HERE IT IS :
An Abbreviated 'WAR & PEACE'.
It must be noted:1) Justice Gaul states he read through my materials, and asks me:
"How long do you think you're going to require to put your position before the court?"
2) My position was made clear in my Affidavit. I was under the impression a Summary Trial relied totally on the written materials; that there would be no verbal discussions regarding opinions or "positions."
3) Though I had properly filed a Requisition (with Registry return acknowledged proof) asking for an Adjournment from November 03, 2015, to a new set date February 12, 2016, after having filed at the Registry, but NOT YET SERVED THE MINISTRY (Which had been a prerequisite)
4) Though I had supplied both the Registrar as well as the Ministry with Registered and witnessed File Documentation on February 05, 2016,
5) The Ministry had nevertheless laid hold of the November 03 filing, and was using these filings in the Feb. 12th Chamber session; NOT the filed and served registered, dated Feb. 04 ones.
6) Though Defense complained about not being 'served' properly; Justice Gaul happened to have the correct files "in the black binder." While I was handed Defence's files in the Hallway some 30 mins before the case being heard.
7) With Defence, in Johnny Van Camp, taking some 15 minutes for his 'submissions' and some 2 minutes time to oppose my order.
8) In the end, a Court's Summary Trial was run verbally, off the cuff, with no reference to any of my written materials, and with, to Justice Gaul, "interesting" suggestions by the AG Defence J.Van Camp, for the court to implement certain never been used rules, which would quash any future such presentations, like mine, from ever reaching the court room.
====================================================================
Victoria Registry
|
|||||
In the Supreme Court of
British Columbia
|
|||||
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE GAUL)
|
|||||
Victoria, B.C.
|
|||||
February 12, 2016
|
|||||
BETWEEN:
EVERT JAN STEEN
PLAINTIFF
AND:
The MINISTER of JUSTICE and the ATTORNEY
GENERAL for
British Columbia
DEFENDANTS
|
|||||
PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS
|
|||||
COPY
|
|||||
Appearing
on his own behalf:
|
E. Steen
|
||||
Counsel for
the defendants:
|
J. Van Camp
|
||||
INDEX
SUBMISSIONS
BY EVERT STEEN:
SUBMISSIONS
BY MR. VAN CAMP:
REPLY BY
EVERT STEEN:
EXHIBITS
NIL
RULINGS
Order re
Costs and Waiving of Plaintiff's Signature
Victoria, B.C.
February 12, 2016
THE CLERK: Calling the matter of Ministry of Justice and
Evert Jan ‑- Jan Steen, My Lord.
THE COURT: Yes. You're Mr. Steen, are you, sir?
EVERT STEEN: I am, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right.
Thank you.
MR. VAN CAMP: Van Camp, initial J., last name V-a-n
C-a-m-p, appearing for the respondents, the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of British Columbia, My Lord.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Steen, I've read through your materials. How long do you think you're going to require
to put your position before the court?
EVERT STEEN: Well, Your Honour, it would all depend on
your mindset, I would imagine, would be part of it, as to where you would like
me to start, where to go, because I'm not sure at this point, based on procedures,
whether ‑- where I might begin is not where you want me to
begin, and so therefore I
THE COURT: Well, let's put it this way. What are you asking the court to do? What do you want me to do today?
EVERT STEEN: Essentially to ‑- to make a ruling.
THE COURT: And that ruling be ‑- would be what?
EVERT STEEN: That would ‑-
that's the one you would decide.
THE COURT: But what are you asking me to say? Like you want me to issue an order today.
EVERT STEEN: I ‑-
I ‑- essentially, to either say that Judge Saunders, in
2010, advising me to take my claim to Ontario, whether she was correct in
giving me that advice ‑-
THE COURT: So whether the ‑- whether a judge made a mistake ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: -- in giving you advice in 2010.
EVERT STEEN: Or ‑-
or whether she was correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
So that's one ‑- you want me to
address that issue.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Anything else you want me to address?
EVERT STEEN: The ‑-
the second one would be when I asked the judge at the time whether I could do
anything else, she then advised or suggested that I could appeal her decision,
and from that perspective, too, I would like you then to rule on whether she
was correct in giving me that advice ‑-
THE COURT: Okay.
So the second ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- to send ‑-
to essentially send me to Ontario.
THE COURT: Okay.
So the second issue you want to address, you want to say that Judge
Saunders was wrong to advise you to appeal?
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
Any other issue you ‑-
EVERT STEEN: That essentially ‑-
THE COURT: -- want to address?
EVERT STEEN: That ‑-
that essentially I was . . .
THE COURT: No, I ‑-
I'm not going to ask you to go through your argument yet.
EVERT STEEN: No.
THE COURT: I just want to identify the issues ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- then I'll hear from Mr. Van Camp.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: So right now you ‑- you're ‑-
you want me to order ‑- make an order
that Judge Saunders was wrong in 2010 to advise you that you should sue in
Ontario.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: That she was also wrong when she advised you
in 2010 that you could bring an appeal.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
Anything else where ‑- that you want in
an order today from this court?
EVERT STEEN: As an order today. Not that I can think of at this stage.
THE COURT: Okay.
So what ‑- what I'm going to do . . .
Mr. Van Camp, what's ‑-
I take it you're aware of the materials and. . .
MR. VAN CAMP: We haven't been ‑- the ‑- Her Majesty the
Queen hasn't been served as under the Crown
Proceeding Acts [sic] properly.
We're aware of this. Certainly,
it's opposed. We're here ‑- I'm instructed, actually, to make substantive submissions
on a portion of the Rules whereby this claim, from our ‑- from the Attorney General's point of view, should
have been struck by the registry, referring it to a judge ‑-
THE COURT: How long do you think you're going to need ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: My ‑-
my ‑-
THE COURT: -- for your submissions?
MR. VAN CAMP: My submissions can be ‑- on that
point can be 15 minutes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: But certainly we're opposing the relief and I
think it'll be that ‑- the ‑- the orders that he's requesting will be
opposed. I think I'll be two minutes on
that.
THE COURT: Okay.
Mr. Steen, what I'm going to do, because there's a matter, and
I don't know if you were in court when I was dealing with an earlier matter,
I'm going to ‑-
EVERT STEEN: I couldn't hear it.
THE COURT: Okay.
Well, I'm going to stand your case down right now, so we're just going
to pause for a moment, so you can take your materials. I want to recall another matter that I've
been dealing with and then I'll recall your matter shortly.
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: All right?
So we'll stand down the Steen matter, please, and we'll recall the
Chobot ‑- Choboter and Choboter.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
THE COURT: Mr. Steen and Mr. Van Camp, before we spread
out your materials and before we call your case, we're going to take the
morning adjournment, the morning recess.
We usually take it between ‑-
at some point between 11 o'clock and 11:15.
There'd be no point you, sir, starting your submissions and then ‑-
EVERT STEEN: And ‑-
THE COURT: -- five, 10 minutes later taking a break.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: So let's take our break now and then when we
resume, I'll hear from you, sir, I'll hear from you, Mr. Van Camp.
Mr. Van Camp, do you have any materials?
MR. VAN CAMP: Yes, I do, My Lord. I'll ‑-
I have an application record and a book of authorities, and I can highlight the
tabs that I'll be relying on ‑-
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. VAN CAMP: -- in both.
EVERT STEEN: And you have my documents.
THE COURT: I have your ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- the black binder, yes.
MR. VAN CAMP: The tabs I'm going to be relying on the ‑- in the application record include Tab 2, the
application response, Tab 3, the requisition for a ruling under 9-5, and then
Tab 4, the notice of civil claim.
The book of authorities, I'll be relying on Tab 1, s. 1, the
definition of Crown, s. 3(2), the judicial immunity, and then sub ‑- s. 7 and 8.
And then lastly, and probably most importantly, Tab 4, 9-3 ‑- sorry, 9-1 sub ‑-
sorry, 9-5(3), (1), and (4).
EVERT STEEN: Which tab is that?
MR. VAN CAMP: That's at Tab 4 of the book of authorities,
My Lord, so ‑-
THE COURT: All right.
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: You should not presume that I will have read
these materials
MR. VAN CAMP: Understood, My Lord.
THE COURT: -- during the break. I may have a look at them, but don't presume
that.
We're going to stand down and ‑- for about 20 minutes. We'll resume around quarter after 11. All right?
EVERT STEEN: Thank you.
THE CLERK: Order in chambers.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR
MORNING RECESS)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
THE CLERK: Recalling the matter of the Minister of
Justice and Evert Steen, My Lord.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Steen, your opportunity to explain to me the basis ‑-
EVERT STEEN: May I remain seated?
THE COURT: It is best if you remain stand ‑- you stand so that ‑-
no, you stand because the mike ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Oh, all right, I can do this now.
THE COURT: No, no.
EVERT STEEN: No. Oh ‑-
THE COURT: Stand.
And, in fact, what you want to do is ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Ah.
THE COURT: -- use the podium ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
Okay.
THE COURT: -- so it'll be properly recorded ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: -- and I know that you're speaking clearly. I can tell both of you, and particularly you, Mr. Van Camp, I
did not look at any of the materials that were provided to me just before the
break so that everybody knows the foundation of what I've read.
So, Mr. Steen, I have before me your application filed November
3rd, 2015. That's right? *1)
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: So ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Which is ‑-
which is the original application, I then adjourned to re ‑- to refile to have the trial be today.
THE COURT: Okay.
But that's . . .
EVERT STEEN: That's ‑-
that's the paper ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: -- what you're looking at.
THE COURT: That's the application ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- that forms the foundation ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Fair enough.
THE COURT: -- for the order you're seeking.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Do I have that right?
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: There's no other application ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Not much has changed. No.
THE COURT: There's no other application before me?
EVERT STEEN: The ‑-
the ‑- I ‑- I think I ‑- I did send, a week ago, an updated version, but as ‑- as it stands, I'm also understanding that your
version is the early ‑- earlier one, am I
correct? So I don't think it's going to
matter much, just a cleaner version, which I filed two weeks ago and ‑-
THE COURT: Mr. Van Camp.
EVERT STEEN: -- thank you, but this is fine.
MR. VAN CAMP: I have what I have in the ‑- my application response materials. I have the notice of application . . .
THE COURT: November 3rd, 2015.
MR. VAN CAMP: Filed ‑- yes, that's the application I
understand we're ‑- we're proceeding with today.
THE COURT: So that's what I'm looking at ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: -- Mr. Steen.
You're seeking an ‑- you're seeking an
order of a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: You're seeking an indication by the Ministry
to commence a review, so I gather you're asking me to order the Ministry to
make a ‑- do a review?
EVERT STEEN: Maybe it's ‑-
it's a high request to be asking. I
think part of it would depend on ‑-
on your ruling today. To ‑- to ‑- to satisfy my own
mindset in order to ‑- to understand and
appreciate how our country and our province and our ‑- our courts are run, I will glean by your response
today exactly where I stand.
THE COURT: Well . . .
EVERT STEEN: Because my ‑-
my earlier ‑- you asked me earlier ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: -- what did I wish you to order ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: -- and those are the two primary issues that
I put in front of you ‑-
THE COURT: That ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- which sent ‑-
THE COURT: That Judge
Saunders made errors ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- which sent me to Ontario into a nightmare
of five years. Now ‑-
THE COURT: But, sir, even if I ‑- before ‑-
before we started this portion of the hearing, I asked you to identify the
issues and you said you want an order indicating that Judge Saunders was wrong
to advised [sic] you to sue in Ontario, and you want an order saying that she
was wrong when she advised you about the appeal, right?
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: But even if I grant you those orders, so even
if I say she was wrong, then what?
EVERT STEEN: Well, do I not make my ‑- in my argument, I explain that taking the judge's
advice at the time, and I actually did appeal and I took the appeal onto a
stage where there was a hearing with Judge Dardi, which is one of my exhibit ‑- exhibits here.
Defence at the time had presented an application to the judge stating
that we were not ‑- although the earlier judge had allowed for an
appeal, according to the ruling stating ‑-
I'm ‑-
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: -- I'm not ‑-
THE COURT: I'm going to stop you there ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- because there's some things you need to
understand. When you appear before ‑- when you appear before a judge ‑- so you appeared before Judge Saunder ‑- Saunders, was that in Courtenay?
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
And she made a ruling. She ‑- she made a decision, right?
EVERT STEEN: Mm-hmm.
THE COURT: You appealed that decision.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: You're entitled to do that. You're entitled to appeal that.
EVERT STEEN: Well, according to Judge Dardi, based on the
application of the counsel, it ‑- and the ruling
stated, "You may appeal after a trial.
You may not appeal after a hearing.
Since ours was a hearing, you may not appeal." So she brought that up at the hearing with
Judge Dardi, who then said ‑- then I asked for
an adjournment, because defence had filed late and with additional materials
that I wasn't willing to ‑- I was ‑- I came to argue jurisdiction. I did not come to argue the other matters
that she had, only two days prior, filed.
The way I got the papers from defence, I just ‑-
THE COURT: What order did Judge Dardi make?
EVERT STEEN: She adjourned ‑-
THE COURT: Your appeal.
EVERT STEEN: -- ultimately allowed me an adjournment ‑-
THE COURT: Right.
EVERT STEEN: -- based on the fact that defence had filed
late ‑-
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: -- had ‑-
THE COURT: So your ‑-
your appeal from Judge Saunders was adjourned by Judge Dardi.
EVERT STEEN: Yes, and ultimately I ‑- I abandoned ‑-
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: -- the appeal, feeling that I wasn't going to
get anywhere, because Judge Dardi had already indicated, which is part of my
exhibit here
THE COURT: Right.
EVERT STEEN: -- that she was likely not even going to be
able to hear the appeal based on defence's rule that she had stated ‑-
THE COURT: When did you abandon your appeal?
EVERT STEEN: Two thousand and ten, December the 10th, I ‑- I believe.
THE COURT: So a little over five years ago, you
abandoned the appeal from Judge Saunders' decision.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: And then I filed in Superior Court in
Ontario.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: And that took me through some five years of
court factors ‑- facts and I was ultimately also dismissed by the ‑- the ‑- a judge, I can't
remember his name at this moment, so then I wanted to come full circle, and I
live on a small pension, so ‑- and I'm sorry to
be representing myself, because I can't afford a lawyer, and I'm doing the best
I can, clearly ‑-
THE COURT: Have you ‑-
have you spoken to legal aid?
EVERT STEEN: Oh, originally, of course, I did, but I'm far
beyond that stage now, I feel.
THE COURT: Far beyond what stage?
EVERT STEEN: Asking ‑-
asking for pro bono advice or ‑- you know, any ‑-
any other advice that I would be given by the government on a ‑- on whatever basis they would give it to me.
THE COURT: Have you asked for that advice?
EVERT STEEN: I ‑-
I ‑- not yesterday or the day before or a year ago, but
THE COURT: Why?
EVERT STEEN: Sorry?
THE COURT: Why?
EVERT STEEN: Because I ‑-
I ‑- the ‑- I ‑- I was told that I had gone as far as I could within the
availability of whatever the government, you know, was ‑- was allowing me,
and ‑- and I felt, also, that they were correct in that I had far gone, you
know, beyond anything that they could help me with.
So anyway, coming full circle here, and I have one of my case
law exhibits ‑- one of the things I thought I would do, if ‑- if
that ‑- if that would sit with you, Your Honour, is to actually go
backwards and ‑- and tackle defence's reasons for ‑- for dismissing,
which is 905 [sic]. Where are we
here? Because that ‑- that would
allow ‑- oh, dear, where ‑- where is that?
THE COURT: Okay.
Maybe Tab 4 of that green . . .
EVERT STEEN: Tab 4?
THE COURT: If you're referring to Rule 9-5?
EVERT STEEN: Rule 9-5.
No. This is all me. Oh, here we are. [indiscernible] the defence on Tab 2, page 2,
the ‑- the plaintiff's claim should be struck, if we ‑- if we go backwards and we ‑- and we note number 5 ‑- so this is material I just received half an hour
before we entered the court as you received your materials today.
Does this make sense to you if we went there to ‑- to interpret my interpretation of why I do not agree
with striking the claim based on the reasons that defence is giving?
THE COURT: Yes.
So there are two ‑-
EVERT STEEN: So ‑-
THE COURT: There are two big issues that you're going to
need to address, sir. The first issue is
you need to address what you want in the sense of what you want this court to
do.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: What you want me to do today.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: You want me to make an order that ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- indicates Judge Saunders was wrong.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: She was wrong to advise you to sue in Ontario ‑-
EVERT STEEN: And I feel I have plenty of evidence ‑-
THE COURT: No, no, no, no ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- to prove that.
THE COURT: No, let me just articulate the ‑- I want to articulate the issues so that you can tell
me if I'm missing something.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: So there are two big issues today.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: One is you want me to order ‑- make an order that Judge Saunders was wrong ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: -- to advise you to sue in Ontario. You want me to order that Judge Saunders was
wrong ‑-
EVERT
STEEN: To allow me to appeal ‑-
THE
COURT: -- about giving you advice about
the appeal.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: That's the first big issue, what you want me
to do today ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- for you.
You also want to argue, the second issue, that your action
should not be struck so that the ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: -- defence is wrong ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: -- to seek this.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: So you'll need to focus on what your ‑- and make submissions on why I should make the orders
that you're asking for, and why I shouldn't make the order ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- that the defence is asking.
EVERT STEEN: Perfect.
And where would you like me to start?
THE COURT: I'll leave that to you, sir. I would ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: -- suggest ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- that why don't you address what you ‑- what you want me to order for you, and you may
already have finished that, as in the orders relating to Judge Saunders ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and once you're finished that, you can
say, "Okay, I'm finished that. Now
I want to address why the orders being sought by the Attorney General shouldn't
be granted."
EVERT STEEN: Fair enough.
EVERT STEEN: So essentially, then, that's all in my black
cover there, which is the ‑- the fact that
when the claim was dismissed, based on lack of jurisdiction, the judge advised
me that I should have filed my claim on ‑-
in Ontario, had I known then, which I didn't know then, but then when I
discovered this, when I looked up what was the default rule for filing in
Ontario, and they differ from the rules of filing in British Columbia. I used my ‑-
the or rule for filing in British Columbia.
The A rule says to file where the defence lives, his domicile, or if you
are a company in British Columbia, all the money comes out of the bank here,
you were in daily contact and frequent contact with the other party, that you
have contributed greatly to what went on ‑-
all of these reasons together allows for Rule B for filing in British Columbia.
And one of my case law is, in fact, corroborating that because
your own Ministry and ‑- Attorney General,
in fact, and this would be in my black ‑-
in my materials, and it would be the Attorney General, so ‑- so this ‑-
this is Tab ‑- case law ‑-
G, which is Canada (Attorney General) v.
Yasinski, a case of 2006, and whilst we're at it, to note, because one of
the things I will be coming back to is the material defence has introduced, is
that statute of limitations that you will note on the second page, that this
was a scenario of an American who was given money to study and it was ‑- his last payment of $5,000 was October '94, and the
case was taken to court in 2006, so there's a discrepancy of some 12 years, and
the Attorney General won that case.
So the default rule in Ontario is the very opposite. It states, and had I ‑- had I known that, I could have mentioned that to the
judge at the time, but I didn't. I then
began my research and discovered that the default rule for filing in Ontario is
where the claim took place, where the claim originated. Well, clearly it originates here. And part of the argument, too, in Rule B,
which I used, was that ‑- and which is the
same ruling that won the case for the Attorney General in 2006, they also used
the "or" rule. So that said
then, enough said about that.
So when I then went to the Superior Court and filed in the Superior
Court in Ontario, most of my communication was all done by email and on the
telephone, and I attended conferences which were allowed because I couldn't go over
there, I couldn't afford to go there. So
then coming full circle, here I'm saying, look, the rules of the different
provinces, this is the 21st century, we are internetting now, documents are
sent backwards and forwards from province to province and they are legal. Isn't it time, and this is where I am asking
you, to ‑- and as a self-representing litigant, I'm connecting
with other people across the country, with a doctor of law at Windsor
University, who is actually running the National Self-Representing Litigant
Project, Dr. Julie Macfarlane, and we are all saying that the concept of access
to justice is all well and good if we can increase access to justice for the
Canadian citizens and those that can't afford or could we ‑- could we possibly look into how we can help them to
find their justice?
THE COURT: Okay.
Let's stay focused, sir. Let's
stay focused on ‑- I understand the ‑-
the global concept ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- and your righteous concern for globally
access to justice.
EVERT STEEN: Right.
THE COURT: Let's stay focused on what you're looking for
for you.
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
So ‑- so then very specifically, I come back to saying
that by taking Judge Saunders' advice on both counts where in both counts I am
surmising that she erred in giving me that advice, she erred in dismissing my
claim because she did not want to listen to the "or" rule, but
nevertheless, if you look under Tab ‑-
if you look under the ‑- the procedures ‑- proceedings, she bundles ‑- okay, so this is Justice [sic] Saunders' reasons ‑- this is Exhibit B, where on page ‑- on page 3, line 6, this is Judge Saunders:
THE COURT: And what Ms. Helman is asking me to do is
dismiss your claim on the basis that under the Small Claim Rules, Rule 1, that when a claimant files a notice of
claim it has to be either where the defendant lives or carries on business --
and in this case, we're dealing with a corporation, so [this is] . . . where
they carry on business -- or where the transaction took place.
The verbiage within the text here several time [sic] leads her to
include Rule B, but not by referring to it, calling it "or", but
never allowing me, which I did do my very best to give my reasons for Rule B,
but yet she then ultimately bundles the two as if they were a single rule,
which clearly they are not. Does this ‑- supposed to be a preliminary hearing that was, anyway,
the point ‑- the point being that Rule B, even though I twice
clearly went through the reasonings for it to be allowed, were ignored, and
from my perspective, she erred.
So then when I asked on ‑-
on page 8, I say, "Is there anything further I can do," at the top of
the page, Judge Saunders says:
If you wish to appeal my
decision, then you're certainly welcome to do that, but I can't tell you [to do
--] how to do that. Obviously . . .
THE COURT: So ‑-
so I take it she didn't give you any advice.
EVERT STEEN: Ah . . .
THE COURT: At the top of page 8 ‑-
EVERT STEEN: She ‑-
she ‑-
THE COURT: -- she tells you ‑-
EVERT STEEN: She ‑-
THE COURT: If you wish to appeal. . .
EVERT STEEN: She tells me in. . .
THE COURT: . . . you're . . . welcome to
do that, but I can't tell you how to do that.
Obviously, you'd need to confer with a lawyer . . .
So she didn't give you advice.
My reading of that, she didn't tell you to appeal. She said you could appeal ‑-
EVERT STEEN: No, no, no, she didn't order me, no, but she
led me to believe that I was allowed to appeal.
THE COURT: And you did appeal.
EVERT STEEN: I did appeal and I took it steps. I was then given the application to a judge
which told me or informed me from their perspective that I can't appeal because
you can only appeal after a trial, not after a hearing. Ours was a hearing, so therefore you can't
appeal.
THE COURT: But ‑-
but Judge Dardi didn't make a ruling, did she?
EVERT STEEN: No, she ‑-
no, she did not make a ruling, but she ‑-
she did say that ‑- at the time when she adjourned, and the adjournment
then happened from November to all the way to January,
and I thought in that stretch she has stated very clearly that she was very
likely not going to even be able to hear my appeal, so then that's when I
decided to file in Ontario instead. But
on the ‑- on the point that you made with Judge Saunders, the
court says on page 4:
. . . Steen says that the
transaction took place in this jurisdiction so that's why I should construe the
internet contract as something done locally.
What's your response to that?
Of course, then she says, no, that they live in a domicile in ‑- in Ottawa.
I'm looking for a paragraph where ‑- okay, so on page 3, part of it I ‑- I already read
to you part of it, but the other part then is apropos the advice, or is it
advice or is it not advice, so it's the second ‑- it's the second
paragraph starting at Rule ‑- at line 14 on page 3 of ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: -- the proceedings.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank
you.
EVERT STEEN: So if you don't -- if that
didn't happen in Courtenay . . .
-- where the transaction took place ‑-
. . . if that didn't happen in
Courtenay, then you have to proceed in the area where the defendant carries on
business or where the contract or the transaction occurred.
Again, it's convoluted text because the transact ‑- what ‑- what
transaction? The transaction of
what? The ‑- not the contract.
The contract was an Internet transaction from both ends we signed. The transaction that I think Judge Saunders
is referring to is the transaction of filing my claim. And they're saying that neither ‑-
THE COURT: No, it's the contract.
EVERT STEEN: -- occurred ‑- sorry?
THE COURT: It's the contract.
EVERT STEEN: It is the contract?
THE COURT: Well, read it.
. . . then you have to . . .
EVERT STEEN: Yeah, but ‑-
THE COURT:
. . . proceed in the area
where the defendant carries on business or where the contract or the
transaction occurred.
EVERT STEEN: And it ‑-
in ‑-
THE COURT: Says contract or ‑-
EVERT STEEN: And it ‑-
and the ‑- the truth of the factual matter here is some was
done there and the other half was done at ‑-
from my place, so that's the ‑- that's the online
contract that was signed, so it's a fifty-fifty scenario. It ‑-
it happened there. It happened as well
at my place. I am in daily contact. In fact, I had a thousand and twenty-two
emails. I used to get up at 4 o'clock in
the morning, knowing there's a three-hour difference, so that I could get my
early email in by 9 o'clock their time rather than noon.
Anyway, I ‑- I think ‑- I ‑- I think I've been
as clear as I can about ‑- about the fact
that had I filed originally ‑-
had I filed in Ontario, the judge in Ontario could far more easily have
dismissed my claim based on lack of jurisdiction, because it very clearly
states rule ‑- the default rule states to file where the claim
occurred. So that's that point.
On the point of the appeal, I have done sufficient reading, I
feel, that when I read text about Small Claims Court, one sentence, it talks
about trial, the other sentence it mentioned the word hearing, and it's
interchangeable, so from that perspective, I don't know whether the application
bore any weight at the time, but it clearly did in front of the judge, and I
felt that on that basis, time was of the essence to me and I abandoned,
thinking that I would fare better, clearly, I didn't, in Ottawa.
I think that covers that.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: May ‑-
may ‑- may I ‑-
may ‑- may I refer now to the ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: -- defence's material so I ‑- I can finish that?
THE COURT: Okay.
So you're ‑-
EVERT STEEN: So ‑-
THE COURT: -- you're now moving to ‑- you've left the area of the orders you're asking that
apply to you relating to Judge Saunders ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- and now you're going to address the
defendant's request to have your claim struck.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
I ‑- I understand.
Go ahead.
EVERT STEEN: So on ‑-
on page ‑- on page 2, then, Tab 2 ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: -- of defence, so the plaintiff's claim
should be struck. Well, if we're working
backwards and we look at 5 first:
The plaintiff was dissatisfied
with a ruling made over five years ago in May 2010, he should have appealed and
seen that appeal through. He did not,
and this action was commenced well out of prescribed time limit under the Limitation[s] Act . . .
Now, I was ‑- I was only just given this just prior to. So the Limitations
[sic] Act, I ‑- I am somewhat familiar with it, but based on the
case law that was ‑- that had a
10-year difference, I thought I was well ahead ‑- well within that time limitation. As well, of course, the fact that the claim ‑- the claim is gone full circle. In other words, I did not disband my ‑-
I did what the court advised me to do and took it to Ontario. I ventured into that and come full circle
back here to make sense of this to me.
And so from my perspective, Number 5 is
not valid, not applicable, based on the case law that ‑- where there was
10 years of difference, and ‑-
THE COURT: But no one told you, and this is a question,
did anybody tell you, "Abandon your appeal"?
EVERT STEEN: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
The court didn't tell you that?
EVERT STEEN: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: No.
THE COURT: So that was a decision you made to abandon
your appeal.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: Correct.
THE COURT: You could have let ‑-
EVERT STEEN: But it was based ‑- but it was based ‑-
again, it was based on the intelligence
that I could muster based on a judge's sentence, which was, "I may not
even be able to hear your appeal, Mr. Steen." So since that had been the primary issue
already during ‑- with the application, I went, well, I am wasting my
time, from my perspective. But, no, no
one ‑- no one in authority advised me to abandon. I did that.
So that's how ‑-
THE COURT: And ‑-
and you could have left your appeal in abeyance and gone off to Ontario to see what
happened in Ontario.
EVERT STEEN: Oh, I didn't know that.
THE COURT: All right.
EVERT STEEN: No. I
didn't know that that was an allowance.
So I've taken care of Number 5.
THE COURT: Okay.
Yes. Thank you.
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
Okay. So Number 4, which is:
Not only is the plaintiff's
claim barred by s. 3(2)(a) of the Crown
Proceeding Act, it plainly discloses no reasonable claim and is an abuse of
the courts' process.
Well, my response to
that would be if questioning the court's usage of clearly identified rules and
not applying ones that, from my perspective, are clearly applicable and the
judge at the time would not spend any time on commenting on, but yet she
bundled them together as if they were one, you know, and the ‑- and the text is ‑-
is there, so to me, if the mystery of the argument, which is purely subjective,
"If I, as a judge, do not feel you are blah, blah, entitled to," and
I'm no ‑- I ‑- I can go left or
I can go right, then I feel there is something to be looked into here, because
I feel I have sufficiently proven, by fact, that I was entitled to that Rule B
having been used because I complied to every part of what created it, what it
set out to allow, and again, my exhibit case law with Yansky against ‑- Yasinski or
whatever, the argument in the end, it's identical to mine and it wraps up very
clearly stating that:
. . . British Columbia is the
proper jurisdiction simpliciter for this lawsuit, and that it is also
the forum conveniens for the proceeding. Mr. Yasinski's application
for a stay of proceedings is dismissed. The plaintiff shall have its
costs . . . Blah, blah, blah.
So didn't happen to me.
So to me, Number 4, we've discussed.
I ‑- I feel that is ‑- this is far, far, far, far from an
abuse of court's process.
And Number 3:
The plaintiff's claim is
barred by s.
3(2)(a) of the Crown Proceeding Act. That section specifies that no claim against government arises from "anything done or
omitted to be done by a person acting . . .
Now, here again, we're assuming the judge:
. . . "anything done or
omitted to be done by a person acting in good faith while discharging or
purporting to discharge responsibilities . . . of a judicial
nature . . ."
So referring to the judge, am I ‑- are we not here, potentially?
THE COURT: I take it ‑-
I take it you are.
EVERT STEEN: No.
But ‑- well, I am ‑-
I am, yes. Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: I am ‑-
I am ‑-
THE COURT: You're saying Judge Saunders made an error or
errors.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: That's
what you're saying.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: I take it you're saying ‑-
EVERT STEEN: And whether it was done in good judgment or
in good faith, that is not ‑- that is not the
issue today. That is not for me to
decide.
THE COURT: But your claim is ‑- your claim ‑-
EVERT STEEN: That she erred.
THE COURT: Your claim for a hundred and twenty-five
thousand dollars, you're asking the government to pay you a hundred and
twenty-five thousand dollars.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: And if I understand correctly, you're saying
the government should pay you that money because of Judge Saunders and ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Originally, I would say that's true.
THE COURT: What are you saying now, when you say
originally?
EVERT STEEN: What I'm saying is it all stemmed from that
judgment which was that single phrase, "dismissed based on lack of
jurisdiction".
THE COURT: Right.
So you're saying because of her mistake ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- what you say was a mistake ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- the government should pay you a hundred
and twenty-five thousand dollars in damages.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: And the Crown
Proceedings Act, paragraph 3 in Mr. Van Camp's response, explains that, I
take it will be his argument, you can't sue.
Is there any evidence that Judge Saunders . . .
EVERT STEEN: Are ‑-
are you ‑-
THE COURT: See, what you're going to have to explain,
sir ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- is how do you get from a claim that a
judge made an error to an entitlement to damages? You're saying, "She made a mistake, and
because of that mistake, I should get a hundred and twenty-five thousand
dollars."
EVERT STEEN: It would not have been a hundred and
twenty-five thousand dollars at the time.
At the time, if you know, that it ‑- it went ‑- went in
Small Claims Court, the ‑- the highest figure potentially allowed is ‑-
is $25,000. But I am now on a whole
different journey that has taken me five years into the Supreme ‑- Superior
Court in Ontario. Sometimes there was
representation and we found the money to pay for that when it ‑- when it
was done overnight and I couldn't go there, so cumulatively, the money added
and added until finally, you know ‑- and the same thing with
the ‑- the backers who ‑- who backed me on my original website. I feel they're entitled to their money. So that's where that figure comes from.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: Now ‑-
so we've dealt with that, and now:
"The plaintiff's claim should
be dismissed by desk order. "
Does that mean you are the ‑-
that this is the desk order?
THE COURT: Well, what we can do, sir ‑- I'll hear from Mr. Van Camp, and what I can do is I
can give you an opportunity to make a response to what he has to say. I'll allow him ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Ah.
THE COURT: -- to explain what he's asking for and then
give you a brief opportunity ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: -- you don't have to recite War and Peace ‑-*
EVERT STEEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: -- but an opportunity to respond to what he
has to say.
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: Do you want to approach it that way?
EVERT STEEN: Sure.
THE COURT: Why don't we hear what Mr. Van Camp has to
say ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Would you allow me just ‑- just this last ‑-
THE COURT: Sure.
Oh, yes. Yes, yes ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- one which is the Rule 9-5(3) ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: -- which ‑-
which goes into saying that my claim is ‑-
and then it ‑- it mentions ‑-
okay, so that's that ‑- that my claim is
frivolous, that it is vexatious, that it is an abuse of ‑- of what the court I've already stated in (2) ‑- to be organized is ‑- is a challenge.
Somewhere in here ‑- okay, here, here
it is. So the broadness of 9-5(1),
that's 9-5(3), 9-5(1), the broadness does not specify the ‑- whether it ‑-
is it ‑- is it ‑-
am I embarrassing the court, that's one word, am I being vexatious, am ‑- am ‑- am I ‑- what's the other word you use? Okay, here we go ‑- well, I have a . . .
THE COURT: Mr. Van Camp.
MR. VAN CAMP: My Lord ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
Yeah.
MR. VAN CAMP: My Lord, if it assists Mr. Steen, the ‑- the Attorney General's only relying on no reasonable
claim and the abuse of process sections.
We're not saying it's unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or prejudice
or embarrassing.
EVERT STEEN: Oh, okay.
Oh, then ‑- then we're done for now.
THE COURT: There we go.
EVERT STEEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Steen.
Mr. Van Camp.
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: If you'd just stand by for one moment? Yes.
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
MR. VAN CAMP: The Attorney General's appearing and asking
this court to dismiss the summary trial application, but before you do so, to
consider whether to strike the notice of civil claim in its entirety pursuant
to Rule 9-5(3) and (1) ‑-
THE COURT: I take it ‑-
when you say a summary trial application, where do you get the summary trial
application?
MR. VAN CAMP: We're in it.
THE COURT: But ‑-
but ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: This is ‑-
this is an application for summary trial, My Lord.
THE COURT: Where in the application does it say that? You may well be right, and I think you are
right ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: I've seen it.
I'm ‑-
THE
COURT: -- but ‑-
MR.
VAN CAMP: -- just trying to find
it, My Lord. What you're going to see is
on Tab 5 of my application record, you see that it's ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. VAN CAMP: -- my ‑-
it's Mr. Steen's requisition for ‑-
to set the hearing of this application, unilaterally, I might add, to today's
date for summary trial, and then there's also a notification that the defendant
hasn't been served with any files. I
confirm that we've ‑- the Attorney
General's not been served properly under the Crown Proceeding Act, nonetheless ‑-
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: -- we're appearing ‑-
THE COURT: Let me just stop here, so that's where the
word summary or the term summary trial appears.
MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
So I'm with ‑- I understand now
and I ‑- okay. And you
confirm that you were not served.
MR. VAN CAMP: We're not served, nonetheless we're appearing ‑- I'm instructed to, it
might appear, take a ‑- take a hard line
in terms of this application in ‑- in asking for the
notice of civil claim to be struck. When
this came across my desk ‑-
THE COURT: How did you find out about it?
MR. VAN CAMP: That's ‑-
I'm unable to tell the court. * I think
what happened is through back channels, it ‑-
the court informed our office and it --
THE COURT: So registry would ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: That's my suspicion.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: "Look, we have this scheduled for next
week. * What's going on with the AG?" And then
it ‑- I was the ‑- I volunteered, let's put it that way, to deal with
this. Within the span of a day after I
decided that ‑- to try a different tack and to refer this to the registry
and make use of the rules to have it ‑- the notice of claim struck in its
entirety through an interpretation of Rule 9-5 that hasn't been interpreted,
there's no law on it, unfortunately, but we're in a position today
to do ‑- to have an interpretation that empowers the registry to
refer these matters to a judge to make an order under 9-5(1). And the rules allow that to be done, so I'm
asking that that be done, and in any event, that it's ‑- the application
has to fail for all the reasons stated in my application response. If Your Lordship wants me to go into that, I
can ‑-
THE COURT: Yes, because I ‑- I hadn't seen it ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: Certain ‑-
THE COURT: -- until you handed it up.
MR. VAN CAMP: Certainly.
So ‑-
THE COURT: So I take it then, you're approaching this
application from two perspectives. First
off, the application for summary judgment should be denied.
MR. VAN CAMP: Correct.
Dismissed.
THE COURT: And that I should make an order dismissing
the notice of civil claim.
MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct. Striking.
THE COURT: All right.
Go ahead.
MR. VAN CAMP: So the ‑-* the facts aren't really in dispute. The ‑- my understanding is Mr. Steen brings an app ‑- brings a matter in Small Claims Court, Provincial
Court. That's dismissed by Madam Just ‑- sorry, Judge Saunders May 2010, who doesn't advise,
as you've indicated, but states on the record, "You can appeal if ‑- if you want to," critically says "if,"
which she is allowed to do, and he was told that. He did appeal and then he abandoned it. What happened in front of Justice Dardi is of
no consequence. He abandoned that
appeal. He goes to Ontario, comes back,
and then initiates this action seeking a hundred and twenty-five thousand
dollars because of a ‑- because of a judicial
error, which is immunized by s. 3(2)(a) of the Crown Proceeding Act.
So he's bringing a claim because a judge got something wrong
that he effectively didn't appeal, didn't see the appeal through ‑-
THE COURT: The judge got something wrong as ‑- are
you acknowledging they got it wrong?
MR. VAN CAMP: Well, that's what he ‑- no, not at all.
THE COURT: So allegedly got it wrong.
MR. VAN CAMP: Well, that's what he's alleging. That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: That's ‑-
thank you.
Told that he can appeal, however you want to call it, does
that, abandons it, and then returns seeking a significant sum with ‑- with no evidence of ‑- of ‑- that would
support that, just a number pulled out of wherever.
So ‑- and then also
seeking to ‑- in this application some kind of amend ‑- Your ‑- Your Lordship to
exercise your power to demand some kind of amendments to our Rules. You don't ‑-
I don't know where that jurisdiction to make that order comes from other ‑- but what I'm asking you to do is to interpret Rule ‑- Rule 9-5(1), (2), (3), (4) in a way that empowers
the registry and the court to dismiss these claims summarily by desk order so
that we don't have to waste the court resources and the ‑- the time to deal with them in court.
THE COURT: When you say to allow the registry to dismiss
by desk order ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: Well, certainly ‑- well, what I think ‑-
THE COURT: -- it would have to be sent up to a judge.
MR. VAN CAMP: Judge or a master. Judge ‑-
a master can make a ruling under 9-5 if there's no point of law. If we looked at a practice direction, which
I've looked at it prior to today, but if there's a point of law that's in
dispute on a strike application, a master can't deal with it, but if there's a
point of law, a judge couldn't deal with it either because there's an issue in
dispute that needs ‑-
THE COURT: Right.
MR. VAN CAMP: So it has to be on its face ‑- my submission to you will be the order of operations would be a
registrar ‑- if we ‑- I'll give you my overview and then we can run
through the Rules and go back and forth.
Practically, I think what would happen and what I ‑- in a
perfect world, what would happen is the registry would look at this and say,
"Look, this doesn't make any sense.
I'm going to ‑- I'm going to file it, but I'm going to take a copy
and I'm going to refer it to the court."
Now, the court includes a master or a judge and they're going to make a
ruling under 9-5(1) and then thereafter say that the claim is dismissed ‑-
THE COURT: So the registrar ‑- so when a litigant
files a notice of civil claim, every single notice of civil claim has to be
reviewed by the registrar. That's a
threshold filter, let's call it. That's
your proposal?
MR. VAN CAMP: My proposal is ‑- yes, I'm going to start there. I ‑-
I'm going to say that and then maybe come back to that ‑-
THE COURT: Have you ‑-
have you run that by the registrar?
MR. VAN CAMP: No, no, the ‑- but for the sake of argument, that ‑-
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. VAN CAMP: -- that ‑-
the claim, you know, say you have a free man on the land situation where X is
suing Her Majesty ‑- like literally
the ‑- the letter X suing ‑-
THE COURT: Oh, I'm familiar with those litigant ‑- that type of [indiscernible/speakers overlapping] ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: -- so ‑-
so we're there, so to ‑- a free man on the
land situation that's clearly apparent to the registry, look, this is ‑- this ‑- there's nothing
here. This is ‑- you know, we're going to put ‑- there's nothing here, there is no substance, I'm going
to refer it to a judge, it goes up to a judge, judge sees the same, makes an
order under 9-5(1) and thereafter the provisions of the Rules allow for the
applicant to receive notice and we go from there.
So ‑- and then ‑- and then maybe they want to challenge that or ‑- or not. But I
have the ‑- the Rule in Tab 4 of the ‑- my book of authorities and I'll start at the last
page.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. VAN CAMP: So I'm going to go to (3) and then to (1) and
then to (4), because that's the procedure that I under ‑- that ‑- that I'm
advocating for.
So: If, on the filing of a
document, a registrar considers that the whole or any part of the document
could be . . . subject [to] . . . an order under subrule (1) . . .
THE COURT: Yes, which is the striking.
MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: . . . the registrar may . . . Right? "May." And then it says: . . . despite any other
provision of these Supreme Court Civil Rules . . .
-- so ‑- . . . retain the document and all
filed copies of it, and
. . . refer [to the --] the
document to the court, and . . . the court may, after a
summary hearing. . .
-- and I don't know ‑-
I don't have any guidance on what a summary hearing might be, it might be
written submissions, it might be no ‑-
no hearing, sort of ruling or a review of the notice of civil claim and ‑- and brief reasons ‑- . . . make an order under
subrule (1).
We go into subrule (1) and the provisions that I'm relying on in
this case are: . . . discloses no reasonable
claim or defence, as the case may be . . .
So my understanding
there is that the test is is that it's bound to fail on a reasonable doubt
standard just on the face of the document.
You assume everything is true, no evidence is admissible under (a), you
just look at the notice of civil claim and go, "Look, look, this discloses no
claim. It's bound to fail. It's gone." And then: . . . is otherwise an abuse of
. . . process of the court . . .
Which this is because Mr. Steen is really collaterally attacking
the ‑- the judgment from May 2010 that he was advised to
appeal and then he abandons his appeal and now he's seeking money. He has ‑-
he's not appealed it. The appropriate
thing to do is appeal and he didn't do that.
Now, importantly, the ‑-
the end of that subrule says:
. . . and the court may
pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may
order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
So without getting into costs ‑-
so you have ‑- My Lord, you have three options. You can pronounce judgment, order the
proceeding to be stayed or dismissed, and this is at any stage ‑- the ‑- the precursor is
at any stage of the proceeding.
So I ‑- I go from there
to (4), which is on the last page, which is what happens if the claim is struck
in this fashion:
If the court makes an order
referred to in subrule (3)(b) . . .
Which is the ‑- this ‑- this ‑- the ‑- essentially a ruling under 9-5(1) ‑-
. . . the registrar must give
notification of the order, in the manner directed by the court, to the person
who filed the document,
. . . the person who filed the
document may, within 7 days after being notified, apply to the court, and . . . the court may confirm,
vary or rescind the order.
So my interpretation of
all of that is the registrar ‑- perhaps some ‑- some are going to get through, but perhaps there's
the one that ‑- that just is plainly meritless, but in this case,
what the Attorney General did, and I'm going to back-pedal a little bit from my
initial position that they're going to review every document.
In this case, on my requisition at Tab 3 of the application ‑- of my application record, we ‑- we ‑- the Attorney
General, counsel, I, reviewed this and I said, "This ‑- there's no claim here. This is going to be struck one way or
another. There's no amendment that's
going to save this claim," and I did up a requisition and I ‑- I respectfully requested that the registrar review
it and refer it to the court for a ruling.
Now, we ‑- I'm informed
yesterday that the ‑- there hasn't been
a formal ruling on this requisition, but I'm informed that Master Bouck,
through what ‑- the registry called my paralegal and said,
"Well, we're ‑- we need to give
you your materials back. You need to make
an application." Well, I ‑- I don't know the reasoning behind that. I don't know ‑- but I do know that I had some difficulty explaining
to the registrar that this is my interpretation, they ‑- they've never seen this before.
So what I say in my requisition, "Look, I've ‑- I've had a look at this and I'm serious. There's ‑-
there's no claim. Any judge looking at
this in their desk is going to say on the face of the notice of civil claim
that there's no claim here." And
we're going to ‑- what ‑- what's going to
happen if we don't make this ruling by desk order, if we don't take this
procedure, is Mr. Steen is perhaps going to be empowered, he's going to have to
come over from his home in Hornby Island, we're going to have to spend the
morning discussing an error, potential ‑-
alleged error from May 2010, and spending an hour now of court time when we
have problems with access to justice and court resources as it is and the cost
of litigation. Unless someone does that,
this is what's going to happen.
So this is why the ‑-
it's important the Attorney General is taking this position on this
application. I ‑- I ‑- in my submission,
it's ‑- it might be ‑-
sound hard line, but it needs to be, and it's proper and it's just. We have this Rule. We have these mechanisms. It might impose a bit of a frontline burden
on the registry and maybe a bit more on the court, but that frontline burden is
going to save ‑- if I'm right, that frontline burden is going to save
court time, resources, money, and it's going to put claimants ‑- let's use the free man on the land as an
example, to prove like why are you ‑- why are you using this court's
process? Why are you engaged ‑- why
are you engaging this? You've ‑- in
this case, it's merited because Mr. Steen was ‑- was told, "Look, you
can ‑- you can appeal if you want to."
So ‑- but those are my submissions
on the main point that I wanted to make today, My Lord. We are on, perhaps, a frontier there, but
it ‑- I think it's proper in this case.
The claim should be struck. And
you're empowered to do so. I appreciate
that it didn't come to Your Lordship's
attention through the channels that I had hoped, the registry, but the ‑- I'm making submissions on something ‑- an opportunity that you can use to maybe make ‑- interpret it in the fashion that I've advocated for
and ‑-
THE COURT: But what's ‑-
that's where
I may not be clear is what are you asking me to interpret?
MR. VAN CAMP: I'm asking you to interpret Rule 9-5 in the
way that I've proposed. I'm asking if
you do, that there's an opportunity for registrars to do this if ‑- if you ‑-
THE COURT: But it says there is. If ‑-
(3) is ‑- I'm not sure what interpretation is required. The registrar can consider. So:
If, on the filing of [the] . .
. document, [the] . . . registrar considers . . .
So the registrar has some sort of discretion that the whole or
part of a document is subject to Rule 1.
The registrar can or may refer it to the court. So ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: So if we're ‑- if we're past that, then,
what I ‑- that's what I tried ‑-
THE COURT: Has ‑-
has ‑- is there any pushback from the registry saying,
"No, that's not the way it is"?
MR. VAN CAMP: There was initially, I can tell ‑- I can tell Your Lordship. "What are you doing? I've never seen this done before. I'm going to have to bounce it." Eventually, we convinced to put it in the
refer it to court pile. I was informed
that it's going to sit there and meanwhile this hearing is ‑- it's going to go ahead, of course, and then we're
informed yesterday that Master Bouck ‑-
I don't know if she rejected it or ‑-
or what, I certainly wasn't given reasons, but informed that an application
needs to be made to strike. There's no
reasons. I wish I had reasons so that we
could talk about that. But in any event,
I don't take it that you would be bound by that in any event, but, really, what
would happen if ‑- if ‑- I'm saying that
this is before you now. You do have the
authority to strike ‑-
THE COURT: Oh, I clearly have the authority to strike
under the Rules ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: So ‑-
THE COURT: -- so that's ‑- that ‑- that is one
portion that I can address and I'll ‑-
I'll hear Mr. Steen in reply, but when it comes to interpreting the Rules, I
don't have a clash of interpretations here, and I'll ‑- I'll tell you right now, for ‑- for what it's worth, the words say what the words
say ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: I ‑-
I can tell you that we ‑-
THE COURT: -- and ‑-
and I can tell you that on my reading of the Rules, you're right ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: -- that the registrar has that ability to
look at a document ‑- doesn't mean they
have to. They can look at a
document. And if they think under (3)
that something should be referred to the court, they can do so, and then the
court can make an order, and if the court makes an order, then the registrar
has an obligation to notify the party. I ‑- I think the wording is quite clear.
MR. VAN CAMP: Understood, My Lord. It's ‑-
that ‑- that hasn't ‑-
I think that'll be helpful ‑-
THE COURT: All right.
MR. VAN CAMP: -- going forward.
My substantive response to Mr. Steen's application for summary
trial judgment is in my application response.
Subject to any quest ‑- I don't plan to
go further than that. Unless Your
Lordship has any questions, essentially his application should be dismissed and
the notice of civil claim should be struck.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
Mr. Steen, I'll give you an opportunity to reply, but this is
not an invitation to re-chew your cabbage.
EVERT STEEN: I didn't hear you there ‑-
THE COURT: It's not an opportunity for you to re-chew
your cabbage. It's a matter to address
new issues or issues that Mr. Van Camp has raised that you haven't already
addressed. So I've made note ‑-
EVERT STEEN: I ‑-
I appreciate that.
THE COURT: -- and I've heard what you've said previously ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
No, I understand.
THE COURT: -- so don't repeat yourself.
EVERT STEEN: No, no, no.
EVERT STEEN: What Mr. Van Camp talked about was clearly a
whole area that I am not familiar with.
It seems to not be based on prec ‑-
anything precedent setting, but it seems to have something to do ‑- refer to refrain from claims coming to court and ‑- and improving on the system itself by creating
greater efficiencies. I think that
that's ‑-
THE COURT: Let me ‑-
let me just interrupt you for a second and I apologize for this. I'm just going to ask you to sit down because
I do have a question for Mr. Van Camp that's just dawning on me and you'll need
to hear his answer ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Now.
Okay.
THE COURT: -- so that you can reply to it.
EVERT STEEN: Fair enough.
THE COURT: Mr. Van Camp, the nature of the order that
you're seeking is what?
MR. VAN CAMP: Two things.
One, the notice of civil claim be struck under 9-5(1) ‑-
THE COURT: Stand by.
So an order striking the notice of civil claim under 9-5(1). And I take it you're relying upon (a) and (d).
MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct, My Lord.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: So (a) or (d) ‑-
THE COURT: (a) or (d).
MR. VAN CAMP: -- or both.
THE COURT: Understood.
MR. VAN CAMP: And then that the application ‑- so the action be dismissed, because this is a
summary trial. He's ‑- this is his kick at the ‑- this is a trial.
THE COURT: So then the application for summary trial
goes ahead and that I make a ruling dismissing it.
MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
So this is not ‑- you're not seeking a stay. You're not seeking anything else. You're seeking dismissal of the action.
MR. VAN CAMP: That's correct, My Lord.
THE COURT: Okay.
There, that puts the framework, I think, and the nature of the
order that the ‑- the Attorney General is seeking, so that should
assist you in ‑- in your reply, I think, Mr. Steen.
EVERT STEEN: Well, the bottom line still is, from my
understanding, that defence asking for you to dismiss the claim. So then I would then be interested to ‑- to understand whether it is, in fact, under the 9-5,
'cause I would have to look and read that up again. It ‑-
which ‑- which is it?
Is ‑- is it ‑-
you said it was 9-5(7)(1)?
MR. VAN CAMP: Nine [inaudible/voice drops].
EVERT STEEN: Nine ‑-
that one. Right.
Okay. So that, in fact,
it ‑- the question is to dismiss the claim because it has
no reasonably ‑- reasonable ‑-
it discloses no reasonable claim. So
there are no grounds for the claim is ‑-
is that what ‑- what I'm understanding?
THE COURT: That's ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: You ‑-
EVERT STEEN: So ‑-
so then ‑- so then I guess ‑-
THE COURT: So he's relying upon (a) and (d).
EVERT STEEN: Sorry? Yeah, (a) and (b) [sic]. And it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous,
or vexatious.
THE COURT: No.
No, he's not relying ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Oh.
Not those.
THE COURT: -- not relying upon that, Mr. Van Camp [sic].
EVERT STEEN: Not (b), then.
MR. VAN CAMP: To be clear for ‑-
THE COURT: No.
MR. VAN CAMP: -- the record, no, we're not relying on (b)
or (c) of that provision.
THE COURT: So it's alpha ‑- (a) as in alpha and (d) as in delta.
EVERT STEEN: And (d) as in delta.
. . . it is otherwise an abuse
of the process of the court . . .
THE COURT: That's my understanding.
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: And (a):
. . . it discloses no
reasonable claim . . .
Okay. So I don't know
whether there is anything to add, Your Honour, other than that ‑- could I ask, then, the ‑- the question, whatever the ruling ‑- your ruling would be, to dismiss, does the Small
Claims Court have jurisdiction even though this is ‑- we're in Supreme Court
here? I ‑-
THE COURT: I don't understand your question.
EVERT STEEN: The question is in other words Judge
Saunders, within her capacity in the Courtenay jurisdiction, she has ‑- she has jurisdiction to dismiss my claim, which is
what she did. Does she have that
jurisdiction based on, as I interpret it, her erroneous order?
In other words, was the correct ‑- was the court ruling, from your perspective,
correct? Was her ruling correct? And was her ‑- was her advice to move to Ontario, was that
correct? Because I'm ‑- I'm offering you that I'd like a ruling that ‑- that it would be, from my perspective, negligent
representation.
That's my submission.
THE COURT: All right.
EVERT STEEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Well, a multitude of interesting issues. I take it, Mr. Van Camp, if ‑- if I made ‑-
I made a decision ‑- I'm going to
think about this over lunch. If I am
with you and I strike the notice of civil claim, if there's no notice of civil
claim, can I dismiss an action?
MR. VAN CAMP: There's no need.
THE COURT: Right.
So ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: It's struck.
So I would say, out of an abundant ‑-
the order wouldn't be wrong, the ‑-
the ‑- no ‑- if you said that
the claim is struck and the action is dismissed. I just think that the dismissal part might be
unnecessary, My Lord.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: Real quick ‑-
my ‑- Mr. Steen mentioned the negligent
misrepresentation. That's ‑-
THE COURT: The first ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: -- completely out ‑- out ‑- outside the
bounds of this application.
THE COURT: That's the first I've heard of that. I understand what he's saying, but I've heard
what you've had to say ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: -- Mr. Van Camp.
I thank you both for what you've said. I think this is an important enough issue,
Mr. Steen and Mr. Van Camp, but I'm not going to give you reasons right from
the bench, but I will give you reasons.
I want to think about this over lunch.
I'll give you reasons at 2 o'clock or so soon thereafter as I'm ready to
go.
EVERT STEEN: Oh, we come back?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
Come back at 2 o'clock ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: -- and then Madam Registrar will let you know
if I'm ready. You'll get your decision
at some point today. I anticipate it'll
be around 2 o'clock.
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: Okay?
So back at 2 o'clock. We'll stand
down till then.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR
NOON RECESS)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
THE CLERK: We're on the record, My Lord.
THE COURT: Thank you.
All right. Well, Mr.
Steen and Mr. Van Camp, I thank you for your submissions. Very interesting issues.
We're recording? Oh,
right ‑-
THE CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: -- you are.
We're going to stand by for a moment, before I address ‑- before I give my reasons.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Don't go away. I am going to call another matter. So stay put ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Oh.
THE COURT: -- where you are. I'm going to call a matter just briefly, so
don't leave your seats.
Let's call the next matter, please.
(OTHER MATTERS SPOKEN TO)
THE CLERK: Recalling Evert Steen and the Minister of
Justice, My Lord.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Okay. Well, as I was
just saying, I thank you both for your submissions on this. It's an interesting issue or issues. I've listened attentively to what you were
saying, Mr. Steen. Mr. Van Camp, you
were articulate as well. I'm going to
give you my reasons right now. They're
going to be abbreviated and they're directly from the bench, so they may not be
very articulate, but you'll understand my decision and you'll understand the
reasons for my decision. I will,
however, reserve the right to make any editorial revisions to them before they're
placed in final form.
If there's ever a transcript of the reasons, I'll reserve the
right to make some editorial revisions.
That simply means I may make some grammatical changes to them or I may
make additional references to the evidence that was in the material that you,
Mr. Steen, put before the court or, Mr. Van Camp, that you provided, the
submissions, or the case authorities that, Mr. Steen, you've brought to my
attention. So I'm going to make ‑-
EVERT STEEN: May I ask you a question based on that? Are you ‑-
are you then referring to the 9-5?
You're about to start . . .
THE COURT: I'm ‑-
I'm addressing all of the issues that are before me.
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: So I'm just advising you that these are my
reasons for judgment, but I'm reserving the right to make some editorial
revisions to them, and by that I mean grammatical changes or additional
references because there's no point in me reading out all the materials that
I've relied upon, but if ever there's a transcript of my reasons, I may very
well add in some of the portions and it makes things quicker ‑-
EVERT STEEN: In time, you mean?
THE COURT: In time.
EVERT STEEN: Over time.
THE COURT: Yes.
EVERT STEEN: Okay.
THE COURT: The bottom line being anything I add to my
judgment, of an editorial nature, won't change my decision.
So here's my judgment.
I'll give you some background as best I've been able to determine it.
[REASONS FOR JUDGMENT]
THE COURT: Mr. Van Camp, you'll be drafting the order?
MR. VAN CAMP: Certainly, My Lord, I'll draft that order and
I would ask for a further order that Mr. Steen's signature on the order be
dispensed with.
THE COURT: Mr. Steen ‑-
EVERT STEEN: May I add one little sentence here ‑-
THE COURT: Let me just ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- that ‑-
that in your ‑- in your assessment of my abandoning my appeal, there
was no text in your order, in your ruling, that covered the fact that there was
an application to a judge made, which stated that I had no right to appeal and
that was an issue that was brought up in court with Judge Dardi ‑-
THE COURT: Judge Dardi.
EVERT STEEN: -- so to me that ‑- that led in a greater respect to my decision
ultimately realising that time was moving on and that I should ‑-
I should move on.
THE COURT: I understand, sir.
EVERT STEEN: And so that ‑- that's ‑-
that's the one. And your dismissal of
the claim, which I anticipated, it doesn't give really ‑- your order does not really address the original
judge's ruling by dismissing the claim based on lack of jurisdiction, and you
didn't really address the "or" rule either in this ‑- in this instance, but I'm ‑- I'm ‑- I guess you're ‑- the decision is functus
at this stage.
THE COURT: My decision is as I've explained it ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- and while I've heard what you've just
said, it does not alter my view of things.
As I say, I understand that this has been a long road for you, and a
frustrating one for you, but applying the law as I see it, there is no claim to
be brought against the defendants, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General of British Columbia, and it would be an abuse of process to allow the
claim to proceed. So the claim is
struck. The action is dismissed.
What I will indicate, Mr. Steen, leaving aside whether you
agree or disagree, whether you like or dislike the results of today, Mr. Van
Camp is going to be drafting the order, the court order. What often occurs ‑- you're leaving, are you?
EVERT STEEN: No, no, I'm ‑- I'm listening.
THE COURT: Okay.
Well, I'll wait till you put your jacket on.
EVERT STEEN: I'm paying attention.
THE COURT: No, no.
I want your full attention.
Thank you.
What often happens is that when a draft order is prepared,
it's sent to the other side for them to review it and agree, leaving aside
whether you like it or, "Yes, that's what Judge Gaul said, that's the
order" ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- then you endorse it ‑-
EVERT STEEN: It's not about liking.
THE COURT: What Mr. Van Camp is suggesting is that he
draft the order and he send it direct ‑-
EVERT STEEN: What do you mean by that?
THE COURT: He ‑-
the order that I've made today. There
will be a written order ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and the order will indicate that on
hearing you, and on hearing him, and on ‑-
having considered all of the evidence put before me, I make the following
order, that your notice of civil claim is struck out, that your action is
dismissed.
I take it there's no
issue of costs, Mr. Van Camp, or do I need to hear something on that?
MR. VAN CAMP: My instructions are to seek costs. Given your ruling, and the finding of the
holding of an abuse of process, and the fact that the Rule allows for special
costs to be considered, that this was brought in a proceeding in both provinces
and dismissed. However, I will temper
that to perhaps an award for a nominal amount, fixed costs. That's my submission on costs.
THE COURT: And what would you say the nominal amount
should be?
MR. VAN CAMP: Well, we've spent the better part of today
dealing with this. One person's day in
court is ‑- comes at the expense of someone else's. I would start at two hundred, My Lord.
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Steen, the general rule of thumb in court, the general
rule, is that the successful party is entitled to their costs. I anticipate you know what I'm talking about
because you've been through this system before.
You've brought an application.
You've brought a claim. You've
been unsuccessful. The other side has
been successful. So one would say that
they're entitled to their costs. Mr. Van
Camp is saying, in the circumstances of this case, the costs could have been
what are known legally as special costs, which are nearly a dollar for dollar
indemnity. He's not seeking those,
although he could have, nor is he seeking the full amount of ordinary costs he
should get, could get. He's saying it should
be a nominal amount of $200.
I'll hear you, sir, on whether you should pay costs of this
and whether the amount should be a nominal amount of $200.
EVERT STEEN: I'd like you to charge me whatever you feel
is fit to charge me.
THE COURT: Yes ‑-
EVERT STEEN: I ‑-
I have no opinion on this because none of it is making much sense to me,
sir.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: None of it.
THE COURT: What are your financial circumstances?
EVERT STEEN: I live on a small pension, on a basic pension ‑-
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: -- thirteen hundred dollars a month.
THE COURT: Pardon me?
EVERT STEEN: Thirteen hundred dollars a month.
THE COURT: And is that a Canada Pension or is that an
employment ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Do you have any pen ‑- any employment pension?
EVERT STEEN: I have nothing, no.
THE COURT: So it's a CPP and that's all.
EVERT STEEN: That's it.
THE COURT: Okay.
And how long have you ‑- have you been
retired?
EVERT STEEN: I am going to be 77 in next month.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: So 65 ‑-
THE COURT: What ‑-
you retired when you ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- so that's 12 years ago.
THE COURT: So you retired at 65?
EVERT STEEN: At 65.
THE COURT: What ‑-
prior to retiring, what was your profession or trade?
EVERT STEEN: Oh, I've done a number of things. Theatre.
Film business. Looking after
kids, street kids, for the Human Resources in Vancouver. I've done films. And I'm now a self-representing litigant that
is connecting with others across the country, and we have discovered that we
have a different opinion on what justice is, and we're hoping this is where ‑- it wasn't addressed, the issue of re ‑- revisiting the Rules of civil procedure, because I
understand in Ontario, too, every province seem to have its own rules and
sometimes we question which rules we're actually playing with or ruled by.
THE COURT: Why shouldn't I ‑- and this is a genuine question, why shouldn't I
order an award of costs against you?
EVERT STEEN: Oh, I ‑-
I already left that up to you, sir. Why
you shouldn't? This is a conversation
that ‑- that would take hours because it ‑- it's all to do with the fact that I, in my opinion,
clearly feel that I have been misappropriated, seriously misappropriated, by
the system at large, you and far beyond you, and I have always been respectful,
tried to be respectful, never said vexatious ‑-
used vexatious language, not intending to be embarrassing anybody. I'm looking for justice. And I was told by a high profile lawyer, by
the way, that, "Jan, the courts are not about justice." And ‑-
and I will soon have to put this to bed because I need to get on with the rest
of my life, which ‑- and I'm doing
this mostly for my children and my grandchildren.
THE COURT: You receive thirteen hundred dollars in
pension. What are your expenses? Do you have a mortgage? Do you pay rent?
EVERT STEEN: I ‑-
I actually ‑- am I entitled to tell you this now and ‑- because if I say that I'm without a mortgage, which
I paid ‑- it took many years to pay off, so I am no longer ‑-
THE COURT: You ‑-
EVERT STEEN: -- having to pay $300.
THE COURT: Let's ‑-
let's put it this way. Do you have the
capacity to pay $200 in ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Sorry?
THE COURT: Do you have the capacity to pay $200 in
costs?
EVERT STEEN: I still didn't hear you.
THE COURT: Do you have the capacity ‑-
EVERT STEEN: The capacity to pay $200 ‑-
THE COURT: Pay $200.
EVERT STEEN: If you force me to, I have the capacity to go
and borrow money. If you tell me that
you ‑- you're going to charge me $4,000 and my ‑- I'm a formerly frugal Dutchman and I owe nobody
anything except for those people who invested in an idea of mine, which at the
time was awesome, and part of me being here is wishing and wanting those people
to be paid back their good investments, but that's not to be. But if you feel fit ‑- so fit to charge me, you charge me whatever you feel
like doing, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
Thank you.
EVERT STEEN: I think ‑-
I think my being here cost me, I think, $280, I think it was, and the Xpresspost
or sending materials that in here stated they were not dated, but I ‑- I went into town to have them witnessed by the court
registry, but ‑- anyway, that ‑-
that's enough.
THE COURT: Okay.
EVERT STEEN: May I go now?
THE COURT: No, I'm going to finish off. There are two ‑- I have to make a ruling on the issue of costs ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: -- and also on the issue of the drafting of
the order.
Anything to add, Mr. Van Camp?
MR. VAN CAMP: No, My Lord.
THE COURT: Okay.
While you may very well feel as though you have a righteous
cause to pursue, Mr. Steen, the manner in which you've pursued it in this
instance has been completely inappropriate.
The notice of civil claim is drafted in a manner that is practically
illegible, illegible in the sense that it articulates no legal foundation for
the claim. I'm not saying that your
claim is not a righteous one, but the manner in which this matter has come
before the court, in the sense of the filing of the notice of the claim, the
filing of the requisition without notice to the other side, and not providing
them with the materials is, in my view, warranting of an award of costs.
EVERT STEEN: I did not provide them with materials? I'm not understanding that.
THE COURT: When did you provide them with the materials?
EVERT STEEN: Which materials are we referring to?
THE COURT: Of this ‑-
EVERT STEEN: The November 13?
THE COURT: Of this application.
EVERT STEEN: Ah. I
have Xpressposts. The last material that
I sent was on the ‑- February the 4th,
witnessed ‑-
THE COURT: Who did you send them to?
EVERT STEEN: -- at the court ‑- at the registry in Courtenay and they were received
on the 5th, on the Friday, the 5th.
THE COURT: Mr. ‑-
Mr. Van Camp?
MR. VAN CAMP: I really can't speak to the manner of how
they got to my office, they came across my desk ‑- my desk, but certainly the Attorney General hasn't
been served with the notice of civil claim.
I can only say that that came through back channels. My suspicion is is that the registry
contacted someone from my office, but we weren't served is the point, so hence
the response being filed yesterday and me going out of my way to be here
today.
So you're correct to ‑-
to say that it didn't come with appropriate notice, but I would ‑- I'm not going to push too hard on that, but you're
correct.
THE COURT: All right.
EVERT STEEN: I can ‑-
I ‑- I will send you whatever proof I have of having
filed.
THE COURT: You don't have to. You don't have to. I'm still not satisfied that you ‑- you looked to the Rules of Court, Mr. Steen, to
provide you with an avenue of seeking justice, but in my view, you haven't
followed the Rules of Court. I will
award nominal costs of $100 to the defendant.
I will also order, in the circumstances of this case, that the signature
of Mr. Steen on the order is not necessary.
What will happen ‑- and Madam
Registrar please make a note of this, the order is to come to my attention.
Mr. Van Camp is going to draft the order, Mr. Steen. It will come to my attention. If I disagree with the wording of it, then
I'll send it back to him for redrafting ‑-
EVERT STEEN: But isn't it based on the wording ‑- on your wording?
THE COURT: It is.
EVERT STEEN: Because I'm going to be getting a ‑- a transcript of this.
THE COURT: Very good.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: That's your option to do so.
EVERT STEEN: Mm-hmm.
THE COURT: But your signature ‑- I'm waiving the necessity to have the order go to
you for review and then back to Mr. Van Camp and then to the court so that you
can get an entered ‑- entered copy of
the order that I've made today in the most expeditious manner. That's how we're going to proceed. Mr. Van Camp is going to draft it. It's going to come to me. If I agree, yes, that's what I ordered, I'll
endorse it and then both of you will get copies of it. All right ‑-
EVERT STEEN: So this is the end of the matter?
THE COURT: This is the end of the matter before me.
EVERT STEEN: Mm-hmm.
THE COURT: Your application has been addressed. The notice of civil claim that you filed in
November of 2015 has been struck out for the reasons that I've articulated, and
also your claim has been dismissed.
I'm going to be retaining these materials because I have
annotated them and so that should be the extent of things.
Anything further, Mr. Steen?
EVERT STEEN: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Mr. Van Camp.
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: All right.
I thank you, gentlemen.
EVERT STEEN: Hmm.
Have to wait here until you ‑-
we have to wait until you're gone now, don't ‑-
THE COURT: No, because I ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Oh.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Ah.
THE COURT: -- but, no, there's another matter I'm going
to hear now.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)
TRANSCRIBER: L. Kemp
====================================================
It is I, Evert Jan Steen, who took the daring liberty to embolden certain sections. Please accept my sincerest of apologies...
====================================================
It is I, Evert Jan Steen, who took the daring liberty to embolden certain sections. Please accept my sincerest of apologies...
====================================================================
NOTE: ***
*1) With the HUGE importance we lay folk have drilled in to us of punctuality of timing and correctness of docs, and their filings and servings, it is amazing to have run through the incredulous disparity and mix-up of our dates and correlated documents.
THIS gave me the distinct impression, the judge had not read a word of anything!
Although the judge HAD the correct February 05, binder (the black binder), Van Camp had been handed the November 03, 2015 docs. (These we ultimately dealt with, making me wonder whether the Judge had EVEN READ ANY OF IT. Since he stated: "I have read your materials...,"had he been astute, he could have said: I have an Affidavit here dated February 04, 2016. What's the November 03, you're talking about....
===================================================================
* "THE COURT: But even if I grant you those orders, so even if I say she was wrong, then what?"
(We walk through dialogue which essentially suggests that, even if a judge is wrong and sends you through hell for 5 years, doesn't mean you are entitled to $125,000!)
Then there is:
(We walk through dialogue which essentially suggests that, even if a judge is wrong and sends you through hell for 5 years, doesn't mean you are entitled to $125,000!)
Then there is:
* MR. VAN CAMP: " ....the facts aren't really in dispute...."
EVERT (BLOGGER) STEEN:
Look ye hear folks, there's no need to debate any facts here; we need to smarten up and smoothen this whole scenario so that us SRL types don't even get access to court! THAT's what I'M talking about!
(i.e. V Camp) And I'm telling you Judge, this can be done! It's on our agenda; the AG's I mean; we're dealing with it next week...
There you have it then. There's likely some precedent setting new Rules implemented soon, preventing any future Tom, Dick, Scarlet O'hara, or Joan Doe Canadian Citizen from even accessing a court room; waste of the process, since it's putting absolutely NO MONEY in our pockets.
(How much did you say your measly pension was?)
So let this be a warning to all a youse: This is a DEMOCRACY! Not unlike a police-state. difference being, in a Police State you usually notice the gendarmes walking on the streets, their fingers on the trigger - to keep the peace - since the mood of the plebeians is generally quite volatile.
In a 'Democracy' most everybody is usually asleep at the wheel, knowing that as long as they don't confront the systems by asking too many potentially embarrassing questions, and just do as they're told, them that runs their general affairs and takes their money, as needed, will usually leave them alone...
With some interest I look forward to receiving my 'REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.'
Looks like I'm winding down; I'm clearly doing nothing productive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to below URL, next to CEOs, as a most attractive profession, the profession of Lawyer sits second in a line of preferables.
*
coruscate |ˈkôrəˌskātˈkärəˌskāt| verb [ no obj. ] literary (of light) flash or sparkle: the light was coruscating from the walls.
Look ye hear folks, there's no need to debate any facts here; we need to smarten up and smoothen this whole scenario so that us SRL types don't even get access to court! THAT's what I'M talking about!
(i.e. V Camp) And I'm telling you Judge, this can be done! It's on our agenda; the AG's I mean; we're dealing with it next week...
There you have it then. There's likely some precedent setting new Rules implemented soon, preventing any future Tom, Dick, Scarlet O'hara, or Joan Doe Canadian Citizen from even accessing a court room; waste of the process, since it's putting absolutely NO MONEY in our pockets.
(How much did you say your measly pension was?)
So let this be a warning to all a youse: This is a DEMOCRACY! Not unlike a police-state. difference being, in a Police State you usually notice the gendarmes walking on the streets, their fingers on the trigger - to keep the peace - since the mood of the plebeians is generally quite volatile.
In a 'Democracy' most everybody is usually asleep at the wheel, knowing that as long as they don't confront the systems by asking too many potentially embarrassing questions, and just do as they're told, them that runs their general affairs and takes their money, as needed, will usually leave them alone...
With some interest I look forward to receiving my 'REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.'
Looks like I'm winding down; I'm clearly doing nothing productive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to below URL, next to CEOs, as a most attractive profession, the profession of Lawyer sits second in a line of preferables.
As Scientific American explains:
http://www.alternet.org/culture/10-careers-most-psychopaths"2. Lawyer. Almost every joke about lawyers relies on the stereotype that they are, essentially, psychopaths: liars and cheats, bereft of morals, obsessed with profiteering at any cost. This, even though your average public defender is hardly getting rich off billable hours, and I know an awful lot of great people with JDs (she wrote, veering dangerously close to, “Some of my best friends are lawyers" territory). Still, Dutton’s research found lawyers landed second only to CEOs in the number of psychopaths in their ranks, and it certainly makes sense that some lawyers (say, litigators) would benefit from the ability to turn on the charm and lie without conscience.
"Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses."
Dutton also interviewed a successful psychopathic lawyer who, chillingly, said, "Deep inside me there's a serial killer lurking somewhere. But I keep him amused with cocaine, Formula One, booty calls, and coruscating* cross-examination."
Hmm, a new word to me... *
coruscate |ˈkôrəˌskātˈkärəˌskāt| verb [ no obj. ] literary (of light) flash or sparkle: the light was coruscating from the walls.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment