152. What happened to MY Motion?

NOTE:
The following is my Cross Motion which, though acknowledged by both Court and Defence, though indicated it would be dealt with during the September 20, 2013, Special Appointment Case Management Conference, it was, in fact, never addressed. 

Originally in PDF format, I have replicated the text, but withheld connectives.  
Please be aware of the fact, as per below indicated Motion, I indeed responded to the fateful, collusively consenting telephoned Case Conference of my then Counsel. See below:
" in accordance with an Order of this Honourable Court, dated May 8, 2013:" 

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

Court File No. 10-49776

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

EVERT JAN STEEN

Plaintiff/ Defendant by Counterclaim

(Responding Party)

- and -

39026641 CANADA INC. , carrying on business as ...(Name withheld)

Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

(Moving Party)

NOTICE OF MOTION

The Plaintiff, Evert Jan Steen, will make a Cross Motion in writing on August 07, 2013, or as soon after that time as the motion can be heard at the court house, 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 2K1.

PROPOSED METOD OF HEARING: The Motion is to be heard:
[ X ] in writing, on consent of both both parties, and in accordance with an Order of this Honourable Court, dated May 8, 2013:
[ ] in writing as an opposed motion under subrule 37.12.1(4):
[ ] orally.

THE CROSS MOTION IS FOR

a) An Order by this Court for an allowance to re-assess Master Pierre Roger's ENDORSEMENT of Defense's Motion, as entertained during the May 8, 2013 Case Conference;

b) An order to have Master Pierre Roger explain and define his usage of the term: "in the circumstances all questions are relevant."

c) Taking Rule 29.2 in account, an order to have Master Roger identify the considered relevant questions by relating same to specifics in the claim at issue.

d) An order recognizing the Rule of "Proportionality in Discovery" (Sedona Canada Agreement) and according to its directives, dismiss Defense's motion of July 4, 2013.

e) An order to have Defense's Counterclaim be exempted and removed from this case, since it continues to take focus away from the claim at issue.

f) With mandatory mediation 'Pro-Forma' fulfilled and filed, order the action be set down for trial.

g) An order identifying the whereabouts of the Plaintiff's filed, but missing Motion of November 29, 2013.

h) An Order allowing all further costs be reserved to the trial judge.

f) Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may deem just.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE CROSS MOTION ARE

a) Rules 21.01 (3) (d); 29.09; 30.02 (1); 34.14 (1) (a) (b) (d) ; 34.15 (1) (a) (b) (d) ; 60.12 (c); 77.08 (5) (a)(b)(c)

b) Ordered by Master Roger in previous Court Orders:

- "The Plaintiff is to review the list of questions provided by the Defendant and is to make best efforts to provide any additional answers and documents that he is prepared to provide in answer to these questions." (May 9, 2012) This Plaintiff maintains he went beyond his duty to comply.

- "The Plaintiff shall answer to the best of his abilities all unanswered questions that he is prepared to answer "(Endorsement: July 18, 2012) This Plaintiff maintains he went beyond the Master's request, including answering a number of Case irrelevant questions.

c) Pertinent to Defense's Counterclaim (Rule 29.09;)) "The Plaintiff shall review his blog and take reasonable steps to ensure that the Defendant's name no longer appears on his blog." (Endorsement: July 18, 2012), the Plaintiff claims the inclusion of Defense's Counterclaim has gravely usurped and overshadowed the original claim's matters in issue.

d) Considering Rule 34.14 (1) (a) (b) (d), the Respondent/ Plaintiff maintains he has gone far beyond the Master's requests to comply with answering case relevant questions, by answering case irrelevant questions, as a consideration and respect to a fair discovery process.

e) Plaintiff's dismissal of previous Counsel is entirely based on his concept Counsel, if not misrepresenting his client, was not given the opportunity by Defence, and or the court, to prepare a fair rebuttal to the impending May 18, 2013, Motion. 

f) To STOP any further Motions from keeping the case to be set for Trial. 

(etc... + delivery to BLG Defence Counsel)
==================================================================

I WILL STATE ONE FINAL TIME: The Appelant swears he not only complied with all the Masters' orders (as written and interpretable by its inherent meaning to an averagely educated reader), the appellant, in his view (to the very best of his efforts) at all times answered - while finding many questions to be invasive and abusive, as per the Rules of proportionality and fair discovery - went FAR BEYOND THE RELEVANCE OF ANY QUESTIONS, 

A reader with serious interest in legal matters emailed me recently to say I am getting 'Nuttier' as time goes by. I suggest truth lurks in the eye of the beholder... 

I leave the reader to ponder: Is anything making any sense? If so, this NUT is indeed showing serious signs of mental deterioration...   

WHAT MORE CAN I ADD? I sign out this 4th year of misery...