The way SILENCE, or a 'snicker' response, can imply various meaning, the CONCEPT of the word 'Jurisdiction' holds its own bag of tricks. Let me walk through how I have learned to understand this coloured beast.
jurisdiction |ˌjo͝orisˈdikSHən|
nounthe official power to make legal decisions and judgments: federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case | the District of Columbia was placed under the jurisdiction of Congress.• the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments: the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal.• a system of law courts; a judicature: in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder.• the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends: several different tax jurisdictions.================================================
1) The last * where 'Jurisdiction' is indicated as "territory," was initially implemented when my case was dismissed in BC. The Judge sited: "Lack of Jurisdiction." The reason being Defensc were domiciled in Ottawa, Ontario, and as such had no 'tangible presence' in BC; like offices, or similar representation. The alternate "OR" clause for filing a claim requiring to show that, by FACT, Defence had VERY MUCH a presence in BC, based on the fact they were soliciting business from ME, culminating in a signed CONTRACT, with regular contact, and PAYMENT of $43,000.2) Then there is Rule 21================================================RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE
To Any Party on a Question of Law
(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. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (1).
(a) under clause (1) (a), except with leave of a judge or on consent of the parties;
(b) under clause (1) (b). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (2).
To Defendant
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;
Capacity
(b) the plaintiff is without legal capacity to
commence or continue the action or the defendant does not have the legal
capacity to be sued;
Another Proceeding Pending
(c) another proceeding is pending in Ontario or
another jurisdiction between the same parties in respect of the same
subject matter; or
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.
======================================================
Digesting above: when Defense were also self-representing (January 17, 2012 - May 06, 2013), the case had been ordered in to Case Management by the 'Junior' Master. I say 'Junior' here, in case I might ever be held responsible for having defamed the person.)
Defense filed a Motion at that time in which they sited (3) (d) > (above) Asking for a dismissal of the case, based on their opinion the Action (my claim) was "Frivolous, Vexatious or (was an) Abuse of Process."
- Remember, this Defense had offered us the "FRIVOLOUS" sum of some $30,000 to settle out of court earlier!
In a follow up Post I will walk through the history of our Case Management Conferences with both Masters. I will build my 'ARGUMENT.' I will set out to prove a number of legal anomalies, including how both Masters ERRED drastically on a number of counts.
Back to "JURISDICTION." (IN BLACK)
The Junior Master, as I will quote him, had indicated he did not have "JURISDICTION" to 'HEAR' the above Rule. That only a JUDGE could hear it. He then ADVISED Defence to hire Counsel to properly interpret same (which they ultimately did in May, 2013.
Jurisdiction plays a number of additional roles I am gradually becoming aware of:
- A Master handling or orchestrating a case in Case Management apparently has NO JURISDICTION to discuss any of the pleadings. ('Pleadings' being the nitty-gritty details in the Claim and Statement of Defense of the case). They are there to guide the proceedings expediently to Trial. OR, if at all possible, help the parties come to an out-of-court settlement.
(Herein lies my ARGUMENT)
With the Appeal set for September 10, 2 PM Ottawa, 'Jurisdiction' again crops up.
I am informed the Appeal Judge can/may ONLY deal with what has occurred!
He/ She may ONLY discuss/ review the matters in proceedings that are now history.
He/ She does NOT HAVE JURISDICTION to GET TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER!
In other words:
- The Legal system is so set up that if a party manages to drag out P..R..O..C..E..E..D..I..N..G..S by filing Motions, Applications, or e-Discovery requirement demands necessitating more Questions, that arose from Answers to previous Questions, that were Answers to earlier Questions etc...etc... (you get my gist) AND the MASTER ALLOWS IT ??? WITHOUT ASKING WHAT IS GOING ON???
THEN, I SAY: There is something askew here, OR I am COMPLETELY MAD!
Remember, on March 25, 2013, Defense files a:
"REQUISITION TO SCHEDULE APPEARANCE LONG MOTION DATES"
How do you like them apples!
This is to be a new MOTION with an estimated 3 hour duration!
AND, the MASTER has TOTAL JURISDICTION TO HEAR SAME!
Let's get to the BOTTOM of this > JURISDICTIONALLY speaking.
I can not repeat too often: "There are MAJOR POT HOLES IN THIS PAVEMENT!"
and, with aid from others with more clout and access, I aim to do my outmost best to help leave behind a less hypocritical world!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment