105. "WRITTEN BY A CRAZY PERSON"

VIEWS@8133

A reader emailed me the following: 

"Your blog goes on and on about the merits of the case.

You are out of your element and your blog is sounding like it is written by a crazy person.

There was NO evidence before the Masters so there was No determination on the evidence.

You MUST also know that a Master CANNOT hear or make a decision on the merits of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal is limited to hearing arguments on whether the Master erred in dismissing your case for your failure to comply with a previous court order.

The Court of Appeal CANNOT and WILL NOT delve into the merits or strength of the evidence based on the pleadings - THE PLEADINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. "

The reader's input is MUCH APPRECIATED! "Crazy" is in the eye of the beholder, and I will not question it. Life is an often baffling process; we experience it in our own inimitable ways. If you have lived with abuse, you may have inherited it, considering it the norm. 

Although I had some rough years as a child, I will not accept abuse. Ultimately, each of us determines 'WHO' we are, and 'HOW' we shall live and be treated. To me life is to be respected; it is a choice you make as an individual! My conscience is clear. I am here to learn, so BRING IT ON! It's never too late!

I thank you reader - for the above. I shall trust it to be 'TRUE' and consider it.  That said, even though I have clear intentions of getting to the details of "whether the Master erred in dismissing your case...etc", the above advice clears the need to "delve into the merits or strength of the evidence..". We may, indeed, NEVER get to the Heart of the Matter.

My response to the reader's first sentence:

    "There was NO evidence before the Masters so there was No determination on the evidence."

Me: In a later Post I will break down a Case Management Master's ROLE, when guiding Self-Representing Litigants through the DUE PROCESS set out by the Rules (i.e.LAW)

At this stage, I will begin with Point No.5, of the Master's December 06, 2012, ENDORSEMENT: 

"(5). The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is not an example of excellence in drafting however, at this stage in the action, the motion under rule 25.11*(1) as requested is dismissed, for added reasons as outlined above. This court does not have jurisdiction under rule 21.01 and is therefore not deciding that part of the motion. 

11. The above is without prejudice to any motion under rule 21*(2) that the Defendant may wish to bring. (3) In this regard I wish to confirm my recommendation that the Defendant consult with legal counsel before bringing a rule 21 motion."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(1) 25.11  The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,

(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;

(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

_________________________________________________________________

 (2) RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL

21.01  (1)  A party may move before a judge,

(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or

           (b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly. 

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;

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 the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

(3) The following is a quote from the Senior Master's September 20, 2013, Special Appointment Conference and final dismissal:

THE COURT: "...and so, if you read the rules they say that, when the Court makes an order...it shall take ...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...

MR.STEEN: Yes.

THE COURT: ...that's not what we're dealing with.

MR. STEEN: Well, that's what I thought we were dealing with.

THE 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...

MR.STEEN: Without...

THE COURT: ...decided...

MR.STEEN: ...without...

THE COURT:...to disagree.

MR.STEEN: ...explaining it?

THE COURT: Well, it's not the role of the Court to give advice, so...

ETC......

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ME: First of all, I did NOT ask this Master for ADVICE! I clearly stated, several times throughout the session, that I felt I complied with the earlier Master's orders, instructing the parties to answer, best we were able "all relevant questions." 

When I got to a stage it was clear Defense were dragging their heels by asking "FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW UP ANSWERS ON WRITTEN EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY" and I was ordered to supply what to me was information that had absolutely ZERO relevance to the pleadings, I felt I was entitled to an EXPLANATION.

I continue with the first Master's ENDORSEMENT:

(1) "This motion is really or primarily a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's action for failing to answer questions asked under rule 35 and for failing to comply with previous endorsements" ...

In (2) the Master stated: " During the motion, we carefully reviewed outstanding answers and undertakings. I have found that 27 questions and undertakings are outstanding and require better answers..." 

In (3) the Master spoke of how previous orders had not "assessed the sufficiency of the answers," had not  been "specific, but rather a general request to both parties to ensure that their answers were complete; that the parties are self-represented; that some efforts have been made by the Plaintiff to provide answers (there have been a number of follow-up questions) and considering generally the concept of proportionality, what is just in the circumstances is not to dismiss the action for failing to comply with previous orders and not fully answering questions but rather to order that the outstanding questions, as outlined, be answered.."

(4) " The above is a fair and reasonable disposition, in the circumstances of this case. The Plaintiff is, however, on notice that he must comply with this order in a timely manner as this court might exercise its discretion differently should a similar motion return." 

(5) SEE ABOVE ABOUT THE CLAIM "not an example of excellence in drafting."
=============================================================

So, considering the reader's 1st and 2nd sentences: 

1) There was NO evidence before the Masters so there was No determination on the evidence.

2) You MUST also know that a Master CANNOT hear or make a decision on the merits of the evidence.

 what is a "crazy person" to glean from the above?

1)  The Master had 'opinioned:' "The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is not an example of excellence in drafting"  

- It suggests the Master had taken the trouble to ascertain the pleadings enough to comment negatively on its structure.

- It indicates the Master now accuses the Plaintiff for failing to comply to his previous orders.

2) MASTER: "During the motion, we carefully reviewed outstanding answers and undertakings. I have found that 27 questions and undertakings are outstanding and require better answers..."

- Fact is (I have the Exhibit of some 150 Pages of our painstaking 3:30 long session) I sat awestruck on the telephone without ever responding, other than a "Whatever," or "fine", while privy to an in-court tete-a-tete between a subject-matter clueless Master and his indignant local web-developers. 

3) The Master spoke of how previous orders had not "assessed the sufficiency of the answers,"
- This indicates the Master now shows sufficient 'knowledge' of the circumstances to be able to decide, with allowable on-the-spot pressure by the 2 business Entrepreneurs (who in 2010 offered to settle out of court for $30,000; frivolous indeed)    

4) " The above is a fair and reasonable disposition, in the circumstances of this case."...
- To any crazy person, the session, its conclusions and use of 'legalese,' is a clear indication of how indefinite, and vaguely, open-ended earlier orders, over time, have now by choice and preference become the fault of the accused Plaintiff. 

I will discuss in a following post a Master's Role and Duties, and the specifics, by order, of the Masters' ENDORSEMENTS from the outset.....   

104. Preliminaries to shaping the ARGUMENT.

VIEWS@8105

I have almost 3 months to prepare my 'ARGUMENT.'  The court scenario may unfold in several ways  I can imagine:

1) WORST CASE SCENARIO (This I encountered in Courtenay, BC)
Having paid the Court $200 for a specific Appeal Hour session at 2 PM on a Monday, I showed up at 1:30 PM to be confronted by a circus of noisy people, a number of whom were in wheelchairs.

By 2 PM, some 20 folk + 3 wheel-chairs had piled in to the court. Defense Counsel and I had to make the court aware we were even present! Facing a nervous Madame Justice, who was NOT aware of our case, nor had the case's Files in front of her, we were informed the present scenario was a 'spill-over' from the morning! It had priority, hence we were told to come back the next day!

This led both Defense Counsel and myself to make the Court aware of the following:
1) I informed the Judge, Counsel had filed LATE (i.e. 4 days earlier)
2) Counsel had introduced NEW MATERIAL.

A stern looking Madame Justice facing Defense Counsel with a questioning look?
Counsel: "Yes your honour, I did!" (Madame Justice grimaces at Counsel)
Counsel: "On purpose..." (Madame Justice taken aback).... (This exchange NEVER SHOWED UP IN THE TRANSCRIPT!)
COUNSEL continues, and in her defense now speaks of the technicality by which an appeal can be heard after a Trial. That NO APPEAL may be filed after a HEARING! That we had a 'HEARING.' That as such, the judge could NOT HEAR my APPEAL.

This brought Madame Justice to state that even if she would reschedule the appointment, she could well be in NO position to either acknowledge or HEAR it (based on the technicality as posed by Def. Counsel).

My 'ARGUMENT' stating there were no TRIALS in Small Claims Court; That HEARINGS in a Small Claims Court, were the equivalent of (i.e. 'synonymous' with) > a TRIAL. That an Appeal rendered from a Small Claims Court dismissal ending up in a Supreme Court, as an Appeal, thus brought a discrepancy to the equation of interpreting/ comparing 'Hearing' with 'Trial.'

Although a new date was arranged for several months later, I decided to abandon my appeal and file in Superior Court in Ottawa instead. That nightmare continues as we speak. I was reimbursed my $200 some 6 months later...

So, BACK to my WORST CASE SCENARIO:
I show up for the 2 PM appointment; those in attendance rise as the Judge enters the Courtroom; the Judge calls both parties to come forward; after having done so, the Judge speaks:

Judge: I have had a look at this case and am aware of Mr. Steen's appeal. HOWEVER....under the circumstances, based on the FACTS BEFORE ME, I can not/ am unable/ not prepared/ have no jurisdiction/ to overturn the dismissal. Thank you Mr. Steen; have a safe drive back to BC. Dismissed!

No sputtering on my behalf about 'getting to the heart of the matter'; the actual FACTS; a travesty of justice; a scam etc. etc. is going to get me anywhere. Short of being handcuffed and led out of the court through a back door, may be the most dramatic and pathetic ending to my visit in the Capitol.

OR it could be decided, as in Courtenay, to move the Case ahead a day or week... and I could go hang out and visit the sights until then, at my own costs :(>...

2) NEXT TO WORST CASE SCENARIO:
Judge: You are aware the courts are extremely busy places; there's only so much we can do; that said, we rely more and more on our 'other' officers of the court to do most of the work for us. We within the system can't afford the time it would take to "Get to the Heart of the Matter," as you suggest. That's what we have Masters for. They are all highly capable individuals; they do their very best 'UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES!'

Then again, these days we rely heavily on Case Law. Case Law is there to set precedent. It speeds up the process. We do not argue how, or whether it is well-founded, or based on fairness, truth or fact. Presumably, 'UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the officers in charge have done their duty; I cannot, nor will not, question them. If I questioned all the work done by those in charge before me, where would be be?

Although I appreciate your predicament Mr. Steen, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I have no choice but to uphold the dismissal. Let me mull over what I will do about costs. Thank you sir. NEXT!

3) AN HONOURABLE SCENARIO

The Judge HAS studied the case and acknowledges;
1) The number of legal discrepancies by point form;    
2) The lack of adherence to the Rules during Discovery;
3) Having read the December 06, 2012, Conference transcript, the Master's clear lack of knowledge of the subject matter;
4) i.e., the MASTER'S lack of knowing in what way Defense's questions were relevant to the issues as set out in the claim.
5) By allowing Defense their continued new questions, and Motions to dismiss, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the Master should have acknowledged enough was enough, that all docs were in place, and SHOULD have allowed the case to go to trial.
6) It is a Master's role to be specific, spur matters on, expedite, not drag out.
7) That the court oftentimes gives parties 'ADVICE.'  (I will describe the former Master giving Defense Advice.)
8) That the appellant was not asking for 'ADVICE.' He was looking for an EXPLANATION for the phrase: "UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALL QUESTIONS ARE RELEVANT. THE PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO ANSWER THEM."                  
9) That the Plaintiff, feeling he had MORE THAN ANSWERED ANY AND ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS (i.e. claim SPECIFIC and as such relevant to the issues at hand), felt he had his rights as a CITIZEN - during the guidance of what was supposedly an UNBIASED CASE MANAGEMENT'S MASTER - was ENTITLED TO AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHRASE!

10) That BASED ON THE RELEVANT FACTS - UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES - the Self-Representing Litigant from British Columbia was neither treated to proportionality, fairness, or the strict adherence of the Rules. In addition to the number of legal discrepancies overlooked, DUE PROCESS did NOT take place.

11) As such, the Judge, in her/his wisdom and integrity, unswayed by any potential urge to give in to any possible Jurisdictionally favorable slanting, or 'semblance of relevance' - under the circumstances -  by taking ALL FACTORS IN TO CONSIDERATION, while upholding the very essence of their office as Pillars of our society - in the "CIRCUMSTANCES"- acknowledges sufficient questionable discrepancies occurred and were committed.

12) ORDERS the Case to proceed to Trial, and as such ORDERS Case Law #10-49776 to be removed from its present CanLii position.

To this BLOGGER this would be JUSTICE!

103. NO ONE is driving the bus!

VIEWS@8031

Reminding viewers that where I, as a Self-Representing Canadian Citizen, had quick and ready email contact with the Case Management Master's Department, my communication with the Divisional Court has been curtailed; NO emails allowed.

I may either leave a telephone message with the Divisional Secretary and receive a response at no particular time-slot (this generally becoming a lengthy response left on my machine), or I may write a letter, the answer to which, again, is left as a message on my telephone.

Part of my sojourn here is to HELP improve the system, so that everyone gains. I feel that  while reaping the benefits of a democracy, one has a certain responsibility to be active in its  process. As it stands today, we are rapidly turning in to a police state not unlike the ones we are all so vehemently opposed to. We seem to have lost the driving care to stand up for our innate rights. By doing so, we are allowing the more abusive elements to take over. 

As we are beginning to realize: BiG BROTHER IS IN THE HOUSEI  and he ain't moven out unless we all stand up and tell him to take a hike, and NEVER come back!

Recall my Posting Number 78. I may re-post an adjusted version in the next while.

I have mentioned other organizations that are doing productive work towards keeping at least a semblance of our Democracy alive. So, If you CARE, I need your help and input. Although fairly fit, I came close to running on empty towards the deadline of having the Appeal papers served and filed in March. Sitting on my butt for many hours creating this, is NOT a whole lot of FUN! OK, back to educating myself...

____________________________________________________________________

"About the Divisional Court

The Divisional Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice and is one of the busiest appellate courts in Canada. The Divisional Court hears statutory appeals from administrative tribunals in the province, and is the primary forum for judicial review of government action in Ontario. The Divisional Court also has some jurisdiction regarding civil and family appeals.

Every judge of the Superior Court of Justice is also a judge of the Divisional Court. Appeals to the Divisional Court are generally heard in the judicial region where the matter originally arose. A proceeding is usually heard and decided by a panel of three judges, but may be heard by a single judge in some circumstances.

The Divisional Court is scheduled to hear matters at various times of the year in each of the judicial regions in Ontario, except in Toronto where the Divisional Court sits regularly throughout the year.

To locate a court in your area, please see the List of Ontario Court Addresses on the Ministry of the Attorney General’s website."

____________________________________________________________________________

Building the Argument. (Does the following include Masters?)

"A matter for appeal or a complaint?

In brief, the Canadian Judicial Council investigates complaints about an individual judge’s inappropriate conduct, not a judge’s decision in a court case.

Every year, judges in Canadian courts make hundreds of thousands of decisions on matters ranging from procedural issues to determining important points of law. When one party in a legal dispute thinks the judge made the wrong decision, the justice system allows that person to appeal to a higher court. For example, if you think that a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reached the wrong decision in your case, you can appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Judges can make mistakes. An appeal court can reverse or vary the decision made by the judge who heard the case. The fact that an appeal court overturns a judge’s decision does not mean that the judge’s conduct was improper or that the judge should be removed from office. It simply means that the appeal court believed the judge made a mistake about the law or the facts of the case.

All judges are expected to uphold a high standard of personal conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom. So, aside from the decision the judge reaches in your case, the judge must be impartial when hearing your case, be respectful and courteous throughout the proceedings, and maintain a high standard of integrity. For example, it is appropriate for members of the public to ask the Council to investigate complaints about judges who are thought to have shown biases based on race, gender, or religion. Complaints can arise from judges’ comments in the courtroom, from speeches or interviews given outside the courtroom.

____________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Re Above. "Inappropriate Conduct" (in my situation as a Self-Representing Litigant, the dismissal of my case as a result of 2 Case Management Masters opinions.
Are Masters subject to the same scrutiny?) 

The first, and main Master's decision (having gone through 5 Conferences), to dismiss the Case because Defense, continuing to NOT be satisfied with my answers to their ongoing Discovery questions, by filing repeated Motions, were insisting I continue to answer what, to ME, were COMPLETELY CASE IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS! 

Siding with Defense, I had been ordered to answer what were ultimately decided by the Master to be relevant questions. This after a 3 hour plodding through questions about other Web-Developers, their contacts, and qualifications; my Marketing Plan; my Business Plan; and the need for my Bio and my educational qualifications and background.   It was decided all was 'Relevant in the Circumstances.' 

"Under the circumstances all questions are relevant and shall be answered." So was the Master's order on December 07, 2012, + I was ordered to pay costs for Defense's last Motion. By February I felt I had complied, even beginning my Bio at my BIRTH. Just in Case, I did not want to leave any STEEN unturned. And, YES, I was definitely beginning to be pissed off with the system! And so, likely, was the Master  - with me.

All had ZERO to do with the FACTS, nor, in my view, the relevance of the case.
So, while quoting the duties, boundaries, conflict of interest, and manipulation of procedure, my argument in the Divisional Court will be about how case-representing Counsels and its representing Masters of the Court, neither followed, nor abided, by the Rules as set out. 

That, in the end, on September 20, 2013, in a SPECIAL HEARING, when the Senior Master would not guarantee me that answers to the latest set of questions would be the END OF IT; that, in my opinion, we were ready to proceed to Trial - having all necessary documents and pre-requisites long ago in place - I realized there would NEVER be an end to it; that my DEATH could well precede my due process TRIAL. 

Thus, holding up the Rules of Civil Procedure, true proportionality, fairness of equal consideration and due process to a higher standard, I refused and was dismissed. 
_  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 This Appellant's argument will be he was misappropriated by the system.      
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BELOW a part article throwing some light on the system…

"….Some 220 or so in a downtown Vancouver hotel ballroom at the invitation of the Canadian Bar Association pondering the crisis in the legal system: It’s too slow, too costly and the outcomes aren’t necessarily just — just outcomes.

Perhaps the key issue, as delegates were told, is the lack of a justice system CEO — there’s no one person in charge, so no one owns the problems that have developed.

  Justice Cromwell said in a luncheon address: “In a sense, no one is driving this bus … (and) we have to start by defining the problems.”

 The country’s legal and governmental structure is built upon the concept of silos, where information is tightly held and data moves within but not outside."

102. Qualities Required from a Judge

VIEWS @ 7967

During my preparation to 'ARGUE' my case as the Appellant in my Appeal to a Master's decision to dismiss my case (and thus original claim), I am at the outset needing to ascertain clearly who I will be confronting, once I enter the Courtroom on the set date, at the appointed hour. Below is an assessment of that individual.    

"The judge is "the pillar of our entire justice system," the Supreme Court of Canada has said, and the public has a right to demand "virtually*(1) irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function." Judges must strive*(2) for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives. They should be knowledgeable about the law, willing to undertake in-depth legal research *(3), and able to write decisions that are clear and cogent. Their judgment should be sound and they should be able to make informed decisions that will stand up to close scrutiny*(4). Judges should be fair and open-minded, and should appear to be fair and open-minded*(5) They should be good listeners*(6) but should be able, when required, to ask questions that get to the heart of the issue before the court*(7). 
They should be courteous in the courtroom but firm when it is necessary to rein in a rambling lawyer, a disrespectful litigant*(8) or an unruly spectator.

Judges come to the bench after making a significant contribution to the legal profession and their communities. Many have been active in law societies and have done volunteer and charitable work. Others have been active in politics or won elected office. Judges who have served on a lower court are sometimes promoted to a higher court, such as a provincial court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada."

________________________________________________________________________

(underlined and asterisked by Blogger)

NOTE: Considering the general Rules of Civil Procedure (the structured language that informs and dictates procedure), the above begs consideration.

"The Supreme Court of Canada has said, and the public has a right to demand:" 

- (8) To rein in a "disrespectful litigant." I have no intention to be disrespectful at any time. If, while in the presence of "the pillar of our entire justice system," the above description is blatantly apparent; if I am confronted by a human being who portrays her/himself as the epitome of the above prerequisites, there shall be no question as to my behaviour.

- (1) "virtually irreproachable conduct" The inclusive 'virtually,' like the eliminated 'semblance,' as in "semblance of relevance," implies room for imperfection, potential for questioning, and thus disappointment. Why not eliminate the word 'virtually'?

- (2) "Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity.."    

Why not  replace 'strive' with 'embody,' or 'attain?'

- (3) "willing to undertake in-depth legal research." Where the 'in charge' junior Case Management Master was clueless about the subject matter that concerned the claim, (based on the online contract as it pertained to the web-site in question), it behooves the pillars of our justice system to be every bit up to date - as even the most lay public is better aware of the particulars of our rapidly changing electronic world.  

- (4) "..make informed decisions that will stand up to close scrutiny." Surely, at least those who are put in charge of these types of high-tech cases can be so educated to ultimately stand the test of close scrutiny. 

- (5) "…should, and should appear to be fair and open-minded." I say, replace both "should and appear" with either "shall" or "must"!

- (6) "…should be good listeners." A good listener hears what is being said objectively, as is, without any subjective slant in digestion.

- (7) "ask questions that get to the heart of the issue before the court." 

AYE! Now here's the tell-all rub! Within this sentence lies the Pillar's epitome of his/her objective, the very essence of the argument must seek out  the heart of the issue. 

Question: Is the appointed Judge, as a Pillar of our entire justice system > going to deal with >

 What lies at the heart of the issue?