63. Legal Suggestions from a Self-Representer

Views @ 5030

I have absolutely NO idea what is happening! I filed the Appeal; ordered 2 transcripts (others were not available). I communicated with both transcribers, and although their emails are "name@ontario.ca", they do their transcribing at home. I have not managed to verify if they work for the government, or a private company (they exist). Since January 2013, I read, all recordings are done digitally.

One transcriber informed me on November 5, the transcript was "being reviewed,"and that, upon payment, it would be ready for delivery. That was the last I heard! Despite several attempts to enquire what happened, all communications have ceased!

This then takes me to refocus on where we are at, how we got here, and why (in my opinion) it all went drastically astray.

Having discussed that Self-Representation may work fairly in our Hinterland Communities, where adversaries meet face to face with their Judge Judy (no offense), when it comes to Jurisdictional disparity where the litigant is forced to present his/her case in Defense's domicile, this creates HUGE undemocratic disadvantages, as has been rudely experienced by this self-representing litigant.

FIRST SUGGESTION:

When it comes to doing jurisdictional cross-border business, where the litigant can prove having by 'contract acquired services,' or 'goods with guarantees,' 'that were paid for within his/her jurisdiction,' from the defendant supplier, the allowance for filing the claim should be in the litigant's jurisdiction.

HOWEVER, to avoid scammers from willy-nilly achieving this, a pending claim shall first be adjudicated by an impartial party - say the office of the Public Guardian, or an Amicus Curiae.
In this litigant's case the claim was clear and precise: "Contractual non-compliance." That's it; nothing more, nothing less. WHAT WAS AGREED TO IN THE CONTRACT + additional PROOFs of relevant communication that led to the contract.

Should the Appointed (Impartial) Party acknowledge sufficient legitimacy for the claim, the litigant may file in his/her forum conveniens. With the affirmative, the likelihood of fairing better for Self-Representation has just increased. If it is argued clearly there are not sufficient grounds for the claim, the litigant would have to file in Defense's Jurisdiction, should he still wish to do so.
NOTE: The assessing 'Appointed Party' need not know the name, or jurisdiction of the Defending party. 

Note the following link on the 'Principles of Jurisdiction on the Internet:'
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/domain/Betsy.html

SECOND SUGGESTION:

Considering how e-commerce is a now a major factor in most everyone's lives; how costs of Counsel precludes many citizens from access to the courts, democracy, if indeed it is to continue to serve the people, should, after assessing the income and assets of both parties, in practice, allow any litigation over $25,000 (allotted in Small Claims Court) legal aid serviced by a well-positioned professional. That professional to be receiving fair pay for services upon completion, or if not successful, a basic stipend, payable by our government.

THIRD SUGGESTION:

Should, with the Statement of Defense, a Counterclaim be filed, unless it has clear relevant connectives to the matters at issue within the claim, the Counterclaim may not interfere with the due process of the claim. It must be dealt with after the issues of the claim have been resolved.

FOURTH SUGGESTION:

Although well-intentioned to save court time, the Discovery Process, as implemented, needs adjustments. Its process leaves too much room for interpretation by the parties. Left unchecked, opportunity for meandering off course in to irrelevancy is too apparent. With a Self-Representing Litigant on board, it allows a more knowledgeable Defense Counsel room to maneuver. Cleverly timed Motions can easily redirect the focus of the issues at hand. An offensive Defense can leave a valid claim defeated, without justice having been served.

FIFTH SUGGESTION:

Retain Small Claims Court with Litigation up to $25,000, in which litigants reside within the same Jurisdiction. Cross-border, interprovincial litigation in Canada's Superior or Supreme Courts should not  allow self-representation. The system can not fairly deal with it. Justice is unlikely to be served.