(NOTE: At the very bottom... "this shall be brought as a basket motion.."?? I wonder? Will the case become known as "The Basket Case?" Time will tell.)
FOR THE RECORD
June 10, 2013
Case Management Centre, Room 5022
161 Elgin Street, 5th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 21K1
Attention: 'Miss.X'
Re: Evert Jan Steen v. 'WEB-DEVELOPER'
Court File No. 10-49776
Dear Ms. 'X':
Circumstances required dismissing my Ottawa Counsel Mr.'Y'
On June 8th, 2013 I signed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person (you should receive it imminently). As self-representing Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim I am a resident of Hornby Island in British Columbia in the above-noted action.
I am gravely concerned about the latest Motion (Motion without Notice?) that took place on May 8, 2013, before (the) Master. My Counsel at that time rendered me conflicting information as to what would transpire there.
With a 'Pro-Forma' Mediation having taken place, it is this Plaintiff's vehement view that a pre-trial with its arrangement for a Trial date is, in fact, the legal and natural next step and, in the Plaintiff's view, should have been ordered; that more than enough Court time has been used by this Case. This Plaintiff is gravely concerned about the lack of adherence to the Rules.
The Plaintiff says that undertakings are allowed to be stretched in to the realm of the ridiculous.
"How long have I been a Handyman indeed?"
I remind the Court of the following 2010 adjusted Rules of Civil Procedure for Discovery.
I quote:
DISCOVERY
The reforms to the discovery rules include:
1. Scope of Discovery
The scope of discovery has been narrowed in the new civil rules. The "semblance of relevance" test has been replaced with a stricter test of "relevance". The phrase "relating to any matter in issue" has been changed to "relevant to any matter in issue" (see rules 30, 31 and 76).
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.
Digesting the above, and comparing its warning to the continued allowances of claim irrelevant questions, seems to suggest the court, in this case at least, is ignoring the Rules. It leads this Responder/ Plaintiff to feel he is being toyed with. That a concerted effort to evade the truth and facts are deployed in order to wear the Plaintiff down, like water torture.
I have all along abided by complying to the Master's orders, best and beyond, for over a year now. My conscience and rationale are making me unable to continue at this time. All has clearly become one-sided.
Although I have clear hunches why, I seek to have the court explain their reasoning for allowing Defense to keep stretching time. It is clear they want to avoid a Trial at all cost. To date, with all the amenities and Jurisdiction in tow, they are well ahead. Efforts to portray this Plaintiff as an old, irrational fool may be good Defense, but is it sound Justice? Looks like 'Dismissal' at any cost!
Referring to No.6 of the order: If the parties need a further case conference to resolve any issue before the motion they may schedule an urgent case conference. I do not believe an "urgent case conference" can clear anything up.
To the initial Defense Motion, heard by Master 'Z' on September 13, 2011, the Master ordered costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge.
Once the Case was ordered in to Case Management, over a number of Case Conferences, with attitude, circumstances changed. The meaning of "Under the circumstances all questions are relevant" used by Master 'Z', was never explained to me.
The Plaintiff, in good faith, deleted his blog. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay some $2,100 (twice the original suggested amount) at what he thought was the closure of the former Motion. Serious legal anomalies are scattered throughout this case. Facts that will be provable in a just court.
Costs on Motion
(5) The judge or case management master shall address the issue of costs at the conclusion of each motion in accordance with rule 57.03, regardless of whether the motion is contested.
If your office should decide to ignore this communication, you leave me no choice but to seek a judicial review. This effort will include contact with a number of large dailies, and assorted Media. As well I will be posting materials on my new Blog.
Sincerely,
E.Jan Steen
____________Below are the orders as per Master 'Z' at the last hastily/Plaintiff undefined Conference
COUNSEL: 'X'
COUNSEL: 'T'
E N D O R S E M E N T (at case conference)
By way of background, the following was ordered on February 27, 2013:
a. The outstanding undertakings are to be answered by March 8th, 2013.
b. The outstanding costs award is to be paid immediately.
c. If the plaintiff fails to comply, the defendants may seek to stay or dismiss the action.
d. Counsel for the plaintiff will review compliance with the order of Master 'Z' requiring
material to be removed from the blog and will advise the defendants what steps the plaintiff
has taken or will take to ensure he is in compliance.
e. On consent, "ABC" is appointed as mediator. Mediation is to be completed by
June 15th, 2013.
f. The status notice issued on January 22nd, 2013 is set aside. The time under Rule 48.14 is
extended to September 30th, 2013.
g. This order is effective without further formality.
The Defendant says that undertakings still remain unanswered.
The following is ordered:
1. The Defendant shall provide a list of outstanding undertakings by May 10, 2013.
2. The Plaintiff shall answer all outstanding undertakings by June 15, 2013.
3. If the Plaintiff fails to provide any additional answer following receiving the list of
outstanding undertakings to be provided by May 10, 2013, then the Plaintiff’s action shall
be dismissed with costs to the Defendant upon the Defendant filing with the court an
affidavit that no additional answers were provided. This shall be brought as a basket
motion in writing with notice to the Plaintiff.
4. Otherwise, if partial answers are provided a motion may return to strike or to dismiss the
Plaintiff’s action and this motion is hereby scheduled before a master for 4 hours starting
at 10 am on September 5, 2013, on the following schedule:
6. If the parties need a further case conference to resolve any issue before the motion they
may schedule an urgent case conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment