Court File No.10-49776
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
EVERT JAN STEEN
Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
- and -
"Canada Company 1234567"(X'd by Blogger)
Defendant by Counterclaim/ Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ENDORSEMENT
(Case Conference December 6/2012)
Master Pierre E. Roger residing:
With Defense indignantly crying foul, considering Master Pierre E. Roger's endorsement "drastically inadequate and unfair to the Defendant," sighting Rule 3.04 (4) "if a party fails to comply with a time table" this Plaintiff would like to cry "Hypocrisy!" and refer to Rule 35 A and B, below, let alone his very claim's contractual issues with lack of time table time compliance! Hypocrisy and a clear Travesty of Justice.
What this Plaintiff finds seriously confounding, as indicated by the Plaintiff during the former Case Conference, as he sat utterly baffled, listening on the phone in his distant Jurisdiction to the Court's procedure, with hours spent on the Respondent's/Moving Party's Undertakings Chart.
With what is now understood to be all relevant.
RE NO.1:
"This motion is really or primarily a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's action for failing to answer questions asked under rule 35..."
Plaintiff reminds the court that he delivered Defense his own questions according to Rule 35.01 on May 19th, 2011.
That according to Rule 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.
- That Counsel at that time, (Mr. R. M.), though acknowledging receipt of same, failed to deliver the PDF Document to his client until some 4 days after. (Monday, May 23/2011 )
- That although a request for an extension from 15 days to 30 days was negotiated (Plaintiff extending date to June 27, 2011), on June 1, 2011, Plaintiff received a cc'd PDF FAX from counsel "M", purportedly sent Case Management, "Attention: Miss 'X' "We are the solicitor for the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim)" etc., acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff's Written Questions, acknowledging but not accepting June 27, 2011 as a date for response, but complaining about the Plaintiff, requesting a Case Conference pursuant to Rule 77.08 "for the purposes of establishing a timetable for the proceeding."
- That the Plaintiff telephoning the Case Management office, and speaking with Miss 'X', was informed NO SUCH FAX HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE!
- That on June 6, 2011, Plaintiff is presented with the formal announcement of Counsel 'M' as the solicitor for the Defendant; as well an extended Discovery Plan is presented. (receipt of Plaintiff's Written Questions has become a distant memory)
- That on June 22, 2011, an email exchange between Miss 'X' and myself confirms "A Notice of Intent to Defend was received by the Court and processed on June 16, 2011. That should I request Case Management, "Consent of this request is not required."
July 16, 2011. Email from Counsel 'M': "I have also made it clear with very lucid explanation as to why Case Management is obsolete at the present time...."
July 21, 2011. Plaintiff receives PDF document of NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF LAWYER. The Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) has appointed Mr. 'M' of the law firm XYZ..."
WHO was Mr. 'M' all those previous months??
August 26, 2011. Defense Motion to forego request for Case Management, cease and desist the claim,
or accept Discovery Plan as per Defense's interpretation.
September 13, 2011. Motion to dismiss is heard. Required to attend in person, Plaintiff is represented by Counsel (Cost $2000 +) At the Motion hearing, the Master advises he is of the view that this is an appropriate candidate for case management and, but for the provision in the order dealing with it specifically, he would have made that order.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This Respondent/Plaintiff respectfully reminds the Court of its September 13, 2011 Motion order, as endorsed by Master Pierre Roger.
ORDER
THIS MOTION, made by the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim was heard this day, at the courthouse, 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, ON K2P 2K1
ON READING the consent of the parties,
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiff withdraws, without prejudice, any motion to have the action managed by the Case Management office;
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties accept the Discovery Plan attached as Schedule A hereto;
3.THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties agree to attend a mediation no later than by the end of the year 2011 or another time agreed upon by both parties;
4. THIS COURT ORDERS that Costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge.
Date: Sept. 13, 2011 Signed and stamped: Doc: # 2398 IN BOOK NO. 73-13
_________________________________________________________________________________
I refer the Court to Master Roger's ENDORSEMENT of December 6, 2012
"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. "
NEXT, I refer the Court to Defense's MOTION HEARING of January 17, 2012
Requesting allowance to Self-Represent, Master Roger granted CEO + CIO their request. Additionally, on his own initiative, Master Roger assigned the case to Case Management and a Case Conference was scheduled for May 9, 2012.
May 9, 2012. ENDORSEMENT (at Case Conference)
Then there is July 18, 2012 Master Roger's ORDER
But for the powers of Motions!
This Plaintiff, has noted the New Rules of Civil Procedures by which the "semblance of relevance" has been replaced with a stricter test of "relevance." The phrase "relating to any matter in issue" having been changed to "relevant to any matter in issue (Rules 30,31 and 76).
Additionally the new Scope of Discovery states:
"This reform provides a clear signal to the bar that restraint should be exercised in the discovery process. It strengthens the objective that discovery be conducted with due regard to cost and efficiency. The effects of this reform will be felt by those who abuse the discovery process or engage in areas of inquiry that could not reasonably be considered necessary."
In his view, this Plaintiff adhered to the orders of the Master, executing what was indicated, according to the form it was phrased. This Plaintiff feels he complied by answering and dealing with matters he considered pertinent and relevant to the case, by obliging and answering "to the best of his abilities all unanswered questions that he is prepared to answer." (July 18) Additionally a Factum was prepared and filed.
Regarding May 9, 2012:
"(1) The Plaintiff shall review the Defendant's Motion and by August 17,2012 shall answer to the best of his abilities all unanswered questions that he is prepared to answer."
This case continues to deal with the Defense Motion, originally filed on July 13, 2012; The AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION (to be heard September 25) and the NOTICE OF RETURN OF MOTION (returnable December 4, 2012)
With the adjourned September 25th hearing, Defendant was ordered to serve on the Respondent a Refusals and Undertakings Chart, which the Respondent (Former Plaintiff) was to answer "providing your version of events in the specific boxes."
The Respondent/Plaintiff responded as best he saw fit, answering what he considered "relevant" and questioning all else he felt was NOT!
In No.1 and 2 of Master Roger's Endorsement of December 6th, 2012, Master Roger is clearly reprimanding the now 'Respondent' by indicating the 'Respondent' has failed to comply with previous endorsements; that better answers are required; that the Respondent /"Plaintiff" is "on notice that he must comply with this order in a timely manner" or else.
Re.No.4: By interpreting the Moving Party's demands in their Chart as "fair and reasonable disposition, in the circumstances of this case" and in
No.5: by stating the Statement of Claim, as drafted, is not an example of excellence in drafting," Master Roger's order thus interprets the Defense in their complete right with their demands, and the Plaintiff to be seriously at fault in all areas; that Defense's requests are in FACT - RELEVANT!
Even though the original Claim is solely based on a non-compliant contract (no more; no less),
In order to oblige the Court, and see this derailed Case #10-49776 get back on track, this Responding/ Plaintiff, while highly reluctant, and against the Rules of his interpretation of relevance, shall abide by the Master's latest order and supply the Court with all the ordered answers.
His life's Resume; his website's Business Plan and Marketing Plan etc etc. Although to the Plaintiff all are IR-relevant, for now, they shall be offered - in fullest, and to the very best of this Plaintiff's ability - and GOD helping be satisfactory to both the Court and especially - DEFENSE!
REGARDING COSTS:
The Plaintiff lives on a minimum pension.
The Plaintiff has begun enquiries in Ottawa for Pro-Bono legal aid.
The Plaintiff feels he is beginning to loose his sense of due process.
The Plaintiff realizes Jurisdiction plays an advantage; his lack of it, a dis-advantage.
This Plaintiff hereby respectfully reminds the Court of its September 13, 2011 order:
(4) THIS COURT ORDERS that Costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court implement its September 13, 2011 order.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete