10. JUDICIAL REVIEW..... UNFOLDING ....

 File No: 10-49776

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT

(OTTAWA)

BETWEEN:

EVERT JAN STEEN

Applicant

-and-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AS REPRESENTED BY THE

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF ONTARIO AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO and

THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA

Respondents

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

TO THE RESPONDENTS

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The claim made by the applicant appears on the following page.

THIS APPLICATION for a judicial review will come on for a hearing before the Superior Court on a Date at a place to be fixed by the Registrar of the Superior Court of Ontario. The applicant requests this application be heard at the Courtenay Court Registry, 420 Cumberland Road, Courtenay, BC, V9N 2C4. Should that consideration not be legally allowable, then, alternatively, at whatever Place of Conduct the Attorney General's Office of Ontario stipulates. 

IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must forthwith prepare a notice of appearance in Form 38C prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the applicant, and you or your lawyer must appear at the hearing. 

(This British Columbia based Applicant assumes Jurisdictional disparity will be considered, in case the hearing resides at an Attorney General decided Ontario location )  

IF YOU WISH TO PRESENT AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE COURT OR TO EXAMINE OR CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESS ON THE APPLICATION, you or your lawyer must, in addition to serving your notice of appearance, serve a copy of the evidence on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, in the office of the Superior Court within thirty days after service on you of the applicant's application record, or not later than 2 p.m. on the day before the hearing, whichever is earlier. 

______________________________________________________________________________

The above, best I interpret it, is Page 2 (Page 1 being a horizontal cover of parties, and addresses)

I continue to have more and more concerned friends, and assorted caring, calling me a fool to think actual JUSTICE may yet be achieved. But I need to see this to its logistic end - win or loose. From that perspective, both parties have already lost - and BADLY! Ironies abound to think Defense has spent some $100,000 to date. Had I had it, my backers would have been paid back, and all would have gone to sleep! 

BUT, in order to write my Case History, I just CAN'T let go yet. Every step is still new, and as such, I can't yet quit.  

A comment from SOMEONE, HATE or condone, would be much appreciated. 

9. PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONALITY!

3. Proportionality in Discovery

The civil rule reforms require proportionality to be considered on all motions relating to discovery (rule 29.2.03). Discovery motions, also known as "refusals motions", address whether a person should answer a question posed on an examination for discovery or whether a person should produce a document. On a discovery motion, parties can now argue that the court should consider:

• the time, expense, or undue prejudice caused to answer a question or produce a document
• whether answering the question or producing the document would interfere with progress of action
• whether the information is readily available from another source
• whether any order would result in the excessive production of documents.

The court will continue to consider relevance and privilege and will also be able to consider the principles of proportionality when determining whether to require that a question be answered or a document produced.

________________________________________________________________________

I have nothing further to add, since, to this Respondent, the court is NOT adhering to proportionality. I shall await the 'logical' next steps, as the Master will venture to dismiss the case.

I will then present the Attorney General's Office with my complaint requesting a Judicial Review. I will Blog post that request. I shall try to gain some energy in the mean time. 

8. MISS 'X' AND ME.

FOR THE RECORD

(see Blog: http://www.about-justice.blogspot.com)

Dear Miss. 'X':

In my communicative attempts to sway your Superior Court under its present auspices of Case Management to adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure, I am left no choice but to inform your office: I am NOT able to comply with the Master's orders to answer the, to me, completely case irrelevant questions in its continued time-stretching efforts to prolong Undertakings. According to the Rules, the case is beyond ready for Trial. The court, with its present 'Motion', as I determine it, is holding up due process in a costly, irregular, and case irrelevant abeyance. 

As a Canadian Citizen I proceed, best I can, with the tools available to me. This has included  all the latest online Legal information.

I am of the strongest of opinions that my case was mishandled throughout its duration by a number of officials. Rules and regulations, best I can interpret them,  leave me a very narrow window of communicative opportunity. This connect is one! Although I appreciate your continued references to advise me to seek Counsel as well as admonish me for contacting your office, in my capacities as a Jurisdictional wayward Citizen I have no other means to an immediate connective with the powers at large. 

I will NOT be filing an appeal; the opportunity to do so has made me realize bureaucracy, at some stage, becomes futile rhetoric. This is that time.

Superior Court Case #10-49776 unfolds.

Thank you, E.Jan Steen 

7. COLLUSION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RULES - (?)

Kudos to Jill! Fresh Defense Counsel on the scene with her business acumen of "product liability." This Miss. Daisy, quick as a whip, threw out her hand at a, to me, still undefined Case Conference, managing to get the master, based on "The Defendant says that undertakings still remain unanswered" to further stretch time of Discovery, in to oblivion. Unanswered questions about the Plaintiff having worked as a 'Handyman' etc.... All succinct and relevant questions to the non-compliant, 2008, paid for, but not delivered as contracted, web contract, as per the 'Statement of Work!' :)>>>>

With my busy, caught off-guard Counsel in tow, we were clearly cut-off at the pass. Rule ??? applied?
A Plaintiff's paid for Motion re-opened? A slight-of-hand? Somebody tell this codger in the woods what happened there?...

The Master previously ordered me Motion costs of $2,100.00 (for my reluctance to answer what I ongoingly considered to be IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS). The Master had decided, after continued insistence by Defense, that whatever questions were considered irrelevant by this Respondent to the issues at hand, had become, after some 4 Case Conferences, miraculously 'RELEVANT'.
"under the circumstances all questions are relevant." What ARE these "circumstances", I keep asking?

By experience, it has become 'crystal clear' to me, I do not stand a hell of a chance of seeing this case go to trial. Contracts seem to mean squat all. Connections, Jurisdiction, $$$, the buddy system ..... To HELL WITH THE RULES! These guys DO NOT WANT TO GO TO TRIAL! Because, considering the FACTS ETC, a conscientious Judge, obeying the RULES would allow this Plaintiff the $100,000 he is asking for. No more, understand. We do not want to shut down their business! God forbid!

But, if you consider the 5 year Hell and Havoc it has played on my life, they ought to be drawn and quartered, with the system to boot! But then again, all is about survival. And survival shows no justice.
We are no longer living in a 'just' world. I say the species is in over its head. Like the dinosaur, we are well on our way preparing for our own demise. I am content to be in my final act, living in the woods, trying to be as self-sufficient as I can. I give it 50 years at most. 'Hey,' no big deal this species, compared to say those Dinosaurs at some 60 million years... (Proof we have a crazy lunatic here? Your honour? Justice of the Court?)

IN CONCLUSION: 
I won't act on "Mr. Steen, please seek legal advice." Been there; done that. Actual accountability seems a thing of the past. In the war of chess; the best positioned player knows her hand, and has played it!

So, realizing the Rules of Civil Procedure seem to have been dismissed, I say to the Master representing this most Superior Court of our Democracy; the Master who has chosen in his official duty as representative of the Superior Court at Ottawa, to Order that: "Under the circumstances all questions are relevant."
I say to this Case Management Master: "Order as you see fit! Play your seemingly collusive hand. This Respondent is prepared to give this round to you and Defense - SIR!"

Time will tell. This too will pass...
A stage-submissive Respondent.

6. DAMNED IF YOU DO; DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.

Just came back from a walk. Informed by Case Management's Miss 'X' that I'm not allowed to email the office (Rule 1.09). Get legal advice... (I know; been there; done that) As such the No. 5 Post's info will be annihilated from their office. As if it never happened. Ladida. Next...

What's interesting about Rules is that sometimes you use them; other times not! That's the RULE!
"OH, Hi, it's YOU! Well in that case, go right ahead."  So here's the rub!

Lawyers contact Case Management ALL THE TIME! "Hi Miss 'X'; how's it going?" Case N0. such and suches Mediation session was a mere 'Pro-Forma' affair. Just letten je know... Have a nice day!"
The fact the client was only informed some 2 days prior of this 'little fact' means squat all.

But me? Self-Representing - again, I AM MY OWN COUNSEL! But NOPE! Rule 1.09's active, and herewith applied. You can appeal if you don't like the Master's order...
Nah, more hogwash; I got the gist now, loud and clear.

Knowing all about that, and sitting here letting my life pass by me, knowing that all is a fruitless game of chess - and I'm WAY behind. I'm going to let it play out; just as they planned it. They wear you down they do, and some a them are good at it. Some are even Masters in their field! It's sickening.

So I have enough energy in me to file a Judicial review. But just a review ain't gonna hit the bar either, I reckon. We gotta protect our kind! So I will start Blogging more and contacting 'folks.' See what happens.

Anon; this too will pass.    

5) TIME FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW?

As of today I am back in control in my slipping saddle - self-representing. The Jurisdictional issue, as I continue to discover, may well be the most important factor in this road to 'Justice.' At least there's one less person responsible, and it gives me the most hands-on reality show. A little less of the baggage of 'Communication.' I have never done well with 'waiting.'  Ought to call the Blog: "The Lonely Road of fighting Injustice." Here's my last connect with the powers to be. (I have eliminated names)
(NOTE: At the very bottom... "this shall be brought as a basket motion.."?? I wonder? Will the case become known as "The Basket Case?" Time will tell.)

FOR THE RECORD

June 10, 2013

Case Management Centre, Room 5022

161 Elgin Street, 5th Floor 

Ottawa, Ontario

K2P 21K1

Attention: 'Miss.X'

Re: Evert Jan Steen v. 'WEB-DEVELOPER'

Court File No. 10-49776

Dear Ms. 'X':

Circumstances required dismissing my Ottawa Counsel Mr.'Y'

On June 8th, 2013 I signed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person (you should receive it imminently). As self-representing Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim I am a resident of Hornby Island in British Columbia in the above-noted action.

I am gravely concerned about the latest Motion (Motion without Notice?) that took place on May 8, 2013, before (the) Master. My Counsel at that time rendered me conflicting information as to what would transpire there.

With a 'Pro-Forma' Mediation having taken place, it is this Plaintiff's vehement view that a pre-trial with its arrangement for a Trial date is, in fact, the legal and natural next step and, in the Plaintiff's view, should have been ordered; that more than enough Court time has been used by this Case. This Plaintiff is gravely concerned about the lack of adherence to the Rules. 

The Plaintiff says that undertakings are allowed to be stretched in to the realm of the ridiculous.

 "How long have I been a Handyman indeed?"

I remind the Court of the following 2010 adjusted Rules of Civil Procedure for Discovery.

I quote:

DISCOVERY

The reforms to the discovery rules include:

1. Scope of Discovery

The scope of discovery has been narrowed in the new civil rules. The "semblance of relevance" test has been replaced with a stricter test of "relevance". The phrase "relating to any matter in issue" has been changed to "relevant to any matter in issue" (see rules 30, 31 and 76).

This reform provides a clear signal to the bar that restraint should be exercised in the discovery process. It strengthens the objective that discovery be conducted with due regard to cost and efficiency. The effects of this reform will be felt by those who abuse the discovery process or engage in areas of inquiry that could not reasonably be considered necessary. 

Digesting the above, and comparing its warning to the continued allowances of claim irrelevant questions, seems to suggest the court, in this case at least, is ignoring the Rules. It leads this Responder/ Plaintiff to feel he is being toyed with. That a concerted effort to evade the truth and facts are deployed in order to wear the Plaintiff down, like water torture. 

I have all along abided by complying to the Master's orders, best and beyond, for over a year now. My conscience and rationale are making me unable to continue at this time. All has clearly become one-sided.

Although I have clear hunches why, I seek to have the court explain their reasoning for allowing Defense to keep stretching time. It is clear they want to avoid a Trial at all cost. To date, with all the amenities and Jurisdiction in tow, they are well ahead. Efforts to portray this Plaintiff as an old, irrational fool may be good Defense, but is it sound Justice? Looks like 'Dismissal' at any cost!

Referring to No.6 of the order: If the parties need a further case conference to resolve any issue before the motion they may schedule an urgent case conference. I do not believe an "urgent case conference" can clear anything up.

To the initial Defense Motion, heard by Master 'Z' on September 13, 2011, the Master ordered costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge. 

Once the Case was ordered in to Case Management, over a number of Case Conferences, with attitude, circumstances changed. The meaning of "Under the circumstances all questions are relevant" used by Master 'Z', was never explained to me.

The Plaintiff, in good faith, deleted his blog. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay some $2,100 (twice the original suggested amount) at what he thought was the closure of the former Motion. Serious legal anomalies are scattered throughout this case. Facts that will be provable in a just court.

Costs on Motion

(5) The judge or case management master shall address the issue of costs at the conclusion of each motion in accordance with rule 57.03, regardless of whether the motion is contested.

If your office should decide to ignore this communication, you leave me no choice but to seek a judicial review. This effort will include contact with a number of large dailies, and assorted Media. As well I will be posting materials on my new Blog. 

Sincerely,

E.Jan Steen 

____________Below are the orders as per Master 'Z'  at the last hastily/Plaintiff undefined Conference

COUNSEL:  'X'

COUNSEL:  'T'

E N D O R S E M E N T  (at case conference)  

By way of background, the following was ordered on February 27, 2013: 

a. The outstanding undertakings are to be answered by March 8th, 2013. 

b. The outstanding costs award is to be paid immediately. 

c. If the plaintiff fails to comply, the defendants may seek to stay or dismiss the action. 

d. Counsel for the plaintiff will review compliance with the order of Master 'Z' requiring 

material to be removed from the blog and will advise the defendants what steps the plaintiff 

has taken or will take to ensure he is in compliance. 

e. On consent, "ABC" is appointed as mediator. Mediation is to be completed by 

June 15th, 2013. 

f. The status notice issued on January 22nd, 2013 is set aside. The time under Rule 48.14 is 

extended to September 30th, 2013. 

g. This order is effective without further formality. 

The Defendant says that undertakings still remain unanswered.  

The following is ordered: 

1. The Defendant shall provide a list of outstanding undertakings by May 10, 2013. 

2. The Plaintiff shall answer all outstanding undertakings by June 15, 2013. 

3. If the Plaintiff fails to provide any additional answer following receiving the list of 

outstanding undertakings to be provided by May 10, 2013, then the Plaintiff’s action shall 

be dismissed with costs to the Defendant upon the Defendant filing with the court an 

affidavit that no additional answers were provided. This shall be brought as a basket 

motion in writing with notice to the Plaintiff. 

4. Otherwise, if partial answers are provided a motion may return to strike or to dismiss the 

Plaintiff’s action and this motion is hereby scheduled before a master for 4 hours starting 

at 10 am on September 5, 2013, on the following schedule:  

6. If the parties need a further case conference to resolve any issue before the motion they 

may schedule an urgent case conference.  

4) A CALL TO ARMS IN THE WAR OF ATTRITION!

We know much of the system is corrupt. Spreading like cancer unabashed, the common man is well-advised not to challenge those who steer the ship. Rules are broken by those who dare; being 'right' is no longer the issue. Face it; get used to it; that's just the way it is.

So then why do I bother? Because foolhardy, my conscience for justice drives me - still. I have just realized that my 'Lack of Jurisdiction' is the bane of my down fall. Without the required 'tools' you can NOT positively effect due process. I live in BC; the 'action' is in Ottawa!

Unless I can muster a clarion call to those who bridge the gap of jurisdiction; Unless I can intrigue individuals in control of the media to interrogate the facts and thresh the wheat from the chaff; Unless I can force those appointed to play by the rules, I am dead in the water. And I am in the process of drowning. The constant water torture has got to me.

At a cross-roads, I have only one last card to play; a judicial inquiry. But as we know, letting the law interrogate itself, is like taking food from a lion. Accountability is self-serving. The only possibility to bring the ship around is to find support amongst the media.

So, while I prepare my materials for service, I invite you to contact me. Check out my cause and see if it is worth your attention; decide if the public you serve, my fellow Canadians, will be concerned by the shenanigans I can serve up. It would be laughable, if it were not this serious. Can democracy still rule?