NOTE: For those readers interested in the complete transcript of the September 20, 2013, special appointment session with Master MacLeod, I will again post its contents after completing this rebuttal to Justice Hackland's decision and ENDORSEMENT to dismiss.
Please acknowledge, I have taken liberty to insert asterisks, and underlined certain sentences.
================================================================
Justice Hackland:
[15] When the motion to dismiss the action was brought on before Master MacLeod, the appellant sought to *1) re-argue the refusals motion that had previously been decided by Master Roger. *2) Following a careful and patient explanation of the issue and the consequences of the motion, *3) 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. *4) In these circumstances, I am unable to appreciate how the Master could reasonably have been expected to extend any further indulgences to the appellant.
====================================================================
ME:
*1) ... re-argue the refusals motion that had previously been decided by Master Roger.
- i.e. there is NO questioning Master Roger here.
- I thought appeals were based on an in depth study assessing and verifying Officers of the Court had come to applicable and verifiable decisions!
*2) Following a careful and patient explanation (etc)
This appellant's assessment of the session is one of a Master's mere tolerance, while skirting my referenced issues to the rules. My astonishment the Master was entirely UNWILLING to take ANY initiative to either address, or answer, ANY of this appellant's questions. All seemed a fait accompli!
*3) Master MacLeod sought an assurance from the appellant ...
Similarly, without either officially questioning or acknowledging any detailed relevant history of the case, by purely accepting Master Macleod's 'Simon Says' rhetoric, Justice Hackland is drastically failing the system's well-defined purpose. He decided NOT to question the number of clearly questionable legally allowable anomalies. This is NOT Justice. It is protection.
*4) In these circumstances (etc),
"unable to appreciate" i.e. I have not bothered to look at any details suggested by the Appellant.
Both Senior Master and Judge, if led by their true conscience and guided by the rules of relevance, would have delved deep to uproot the ants nest this case was allowed to become over the many years of its aggravating duration. Had they done so, it would have brought its anomalies and legal inconsistencies to the surface. I repeat > SHAME on their collusive system!
=====================================================================
Justice Hackland:
[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:
*1) ... re-argue the refusals motion that had previously been decided by Master Roger.
- i.e. there is NO questioning Master Roger here.
- I thought appeals were based on an in depth study assessing and verifying Officers of the Court had come to applicable and verifiable decisions!
*2) Following a careful and patient explanation (etc)
This appellant's assessment of the session is one of a Master's mere tolerance, while skirting my referenced issues to the rules. My astonishment the Master was entirely UNWILLING to take ANY initiative to either address, or answer, ANY of this appellant's questions. All seemed a fait accompli!
*3) Master MacLeod sought an assurance from the appellant ...
Similarly, without either officially questioning or acknowledging any detailed relevant history of the case, by purely accepting Master Macleod's 'Simon Says' rhetoric, Justice Hackland is drastically failing the system's well-defined purpose. He decided NOT to question the number of clearly questionable legally allowable anomalies. This is NOT Justice. It is protection.
*4) In these circumstances (etc),
"unable to appreciate" i.e. I have not bothered to look at any details suggested by the Appellant.
Both Senior Master and Judge, if led by their true conscience and guided by the rules of relevance, would have delved deep to uproot the ants nest this case was allowed to become over the many years of its aggravating duration. Had they done so, it would have brought its anomalies and legal inconsistencies to the surface. I repeat > SHAME on their collusive system!
=====================================================================
Justice Hackland:
[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."
====================================================================
====================================================================
ME: I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH ABOVE.
*) However, Ironies abound! During the June 2012 conference, in order to comply with (vague) procedural orders, I decided to abide by the Rules. Respecting their limitations and warnings of unnecessarily prolonging discovery, in consideration thereof, realizing I would not receive more information, and prepared to move on to trial, I indicated I was 'satisfied' with Defence's answers.
So it is with disgust I note the insidious and conniving comparison. This is but one example showing the unjust and harmful results Case Law can render, when individual 'circumstances' are avoided to be assessed on their own merits, and instead, are heaped together, as if by facsimile.
===================================================================
Justice Hackland (quoting):
*) However, Ironies abound! During the June 2012 conference, in order to comply with (vague) procedural orders, I decided to abide by the Rules. Respecting their limitations and warnings of unnecessarily prolonging discovery, in consideration thereof, realizing I would not receive more information, and prepared to move on to trial, I indicated I was 'satisfied' with Defence's answers.
So it is with disgust I note the insidious and conniving comparison. This is but one example showing the unjust and harmful results Case Law can render, when individual 'circumstances' are avoided to be assessed on their own merits, and instead, are heaped together, as if by facsimile.
===================================================================
Justice Hackland (quoting):
*1) "The rules must not be rendered * nugatory by failure to impose appropriate sanctions in case of breach of orders."
===================================================================
* nugatory |ˈn(y)o͞ogəˌtôrē|
adjectiveof no value or importance: a nugatory and pointless observation.• useless; futile:
*1)The rules must not be rendered * nugatory
ME: I TOTALLY AGREE!
Let's play by the Rules, indeed! I state however their was NO SUCH EVIDENCE DURING THIS CASE! In stead, cleverly manipulated rhetoric, reiterating standard phrases, created the semblance of relevance. This is called 'legalese.'
'Semblance of relevance' was OUTLAWED in the adjusted and improved 2010 Rules for Discovery.
In my humble opinion, these well-intentioned, sensibly adjusted Rules have yet to be applied. Whether they ever will is up to our government! Since no one seems to be checking, all is for naught, while the status quo of insiders continues to reign.
=====================================================================
Justice Hackland:
* nugatory |ˈn(y)o͞ogəˌtôrē|
adjectiveof no value or importance: a nugatory and pointless observation.• useless; futile:
*1)The rules must not be rendered * nugatory
ME: I TOTALLY AGREE!
Let's play by the Rules, indeed! I state however their was NO SUCH EVIDENCE DURING THIS CASE! In stead, cleverly manipulated rhetoric, reiterating standard phrases, created the semblance of relevance. This is called 'legalese.'
'Semblance of relevance' was OUTLAWED in the adjusted and improved 2010 Rules for Discovery.
In my humble opinion, these well-intentioned, sensibly adjusted Rules have yet to be applied. Whether they ever will is up to our government! Since no one seems to be checking, all is for naught, while the status quo of insiders continues to reign.
=====================================================================
Justice Hackland:
Rules 30.08(2)(b), 60.12 and 77.10(7), specifically provide for the dismissal of * a plaintiff’s action in such circumstances.
=====================================================================
ME: Again, I state, the 'bundling' of oftentimes entirely differing "circumstances" under the guise of rendering an 'efficient' verdict, is purely shameful. My experience has shown vast gaps of allowances showing inadequate adherence to the actual rules with their clear demands towards relevance.
To show belated efficiency of process by rendering a verdict based on case law, is merely doing additional injustice to a planned, set up, losing party; easier achieved with an SRL.
=====================================================================
ME: Again, I state, the 'bundling' of oftentimes entirely differing "circumstances" under the guise of rendering an 'efficient' verdict, is purely shameful. My experience has shown vast gaps of allowances showing inadequate adherence to the actual rules with their clear demands towards relevance.
To show belated efficiency of process by rendering a verdict based on case law, is merely doing additional injustice to a planned, set up, losing party; easier achieved with an SRL.
====================================================================
Justice Hackland quoting:
"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.
"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 courts are obliged to meet their federal 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."
====================================================================
====================================================================
ME:
Can we, the public, imagine when "There comes a time" when courts cease to play their in-house games, and truly be the pillars of our society? A time when Rules are airtight and uniform across the land? A time when actual justice is related to, and applied by, fact, rather than rhetoric?
When hiding behind 'lack of jurisdiction' and the guise of 'circumstances' are unallowable?
====================================================================
Justice Hackland quoting:
"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.
Can we, the public, imagine when "There comes a time" when courts cease to play their in-house games, and truly be the pillars of our society? A time when Rules are airtight and uniform across the land? A time when actual justice is related to, and applied by, fact, rather than rhetoric?
When hiding behind 'lack of jurisdiction' and the guise of 'circumstances' are unallowable?
====================================================================
Justice Hackland quoting:
"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.”
=====================================================================
Justice Hackland:
[17] In conclusion,*1) 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, *2) the appellant sought to bargain with the court to impose inappropriate conditions. *3) The appeal herein is dismissed.
======================================================================
[17] In conclusion,*1) 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, *2) the appellant sought to bargain with the court to impose inappropriate conditions. *3) The appeal herein is dismissed.
======================================================================
ME:
*1) Reading that sentence, if efficiency of language were an issue, why not merely?
In conclusion, I agree with the Master! (Brilliantly succinct!)
*2) the appellant sought to bargain with the court to impose inappropriate conditions.
What unfortunate choice of words for a respected, high-profile, law-abiding, pillar of our society.
Can this Justice of the Court point at ANY text during these many years in which this Plaintiff, Respondent, Appellant, SRL appeared manipulative and underhanded, while seeking to 'play bargain' the courts in order to impose inappropriate conditions?
Did he HAVE to stick it to me like this?
*3) The appeal herein is dismissed.
- So it took a high-profile judge to figure this out? Would a less profiled Judge have dared to treat the case differently? All is history now.
- What a waste of resources! What a contrivance. What intrigue with circumstance. What a posture of realities! Still its system continues to grind its inimitable ways! Theatre of the absurd!
========================================================================
*1) Reading that sentence, if efficiency of language were an issue, why not merely?
In conclusion, I agree with the Master! (Brilliantly succinct!)
*2) the appellant sought to bargain with the court to impose inappropriate conditions.
What unfortunate choice of words for a respected, high-profile, law-abiding, pillar of our society.
Can this Justice of the Court point at ANY text during these many years in which this Plaintiff, Respondent, Appellant, SRL appeared manipulative and underhanded, while seeking to 'play bargain' the courts in order to impose inappropriate conditions?
Did he HAVE to stick it to me like this?
*3) The appeal herein is dismissed.
- So it took a high-profile judge to figure this out? Would a less profiled Judge have dared to treat the case differently? All is history now.
- What a waste of resources! What a contrivance. What intrigue with circumstance. What a posture of realities! Still its system continues to grind its inimitable ways! Theatre of the absurd!
========================================================================
Justice Hackland:
[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.
[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.
========================================================================
* wouldmodalverb (3rd sing. presentwould)1 past of will1, in various senses: he said he would be away for a couple of days | he wanted out, but she wouldn't leave | the windows would not close.2 (expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation: he would lose his job if he were identified.• (I would) used to give advice: I wouldn't drink that if I were you.3 expressing a desire or inclination:
ME:
I would note and advice that my 6 years sojourning through this niche of our purportedly democratic establishment has re-affirmed the sad reality that any organized departments are best avoided - like the plague. If you require services, look to find them nearby; chances are, within your immediate Community there is at least a modicum of accountability.
I realize I have encountered the Devil within us, and it is truly all-consuming Evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment