215. Application Adjourned!

VIEWS@14525

Life is wonderfully weird.
Perhaps I ought to apologize to my anonymous viewers.

Several weeks ago I met a seriously experienced SRL on line (he had read my Blog and contacted me) stating that as another "UN-represented"(he called it) Litigant he had many years practice, having won most of his cases. He informed me I had a 'weak' case. My 'Cause of Action' would not fly. He offered to help, but I would have to adjourn, since we needed TIME to do our research.

Sufficiently impressed, I did as he suggested, and, filing another REQUISITION I managed to postpone the Trial. It is now set for February 12, 2016.

Apparently what seemed like a slam-dunk to me is naive thinking. The obvious is far from pertinent and applicable - so it appears. Just because I feel to have proof the BC Judge erred 'twice,' and inadvertently sent me on a 5 year nightmare in Ottawa, doesn't mean I am entitled to recompense!

Judges are human beings too :(> After all they can't help being affected by choice-driven rules...
"Will you be coming to Ottawa to ARGUE your case in person, Mr. Steen?"(Defense Counsel)

==================================================================

Definition: 

argue |ˈärgyo͞o| verb (argues, arguing, argued) 1 [ reporting verb ] give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view: [ with clause ] :  defense attorneys argue that the police lacked “probable cause” to arrest the driver | [ with direct speech ] :  “It stands to reason,” she argued.• [ with obj. ] (argue someone into/out of) persuade someone to do or not to do (something) by giving reasons: I tried to argue him out of it.=========================================================================="Typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view"Surely Self Representing Litigants, or rather 'UN-represented' Litigants, shall NOT be allowed to have a say in the matter, regardless how solid their argument. What would it do to the professional system?" I should inform you that the provincial government does not provide compensation to parties to litigation because they are dissatisfied with a judicial decision." (reply from the Office of the Minister of Justice on trying to establish dialogue with opposing/ defense Counsel) So, at the foundation of our laws, there lies - application, reliant on each judge's decision of the day, like a 'Soup-du-Jour', based on who's 'argument' she/he will be swayed to pick at that instance; applicably correct, just, or not; Thank you > NEXT!  Beware the SRL who thinks it could go their way! Since 'arguments' are subjective, the pendulum can be manipulated to sway the 'chosen' way.  This is called JUSTICE! Apparently then, now, the objective is to find precedent. Since the Minister of Justice's Department is responsible for protecting the public's Interest, let's go looking. Below quotes from BC Government 's Online Info: (assuming 'non-Criminal' Offences would be awarded similar consideration)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ministry of Justice

The Vision - Courageous, Fair and Efficient – a Prosecution Service that has the confidence of the public

"As an integral part of the Ministry of Justice, the Criminal Justice Branch will deliver on its core responsibilities in a manner that safeguards prosecutorial independence, and supports an -effective justice system through communication, collaborative effort and innovation."==============================================================================JusticeBCJustice and Public Safety Council

"British Columbia’s justice system is being transformed to better meet the needs of citizens. As part of this transformation, the Justice Reform and Transparency Act was passed in 2013. The act created the Justice and Public Safety Council and makes it responsible for setting the strategic direction of the provincial justice system, as well as for holding a regular Justice Summit to consult with major justice participants and stakeholders."

The Council

The Justice and Public Safety Council was established in April 2013, in accordance with the Justice Reform and Transparency Act. The council, which is appointed by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, is responsible for:

• setting the strategic direction and vision for the provincial justice system through an annual Justice and Public Safety Plan;
• engaging in dialogue with justice and public safety participants and stakeholders; and
• guiding the way to open, transparent and accountable leadership.

More detailed information about the council’s responsibilities is set out in section 7 of the Act.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislation & Policy 

" The Ministry of Justice often consults with British Columbians on legislation and policy. One method is to publish a discussion paper with an invitation to the public to respond. Another means is to use an online survey to solicit input. Public feedback is important because it helps government shape new laws and policies.

The ministry's legislation and policy pages contain information on legislation updates, current online consultations that may lead to future legislation or changes in policy, and an archive of consultations that have recently ended. "

===================================================================================

NOTE: SO! The objective then is to delve in to discovery of any and all materials that could possibly be pertinent to my case. Much online text rendered, bearing fine rhetoric, may not bare ANY weight, when it comes to ARGUING my case!  I must go beyond my Exhibit Case Law proof to find MORE telling 'Cause of Action.' All  must point at the Ministry itself.    I 

214. Goodbye KAISER HARPER > Welcome PROMISING TRUDEAU !

VIEWS@14407

SUMMARY TRIAL DATE = NOVEMBER 27, 2015!  9:45 AM Reporting..., may be last on the docket?....VICTORIA SUPREME COURT/ 850 BURDETT AVENUE.

EVERT JAN STEEN V. MINISTER OF JUSTICE/ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BC. 

TODAY I received my date stamped, Court Registered:  NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM and NOTICE OF APPLICATION, and by telephone verified the above date (will be confirmed by mail).

Three Copies each sent; 2 copies returned. One each to be forwarded Defence, the other each mine.

At least the required logistics have taken me to this stage. No time to relax though.
Next, I need to send both above docs + all other materials, such as Exhibits, Case Law, et all, comprising my position, to Defence (i.e. 8 days before TRIAL)  AND

Same docs to be in possession of the Court by the 25th of Nov.
THOSE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS..... (momentary small sigh of relief)

===================================================================
Below is an earlier Draft not Posted until now.

At an earlier date I received all materials returned with the written sentence: "..can not pay by credit."

So, October 23, 2015, I resent  the 3 copies of my application, again by registered post to the Victoria Court Registry.

This time with an $80.00 Money Order @ $7, + $12.00 Registered Mail costs.
OK > great! Cheaper then driving there... Hopefully, another technical hurdle overcome.
So, I guess I mistook the earlier online allowances by email.

Instructions for paying fees are indicated in the Rules and Forms:
Fees Payable to the Crown. 
(Unless otherwise provided by Statute)

However, that is NOT the text you use to indicate the designated receiver on your Money Order; Payable to: 'THE CROWN!"

We aren't paying Queen Elizabeth, although her vast Empire no doubt continues to receive collected monies from all its ongoing territories (remember I spoke of living in a police/feudal system?)

NO! You enter: MINISTER OF FINANCE  (not BC, not Canada, just that!) It's like making out a cheque to: THE GUY/GAL WHO COLLECTS OUR MONEY, or, THE ONE THAT DIGS HOLES.

So, we will see where this gets me now. Will it work? Will they send me a date stamped, registered copy? Will we get to the next stage, where I can actually serve the Minister > of Justice?  This time with the indication we are in BC?

Then! All came back again! With the Money Order paid back to me. I should have sent in a: NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM  (@ $200) > WITH the APPLICATION
So I DID! And again sent it off by Registered mail...

I then received an email saying I had not indicated my requested Court Date.
I would have to fill in a FORM 17 'REQUISITION' and stipulate a date!

WOW! This was a surprise??!! I could CHOOSE my own Court Date? ... On Previous occasions, I had either negotiated a date, or been handed one...
So I filled out a REQUISITION (NO COST) and sent it!

All seems at last copacetic... >>>>> Sighs of relief....

NEXT CHAPTER: deliver the goods to Defence!
- Then, deliver same to the courts... 
  

 

213. Efficiency and Concern is for a Perfect World.

VIEWS@ 14343

What IS Efficiency? In real commerce, there are generally 2 main, opposing objectives. If you are a business person, you are either efficient, cutting costs to save, since you are paying for it, OR you stretch time, and add whatever you can get away with, in order to charge more for whatever services you are supplying a client.

But when it comes to government, efficiency is NOT a forefront issue. The psyche functions completely differently. There are no entrepreneurs working for the government. They are jobs, usually 8 hour shifts, where the needs require a comfortable fulfillment of prerequisites set by the title you carry. And as long as you make no waves, you can grow old and retire with a clear conscience.

In my endeavours to file my Application with the Registry Office in Victoria, I have encountered hurdles. My materials were returned several times. I had not fulfilled required compliances and was informed so. I have no doubt all discrepancies were mine alone to overcome. With my blinkers on, driven to get it RIGHT (or at least accepted by those who function within the system) I today sent my 4th Registered mailing to the Registry Offices in Victoria.

On filing my Application I had omitted to indicate a specific date for my Trial. I had NO idea this was either a prerequisite, or a liberty allowed the Plaintiff. Previously, I remember discussing this with an individual in charge of scheduling available dates, then choosing one to be confirmed. But to stipulate a date of choice?

To remedy this discrepancy I was informed by phone, by a very pleasant person, I needed to send in a REQUISITION indicating a day for Trial, and that it would be a SUMMARY TRIAL + the fact it was to be a maximum 2 hour session in front of a JUDGE. 3 copies of same, with a self-addressed stamped envelope would return me 2 copies, so that I could then sent one to my 'other' party.

Also some additional crucial detail to sent the 'other party' all materials some 8 business days before the requested Trial date + have all docs in to the Registry some 2 days prior to the Trial date. 

A lot of detailed crucial information gleaned faster than any government literature I remember.
===================================================================

The following is a re-posting of part of an older entree. I will be curious to see how this will end.
 

THE IMPLIED TERM OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING  

(The Canadian Bar Review)

1) “Predicting when good faith obligations are owed in the context of contractual performance.

2)...by advocating for express recognition of a common law rule that would mandate good faith as the governing, default standard out of which parties must expressly contract.”

3) “Alleging breach of terms going to good faith and fair dealing is an increasingly common feature of modern pleadings. The doing so brings simplicity and clarity. ...it addresses inherent inadequacies in rights-conferring language.”

4) “Rights are not absolute - they are tempered by responsibility and are not to be abused.”

5) “The role of good faith has traditionally been understood in relation to three distinct areas: contractual negotiations; contractual performance or execution; and contractual enforcement.”

“While there are judicial indications that good faith obligations may, on an exceptional basis, be owed in contractual negotiations and that good faith obligations can be owed in the context of enforcement, it is contractual performance litigation that has captured center stage.”

6) “The purpose of this article is to assist practitioners in predicting when good faith obligations are owed in the context of contractual performance....[..] ... by relying on patterns in the jurisprudence, I hope to provide a general sense of when members of the judiciary tend to identify the good faith obligation as being present and potentially breached.”

LOCATING GOOD FAITH 

The Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v. United Grain Growers 

acknowledged that “[t]he obligation of good faith and fair dealing is incapable of precise definition,”7but that in an employment contract, this requires employers to be “candid, reasonable, honest and forthright with their employees” and to “refrain from engaging in conduct that is unfair or is in bad faith by being, for example, untruthful, misleading or unduly 

insensitive.” In an insurance context, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Fidleradopted the definition given by O’Connor J.A. in 702535 Ontario Inc. v. Lloyd’s London Non- Marine Underwriters: 

“The duty of good faith also requires an insurer to deal with its insured’s claim fairly. 

The duty to act fairly applies both to the manner in which the insurer investigates and assesses the claim and to the decision whether or not to pay the claim. In making a decision whether to refuse payment of a claim from its insured, an insurer must assess the merits of the claim in a balanced and reasonable manner. It must not deny coverage or delay payment in order to take advantage of the insured’s economic vulnerability or to gain bargaining leverage in negotiating a settlement. Adecision byan insurer to refuse payment should be based on a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the policy. This duty of fairness, however, does not require that an insurer necessarily be correct in making a decision to dispute its obligation to pay a claim. Mere denial of a claim that ultimately succeeds is not, in itself, an act of bad faith.”

“The law requires that parties to a contract exercise their rights under that agreement,  honestly, fairly and in good faith. This standard is breached when a party acts in a bad faith manner in the performance of its rights and obligations under the contract. “Good faith” conduct is the guide to the manner in which the parties should pursue their mutual contractual objectives. Such conduct is breached when a party acts in “bad faith” - a conduct that is contrary to community standards of honesty, reasonableness or fairness.”

________________________________________________________________