120. to the ONTARIO ATTORNEY GENERAL

VIEWS@8890 

THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEUR

Honourable Madame Meilleur:

As a British Columbia domiciled, pensioned, Self-Representing Litigant, with an appeal date booked in  Ottawa's Divisional Court, September 10 at 2 PM, I find myself in a grandiose dilemma. 

All required docs are filed and procedure seems in order, verified by the Divisional Court's related Services. Notwithstanding, I have experience the slightest overlooked technical glitch can bring procedure to an abrupt halt. 

Deeply in debt as it is, I still intend to drive my SmartCar across our country to attend in person, since I have experienced over-the-phone attendance to be far less effective. 

As a pillar of our society, your dedicated and oath-bound noble office functions as the highest legal department in our Democratic Nation. 

To my knowledge, your civil department is responsible for the appointment and proper functioning of our Masters and Judges. 

Additionally, your role is instrumental in updating our Rules of Civil Procedure, continue refining nomenclature, abolish words leaving room for interpretation. Laws should never allow for subjectivity.

“In the circumstances all questions are relevant and the Plaintiff shall answer them.” This was a Case Management’s Master’s order, upheld by the senior Master. By questioning continuous orders to answer, to me, more case ‘irrelevant’ questions, the Master responded:

“The court is not there to give you advice.” 

Though I was not seeking advice, as a Canadian Citizen, I have equal rights. Being entitled, I merely required an explanation of what that all-important phrase defined! Having studied the Rules, (updated as of 2010), Discovery has to be “relevant to the issues at hand,” i.e. the issues as set out in the pleadings of the, in my case, contractual based claim. My education, job I retired from, my marketing plans, or who else I negotiated with, have ZERO bearing to the relevance of my contractual non-compliant claim.

After driving some 5000 KMs, my dilemma could face the possibility of arriving at the court house this September 10, 2PM, to be informed an act of God, or some other technicality forced a cancellation, or if seated, the judge might apply some other applicable technicality. 

Your office is no doubt aware of the immense growth of SRLs across the Nation. How the Internet and its e-commerce is playing havoc with Jurisdictional cross-boundaries. I have cc’d this email to Heather Hui-Litwin of litigation-help.com, Doctor Julie Macfarlane’s U of Windsor’s Self-Representing Project, as well as Lisa Nakamura at the BC Gov. dispute resolution. 

Although I appreciate you can not personally look in to the particulars of this case, by appreciating my dilemma, your office should however be able to either direct me to, or suggest a specific tangible solution.  

CanLii Case #10-49776 has been up-loaded as case law. My mental health, though acknowledged by the Master to be in reasonable shape, has been questioned. The appointment of an amicus curiae has been entertained. This lengthy case has experienced a number of serious legal anomalies over some 4 years, and begs firm directive. Might the appointment of an amicus curiae be a positive solution here?

I site:

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

 Supreme Court Judgments

Case name

Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Collection

Supreme Court Judgments

Date

2013-08-01

Neutral citation

2013 SCC 43

Report

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 3

Case number

34317

Judges

McLachlin, Beverley; LeBel, Louis; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard

On appeal from

Ontario

Subjects

Courts

Notes

SCC Case Information: 34317

(After Opening Paras…)

"Absent authority flowing from a constitutional challenge or a statutory provision, the jurisdiction to fix the compensation of amici curiae must be found within the inherent or implied jurisdiction of the courts.  The inherent jurisdiction of superior courts permits them to make orders necessary to protect the judicial process and the rule of law and fulfill the judicial function of administering justice in a regular, orderly and effective manner." 

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

I humbly suggest your office assess my Ottawa Divisional Court Appeal case: # DC-13-1971, and, 'in the circumstances,’ in order to “protect the judicial process and the rule of law,” appoint an amicus curiae  to represent this citizen’s appeal more cogently and fairly.  

Respectfully Yours,

Evert Jan Steen

Self-Representing Litigant,

Domiciled in BC.