Below some quotes from today's 'Open Law Lab' Blog:
"When we talk about terrible websites, it's not just that they look like they're from 1999 (though that's definitely a part of it). It's also that the processes are burdensome, unclear, and made even more so with bad web experience and interaction design."
"All of it adds up to hugely expensive sites that are not usable for the target audiences, and that aren't flexible enough to adapt to changing times' standards of what good, trustworthy, engaging, confidence-inspiring websites look like."
"This certainly isn't just a federal government agency problem. The same bad-outdated-confusing website criticism applies to most every court website I have experienced."
Attesting to the above, I recount my online government instructions regarding the filing/ service methods of my 'Written Questions' during the Discovery phase, way back in 2010, as per Rule 35.01 (below).
When you visit the CANLII.org site you will note the continuous 'updating' by year....although the below texts continue to be the same...
======================================================================
RULE 35 PROCEDURE ON EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS
35.01 An examination for discovery by written questions and answers shall be conducted by serving a list of the questions to be answered (Form 35A) on the person to be examined and every other party.
ANSWERS
35.02 (1) Written questions shall be answered by the affidavit (Form 35B) of the person being examined, served on the examining party within fifteen days after service of the list of questions.
-------------------->>>>>>
FAILURE TO ANSWER
Further List of Questions
35.04 (1) Where the examining party is not satisfied with an answer or where an answer suggests a new line of questioning, the examining party may, within ten days after receiving the answer, serve a further list of written questions which shall be answered within fifteen days after service. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 35.04 (1).
Court Order for Further Answers
(2) Where the person being examined refuses or fails to answer a proper question or where the answer to a question is insufficient, the court may order the person to answer or give a further answer to the question or to answer any other question either by affidavit or on oral examination
........... .....>>>>......
Additional Sanctions
(4) Where a person refuses or fails to answer a proper question on a written examination or to produce a document that he or she is required to produce, the court may, in addition to imposing the sanctions provided in subrules (2) and (3),
(a) if the person is a party or a person examined on behalf or in place of a party, dismiss the party’s action or strike out the party’s defence;
(b) strike out all or part of the person’s evidence; and
(c) make such other order as is just. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 35.04 (4).
===================================================================
Ah Yes! a 'proper' question. Not one with a 'semblance' of relevance, but relevant to the issues at hand! Well, the issues "at hand" I have learned, are whatever the court decides to be 'relevant.'
===================================================================
IMPROPER CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION
35.05 On motion by the person being examined, or by any party, the court may terminate the written examination or limit its scope where,
(a) the right to examine is being abused by an excess of improper questions; or
(b) the examination is being conducted in bad faith, or in an unreasonable manner so as to annoy, embarrass or oppress the person being examined. (Underlined + emboldened by me)
=======================================================================
So, having prepared some 100 + RELEVANT, contract related questions, I served and filed them.
Having noted a 15 day legal window allowance for a Defence's response, after a reminder to their Defense Counsel to please acknowledge receipt of same, and, upon receiving it being asked for a time extension, I offered "a month." This turned out to be insufficient, and the battle was on.
Matters went down-hill ever since. Not only was the 15 day legal response ignored, I was sent a 'newer' longer, more expansive 'Discovery Plan' to which the parties were to sign up for and agree upon.
The earlier, acknowledged delivery of my written questions was now being entirely ignored.
Not only did Master Roger at a September 2010 first Conference acknowledge my earlier delivery of the Rule 35A Questions, the fact some 5 months had passed WITHOUT ANSWERS was NEVER QUESTIONED.
And in the end, both Court and Defense Counsel, with their direct objective to drive me COMPLETELY INSANE, had decided to activate the above 'IMPROPER CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION ' themselves, by asking me to answer such questions as to: "When did I retire?" and "What jobs did I perform as a Handyman?" All clearly questions relevant to a fully paid for earlier unusable website.
My insistent request on having the following sentence handed me down by Master Roger explained: "Under the circumstances all questions are found to be relevant; the Plaintiff shall answer them."
was met by the following Court responses, which led to the claim's dismissal:
The senior Master's response was to pass the proverbial 'Jurisdictional' buck by reference to the previous Master:
McLeod: "...that is what Master Roger was supposed to take in to account when he made his order." ...."into 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: (hopeful) "Yes."
MacLeod: "...that's not what we're dealing with today."
Steen: "Well, that's what I thought we were dealing with."
Macleod: "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.."
Macleod:...decided...
Steen:... without...
Macleod: ...to disagree...
Steen: ....explaining it?
Macleod: "Well, it's not the role of the Court to give you advice, so..."
etc. etc.
===============================================================
Ah yes, 'WELL' there you have it. This time the Officer in Charge of the Court proceedings decides it does not give advice. I never asked for advice in the first place; I asked for a legitimate EXPLANATION!
BUT! All is under the bridge now. The Court has a mind of its own, each time it hands out an ORDER!
Do not QUESTION THE COURT, because they are beyond The Law; each and every one of them.
It took me a long time to figure this out. Thanks to Rodell and others, I get it now.
From Kaiser Harper and his Superior bunch in Ottawa, to a circuit Judge in Rural BC,
> relevant truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Corruption is alive and well, and without a conscience, reigning over us.
Have a nice day > EH?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment