Justice Hackland:
12] A review of the motion transcript discloses that Master MacLeod advised the appellant that he could consider allowing him an additional period of time to answer the questions and undertakings in response to which the appellant stated that he would not provide further answers unless the Court would guarantee that he would not have to answer any further questions.
====================================================================
ME:
The appellant (ME) informed senior Master Macleod that he (ME) had gleaned his SRL's legal wherewithal by studying government materials made accessible to the general public on the now household, accessible to all families, bread-and-butter-Googled new, and REAL world!
The appellant (ME) informed senior Master Macleod that he (ME) had gleaned his SRL's legal wherewithal by studying government materials made accessible to the general public on the now household, accessible to all families, bread-and-butter-Googled new, and REAL world!
Referring to the new, and recently adjusted Rules for Discovery (2010), rules which clearly called for serious adjustments by clarifying the pertinence to the matters at hand in the process, I questioned Master Macleod about its directives about 'relevance.' Master Macleod's response was that he had been present at the induction of same.
Upon my relating to the never ceasing demands for never ceasing answers to never ceasing discovery questions over some 3 years (a clear violation of the new rules) his response was: 'Master Roger considered them relevant. I have no jurisdiction to question the master.'
When I was then 'offered' the potential of another 30 days to answer, the to me MOST INANE IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS, (EX: what jobs did you do as a handyman?) I voiced: "If I did, would you guarantee that that would be the end of it?" (i.e. This lunatic is prepared to go your most ridiculously - against the rules - disgraceful ways, one last time, if you can guarantee the end of it.)
The answer was: "No, I cannot agree to that, since I would not know what answers you would give." (facsimile of quote)
===============================================================
Justice Hackland:
[13] Master Macleod issued comprehensive reasons for his decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s action, concluding as follows:ME:
"Mr. Steen made it abundantly clear during the motion *1) that he has made no attempt to answer the remaining undertakings because he does not agree he should have to. He states that they are not relevant and *2) are too much work. When I asked him if he would comply with the order if I gave him a further 30 days. He advised me he would only do so if the court could guarantee he would not then be asked more questions.
===============================================================
*1) Mr. Steen was NEVER given credit for answering Master Roger's December 06, 2012, Questions and Undertakings, delivered on time, February 15, 2013. Considering the enigmatic May 08, 2013, collusive telephone conference render-vous between both Counsels and Master Roger, the decision which also led to a pro-forma mediation scenario to put an end to the procedures.
*2) "are too much work." BS!
NOTE: I don't know what the 'H' is happening with this layout; I tried to adjust below, but no luck...
=================================================================
Justice Hackland:
Under the circumstances I have no option but to conclude that *the failure to answer the undertakings constitutes willful and intentional disregard of a court order. As stated by Ferrier J. in 1066087 Ontario Inc. v. Church of the First Bon Apostolic Inc. et al. cited by the counsel for the defendant, where the plaintiff has shown utter disregard for the orders of the court, it is unfair to require the defendant to continue to incur costs defending the action. A similar conclusion was reached by the Divisional Court in Vacca v.Banks (2005 6 C.P.C.22. In any event, Master Roger has already ordered that the action be dismissed if there was failure to comply and * that order was not appealed.
======================================================================
ME: *the failure to answer the undertakings constitutes willful and intentional disregard of a court order.
ME: *the failure to answer the undertakings constitutes willful and intentional disregard of a court order.
As mentioned before, the prior considered main order was Master Roger's of December 06, 2012. It had started my request for an answer to the phrase: "Under the circumstances." Like "Jurisdiction," this is showing up to be a legal 'Catch-Phrase," useful, no doubt, since it is UN-specific. Legalese I call it, like referring to your fellow counsel as "my brother." He/she is no more your 'brother' then I am your 'sister!'
It was THEY who turned me in to a NASTY! I say SHAME on them.
======================================================================
Judge Hackland
Accordingly the action of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs of the motion. The costs are fixed at $2,800.00 on a partial indemnity scale."
Accordingly the action of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs of the motion. The costs are fixed at $2,800.00 on a partial indemnity scale."
[14] In my opinion, the order of Master Roger of May 8, 2013, made it abundantly clear that he was providing the appellant with a last chance to comply with the orders of the court to answer undertakings. This order was made pursuant to * a consent disposition negotiated by the appellant’s own counsel. Still, the appellant refused to comply with that order.
=========================================================================
ME:
* a consent disposition negotiated by the appellant’s own counsel.
I CONTINUE TO SAY SHAME ON THIS MAN! Not only did he not consult with his client (ME) He WENT AGAINST HIS PROMISES to me! This individual is a Law Professor!
=========================================================================I may finish this tomorrow and rediscover some life!
=======================================================================
Justice Hackland:
[15] When the motion to dismiss the action was brought on before Master MacLeod, the appellant sought to re-argue the refusals motion that had previously been decided by Master Roger. Following a careful and patient explanation of the issue and the consequences of the motion, Master MacLeod sought an assurance from the appellant that if he granted a further 30 day extension to answer the questions and undertakings, his order would be complied with. In response, the appellant demanded assurances from the court that he would not be asked to answer any further questions. In these circumstances, I am unable to appreciate how the Master could reasonably have been expected to extend any further indulgences to the appellant.
[15] When the motion to dismiss the action was brought on before Master MacLeod, the appellant sought to re-argue the refusals motion that had previously been decided by Master Roger. Following a careful and patient explanation of the issue and the consequences of the motion, Master MacLeod sought an assurance from the appellant that if he granted a further 30 day extension to answer the questions and undertakings, his order would be complied with. In response, the appellant demanded assurances from the court that he would not be asked to answer any further questions. In these circumstances, I am unable to appreciate how the Master could reasonably have been expected to extend any further indulgences to the appellant.
[16] In Vacca v. Banks, 2005 CanLll 1054 (ON SCDC), Mr. Justice Ferrier of the Divisional Court made the following observations when he affirmed a Decision of Master Birnbaum dismissing a Plaintiff’s action for non-compliance with court orders in very similar circumstances:
“Repeated delays and failures to comply with procedural orders affect not only the parties to the action. They significantly increase the cost of the administration of justice due to the impact on administrative and judicial resources. Repeated breaches of orders must attract significant sanctions otherwise the Case Management Rules will become ineffectual and the ultimate goal of the rules will be unattainable.
Page: 5
The rules must not be rendered nugatory by failure to impose appropriate sanctions in case of breach of orders.
Rules 30.08(2)(b), 60.12 and 77.10(7), specifically provide for the dismissal of a plaintiff’s action in such circumstances.
Furthermore. Although the Master found prejudice to the defendants, in my view it was unnecessary to make such finding as a factor supporting a dismissal of the action.
There comes a time when this court is obliged to meet its responsibility for the effective administration of justice through case management by dismissing an action. Such is the case when the plaintiff repeatedly fails to comply with orders of the court whether or not there is prejudice to the defendants.
In the circumstances of four breached order, including the “last chance” order, the Master realistically had only two options – one was to give the plaintiffs yet another chance – the other was to dismiss the action.
Not only am I unable to find error in the exercise of discretion by the Master, I am of the view that her decision was correct.”
[17] In conclusion, I am not persuaded that the Master was clearly wrong in ordering the dismissal of this action and indeed I think he was correct. I find that the appellant was well aware that he had been provided with a last chance to comply with Master Roger’s order to answer undertakings and even when queried by Master MacLeod as to his willingness to comply if granted a further extension, the appellant sought to bargain with the court to impose inappropriate conditions. The appeal herein is dismissed.
[18] I would note that the respondents have a counterclaim in this action. They have advised the court that they will agree to dismiss the counterclaim without costs upon dismissal of the main action.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment