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!