111. The Principles of Sedona

VIEWS@8265

Under the heading 'LITIGATION,' the following para is from an article LEXOLOGY.COM brought to my attention this morning. 

"Join the dialogue Working Group 7 Meeting to update e-discovery principles.  
Have Your Say at the Sedona Conference ...

As a member of the Steering Committee, I am pleased to announce that we are holding a Working Group Meeting in Toronto on August 21, focused primarily on updating the Sedona Canada Principles for publication shortly thereafter. The ongoing goal is to ensure that they represent the consensus guidance of experts in the field representing all of the different types of stakeholders in Canadian litigation, including judges, government officials, in-house counsel from small and large corporations, plaintiff litigators, and defense litigators.

I hope you will consider joining the dialogue for this important process, and help us in "moving the law forward in a reasoned and just way." "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please, reader, do NOT mistake me. I am the Blogger responding to above by email:

Hello to all concerned at the Sedona Principles:

My BACKGROUND:

I am a 75 year old Canadian Citizen domiciled on an idyllic Gulf Island in BC's Georgia Straight. Mostly retired, I exist on a minimum pension. This forced me to become a Self-Representing Litigant in a claim I initially filed in 2010 in a BC Small Claims Court. The claim was based on contractual non-compliance against an Ottawa domiciled web-developer.

 Madame Justice Justine Saunders dismissed the claim for "Lack of Jurisdiction,"*not acknowledging the relevant secondary 'OR' clause with its pertinent business connectives with Ottawa. (Madame Justice allowed me an appeal in Supreme Court, should I wish to do so). Defense however filed an application, stating a technicality: 'One can file an appeal after a Trial, not a Hearing.' The claim's dismissal was ordered during a 'Hearing' in Small Claims Court. I ultimately abandoned my appeal, filing in Superior Court in Ottawa. The nightmare only expanded.      

* Irony is that had I filed my claim in Ontario, 

RULE 6 FORUM AND JURISDICTION:

Place of Commencement and Trial 
6.01 (1) An action shall be commenced,
(a) in the territorial division,
   (i) in which the cause of action arose, or

(the Judge in Ontario could more legitimately have dismissed the claim for "Lack of Jurisdiction." 

The default Rule for filing is reversed in Ontario.

=======================================

What SHOULD have been a concise, contract relating, factual based, clearly focused, BRIEF legal affair, is now in its 4th year!  

Including the noble intentions of the Sedona Principles, I gleaned information by Googling Government Online legal files. I studied the Rules of Civil Procedure, and its 2010 upgrades. (below) 

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.

Having suffered the perturbing BC experience, in which clearly the judge erred on two MAJOR counts: Jurisdiction + Appeal allowance, I quickly learned that meaningful text and Rules, with well-timed Motions and fine rhetoric, can quickly be buried, or rephrased; that over time, focus can shift, and, like good chess, black can reposition, gain the upper-hand, and become the 'Moving Party.' The best Defense is a strong OFFENSE!  

This brings me to cut to the quick in my contact with you. While I continue my legal nightmare with an intended drive across Canada to attend a September 10, 2PM Divisional Court Appeal, I would much care to "join you in your dialogue in this important process." 

- " THE IMPLIED TERM OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING" (The Canadian Bar Review)
- " The Principles of Proportionality in Discovery..." (As in the THE NEW RULE OF DISCOVERY)  

Discovery should initially focus on those sources of information relevant to allegations, defences, and issues that are supported by material facts. - See more at: http://www.rmc-agr.com/the-new-rule-of-discovery-proportionality/#sthash.580yxDcV.dpuf

Discovery should initially focus on those sources of information relevant to allegations, defences, and issues that are supported by material facts. - See more at: http://www.rmc-agr.com/the-new-rule-of-discovery-proportionality/#sthash.580yxDcV.dpuf

"Discovery should initially focus on those sources of information relevant to allegations, defences, and issues that are supported by material facts.

* Requests for further production should be reasonably specific and targeted.

The burden, cost, and delay of further production should be balanced against the probability of yielding unique information that is valuable to the determination of the issues.

Rules of civil procedure are designed to serve and effect justice. They do not define it. Fairness and justice require that there be a sense of balance and proportionality. There are at least three imperatives in the justice system. The imperative of fairness has to be balanced against considerations of cost and delay in proportion to the complexity of the action and the importance of the issues in dispute. This balance should be the touchstone if the court is called upon to exercise its discretion in expanding or restricting discovery rights."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have encountered none of the above; all has been to the contrary. As a Self-Representing Litigant I am clearly an alien in a restricted house. Like a pesky gnat I must be quashed.

The world at large is in chaos! Corruption rules at the highest levels. My Case is a prime example of legal misappropriation; I feel I have ample PROOF!

Should you be truly serious and DETERMINED TO MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM, and force implementation of all you speak of, I am interested to join you in that vital process. 

So far, I present you with my CanLii CaseLaw: #10-49776 and my Blog: 

Http://about-justice.blogspot.com/ or, Google: The Lonely Road to Justice.

That I may find justice in that one Pillar of Society's assessment on September 10, 2 PM, in Ottawa's Divisional Superior Court. 

I look forward to your response,

Sincerely,

Jan Steen

PS: I have uploaded the above as Post 111 on my Blog