Hello my anonymous readers... with my upcoming Friday, February 12th Summary Trial slated for an up to 2 hours attention, I hereby post my lengthy 'Argument.'
There are a number of factors at play any time you enter a No Man's land.
1) Will I be cut off at the pass? If so how and when?
2) Will my material even be read by either the Ministry, and or the court?
3) Will there even be any acknowledged communication? etc. etc.
All I can tell you is that although 'YOU' have been there, ( it could even be a kid @ Google Inc. feeding me the VIEWS crumbs, pretending there are real people reading these efforts)
I too, will come to realize that all is FINITE. As such, to know the beast you are confronting, and eventually too - accept defeat. "All the world is a Stage" after all. I will quit while I have an ounce of optimism left and go sprinkle it where it can sprout new growth.
====================================================================
Court
file no: 15 4257
Victoria Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
EVERT
JAN STEEN
Plaintiff
AND
The MINISTER of JUSTICE and ATTORNEY GENERAL for British Columbia
Defendant
CLAIMANT’S STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
Statement of facts:
1. The Claimant
resides in British Columbia. His initial legal action concerned a contractual
non-compliance by an Ottawa, Ontario Web-Developer.
- Websites, as online
means, promote e-commerce business and information across the globe. As such they
are non-jurisdictional in every application.
2. Claimant
discovered the Ottawa Web Developer on Guru.com, an online web business promoting
web-developers globally. The argument the developer has no concrete assets in
BC is a jurisdictional non-factor to the issues of the website related claim,
since services are provided equally, to anyone, anywhere on the globe.
3. The BC Small
Claims Rule, Rule 1 (2) (b) clearly defines various claim applicable allowances
for filing in BC. Accordingly, on
March 02, 2010, Claimant registers his claim in the Courtenay, BC,
Registry.
4. During the
Hearing on May 7, 2010, an
earlier filed Defence Application asks for the Claim’s dismissal. It takes
precedent. Regardless Claimant’s argument for using the 1 (2) (b) ‘OR’ Rule, confined
rhetoric leads to honour Defence’s Application as the Judge dismisses the claim
based on ‘lack of jurisdiction.’
5. Despite
Claimant’s argument for validating the OR rule with its clearly allowable
applicable clauses, Judge Saunders considers her position functus.
“I can do no
more.”
6. Having ignored
the Rule 1(2) (b) details for filing,
Madame Justice Justine Saunders puzzling includes Rule (2) (b) in her Judgment’s
dismissal. She additionally ignores Rule
18 – Other Rules about Service and Proving Service.
(2)
7. Enquiring if he can pursue anything else, Justice
Saunders indicates Claimant can Appeal her decision should he wish to do so.
8. On June 22, 2010, Claimant files
Appeal in BC Supreme Court. Appeal will be heard on August 23, 2010.
9. On or about July 10, 2010, Claimant receives
another Defence Application to a Judge. It states: “One may file an appeal
after a Trial, not after a Hearing; since ours was a Hearing, there may not be
an Appeal.”
10. August 23, 2010. A 2 hour
Hearing, set and paid for by Claimant Steen, is interrupted by spill over from
a morning’s case. During a brief audience with Madame Justice Dardi, Defence’s
Application to a Judge questions the Appeal allowance. Steen requests an
adjournment based on Defence’s additional materials and late filing. With nigh
a reprimand, the judge eventually grants the adjournment.
11. With a new
date set for January 22, 2011, realizing he is getting nowhere, on December 09, 2010, Claimant
Steen abandons BC Appeal.
12. December 30, 2010, Claimant files
in Superior Court of Ontario.
ISSUES
ON ARGUMENT
(i)
Did the BC Court have territorial competence
to hear the claim?
(ii)
Based on both Case Law exhibits, as well upon
scrutiny of the allowances in Rule (b), the Court should have exercised its
territorial competence on the grounds it is the right and correct Jurisdiction,
in the Courtenay Registry.
(iii)
Why did
Madam Justice Saunders refuse this SRLs attempts to hear his reasons for
stating Rule 1 (2) (i) ‘OR’ rule’s conditions (fully entitling him to file in
Courtenay, BC?)
(iv)
Did the
courts fail to adhere to the Rules? And if such, has the Self-Representing
claimant been seriously misappropriated?
(v)
If so,
based on the SRLs 5 year litigation in Ontario, is the seriously
misappropriated claimant entitled to his requested recompense?
(vi)
What
are Canadian Citizens’ statutory rights in these circumstances?
(vii)
Are judges, applying their
trade, above the law?
(viii)
If so, then, as their employer,
the Minister of Justice is responsible for their decisions. (Claimant is aware a complaint
regarding a Judge’s behavior is
to be addressed to the CJC)
(ix)
What are the roles and duties of the Minister
of Justice?
(X) Would the Ministry concur with a complete
rewrite of the Rules to create less ‘choice’ when applying them to their
applicable circumstances?
(X1) Would the Ministry agree Judges need to be
held more accountable, somehow?
(3)
(X11) That
lawyers must be made to understand they are NO closer to a Judge then any
litigant, regardless representation or not.
(XIII) Can it be said that much in-efficiency lies
within the system itself; that those employed by the system gain by prolonging
their cases?
(XIV) That if
indeed the system seeks to improve itself, drastic changes are required.
============================================================
PREFACE
TO ARGUMENT
As an average, elderly Canadian citizen,
with this Court’s approval, I would like to express the lay rhetoric for my
argument…
I appreciate, and am prepared to accept,
that judges shall not be held responsible for their ON-duty, in-court
decisions. After all, where there is argument in debate, there is room for
error – even amongst judges, since they are finite and mortal, like the rest of
us.
Though allowably excusable at the time
of error, should by fact and reason it become ipso facto clear error did indeed occur, such in-justice then, would show
a mis-appliance
of the Rules and hence misappropriation of the Plaintiff citizen.
Since we purport to live in a ‘just’ society,
once determined, this should be put right.
This ‘putting right,’ your Honour, brings us
here today. As Minister and supreme head of her department, the Minister plays
a number of roles. While ministering, she is responsible for the needs, rights,
as well as actions of her Citizens. These include her hired judges, since they too
are Citizens, who may some day need to appear in court.
Her position then, as Minister, requires
her to tend to, care for, take care of,
look after, see to it - in fact ad-minister,
by organizing and managing the affairs of all those who fall under her
Department’s Jurisdiction. She has so sworn to uphold everyone’s God-given statutory
rights.
In her role as Minister of Justice, she has
to ensure that matters and procedures are done both fairly and correctly.
Especially where it concerns the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the rules by which we all must abide. Since, as citizens, none of us are above the
law.
And when, for whatever reasons, it is
discovered that wrongs have taken place, they must be rectified - in a
formal and just manner. And if necessary, with a renewed, and fresh argument, like
today, in this court, reflecting the Mandate of a newly appointed Federal Justice
Minister.
Surely, this is the only way justice can be democratically administered.
===========================================================
(4)
ARGUMENT
- Claimant argues
it should be noted the original Notice of Claim, filed on or about March 02,
2010, in the Courtenay, BC, registry, is in compliance with the rules as
set out in the Small Claims Rules.
In addition to Rule I (2) (b) I refer the Court to:
- COURT
JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER ACT
Part
2 — Territorial Competence of Courts of British Columbia
"territorial competence" means the aspects of a court's
jurisdiction that depend on a connection between
A court has
territorial competence in a proceeding that is brought against a person only if:
(e)
there is a real and substantial
connection between British Columbia
and the facts on which the proceeding against that person is based.
Real and substantial connection
10 Without limiting the right of the
plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitute a real and substantial
connection between British Columbia and the facts on which a proceeding is
based, a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and those
facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding:
(e) concerns contractual obligations, and
(A) is for the purchase of
property, services or both, for use other than in the course of the
purchaser's trade or profession, and
(5)
(B) resulted from a solicitation of
business in British Columbia by
or on behalf of the seller, “
Claimant has ample proof on each of the above allowances:
Regarding: Real
and Substantial Connection; (10) (e); 10 (i) ;10 (ii)
- (10) (e ) On April 14, 2008, a lengthy,
itemized, online Statement of Work was signed by the CEO Web-Developer from
Ottawa. It indicated Phasal Completions and payments thereof; NO outside
purchases or specific duties by the Claimant Client were indicated; a
Completion date of July 11, 2008, as well as a final para stating both parties
where legally bound by the contract.
- 10 (i) Based on some 1022 email exchanges
between Claimant and Website Project Manager within a 6 month time-lapse,
Claimant has ample proof of almost daily exchanges, as well as his sole efforts
in contributing multiple English texts to be inserted in to the website. This
the more applicable, since the appointed Project Manager was French Canadian,
adding to much un-intentional linguistic miscommunication. I argue French = NOT English!
-10 (ii) All monies paid the web-developer were paid online, coming out of the
BC Company’s RBC, Courtenay account.
-10 (iii) (A) was for the purpose of both ‘property’ (a website) and ‘services’ (with
intentions of ongoing maintenance by developer).
- 10 (iii) (B) proof of
same, expressed by tel. calls as well as supported by emails.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Discretion as to the exercise of territorial competence
11 (1) After
considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of
justice, a court may decline to exercise its territorial competence in the
proceeding on the ground that a court of another state is a more appropriate
forum in which to hear the proceeding”
Should “after considering the interests of the parties,” this court, in its wisdom
and discretion, argue BC was not the forum
convenience, Claimant would like to bring Ontario’s Default Rule for filing
a claim to the Court’s attention:
(6)
Ontario’s
Rules of Civil Procedure…
(The following being the Default Rule for filing a Claim)
“Place of Filing
(2) The
following requirements govern the place of filing of documents in proceedings,
unless the documents are filed in the course of a hearing or these rules
provide otherwise:
1.
All documents
required to be filed in a proceeding shall be filed in the court office in
which the proceeding was commenced,”
Applying the above
default Rule for filing, Claimant argues, had he filed in Ontario, the
honourable Judge would have been correct for dismissing the claim, since the
claim originated in BC, and Ontario was not the Claimant’s domicile province,
nor the Forum Convenience; certainly
not for an elderly claimant living on a basic pension, against a prosperous
web-developer.
I additionally bring
my 2 samples Case Law (Exhibit ‘F’ and ’G’), to your attention. Here your very office took on a recalcitrant
US student for failing to pay back the loans he had received from our
government! Suffice to say you were in your right, easily winning the case, and
demanding the American pay back our government his borrowed monies.
Both samples deal
with Contractual issues in 2 Jurisdictions; one in BC; one in NY. If indeed
Case Law stands for Justice, they speak for themselves.
CONCLUSIONS
There are then several avenues of
argument on which to base the claim’s jurisdictional filing validity:
1) Was BC the valid
Jurisdiction to hear the Claim? Based on Case Law: Two examples prove to the
affirmative (one being your very office of The Attorney General as Plaintiff)!
2) Should there be no Case Law on
which to effectively argue or verify the filing, the Claim must be assessed on
its prima facie factors. In doing so,
upon scrutiny it will be validated to fully adhere to the 1 (2) (b) ‘OR’ Rule.
(7)
DENOUEMENT
Rules create
understanding and order. A Red Traffic light is clear to its oncoming traffic.
STOP, or when caught, you will be reprimanded and liable for costs, if not go
to jail. The clarity of RED is a universal Rule. It speaks for itself. There should
be NO room for argument. Websites as well, are Global!
For failing to abide
by the rules, rules your very own Ministry had a hand in writing, accepting,
then putting in to place, your hired and Honourable Judge, in retrospect, with
her erroneous judgment, allowed a law abiding citizen to be unfairly
misappropriated. Based on a questionable technicality, the judge may have erred
again, by allowing the Claimant to Appeal her decision.
The argument there
lies between what is a Hearing and when a Hearing is called a Trial? It is my understanding that all Court
proceedings in Small Claims Court are titled: ‘Hearings’; that a Hearing is synonymous with Trial.
By ultimately forcing
this Claimant to file in an extra-provincial Jurisdiction, Judge Saunders inadvertently
sent him into a 5 year no man’s land of toil and trouble, the likes he has yet
to recover from. His faired no better; WHY?
Experience has taught
me our courts look upon SRLs with disdain. Our apparent invasion seems to be threatening
the very fibre of your system. “The
courts are not about Justice, Jan,” a US lawyer once informed me. I have since
gleaned its awkward, hollow, truly disturbing reality.
The question than is
‘Is Justice REAL any longer?’ Like global warming, we need to bring climate
change down to the very fibre of our being, or we are surely doomed. All is suggesting
mankind can no longer continue to live a lie!
Admittance takes
character and balls. Any beginning is a challenge. But once the balls roll
there is no stopping, and an era of hope, by truth, will set in; our newly
elected government may become a prime example.
In particular our very own BC’s
native born Federal Minister of Justice, the Honourable Madam Justice Jody
Wilson-Raybould, whose Letter of Mandate by our Prime Minister Trudeau clearly
lays out how law, through fairness, due diligence, and procedure, must be JUST,
not to a few, but to all our citizens.
(8)
“As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant
with the Conflict of Interest Act and Treasury Board policies
and guidelines. You will be provided with a copy of Open and
Accountable Government to assist you as you undertake your
responsibilities. I ask that you carefully read it and ensure that your
staff does so as well. I draw your attention in particular to the Ethical
Guidelines set out in Annex A of that document, which apply to you and your
staff. As noted in the Guidelines, you must uphold the highest standards
of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties
and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public
scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply
acting within the law. Please also review the areas of Open and
Accountable Government that we have expanded or strengthened,
including the guidance on non-partisan use of departmental communications
resources and the new code of conduct for exempt staff.”
This Claimant is looking forward
to seeing fairness and justice applied by a re-invigorated “Open and Accountable Government.”
Withholding it would send an
ominous sign to both our newly elected government, as well to the fate of
democracy.
=======================================================================
ADDENDUM: Aware this court may
seek to find a technicality to dismiss my claim, I am at least aware of below,
with the clear understanding I am well within its time-frame, arguing I was
guided by both BC Judges, Justice Saunders and Dardi, to take my issues to
Ontario.
Those ‘issues’ were terminated a
year ago.
New Limitation Act in force June 1, 2013
On
June 1, 2013, the new Limitation
Act,
SBC 2012, c. 13 (formerly Bill 34) comes into force. The new Act simplifies the
time limits for filing civil lawsuits. It replaces the current two, six and
10-year limitation periods for civil claims with a two-year-from-discovery
basic limitation period and the current 30-year ultimate limitation period with
a 15-year-from-occurrence limitation period (with some exceptions).
Steen
v. 3902641 Canada Inc. (Master
MacLeod)
Steen
v. 3902641 Can Inc. (January 20, 2015; Judge J.
Hackland)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment