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.....