 order that he had no Jurisdiction on Rule 21, advising Defense to find Counsel if they wanted to bring that Rule in to play.
Remember as well, Defense offering a 'frivolous' $30,000 to settle out of court. And WHO was abusing the process of the court with their continuous motions, dragging out discovery?
________________________________________________________________________
P. 27
STEEN: ....."Why am I forced to answer questions that have nothing to do with the claim at hand. (....) if they do have something that is relevant, then, show me.
COURT: But Mr.Steen,
*4) they've been found by Master Roger to be relevant or these being found or he has found that you consented to answer them and so, he ordered...
STEEN: Uh-huh.
COURT: ... You to answer them.
STEEN: I never said (inaudible) ...
COURT: Well you did through Mr.Griffiths, and so, he has ordered you to answer them.
(NOTE: My then Counsel promised me to shut down the "puffery of these defendants," and prepare us for trial. This Counsel who fell apart, without consulting me -his client- went entirely against his earlier promises.)
COURT (cont): And you didn't appeal the order and so, it is an order and the findings are the findings.
I'm not sitting in appeal of Master Roger. I'm not going to overturn his order.
__________________________________________________________________________
P.28
STEEN: "... What would guarantee me by answering them regardless if I find them relevant or not and I will until my grave question this, but, if you were to give me 30 days to answer them, how can I have a guarantee that, after answering them there will not be anymore questions asked.
COURT: You can't have a guarantee (...) because it depends what the answers are and they have a right (...) to ask further questions.
STEEN: In that case could you or Master Roger please explain to me on paper, in what way the questions I am forced to answer are relevant to the claim in issue, because all I know is sir, I know the the rules of civil procedure and they are very clear. They were changed in 2010, they were updated where the 'semblance of of relevance' was changed to the 'questions must be relevant to the case at issue.'
COURT:
*5)
I've read what you said about that, and I've read - and I know all about that because amongst other things, I was at the Rule committee when they passed the Rules, so.
But I will tell you that, we're not debating that ...
_________________________________________________________________________
P.29
COURT: (cont) today, that is what Master Roger was supposed to take in to account when he made his order. (...) and so, if you read the rules they say that, when the Court makes an order....
(...)
*6) it shall take ...in to account proportionality and the other purposes of the Rules. And one of the things that the court can do is to intervene to prevent ongoing, unnecessary discovery, but...
STEEN: YES.
COURT: ... that's not what we're dealing with today.
STEEN: Well, that's what I thought we were dealing with.
COURT: Well, we're not. We're dealing with the fact that you were ordered to answer these things, so the determination that they were necessary has already been made by the court, you've just...
STEEN: Without...
COURT: ...decided...
STEEN: ...without...
COURT: ...to disagree.
STEEN:... explaining it?
_________________________________________________________________________
P.30
COURT:
*7) Well, it's not the role of the Court to give you advice, so ....
NOTE: Steen discusses the Role of Case Management, as he understands it.
COURT: ... We're wandering far afield from the - from the issue. The issue is, you were ordered to do something and you haven't done it and therefore, they're asking for a remedy. The most extreme remedy...
STEEN: Yes.
COURT: ... is to dismiss your action. There are other remedies. I can order costs. I can give you more time to do it. I can - do other things, but ...
___________________________________________________________________________
P.31
STEEN: But, if you ordered to give me more time to do it, since we have spoken today,
*8) this scenario can continue, you know, forever, unless - unless somebody puts a stop to some - to something - at some point. As you said, you can dismiss the case today because I didn't comply. You can allow me another 30 days or whatever, you know, you would allow to answer these questions. Then, when I answer the questions, regardless of my feelings because I was so ordered by Master Roger, then there again could be a motion wanting more questions, so do - are you not in a position as a Master to say that, if Mr.Steen answers these next set of questions there shall be no more motions.
COURT: Yeah. No. I would not make that kind of an order because I don't know what your answers would be. So when - when your answers are answered, then. if they ask for more questions
*9) and you think that is unreasonable, then and only then would I be in a position to determine whether I agree with you or not.
STEEN: Okay. So may I ask you this then? If you are going to allow me another 30 days to answer these questions, would you then also allow me to ask further questions?
COURT: That issue is not in front of me today. You have not brought a motion about your questions and so, I don't have any opinion on that at all.
___________________________________________________________________________
P.32.
STEEN: So okay. So, again, the focus is on me?
COURT: Yes. It's completely on you because the - the - one of the problems with the relief they're asking asking for, is they're asking me to dismiss your claim, but not the counter counter-claim, so you're still in the action even, if I dismiss it.
STEEN: Even though we've been (...) dealing most of the time with the counterclaim and so - from a practical perspective, what would happen, if you were to dismiss my claim, the counter-claim which
has already taken up more than half of the energies to date, would just trundle on, on the side and it - it would just unfold or would it be re-reprented?
COURT:
*10) It would continue, presumably, unless they discontinue it, it would continue and then, they would set it down for trial when they think they're ready.
STEEN: Okay, so the counterclaim would continue on as it has been ....(etc)
COURT: Yeah. You've already had some of those things
*11) because you're treating them, as if they're two different things. At the moment, it'a an action with a claim and a counter-claim
________________________________________________________________________
P.33
COURT (cont): and so, whatever has happened has happened, but yes, the relief they're requesting deals only with the claim, strikes out your claim. It does not - it does not dismiss the counterclaim. (etc)
STEEN: Okay. Well, I - I really have nothing more to add, sir, It's up to you now.
Master Macleod turns to BLG's Kirk Boyd asking for any further input. Mr. Boyd mentions the claim being for some $700,000.
(Note: this figure, together with Defense's earliest posturing dollar amounts, have long left the reality of issues, when the Plaintiff offered to settle for some $85,000 in 2010)
Mr. Boyd spends a page and a half bemoaning his clients "substantial business losses," which are not trivial; none of its issues have been answered. He re-iterates to the Master, giving Mr. Steen more time would be a waste; it would certainly be prejudicial to his client. There's discussion about whether - if the matter is to proceed - whether the present answers (Steen's) are satisfactory etc. They would need to come back on that... Costs are discussed. I listen, quite amazed, at the tonality of their voices (remember I'm on the phone from BC). The sound is a buddy/buddy type, tete a tete to me.
_______________________________________________________________________
*1) I explained it very clearly in my rebuttal...
I tried to file a number of Motions, questioning the continued allowances for Defense Motions asking ongoing irrelevant questions. Save for one, NONE of mine were ever acknowledged, or presented, whereas Defences Motions continued to be allowed. The one Motion acknowledged was "Added to defines Counsels papers." There were clear trespasses occurring here? WHAT HAPPENED HERE?
Who does one turn to?
*2) Your counsel agreed to this order did he not?
My Counsel performed a Jekyll and Hyde act. He did the opposite of what he had promised me! In secret, without consulting with me. And this man is a law professor - disgraceful!
*3) but I don't have the jurisdiction to do that.
I seriously question the continuous usage of this escape phrase. Someday, someone will explain it to me. It's like saying when you're cornered, for whatever reason, 'sorry it's beyond my capacity as a lay judge.' And YET! A master is ultimately able to dismiss a claim! What
is going on here, I ask?
*4) they've been found by Master Roger to be relevant or these being found or he has found that you consented to answer them and so, he ordered..
This, to me, is a fascinating sentence concoction. "...he has found that you consented to answer them..."In a next post I will tackle the hidden meanings of manipulation.
*5)
I've read what you said about that, and I've read - and I know all about that because amongst other things, I was at the Rule committee when they passed the Rules, so.
But we are not debating that... (today)
So there it is. Master Macleod knows all about the 2010 'tightening' of the Discovery Rules. He was at the hearings! He knows about 'Relevance to the issues at hand.' But since Master Roger found the questions 'Relevant' he is not about to question his colleague! Furthermore, we are NOT DEBATING THAT TODAY! We NEVER seem to be debating ANYTHING this PLAINTIFF is trying to serve up!
*6) it shall take ...in to account proportionality and the other purposes of the Rules. And one of the things that the court can do is to intervene to prevent ongoing, unnecessary discovery, but...
We're not talking about that today! And it is clear to the Plaintiff, we never will! Since Defence is in control of the wheel house.
What with ongoing Defence Motion filings, Discovery mainly focused on the Counterclaim (the first Blog I ran). Matters were allowed to continue indefinitely, getting further away from the claim's issues at hand.
I began to become suspicious. Realizing Defence had NO interest in going to court, I became suspicious of what they were up to. By my consenting to answer questions entirely outside the realm of relevance, were they possibly out to trick me? Were they riling me on purpose? Looking for me to loose it and state mentally disturbing things, so they could prove my instability?
After some 3 years of discovery one would assume a diligent officer, in this case one of the Masters, with adherence to the Rules of Discovery and his obligatory duty to his oath of office, would have seriously questioned the Validity of Defence's continued filing of Motions and allowances for ongoing, case-irrelevant questions.
The December 06, 2012, 3 hour (150 page Exhibit transcript) conference clearly shows Master Pierre Roger showing his in-experience with websites. He
never questions Defence, accepting pointblank their ridiculous questions. He NEVER ONCE asks how a question has bearing to the issues of the non-compliant contractual claim.
* 7) Well, it's not the role of the Court to give you advice, so
I was asking for an EXPLANATION NOT ADVICE!
That said, the Court OFTEN gives advice! I have ample proof of it!
*8) this scenario can continue, you know, forever, unless - unless somebody puts a stop to some - to something - at some point.
Clearly the "scenario"
IS continuing forever, and the ONLY way to put a STOP to it, is to DISMISS IT!
*9) and you think that is unreasonable, then and only then would I be in a position to determine whether I agree with you or not.
As a Pillar of our society, this professional has clearly seen it all. He has NO interest to question previous orders, or the behaviour of the junior Master. That's NOT what we're doing here! Masters and Judges are pretty well untouchable. To question their motives, their reasonings, is pretty well a death knell.
When you can prove a Judge erred on PURPOSE, as in the case of the BC Judge, short of suing the department of the Attorney General, what can you do?
*10) It would continue, presumably, unless they discontinue it, it would continue and then, they would set it down for trial when they think they're ready.
There you have it folks! In BLACK + WHITE! The Master states that DEFENCE IS IN CHARGE OF PROCEEDINGS! Whatever they decide to do, shall be done!
*11) ... because you're treating them, as if they're two different things.
Yes, I sincerely apologize for that. I learned the hard way, by not understanding for a long time, that one may file a claim, but then if there is a COUNTER-claim, it may well be that
IT, can take priority!
It's like the Rules..." I order THIS, but if you prefer, you might wish to do THAT!
The court will decide which way matters will be interpreted along the way. So buckle up!
______________________________________________________________________________
HERE AGAIN IS WHERE IT ALL WENT HAYWIRE! If only I would have known that Ontario default Rule when in BC Court with Madame Justice Justine Saunders! Lack of Jurisdiction indeed!
The Default Rule for filing in BC - Rule 1 (2) (a)) is to file in the Jurisdiction of the Defense!
BUT, there is the very explicit
or Rule 1 (2) (b) ....
If you can prove a number of factors, and I could, that proved the Jurisdiction legitimate...
Rule 1 — Making a Claim
Completing a notice of claim
(1) To make a claim, a person must complete a notice of claim (Form 1) following the instructions on the form.
Filing a notice of claim
(2) A claimant must file a notice of claim and pay the required fee at the Small Claims Registry nearest to where
(a) the defendant lives or carries on business, or
(b) the transaction or event that resulted in the claim took place.
____________________________________________________________________________
-
The Default Rule for filing in Ontario (Rule 6.01 (1) (a) (i)
RULE 6 FORUM AND JURISDICTION
Place of Commencement and Trial
(a) in the territorial division,
(i) in which the cause of action arose, or
(ii) in which the defendant or, if there are several defendants, in which any one of them resides or carries on business; or
________________________________________________
As you can see readers, the LAW is as fickle as is allowable by the Pillars who are in charge of our democratic hypocrisy.
