Hornby Island, BC, May 29/ 2015
Dear Madame Justice Suzanne Anton, Minister of Justice +
Attorney General for BC:
Seeking to avoid any adversarial stance, this letter is
intended as an amicable gesture, incorporating the principle of good faith, and
a duty to act honestly.
As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British
Columbia you are in charge of the daily actions and behavior of those you
employ, i.e. the Masters and Justices of this province. Additionally your
National office created the Rules of Civil Procedure on which all our country’s
legal decisions are based.
In your honourable and highly privileged position, I ask you
to comprehend that as a Self Representing Litigant (by need, since I exist on a
minimum pension), I have these past five years endured the ins and outs of our Democracy’s
legal system. It continues to be both a financial, as well as an emotional nightmare.
All the while searching for Justice and due process, I
experienced none of its defined prerequisites. Our Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Sedona Conferences (Moving the law forward in a reasoned and
just way), as well as the Supreme Court of Canada’s move to include “The
principle of good faith and duty to act honestly” in Contract Law, while well-intentioned
objectives, all were absent from the realities I encountered.
In my recently Blogged letter to the advisory board of the
NSRLP in Ontario, I explain:
“Jan continues:
My experience has taught me that before
there is “commitment to advancing access to justice in Canada” the “urgency of
system change” must occur at the very core of the system. For me this means
that before there is better access to procedure, we must make sense of the
Rules. Any system created and governed by its employed participants is bound to
raise barriers for outsiders. Over the last seven years I have experienced
numerous examples of permitted anomalies and what seemed to me to be apparently
illegal behavior by the legal system. In the end, I feel that the
system managed to devour me and then spit me out, after a tedious and
long-drawn game.”
The system your office created, Madame Anton, expresses
itself as if running like any other ‘business.’ In their efforts to satisfy
their clients, my experience showed integrated law firms riding shotgun over Masters
and Judges. Due diligence, fairness, good faith, as well as adherence to the
facts at issue, were missing from proper rule application. Like chess, directives
were about positioning, the aim towards ‘winning.’
This then takes me to the responsibilities of your office.
Though you may have inherited what you are in control of,
truth is, with the above said your system is the average citizen’s bane. Human
foible as it is, unless serious issues are addressed, the legal system, i.e.
our system of ‘Justice’ will continue to be a parody of its intentions. While actual
Justice eludes the average citizen’s legal rights, it will continue to serve
the flush and well connected. Nothing has changed for hundreds of years.
As parents and grandparents, surely our consciences are prepared
to take on this challenge by making every effort necessary to rectify what has
gone so seriously awry. To bring back some faith and honorability to both your
office as well as the very manner in which the justice system is being
practiced is our duty. In turning lie to truth, hundreds of thousands of fellow
Canadians would sigh a welcome relief and applaud you.
A claim will be filed against your office for damages
suffered at the hand of one of your officers, Madame Justice Justine Saunders. My
BC claim for contractual non-compliance for the creation of a website by an
Ottawa domiciled web company was erroneously dismissed for “lack of
Jurisdiction.” I will indicate how the ‘OR’ rule for filing in BC indicates the
necessary provisos for an applicable and acceptable filing. I will have case
law to validate the above. The Ontario default Rule for filing states to file
“where the claim originates.” Had I filed in Ontario, a judge could more justly
have dismissed it.
Justice Saunders erred a second time for allowing me to
appeal. Defence Counsel brought this to my attention in an Application to a
Judge a number of months after I had filed same. A technicality allows an
appeal after a Trial, not a Hearing. Ours had been a Hearing; hence no appeal was
allowed. This became the argument.
The JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CODE OF ETHICS Rule 2.01 indicates:
“Justices should remain up to date on changes in the law relevant to their
judicial function.” This aggravating phase alone took up some 6 months of my
life.
(Quoting your
website)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Reform Initiatives
The B.C. government is modernizing and transforming justice services in
a way that meets the needs of British Columbians. In particular, it is aiming
to create a transparent justice system capable of delivering timely,
well-balanced services.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I will do everything in my powers to recover what has
been lost both financially, emotionally as well as in time investment, as a
fourty year domiciled British Columbian, I offer my due diligence in helping my
government achieve the above transparency.
Understanding parliament will be taking a summer break soon,
I am sending this connect today with the hope your office will both acknowledge
receipt, as well as allow for an indication when my claim filing would be best
timed.
In the meantime I remain,
Sincerely Yours,
Evert-Jan Steen
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment