236. AN OPEN LETTER TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF CANADA'S LEGAL SYSTEM

VIEWS@15578

Dear Federal Minister of Justice, Madam Wilson-Raybould: 

Voting for change in the recent Federal election, Canadians successfully brought in a Liberal government in which you now fulfill a major role. Your Ministry lies at the foundation of a sound and Honourable Democracy. 

As an elder Canadian, forced to mostly represent myself, I continue to endure what now are some seven years of legal innuendo. An absolute nightmare, it controls most of my life. 

My last Court Appearance was on February 12th, in a Summary Trial against the BC Ministry of Justice in Victoria. 

Defence for the AG had been instructed to encourage the Court use a yet to be activated Rule. 

It appears precedent is in the throes of being implemented here. Suffice to say I was dismissed,

I forwarded your office the transcript of that day’s sessions some weeks ago. 

I continue to await Judge Geoffrey Gaul’s ‘Reasons for Judgment.’ We are now in to April….what’s delaying? 

Based on your mandate for change, to enhance fairness, equality, and actual Justice, I am appealing to your Ministry’s Office at this time. 

It is my view we need to re-write and tighten the Rules of Civil Procedure by making all Rules applicable to one Jurisdiction: i.e. CANADA, while making far less room for ‘Argument.' 

Additionally, we must move away from pomp and posture, and hold our officers ACCOUNTABLE - somehow! As our Country’s hired employees they are NOT above the law. 

I sincerely hope that in your four year tenure you are able to bring these desperately important changes about. If not, there will be further deterioration.

Respectfully Yours,

E. Jan Steen 

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

THE LETTER AS SENT MINISTER WILSON-RAYBOULD:  

According to Ms. Mary Henein, lead Counsel for Jian Ghomeshi’s Defence, in his now dismissed sex abuse Trial, Canada “has one of the greatest legal systems in the world. “A system we should all be proud of, ” in which everyone has “an opportunity to be heard, and is guaranteed a fair trial.” 

There is “the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, and a presumption of innocence.” “Credibility and reliability lies with the accuser.”  

As indicated by Ms. Henein in the CBC News interview with Peter Mansbridge, the above are core factors on which a final judgment must be based. Theirs, an example of a ‘high-profile case’ and, as such, over-resourced, according to Ms. Henein. 

My indication is that 99.99%, the overwhelming majority of the bread n butter, run-of-the-mill-regular-citizen cases are under-resourced. 

As such, I’d like to present you with my under-resourced case. 

Allow me to set the scene: 

December 2007; two backers encourage me to create a website based on my Postal Code Classifieds concept. With an Online Timeline crucial for potential success, in February 2008, living in BC, I find the ‘right’ web-developer in Ottawa to create the complicated interactive website. 

Though all monies are paid from BC ($43,000), the site is never completed, either on time or per contract specifications. 

June 2010, as an SRL, I file a claim of ‘contractual non-compliance’ against the Ottawa developer in Courtenay BC’s small-claim’s court. I use the ‘OR’ rule for filing, based on all its indicated Rule allowances. 

Regardless my ‘OR’ Rule’s clearly applicable factors, on argument, Justice Madame Saunders decision to dismiss my claim for “lack of Jurisdiction” is 

functus! She has spoken and will not waver. I should have filed in Ontario.

However, on asking if I can do anything else, Judge Saunders allows me to appeal, which I then create, file, serve and pay for. Appeals are made in the Supreme Court of BC.

Please note: The default rule for filing in Ontario states: “To file in the Jurisdiction the claim originates.” Had I filed in Ontario, the Judge would have wondered, more accurately, why I did not file in British Columbia?

However, without going in to detail here, having shown a number of serious legal Defence anomalies, it is made clear to me in a Defence Application to a Judge, I could, apparently by law, not have filed an appeal, since “one may appeal after a Trial, not a Hearing.” Since ours had been a ’Hearing,’ I had no right of Appeal. This was the legalese reasoning, which was later verbalized by Judge Dardi, after I managed to adjourn a set Trial date based on sound reasoning.

After reading various texts interchanging both Trial and Hearing - as if they were synonymous - none of it made sense. Regardless, with months away from a new Trial date, I realized my efforts in BC were going to be wasted. I abandoned my case. After all I had already been advised  by Judge Dardi, she could very well not hear my case, and as such it all seemed pointlesss. 

I erroneously surmised Ontario would be less manipulative and more ‘civilized,’ hence more JUST. As if possible, over some 5 year stretch, working mostly as an SRL, matters grew even worse. My ultimate fate became the same: DISMISSED!

So, coming full circle, still seeking JUSTICE, insisting someone in this glorious and “greatest legal system in the world” - based on all the proof of FACTs and argument I had gathered, SOMEONE surely could and needed to be held ACCOUNTABLE! 

So with my claim against the Minister of Justice of British Columbia, holding their office responsible for the mistakes of their Judges, on February 12, as an SRL, in a Summary Trial, I entered the halo chambers of the Supreme Court in Victoria. 

Suffice to say I was once more DISMISSED! It appears the Ministry, in an effort to keep the SRL likes of me out of ‘their’ court-rooms, intends to use 

me as a pesky precedent!  All was a mere “Abuse of Process.”

Speaking volumes of insider innuendo, I paid some $370 for the entire transcript. It is posted on my blog (The Lonely Road to Justice} 

Now April, I continue to await my ‘REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.’  

WHAT can possibly be going on here? I humbly, but insistently ask.

Whatever it is they interpret, I will again present it to our new Government with the hopes they will take measures.   

Without a reconfigured Justice System functioning as it is intended, there can be no honourable Democracy for the people/ by the people. After all, the Lords and Ladies running our courts are all citizens, beholden to their ethics, no matter WHAT can be achieved in a high-profile sex-abuse case! 

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