"improving (our) quality of judicial service in the superior courts of Canada"
We voted for CHANGE, and lo, we GOT it; well, at least the top echelon 'LOOK' different! So now what? The new figure-heads at the top of the pile are STILL working with the solidly entrenched many - all who have been running it their way just dandy under Kaiser Harper? (Remember him?)
The well-entrenched who have clearly turned a blind eye to the utterly disgraceful state of this SYSTEM across this fine country of OURS! I can NO-longer call it the "JUSTICE" system!
Let's FACE it! It has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with JUSTICE!
Let's FACE it! It has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with JUSTICE!
https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/about_en.asp?selMenu=about_members_en.asp
The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 39 members who are the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across Canada.
What is the Canadian Judicial Council’s role?
"The Canadian Judicial Council is a federal body created under the Judges Act (R.S., 1985, c. J-1), with the mandate to "promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve quality of judicial service in the superior courts of Canada"
By directing complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council, Parliament acknowledges that the public must have a way to voice its concerns about judges. At the same time, the system must allow judges to respond to allegations of misconduct in a fair manner. The process must be efficient, fair, and objective."
===================
NOTE: Have a look see at the Judges Act. As Chairman - lady (person) over a 4 year period WHAT will Madame Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould be able to achieve with those fine folk in all of some 4 + meetings?
==================
In 63: "5) The Council may prohibit the publication of any information or documents placed before it in connection with, or arising out of, an inquiry or investigation under this section when it is of the opinion that the publication is not in the public interest.
| ||
| Inquiries may be public or private |
" (1) After an inquiry or investigation under section 63 ..." etc.
=================
Have a thorough read here, since you will come to realize there is absolutely NO WAY to go this route. Where do you start? Are you going to pick a scapegoat, like a Mike Duffy?
==================
The following is from an "about to retire"Justice Matlow who had himself been 'reprimanded':
"Matlow wants a full review of the council’s powers, ordinary people sitting on its inquiries, more transparency into its processes and said judges who are found guilty of misconduct should not automatically be entitled to have their legal fees paid by taxpayers — as is the case under current legislation."
======================
Only way to clean this up is to revamp the WHOLE SYSTEM, FROM THE GROUND UP!Send a message to all involved there's gonna be a major house cleaning throughout the WHOLE country; laws are going to be rewritten, allowing next to NO argument (some in Family Law); laws will be identical - Federally! One Jurisdiction fits ALL! Basta! No more hanky-panky between lawyers and judges! Cameras mandatory in all courts!
Under tab 1 it showed at the top of the page: "License Disclaimer: This Act is Current to January 27, 2016. "CROWN PROCEEDING ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 89
"Crown" means Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia;
-----------------------
In Ontario it states: "Proceedings Against the Crown Act." In Ontario it is always "the Crown."In BC, the 'CROWN' is only mentioned once; everywhere else it becomes the phrase:
"the government."
Held side by side, the 2 'Acts' look nothing like each other.
So my question is: How are we to make sense of ANYTHING?
Is a Canadian Citizen's RIGHTS different, depending on which province he/she ends up living in? Is this the 21st Century? To most of us, apparently not where it really counts.
====================
Looking at the time phase allowable for service, here's the indication as to the time limitation an "Application Response" is held to under the Supreme Court Rules:
We are speaking of Defence J. Van Camp's response to my November 03, 2015, doc files;
(9)A person who is served with documents referred to in subrule (7) of this rule
and who wishes to respond to the notice of application (in this subrule called the
"responding person") must do the following within 5 business days after service or, in
the case of an application under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after
service:
(c)
serve on the applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of
record one copy of the following:
(ii)
a copy of each of the filed affidavits and documents, referred to in the
application response under subrule (10) (b) (ii), that has not already been served
on that person;
(iii)
if the application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that the
application respondent is required to give under Rule 9-7 (9).
=======================
The very first correspondence I received acknowledging "this matter" (my claim) was an email, date-stamped February 4. 2016. I received it on February 5. PDF's do not let themselves be copied... (at least I can't) so I will reproduce it best I can here...
======================================================================
i. Requisition filed February 4, 2016;
ii. Notice of Civil Claim filed November 3, 2015;
iii. Notice of Application filed November 3, 2015;
iv. Requisition rescheduling summary trial file November 17, 2015;
v. Affidavit of Evert Jan Steen; and
vi. Claimant's Statement of Argument
I will relay the court's decision respecting my client's request to dismiss uyour claim when received. Otherwise, I will be appearing to oppose your application currently scheduled for hearing in Victoria for February 12, 2016
Yours Truly,
(Per: Signature)
Johnny Van Camp
Barrister and Solicitor
JVC/ch
Encls
__________________________________________________________________________
Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General..........Addresses/ Tel numbers
====================================================================
Forwarding same to Justice Minister's Mrs. Raybould's Office, on February 08, 2016 I responded with ..... Please see next Posting:
======================================================================
British
Columbia
(emblem)
February 5, 2016
via email
Evert J.Steen
(Address)
Dear Mr. Steen
RE: Steen, Evert v. Minister of Justice & AG BC
_____Victoria Registry No.15 4257______________
I am counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia in respect of this matter. I have been
instructed to seek dismissal of your claim by desk order pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rules 9-5 , a copy of which is attached for ease of reference.
Please find enclosed the following filed documents for service upon you.
ii. Notice of Civil Claim filed November 3, 2015;
iii. Notice of Application filed November 3, 2015;
iv. Requisition rescheduling summary trial file November 17, 2015;
v. Affidavit of Evert Jan Steen; and
vi. Claimant's Statement of Argument
I will relay the court's decision respecting my client's request to dismiss uyour claim when received. Otherwise, I will be appearing to oppose your application currently scheduled for hearing in Victoria for February 12, 2016
Yours Truly,
(Per: Signature)
Johnny Van Camp
Barrister and Solicitor
JVC/ch
Encls
__________________________________________________________________________
Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General..........Addresses/ Tel numbers
====================================================================
Forwarding same to Justice Minister's Mrs. Raybould's Office, on February 08, 2016 I responded with ..... Please see next Posting:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment