226. Ministry absolved using their 'RULES.'

VIEWS@15182

What I find interesting in life is that cliches and sayings can be so telling. 'Power corrupts '
or, "Every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost"  A 16th century proverbial phrase indicating that those who lag behind will receive no aid.

"You may delay, but time will not, and lost time is never found again". — Benjamin Franklin 
                        “Never put off for tomorrow, what you can do today. - Charles Dickens.
"You're either with us, or against us!" - Another brilliant philosopher: - George Bush!

So I "stick out like the proverbial sore thumb." Only thing I have been realizing is that small pockets of resistance, like a brush fire, can be easily controlled; in fact, it makes those in charge even stronger. They thrive by it; it validates their position of strength.  

In essence, as I assess our globe, the human malaise is becoming indigenous. ISIS and their likes are a prime example of our species self-destructing, imploding. Like the unloved orphans, banging their heads against the wall; like the refugees challenging the open ocean to escape their mayhem. Like the disgraceful Alberta judge with his comments to a sex-abuse victim. We are running amuck and anything goes.

The only way to real change is done by the masses, as was proven in the last election with the Liberal ground-swell that began on voting day - in the east. It is now up to those same voters to INSIST they OWN UP! Real change can only occur at its very foundation.

Now let's have another, more careful look at the recently 'rediscovered' Rule:

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/TortPersonalInjury/LawArticle-77/Government-Liability.aspx

Here is part of it:)

Government Liability in Canada"

"Governments are entitled to sue other persons for damage caused to their property by tortious conduct.

But when the shoe is on the other foot (when the government is defendant), it used to be that governments were not liable in tort for the damage their employees or decisions caused to another, whether intentional or by negligence."

-----------------------

tort |tôrt| nounLaw a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.
--------------------------------
" Canadian provinces (most provincial laws are called "Crown Proceedings Act" or "Proceedings Against the Crown Act") and the federal government (the Crown Liability Act) have now rectified this anomaly by passing legislation which leaves the "Crown" liable in tort as a normal person would be. Thus, the tort liability of the government is a relatively new development in Canada, statute-based, and is not a fruit of common law."

My NOTE: 'HMMMM?'...what is "a fruit of common law?"

"The liability exposure of municipal governments should be examined separately in light of applicable provincial statutes such as the Ontario Municipal Act (at canlii.com/on/laws/sta/2001c.25/index.html) which may limit the liability of municipal corporations or hold would-be plaintiffs to unique and strict limitation and notice periods."

------------------------------------------------

"The government must be entitled to govern free from tortious liability. It cannot be a tort for government to govern. However, when a government is supplying services, that is, doing things for its people other than governing, it should be subject to ordinary negligence principles."

"-The Just decision was affirmed again by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1995, in 2 separate decisions, Brown v. British Columbia and Swinamer v. Nova Scotia, confirming the liability of government agencies under regular negligence standards, where damages were caused by conduct or a decision of an "operational" nature."

NOTE: Last lines of both above paras emboldened/underlined by myself. 

And I am saying that is EXACTLY what happened in my case!   I am referring to the Judge causing me serious damages erring in her decision of an "operational" nature, when she dismissed my claim, suggested I could appeal, but should have filed in Ontario; which I then later did! 

YET!  I am again dismissed in my Summary Trial, "confirming the liability off [a] government agenc[y] under regular negligence standards, [with ] damages caused by conduct or a decision of an "operational" nature.

Here is the AG's Johnny Van Camp's Part 5: LEGAL BASIS:

"The plaintiff's claim should be struck

3. The plaintiff's claim is barred by  s.3(2)(a) of the Crown Proceeding Act 

The section specifies that no claim against government arises from "anything done or omitted to be done by a person acting in good faith while discharging or purporting to discharge responsibilities (i) of a judicial nature vested in the person, or (ii) that the person has in connection with the execution of judicial process."   

========================

Who wrote the Rules? Which rules are we using anyway? Federal? Provincial? Last year's?

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

========================

" Some general statements can be made:

• Policy-decisions usually, but not always, come from persons higher on the organizational chart of a government;*

• Legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial decisions are clearly immune from tort liability;

• The trend of Canadian courts, according to Linden's book, is towards increased government liability,*  including municipal governments; and

• Before any analysis of the operational/policy conduct of the government agency, a court would first look to see if a duty of care existed between the government agency and the plaintiff.*

This area of the law appears to be very much in a state of flux, caused, it would appear, by a deep philosophical chasm on the Supreme Court of Canada on the application of ordinary tort principles upon governmental agencies.

The above principles continue to reflect the views of a majority of the Court circa 1997, as written by Justice Cory in all three cases cited. Two other still-minority views continue unabated in each of the above cases, led by the late Justice Sopinka.

For a technical commentary on the dichotomy that exists on the bench of Canada's Supreme Court on this matter, readers are referred to the Supreme Court Law Review, (1995) Vol. 6: 487."

*"A duty of care[..] between the government agency and the plaintiff"... would'nt that be a nice democratic path to take?

=================================================================

I received a new NSRLP posting today.

The Loneliness of the Self-Represented Litigant  (link)

Excerpt from above Posting

"Of course, allowing a SRL to bring a friend into the courtroom with them is not a panacea for the loneliness of the self-represented litigant – but it would be a simple and symbolic start.

• It would recognize the undeniable reality that ratcheting up isolation and stress for SRLs in hearings is counter-productive for everyone involved.
• It would be an acknowledgment that new norms and rules are needed for a new era in the courts.
• It would show that we really care about the users of the justice system."

============================

Ironies abound; without the people, there would be no Judges, no lawyers, no system.
So they are  'Biting the hands that feed them' ....There! Another beauty cliche!

 Dishonesty, hypocritical posturing, greed, we're 'shooting ourselves in the foot'  :)

We need to 'Turn over a New Leaf.' 

Like soil, all our systems are requiring a major turn-over, a serious aeration! So here's my suggested slogan: Undo - Renew!  And I mean from the Bottom Up!

Justice indeed!

========================

legal

adjective

1.

permitted by law; lawful:

Such acts are not legal.

2.

of or relating to law; connected with the law or its administration:

the legal profession.

==================

Ministry of Justice? If not, 'Justice', why not call it something else.

How about?  The Ministry of Court Legalese ? 

I say: Let's get real here.