- VIEWS@ 14044
in this written world of official posture and demeanour, all could ultimately become proof for factual consideration by any potentially unbiased, fair judge. If, indeed, Rules trump Position, looking to establish TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH > so help me > backed by the very text my government supplied its plebeian public online, both in rhetoric as well as within its Rules of Civil Procedure, some democracy may yet reign supreme.
So, here I go then: Citizen of an ever decreasing fair and understanding, caring world, a world now run by mega CON-glomerates, sputtering my disturbances with the likely-hood I will receive answers of a non-descriptive rhetoric without substance where no one will dare to accept responsibility!
This, as likely one of my final attempts at seeking 'justice,' whatever it is meant to indicate.
Remember, 'Justice,' as a concept, is in fact not natural, it is a man-made suggestive.
Nature, by nature defined > is cruel!
The tiniest glimmer of hope lies with us as individuals. Can you accept, and live with your conscience? In our existence as human-beings on this planet, we are ultimately all fully responsible for our actions. As such, is personal selfishness a reason to disparage, or worry? Question this?
Are we, as a species, to become that questionable small blip in this multi millennial planet's history?
Because the signs are running rampant we are heading there!!!
OR, are we > surprisingly so >
capable of responding by reconsidering our driven needs, and, smartly adjusting, able to redirect ourselves towards acknowledging life's equilibrium based necessities?
"To be or not to be? That's the Question!" Shakespeare (or whoever?) had it right!
Barking up a tree for naught, and soon done trying, this old man needs feed back.
========================================================================
Court File No.:...……..
Court Registry: Victoria
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Claimant:
EVERT JAN STEEN
Respondent:
THE MINISTER OF
JUSTICE and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Name of applicant:
EVERT JAN STEEN
To: THE HONOURABLE MADAME ATTORNEY GENERAL SUZANNE ANTON,
and/or
The presiding Minister of Justice/ Attorney General of
British Columbia
TAKE NOTICE that an application
will be made by the applicant to the presiding judge at the courthouse at 850
Burdett Ave. in Victoria, British Columbia, on ………………. at …………….. for the
orders set out in Part 1 below.
part 1: ORDERS
SOUGHT
1.
Applicant claims the sum of $125,000 for payment of financial
losses, legal costs and representation, time and life consumed, general
emotional suffering and duress, as well, loss of good name within his communities,
both at home and online. (EXHIBIT ‘G’)
2.
An indication by the Ministry to commence a review of the Rules of Civil Procedure to introduce
improvements on understanding the court’s reasons for implementing a Rule. Less ‘choice’ would remove an officers’ argument,
and lead to stricter Rule adherence.
3.
Such other remedies as this Court deems just under the
circumstances.
(2)
part 2: FACTUAL BASIS
1)
After 2 1/2 Months of Cross-Provincial negotiation,
Plaintiff signs a Statement of Work (Contract) with an Ottawa numbered Canada
Inc. web-developer who does business Internationally. The online- signed
contract contains crucial timeline commitments and scope interpretation. Final
paragraph reads: “IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties acknowledge that each has
fully read and endorsed the Agreement and intending to be legally bound
thereby…”
- There are no
provisions indicated regarding Jurisdiction. The Internet covers all
Jurisdictions.
2)
Plaintiff contributes almost daily email contact
input; contract unspecified, is
requested input to format and text by the site’s designated Project Manager.
- Plaintiff
begins questioning progress on fourth week of site development.
3)
All payments to Web-Developer are duly paid by BC
domiciled Plaintiff from a BC bank account. Contracted Completion Date passes. The
product website is never completed.
4)
Upon final
payment, claimant, contractually owning the Work, initiates transference of product
website to a Web Host in Victoria, British Columbia.
5)
This leads to the event by which British Columbia domiciled Plaintiff
has first-hand access to Web Site contents. Upon detailed assessment, both by
users and hired web-developers the site is considered professionally
un-acceptable.
- Precious online
time and opportunity have been lost.
6)
Plaintiff files claim of contractual non-compliance
against the Ottawa numbered Canada Inc. doing business Internationally, in
Courtenay BC.
(3)
7) Arguing Internet Web-Developer is domiciled
in Ottawa, Vancouver Defence representation files for claim dismissal based on
‘lack of Jurisdiction.’
8) Justice
Madame Justine Saunders agrees and dismisses claim based on lack of
Jurisdiction.
9) Default
Rule for filing in Ontario states to file in the Jurisdiction in which the
cause of action arose. The action arose in British Columbia; it is the Forum
Conveniens.
10) Madame Justice Justine Saunders allows
Plaintiff to appeal her decision.
11) Plaintiff files and serves a Notice of Appeal
in Supreme Court, Courtenay Registry.
12) Vancouver Defense Counsel serves
Claimant/Appellant, an Application to a Judge:
-
One may appeal after a Trial, not after a Hearing. Ours
was a ‘Hearing’ (so it is indicated).
-
Claimant understands there are no Trials in Small
Claims Court.
13) After enduring several serious legal
anomalies, Appellant abandons BC Appeal, filing in Superior Court of Ontario,
Ottawa jurisdiction.
14) Claimant enters 4 years of Case Management
discovery, withstands various motions of dismissal and a variety of highly questionable
legal practices during a counterclaim of defamation that overshadows all original
claim’s relevant issues.
15) On April 14, 2015, the jurisdictionally
disadvantaged claimant, having been earlier dismissed for failure to answer never-ending
case irrelevant questions, regarded “relevant under the circumstances” looses
his appeal in the Ontario Divisional Court for non-compliance to a former
Master’s order.
(4)
part 3: Legal
Basis
1)
Madame Justice Justine Saunders erred
in her BC claim dismissal basing it on lack of jurisdiction; additionally,
claimant questions judge’s allowance for an appeal.
British Columbia’s Rules of Civil Procedure allow for
filing a claim in 2 Jurisdictions.
“1) Rule (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 in British Columbia. “
2) “Service of a notice of claim
outside British Columbia
Rule 18(6) of the Small Claims Rules states:
A notice of claim may be served on
a person outside British Columbia if
(a) the person ….
(b) the transaction or event
that resulted in the claim took place”
3) Court Jurisdiction and
Proceedings Transfer Act
Part 2 – Territorial Competence of Courts of British Columbia
Proceedings against a person
(3) A court has territorial
competence in a proceeding that is brought against a person if:
(e) “there is real and substantial connection between British Columbia and
the facts on which the proceeding against that person is based.” [Emphasis]
Real and substantial
connection
(10) (e) concerns contractual obligations and …(iii)
the contract
(5)
(A) is for the purchase of property, services, or both
(B) resulted from a solicitation of business in British Columbia by or
on behalf of the seller.
(f) concerns a business carried on in British Columbia!
====================================================================
4) NOTE: Claimant uses Rule (2) (b), and files in Courtenay, BC.
5) NOTE: Had Claimant
filed in Ontario:
ONTARIO RULE FOR FILING
RULE
6 FORUM AND JURISDICTION
Place of Commencement and Trial (Note
‘Trial’) *
6.01
(1) An action shall be commenced,
(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.
(2) An action shall be tried in the
place where it is commenced, ….
7)
There is contradictory information regarding the
allowance for an Appeal after a dismissal from Small Claims Court. In her
‘APPEARANCE’ of June 23, 2010, Defence Counsel Notes section 5 of the Small Claims Act: Right
of Appeal
5 (1) Any party
to a proceeding under this Act may appeal to the Supreme Court an order to
allow or dismiss a claim if that order
was made by a Provincial court judge after a trial. [emphasis added]
(6)
(2) No appeal
lies from any order of the Provincial Court made in a proceeding under this Act
other than an order referred to in subsection (1) On behalf of
Alexander/Holburn/Beaudin & Lang Counsel adds: “Since there was no trial,
you have no right to appeal.”
8)
I refer the Court to the following online link
about appeals.
part 4: Material to be relied upon
1) Affidavit of EVERT JAN STEEN, sworn @ ………………………this October ….,
2015;
2) EXHIBITS:
A) FINAL ORDER of Madame Justice Justine Saunders.
B) Transcript PROCEEDINGS AT COURTENAY REGISTRY File # C1316) - Pages
1, lines 21>47; Total; Page 3: Total: Page 4 > 29. - Page 8, lines 4>11Page 2: HEARING (BEFORE JUDGE SAUNDERS PRESIDING
C) APPLICATION TO A JUDGE (Filed by
Defence Counsel.)
D)
PROCEEDINGS (Adjournment) (MADAM
JUSTICE DARDI PRESIDING) COURTENAY REGISTRY FILE # 07962
E)
Case Law: Ingenium Technologies
Corporation v. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
2005 BCSC 720
(CanLII)
F) Case Law: Canada (Attorney General)
V. Yasinki, 2006 BCSC 757 (CanLII)
G)
Costs breakdown.
(7)
The Applicant
estimates the application will take 2 hours.
This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a master.
Dated this October……, 2015
-------------------------------------------------
EVERT JAN STEEN
(Claimant)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment