158. Hearing UN-eventful.

VIEWS@10911

In an initial email sent to both counsels, Justice Charles T. Hackland, assigned to the hearing, had indicated: "I have read all the appeal materials." He had added my allowance to listen in: "Would you please attempt to have the polyphone available for this motion."

Instructed to call the Court at 2:30 PM EST, and ask to be put through to Court Room #34, not #59, I was advised to dial back "in 10 minutes." After I did, I could hear what must have been a multi-directional mike being positioned. Its result was, with no questions dared asking, that I could hear both Counsels well enough (not great), but, although aware when the judge was speaking, I could not decipher a WORD of what he was saying. Once again, so much for the privileges extended an extra-jurisdictional Canadian Citizen > 'Client.'

Within the total 1hour and 5 minutes, each counsel took some 30 mins to argue their position. The bulk of the hearing, with case law samples rendered, tackled the issues of whether the appellant was given a last, final, and definitive opportunity to answer the undertakings YES, or NO!  This was with the added understanding by the appellant he was under the impression only a judge could dismiss a claim, as well as his firm belief in the Rules, and how he felt he had adhered to them.
My Counsel made it clear that "getting the action reinstated is our number one priority."

This listener only became aware the hearing was over, when his counsel spoke in to the mike and informed him of such, indicating she would correspond with me later.
My assumptions Justice Hackland had reserved judgment was correct. One to two weeks are his indications for a decision, as my counsel informs.

So let's hope Justice Hackland had a rum-toddy or two with Santa Claus, and in accordance to his oath of office, and tough reputation, renders a fair and just decision > "in the circumstances."