This blog is the first in a series in which lawyers (and other justice professionals) ask self-represented litigants a question which SRLs try to answer – and vice versa.
Rob Harvie is a family lawyer in Alberta, and a former Chair of the Alberta Law Society Access to Justice Committee. He is currently the Chair of the NSRLP Advisory Board. Randi Druzin is journalist, author and former SRL.
In this blog, Rob asks the question and Randi answers it.
“Why are SRLs so crazy and emotionally unbalanced?”
Robert Harvie, Queen’s Counsel
Yeah. I said it. The stereotype that drives Julie Macfarlane to distraction – the lawyer and judge’s perception that all SRLs are crazy.
To be, perhaps, more charitable: I have found it exceedingly difficult to engage SRLs in an effective manner. Reasonable proposals for resolution are met with hostility and unreasonable responses – leading to litigation that could have been avoided, and which, more often than not, results in a bad day for the SRL. And, in family law, that often means ongoing hostility in the future that everyone would be better off without.
Randi, could you help me understand why it seems to be almost impossible to have a reasoned discussion about the risk/benefit to both parties when dealing with an SRL, and to find common-ground on settlement?
Rob
====
Randi Druzin, former SRL
Rob, when you walk toward a typical SRL you will see a normal looking man who combs his hair, brushes his teeth and wears clean clothes. He may even floss. But if his outward appearance reflected his mental state, you would instead see a person who looks more like Daffy Duck after being shot in the face by Elmer Fudd – a charred, smouldering wreck, with his detached bill resting atop his head.
By the time you cross paths with this SRL, he has been through the wringer, trying to access a court system that is inaccessible to those outside the legal profession. He has struggled mightily to complete every task in the litigation process, from filing a simple notice of motion to deciphering a judge’s endorsement, without any guidance or assistance.
It’s also possible that this SRL is among many who have been victimized by sharp practice or professional misconduct by opposing counsel, or even, at one point, by their own lawyers.
If you had encountered this particular SRL at the outset of his legal proceedings, you would have been more likely to have met someone reasonable, even pleasant. But it’s too late now. He’s at his wit’s end – and for good reason.
Here is the short answer to your question: If the SRLs you encounter seem crazy and emotionally unbalanced, it’s likely because your court system – which was evidently created by lawyers for lawyers – has made them that way.
BTW: The same holds true for female SRLs, so no one should attribute their ornery behaviour to monthly hormonal shifts.
Randi
Rob – you wrote “And, in family law, that often means ongoing hostility in the future that everyone would be better off without.”
PLEASE do not forget
1 – the SRL in family law has her/his life and family at stake
2 – FRANKLY the judges and lawyers get paid at every step
3 – the SRL pays with cash, blood sweat and tears at every step
SUGGESTION:
PLEASE do your homework (judge/opposing counsel) pick one simple mistake/problem/legal issue and make time to work it through and find some common ground with SRL for
– meaningful opportunities for submissions from SRL
– provide written arguments along the reasoning path (with jurisprudence and authorities)
PLEASE do not use:
“it’s obvious”
“you (your submissions) are long, scattered, vexatious, etc
OF COURSE the poor soul’s life and family are at stake
what is at stake for you?
Thank you for saying this. The prejudice against SRL’s is ridiculous and disgraceful. I am a disabled single mother of three who was sued because someone didn’t want to pay their storage bill or pay for the damages they caused. I am forced to self litigate or lose everything.
And, I have been trying to mediate and resolve this without going to court from the onset and the opposition’s counsel has drug me to court four times now. It is the represented party who is vexatious in this matter!
This matter is still being litigated if there are any lawyers out there who would like to meet and help a reasonable, settlement minded SRL, please feel free to contact me.
Signed,
The Unicorn SRL
I have a question, Why do lawyers call the self represented names in open court?? Attack them personally instead of sticking to evidence issues,, Hide evidence that is being requested and refuse to release it???? You know this is wrong,, You know it is up to the judge to stop,, But why act so unprofessionally with the self represented, when you know you would never do that with a fellow lawyer.
They do it all the time with fellow lawyers and get away with it because (a) the Law Society would attack them for complaining and (b) a senior lawyer told me straight that the Law Society would attack him if they complained about the repeated adjournments, the underhanded tactics such as not producing documents, demanding unnecessary ‘inspections’ of a property, etc. etc. I’ve been waiting 8 years now for my day in court, while the City of Belleville continues to have constructive possession of my property and continues to economically sterilized my property so that I can afford my lawyer. They intend to win by attrition.
In another matter, a witness refused to come to court to testify until he was promised protection! Why, because the Defendant’s lawyer called him the night before he was to testify to tell him he better not testify to what went on in 2010. So the witness came, testified to what happened and the Judge’s decision dealt with the witness tampering by saying ‘the witness was not a shrinking violet’.
And we wonder why our country has gone to the dogs…literally.
In my situation early on (2011), I said to the court “Mr. Unethical here has used dirty tricks against me and God is my witness”. Amazingly, Mr. Unethical’s dubious litigation chicanery has lessened to a degree the past eight years.
i have watched a little longer here, and it seems that unless you can withstand verbal and emotional abuse for years, with a smile on your face, you are crazy. Any feeling you have, response to abuse you have, will be explained away as “she is crazy” I am so tired of this abuse by these people. Why can they not just respect the law, respect the processes, and the people attempting to access justice, In most of our cases, if we claim the evidence is false, wrong or frauded, you are treated like you have 2 heads. How about looking at the evidence, How about mandatory examinations of evidence BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS ISSUED?? wouldn’t you think that would be mandatory anyway?? Just make evidence examination a mandatory part of its admission, never mind how special the person is who produced it,, examine it. If there is no way to have the evidence independently examined, do not admit it. Some respect for the proper application of evidence laws would be so helpful!!
it could be a setup by the lawyers to make you vexatious-they will claim you are wasting court time for years and ban you from court use.
That’s the thing, they have no authority to ban anybody that does not mean they are not doing it. They are doing a lot of illegal stuff. We can get them removed for doing it but for the life of me we will just not do what is needed and form a SENSIBLE GROUP that can stand up to them. That is why we need to band together. It is doable guys. Let’s do it
What does it say when I have documented evidence i.e. court transcripts. That indisputably show that the opposing lawyer and the judge concealed (actually expunged) one section of The Alberta Rules of Court in order to defraud me of 10’s of thousands of dollars by awarding double costs award against me.
I’ll tell you what it says “collusion” or even “conspiracy”. I cannot name the lawyer or the judge involved on this blog as my case is still ongoing. But I will, after the outcome is finally decided. Furthermore, my exposure will be backed up with the documented evidence I speak of!
This is clear “abuse of process” and “abuse of power” that even Mr. Harvie must agree with. That is if he’s as true as he represents himself to be and I do not doubt that he is!
one thing that mr Harvie seems to have forgotten is that once a person is attacked by corrupt and fraudulent lawyers, and judges,, they all look the same to that person, having been victimized this way. If someone approaches the court with confidence they will be heard, and having read the rules,, will follow them, it comes as quite a shock to discover that the lawyers and judges do not follow them,, And the confidence is now dead, It gets even worse when the lawyers and judges then pass off what they are doing, by claiming the self represented just didn’t read the rules right, I know how to read, ,,And English is perfectly understood, This is mocking, bullying, lying and fraud, And shock of all shocks,,, it is coming from the court itself!! I simply will never get over this, I have no respect left for the courts,
That’s why it’s called the “judiciary” and not the justice system; typical of most countries in the world which have a corrupt court system, e.g. USA, Canada, UK, etc. If you as an SRL expect to receive justice by going to court without a lawyer, you have a 1 in 10 chance of winning your case if the judge is miraculously kindly and the three judges on the appeal court panel somehow manage to have two of them ruled in your favor.
Moral of the story: Don’t dare go to court without a lawyer and even with a lawyer, if the judges don’t like your face, you’re cooked.
no problem believing ‘abuse of process’ and the only way this might cease is to denounce it
As a self represented person, I would also add to the emotion the fear factor that somes with a lack on understand on a complex system such as our justice system.
Just as Doctors make bad patients, Lawyers can make bad self-represented people. This is doubly true for self-represented people who have no legal training.
In family court, as in other types of litigation there are high stakes, lose of income, lose of property and most importantly lost of access to their children. Most parents are not equipped to deal with our family court system, and the horror stories perpetuate the fear that exists.
The is stuff a self-represented person knowns or can find information on, then their is stuff which the self-represented person knowns they don’t know and or can’t find the information one, and the most fearful of the bunch is the stuff the self-represented person doesn’t know they don’t know, and so don’t even have an indication that they need to research.
Fear of missing a step, and the negative consequences of that mistake
Fear of signing something or agreeing to something they don’t actually understand
Fear of telling someone (their lawyer, clerk at the desk, or even the judge) they don’t understand, and being seen as stupid.
A prime example of horror stories used against self-represented parties is the custody wording in settlement agreements proposed against self-represented litigants.
“Joint Custody, With the mother having final say over education / medical”
This is a legally conflicting statement, and becomes a problem when parents agree to such wording.
This is not giving Joint Custody to both parents as it worded, it gives final say of custody to one parent and leaves the other parent unequal in the eye of the law. Countless fathers have fallen to this.
Other wordings like “The parents will discuss issues before final decision is made” also serves to muddy the understand and true meaning of a order.
Countless fathers sign these agreements thinking they still have a say in the custody decisions of their children and then find out later after the fact that they actually don’t.
Mothers then say, they don’t feel comfortable or feel threatened by the parent, and can’t discuss issues, and then act with full court system support cutting out any decision from the father.
This works both ways as it is done by and to both genders.
A solution to this particular problem:
Perhaps a better approach is to have a duty council (neutral parties / friend of the court) who is a lawyer and can provide legal advice to both parties (whether they have a lawyer or not) regarding settlement agreements. And that if lawyers knew that this were to happen they would be more inclined to write settlement agreements in plane English.
Perhaps Mr.Harvie should look through the prism of a well informed, educated, sophisticated and articulate SRL before passing judgment on SRL’s as a “collective”. As an example, there are good and bad lawyers and good and bad judges also. If judges screw things up it’s diminished as an “error”, if SRL’S screw things up it’s concluded as “vexatious” or “abuse of process”. Where’s the justice here, lawyers know how to game this highly unequality and flawed system? So really Mr. Harvie, who are the “emotionally imbalanced” here?
is there any persons or groups that actually assist and provide support and information to self litigants?
is anyone interested in starting such a group?
You are missing the point. It does not matter how well your materials are prepared, how carefully you follow the rules, the Judges do not even read your materials…they ALWAYS defer to what the lawyers want.
As Donald Best has shown, the Judges check the Internet or have registry staff check for them, to learn about the parties. Heaven forbid should you be an activist for human rights, or involved in something the Judge doesn’t like because you will surely be beaten in court, framed, humiliated and ostracized right in the courtroom.
WE keep trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear…what is wrong with US to put up with this for so long? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Steve,
Yes! Count me in. Let’s recruit a team. We need ACTION NOW…on several paths:
– Improve and shorten the “Settlement Process”;
– Assistance to SRLs (… and also better information to represented parties);
– Accountability of parties misleading the court, delays, etc. (legal counsel or SRL);
– lots more…but lets prioritize as a team;
Before SRL-ing, worked with international clients’ mergers/acquisitions, business and IT process change/improvement, etc., more recently anti-fraud, anti-money-laundering, anti-terrorist financing.
The Family Law process is so disturbing, and it will continue to affect 50+% of couples/families. Lawyers have little incentive to improve it, since it is their source of income. Our (and our children’s) tax dollars continue to fund this disturbing process and our after-tax dollars fund the lawyers. Let me be clear, there are great lawyers working toward a fair settlement asap. Sadly there are many who are not, with little to no consequences. When a police officer lies, it’s a crime; when a lawyer lies, over and over and over?
Please, lets work for Action Now!
Anyone else interested?
Yes I would be part of that group . Here is a lot of proof if needed . http://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/ & here is another website saying the same problems as we have https://donaldbest.ca/retired-rcmp-inspector-william-majcher-swears-affidavit-about-corrupt-canadian-lawyers-and-judges/
I’d also love me to be a part of this group, as due to my ongoing ligitations one thing I’ve learned is just how screwed up and inaccessible the legal system is. I cannot begin to tell you how many lies I’ve caught the lawyer for the opposing parties to be in … lies in affidavits… clear perversion of events that contradicts chronologicall,but most importanly defies the laws of space and time. When in my submissions I’ve flashed out all of the said above, the legal counsel got personal and emotional with me (so much for SRL being the crazy one, eh? ).
Anyways, if there is a group can someone please drop the details on how to join in? Greatly appreciated !
type in-William Majcher swears affidavit about corrupt Canadian lawyers and judges-he was an rcmp inspector/whistle blower and “the system turned on him like a pack of wolves” -so who has more power-a group of people we create/the NSRLP or most of Canada’s judges/lawyers? neither-GOD-but anyway they created the system to be impossible to fight-judges cant be charged for criminal acts so it isnt a criminal act for judges to fix cases etc !!!!,and law societies have lawyers investigating lawyers {england stopped that practice so can we} so its hopeless-and obstruction of justice for millions of SRL cases-exactly what lawyers want-to win by cheating.
The NSRLP is probly doing the best they can without pissing off to many judges-i think the courts should state on thier site that SRL’s have no right to use the courts so we dont waste money on fake hearings and have false hopes-but if that truth was told there would be a mass up-rising.
We (SLRs) are led to idyllically believe that if you adhere strictly to the Court Rules when filing your Statement of Claim, Notice of Motion, Plaintiff’s Brief, etc., attend court on time, dress in business attire, have short hair, bow to the judge and say “good morning, my Lord”, only speak when asked, be courteous to the court clerk, address the opposition lawyer with “Mr. Dutton (and not my friend)”, speak normally, cite the law, keep your oral presentation concise and to the point, etc., we have just as good a chance of winning as if we had a $350/hour lawyer representing us. Don’t believe it!
Sure, we might meet a master or a judge who likes us facially, but that’s a rare occurrence. In most instances, you’ll have a judge who has been stressed to the breaking point with having to deal with unprepared incoherent, babbling SRLs on a daily basis and he’ll want your case thrown out with the trash pronto.
judge who has been stressed to the breaking point with having to deal with unprepared incoherent, babbling SRLs on a daily basis
REALLY? on a daily basis? stressed? to the breaking point????
Gimme a break – paramedics, doctors, police, fire fighters – they deal with life and death
What type of stresses do high paid insulated, protected, untouchable judges deal with?
YES I have read canlii cases of SRL truly vexatious conduct – but most (if not all) of the judges who authored those seemed to write more with obvious wim and vigour than stress…
Yes I am a self rep who feels like Justice is so far away right now. Waiting to go to a civil trial in QB that will get my EX to make good on his promises to pay me back half the debts we incurred while living together. He tried to call me vexatious when I sent him a second lawsuit for the car he sold his friend, it was my car, but he got the money and I got nothing. At the PTC the Master laughed & said no I am not vexatious and added the 2 claims together then asked him why he didn’t obtain legal advice and my EX said because the family lawyers he contacted told him it was a civil matter and another family lawyer told him it was not.
Haven’t heard anything from the Court on mediation or if we go straight to trial? Who knows it could be 2021 by the time we get to hash it out for real. Until then I just wait. I read everything and yes, sometimes get angry or moody about it all. I am sure he does too. Why does it take so long? The waiting is terrible.
Yes, the wait game is excruciatingly painful from an emotional standpoint. In my case, after years of waiting and waiting, I finally convinced myself that I wasn’t likely going to win my case at the end so why fret. I said to myself “the other side is motioning me to death so if I can win some of these motions, I have won small victories.
please define “unreasonable responses –” give examples and state which questions these answers were provided to
You raise good points nic, who decides what “reasonable proposals” are? Common sense tells any right minded reasonable person that if the proposals were indeed “reasonable” there would be no “unreasonable response”? What is truly “reasonable” is having more lawyers like Colin Feasby who stuck his neck out and took on Pintea v. Johns PRO BONO! Now, that defines “reasonable” in it’s truest sense, does it not? As much as I appreciate Mr. Harvie’s legal opinion but you know what they say about opinions? Help is required not opinions, especially in family law.
I observe all these mothers dragging their young kids to the Court information windows who are in dire need of legal guidance and have to speak through a goldfish bowl seeking guidance, it’s bordering on cruelty to how the system treats them.
Why haven’t some heartfelt family lawyers start up something like “Habitat for Humanity” in the field of law and help these families instead of always looking to increase their billables?
easy to just spew words out there …. but flesh them out with meaning and start a ” reasonable ” discussion ..when we argued our ” new home building issue ” in court, we could not even get a definition of what words they utilized in their official documents !!! great and fair starting point …??
Mr Harvin is just playing devil’s advocate. No need to “attack ” him. He is on our side
We are not attacking Mr. Harvie Allen It is obvious that he is just “poking the bear” in order to bring more perspectives. I for one appreciate that he’s on out side but we all.must agree to disagree if we’re going to improve the SRL phenomenon.
In Canada, we do not have a justice system but a judicial system, a big difference. Lawyers, judges (former lawyers) and law societies rule the roost.
When it is high priced lawyer v. another high priced lawyer, the judge simple lays back on his leather high chair and daydream and hears each other side’s case law precedence. Easy cheesy.
However when there’s an SRL (a plaintiff most times) in the court, the judge discounts all case law presented by the SRL to support his/her position. There’s helter-skelter in the courtroom and the judge is wishing that the time will fly by quickly because of his frustration, anger and stress due to him/her having to actually work.
The judicial system won’t say it but there’s a dual layer court decision system: If the case involves an SRL and the decision is negative most times, the usual lawyer v. lawyer cannot use the SRL case decisions as precedence and vice versa, i.e. the SRL cannot refer to case law precedence in an usual lawyer v. lawyer case.
With each passing year, the percentage of SRLs in the Family and Civil Divisions increases to the point where the judicial system will be divided into (1) a division where only lawyer v. lawyer is heard (2) an SRL division where lower paid judges will be hired and with the thousands of inconsistent negative case law against SRLs, these junior judges will simply choose any one of the case law and the Appeal Court will simply rubber stamp their decision.
the SCC will redo cases they already ruled on when the lower courts ignore their ruling !!!!! ie lower court judges dont respect SCC judges and so obstruct justice for us.
when i appealed being vexatious one of my grounds was to make it illegal to over rule SCC decisions-when they ignore SCC rulings we lose and owe costs which is how we become vexatious-by design in conspiracy-there are many tools judges/lawyers use to prevent SRL’s use of the courts.
Well, I should disagree with that one. I saw the case law presented by SLR used by the Judge and another lawyer. I am not saying SLR is easy or anything like that – it’s hell but you can get a result if you are willing to go to the end and put everything on the line… Just look at 2011 ONSC 7476 (CanLII), 67 references…
Should it be that hard – of course not
It is easy to prove there is no Rule of Law…Judges do not follow precedent, even when you have a lawyer. They do not read the case law provided no matter how well presented.
Just two weeks ago, we had oral presentations in a Motion to Strike proceeding that I brought against RBC. The Judge had NO intention whatever of hearing my submissions…I had worked on them for a month, making sure they were concise, well cited, etc. etc.
The Judge used up 40 minutes talking in circles about how she couldn’t see this or that and I kept asking her to let me explain using the documents to make it all clearer. She kept ignoring me, who was to go first, and kept talking with the RBC agent…as though she was taking the young lawyer ‘under her wing’.
Finally, I, on the record, said, “I am begging you to let me make my submissions”. She relented and with great drama, said she had to go and get her laptop.
So she dragged one of the court staff out the door, left with great huff, and returned about 1/2 hour later with her laptop, all her wires, etc and started to plug everything in. When done that she said I was under a serious time constraint.
I took her through comparisons of false documents to genuine documents, etc. and she ignored it all in her decision.
This Judge had NO interest whatever in hearing the Motion and was only too happy to throw me right back into the pit with RBC which did not refute a single allegation of fraud, forgery, false documents, etc that I advanced and did not refute a single paragraph in my Motion Affidavit.
Mine was a Rule 25.11 motion to strike. RBC did not respond to that. Instead its Factum cited the rules for a Rule 21 motion…the Judge drew no negative inference whatever from this switch.
During oral reply, the RBC agent stood up and suddenly, without notice or submissions, said the Judge should make a summary judgment and the Honourable judge did just that.
This is a daily occurrence and has been normalized.
Randi hit the bullseye when he answered Rob Harvie Q.C.: “If the SRLS you encountered seem crazy and emotionally unbalanced, it’s likely because your court system- which was evidently created by lawyers for lawyers made them that way”. Like all cases SRLS are supposed to be seen to be treated with “impartiality” on a case by case basis! Not as a “collective”!
How is it possible to apply “impartiality” when lawyers and the judges are “clumping” SRLS as a “collective” brand of abusers of their old pals club system, who are seen as invaders of their cosy old system? There’s a lot of talk about “CHANGE” towards SRLS getting equal treatment but those in power are fighting against “CHANGE” because that legal lazy boy chair they have been sitting on is just too difficult to get out of!
Randi is right, the courts have created this polarization by grouping SRLS into one. How would the judges like it if SRLS or the public at large grouped them into a bunch of Lori Douglas’s or Robin Camp’s by calling them “emotionally imbalanced sexual deviants”? My request: Treat all SRLS on a case by case basis just as we show deference to you milord,milady or your honour. And also allow us equal benefit of the Rules of Court even when they’re there, but are unlearned that their, there. And please don’t conceal them from us just because we do not know how to use them as weapons to the same degree that some lawyers and judges can, and do! With respect.
Early on in my SRL journey, I encountered two very rude veteran deputy registrars so I audiotaped them the next encounters. I emailed the clips to their boss the registrar. Months later, both of them either retired or were reassigned.
As SRLs, we don’t need or want rude court clerks mistreating us!
I have the impulse to substitute the derogatory description og “emotionally unbalanced” with “vulnerably off balance”. And being taken advantage of that vulnerable unbalance by those in a position of power!
What impact has the CJC’s “Statement of Principles” had in benefiting SRLS? My experience and observations are a big sweep under the rug effect!
So much for the SCC Pintea v. Johns endorsement!
Actually re: the summary this site suggested we read to the Judge about Pintea v. Johns…well I was quickly cut off and with the sweep of the hand and a turn of the head, the Judge basically told me she considered it BS.
The courtroom can be a very intimidating venue considering you have a judge who likely loathes SRLs and an opposition lawyer sitting with his assistant (a junior lawyer) and his/her client.
To somehow counter the above imbalance, if you ask beforehand, the judge might agree to you having a “McKenzie Friend” (your own non-lawyer assistant) seated next to you and if you have lots of relatives, they could sit behind you in the visitors’ galley.
If you’re all alone, chances of a kangaroo court are high.
EXACTLY Grace – SCC Pintea v. Johns is a good way to LOSE or WORSE.
CANLII.org search results: How many UNREPORTED cases?????
“Pintea v. Johns” 66 cases
“Pintea v. Johns”,”vexatious” 31 cases
Almost FIFTY percent chance that you risk “vexatious” label – merely by mentioning Pintea v. Johns.
In my case the adjudicator ruled Pintea v. Johns was “irrelevant”
Big Shot Law firm motioned for costs for wasting court’s time.
I motioned for costs – they filed NO defense, missed deadlines, ignored tribunal orders.
Tribunal refused to deal with my costs motion.
Tribunal permitted Big Shot law firm to file costs motion, after deadline.
Denied costs as Big Shot law firm contradicted hearing facts.
Just the same 50% chance to be “vexatious”.
Just the same Courts, Tribunals do NOT respect the SCC – thereby are in breach of common law.
How many UNREPORTED cases?????
You are absolutely correct. I can personally attest to the fact that the lower courts DO NOT respect SCC decisions, ever. They make their own rules up as they go and they always protect the corporate structure.
One lawyer I hired in Ottawa was handling 4 cases for me (unluckily, I had 4 issues come up over one property at the same time). He missed the limitation period on 2, missed the limitation period and abandoned the file without notice on another, and just outright abandoned yet another without notice. Huge cost awards were made against me. The loss is catastrophic because now, almost 9 years later, the issues mushroomed into a huge mess.
In 2 cases I went to small claims court in Ottawa to recover my fees and the costs awards …my evidence was all clear in the trial judge’s decisions.
LawPro lawyers, defending the Defendant lawyer has engaged in every imaginable delay…from 16 weeks delay in filing their Defences, to showing up at one ‘conference’ after another claiming they have no ‘instructions’ from LawPro. The lawyers for LawPro have ‘instructed’ the Deputy Judge to dismiss my very legitimate motions to Strike the Defendant lawyer’s Defence and to order that I cannot bring any further motions without his leave, again without any reason.
And it was all done as requested. On top of that, the Deputy Judge added lots of ultra vires orders…expert reports, combined Book of Documents and Authorities, etc….all orders not acceptable in small claims and further, that drive the expenses for me well beyond the amount of the claims.
I have the Deputy Judge’s contempt for me on audio, nice and clear. I asked him to recuse himself and brought a motion before the Chief Justice to have my cases transferred to Superior Court. The motion was streamed to this same Deputy Judge and he simply ignored me, set down two trials back to back and a trial for one defendant’s claim against the co-defendant, all for the same 4 days to make sure I cannot win. I protested that at 70 years old, there is no way I can handle 2 trials back to back with a 3rd (having nothing to do with me) thrown in to keep everything in chaos.
In addition, this Deputy Judge is the Administrative Deputy Judge and has made it clear he will be influencing the trial judge.
I brought an Application to Superior Court asking for a transfer…the ordeal was even worse there. I had served my Notice of Application on the Defendant lawyer’s solicitor. That solicitor said not a word about my need her signature on a little card and waited about 3 months to file her Notice of Appearance. According to the Rules that was far too late and so I brought a pre-application hearing motion to have the Notice of Appearance set aside….and again, even though the Judge admitted the Rule was confusing and it was clear that the delay in filing the Notice of Appearance for months was a sharp lawyering tactic and that they were not prejudiced, the Judge dismissed my motion.
In addition, the Registrar did not put the materials requested before the Judge and no amount of proven abuse could sway the Superior Court justice as she deferred to everything the LawPro lawyer wanted. In fact, I got the distinct impression that she was more interested in punishing me for challenging her colleague in small claims court, then to do justice. She refused the transfer and said I could do the trials and if I don’t like the outcome, I can appeal.
Bottom line is that these people are so corrupt that they have normalized corruption in their profession.
The cost to me of trying to recover the fees and cost awards that an ethical professional would have reimbursed without issue, has well surpassed the amount I claimed. But LawPro has made a example of me to others who dare request their fees back when the lawyer fails to do his job. I cited one case after the other that held that where a lawyer misses a limitation period, they are not entitled to fees…the Judge simply ignored this.
In another claim against this same disgusting lawyer that a lawyer was handling fo rme, and despite at least two indulgences, LawPro would not file the Statement of Defence. It was driving up the legal fees, so I took over my file and noted the lawyer in default. LawPro has brought a motion to have the note in default set aside and you can bet your bottom dollar that they will get it set aside even after two years.
The Rules are ONLY for SRLs and they are used strictly. LawPro, as the Deputy Judge stated on record, is a special entity (thereby explaining the parallel court rule system).
Grace, as someone who has simultaneously faced 4 deep pocketed defendants for many years at 70 plus I can truly understand your post. I told the Judge: “there is an imbalance of representation” – Judge replied “I do not see any imbalance” AND “Your honor, I do not have enough room on the table to reply to all these lawyers simultaneously” In reply the Judge allotted me 1/4 of the time of the 4 others.
Are we unreasonable? Or is this just how most humans act in a difficult situation? Are lawyers inhuman, i.e. perfectly understanding and reasonable, and generally above prejudice or other human shortcomings? It would be interesting to see how a lawyer would act when put in a totally unfamiliar situation with much at stake, required to perform new tasks and exercise new skills on-the-fly to an unspecified standard of conduct as a part-time job, and with the growing sense (based on the demeanor of officials if not statements) that irregardless he or she was predestined to have a “bad day”.
Read the comments above, and for the most part absolutely feel your frustration.
I too have been through the “legal” wringer. Criminal law, family law, bankruptcy court, POA, even twice as a witness for the Crown.
I think one of the main problems is that your regular person goes into court “knowing” that the other side is somehow out to “get them” and proceeds accordingly. After all it is for all intents and purposes an “adversarial system.”
Problem is, most aggrieved go into the courtroom marching to the music of a brass band and they are completely out of step with the waltz that’s being played, so to speak.
It took me a few years learning from some excellent and well paid lawyers and observing the dance of the courtroom to figure some things out. And make no mistake it is a dance.
Some lawyers have a “dirty tricks” bag and others just want to get the case resoled for the benefit of their client. Its hard sometimes to know which lawyer has shown up for the other side.
One of the most important things I have learned as a SLR was BE POLITE and SHOW RESPECT and never, never argue with the person on the bench. You might disagree and feel unjustly set upon and you might be right. Its how you deal with it that is important.
If you want to earn respect, you have to be respectful.
If you feel yourself getting a little hot under the collar…ask for a short recess. The Court would far prefer that diffusion then having to call someone in contempt.
I have been before a few Judges and some have been incredibly compassionate and understanding to BOTH sides. Others not so much.
Lawyers and judges basically speak the same language and its one of which the average person is not fluent.
Lawyers study for years and article and then go into the law business…and it is a business. I have seen SLR’s often go into Court unprepared, unrehearsed and with a voluminous file of material. Took me a while to figure out that simplicity is far more effective.
JP’s are another problem in my opinion. Some have not even passed the bar and they sit on the bench as a trier of fact.
Maybe it would be helpful if there was a tutorial online, that at least would give the SLR a basic grounding and guidance.
Watching moot court on YouTube (Canadian proceedings) or actually attending a courtroom for a day or two can give you some idea of what goes on.
I guess most SLR’s see the whole lawyer thing as a “cash grab” and sometimes they are correct.
The “new” Animal Law speciality is a prime example. Lawyers are representing animal rights, suing the animal owners for support and making chunks of change in the process. Too many SLR’s in Family Law Courts I suppose…
Guess Fido will be granted his/her (or however they identify) own lawyer in a divorce situation at this rate. May even be eligible for legal aid…Don’t laugh…it could happen.
No one knows you case better than you do…its how you present it and yourself that can be the problem or the solution.
Like I said before, its an adversarial system. Someone will win and someone will lose. That’s just the way it is. It can happen with or without a lawyer.
It’s not a perfect system but with out Professor McFarlane (who I think is a lawyer) and her staff, we wouldn’t even have this venue. Best thing that ever happened for SLR’s in my opinion.
Thank you
L.
I appreciate your thoughts Lynda but the judges do not use “Contempt” anymore. They found a more effective tool… it’s called “vexatious litigant”! As far as being “Polite and Respectful” those behaviors are supposed to work FROM the Bench, as much as they are TO the Bench. The reality is SRLS are seen as “the scourge” of the legal system and it’s going to take a very real judge and a very real lawyer to change this perception of us. In the meantime we must continue to demonstrate that “persistence” is not seen as “vexatious”. There was a time when “never give up” or “never quit” if you believe in youself was admired and encouraged. That is not a reality through the lens of judges and lawyers when a Self-Represented Litigant arrives in the Courtroom! I believe there are judges and lawyers that fit the bill of what I speak…Colin Feasby in Pintea has set the standard, we’ll see if it catches on!
yes,,, we are a scourge if we believe what we have to say matters,,,, and expect to be heard, That is in fact vexatious litigant definition to the court, THEY WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE, and if it happens to not be right,, too bad so sad, for you. what it really means is shut up and go away, And if you don’t we will take away your rights to come to court at all. And then they do!!! this is not justice, it is a sham, And pintas means nothing to them,
The stats are in: Every year, the percentage of SRLs in civil court is increasing, especially in the family division.
Judges and lawyers are currently getting away with thumbing their snotty nostrils at us, but there will be time in the not so distant future when SRLs will form a united group and declare “we have had enough of this BS!” Take us seriously and apply the court rules and case law fairly!
Nothing can change until the judiciary is removed and elections of judges are set up. The fact that the current crop of Judges do not remotely follow set precedent means that justice has nothing to do with ‘law’. So those who say that we need lawyers and Judges to tell us the law, are keeping themselves in chains.
The People are entitled to self-determination, including as to what sort of ‘justice’ system they want.
The legal system and justice system are two different animals…one eats you alive and the other tries to keep the peace.
I agree with you that all judge should be elected in by the public & can be removed every 4 years if no good . Even sooner if they breach the rule of Law .
History tells us that democratic free speech and public conversation does “effectuate change” in all aspects, issues and conduct of “public importance” and our lives. This goes as far back as capital punishment, women having the right to vote, civil right movement and so on!
It is clearly implied to a large extent that SRLS are responsible for clogging up the courts and/or the “legal system”. There are just too many SRLS begging and seeking justice for this to be factually true. It is a fact that we do get “access to justice”. You know how I know this…because the Courts gladly accepted my filing fees, my pleadings, applications etc.etc.That’s where the “access to justice” ends, think about that for a moment! Any moron would see that it’s simply a shell game that takes your money and gives you “access” to guess what shell the pea is under but, they know you do not have a snowball’s chance in hell at finding the pea!
Our Justice, judicial or legal system or whatever you want to call it? is no different than a shell game!
Conversation after conversation can effectuate change but only if the parliament decides to address it.
Here’s a real sensitive thought to consider,continue to let judges have “judicial independence” but take away their immunity to being sued if there is “concrete evidence” [emphasis added] that they are misusing legislation, rules of court, colluding in anyway or abusing their power to induce or steer preconceived outcomes. I find it ironic that we can sue the PM, The Queen, The RCMP etc. etc. but not a Judge, where is the equality, where are the checks and balances to counter manipulation and abuse. My belief is that judges would be more “judicious” and respectful towards SRLS if they knew they could be held to account. Do not get me wrong, I believe in “judicial independence” from political interference as much as anyone, But I do not believe in “Absolute Power”. Where history has proven the manifestation of such, leads certain individuals straight into a totalitarian state. The odd bad one gets caught such as Robin Camp but most bad ones do not. The SRL has been deliberately stigmatized and marginalized it’s “the system” that needs to be revisted by our government or there will be a collapse of the “Rule of Law”. Do not misconstrue that as “judicial interference”!
The 14th Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of Canada said “The Law” is “Legislation” “Case Law” and “Evidence”. What is so tough about that? It has been been made tough by design, that is why it has come to it’s current disastrous state of disrepute by the citizenry of SRLS!
Keep the “conversation” and/or “dialogue” going. Do not allow your “persistence” or “determination” in improving our fundamental legal rights to be misrepresented as “vexatious”!
The problem is that we have a system where millions of decent human beings are forced into an adversarial situation ONLY because there is no way for the legal trade to survive unless crisis can be generated.
Decent human beings do not want to ‘fight’ and be stressed out. They just want someone unbiased, with some common sense and life experiences, to look at the situation and help them resolve the issue. If that was not the case, mediation would never work.
Decent human beings are being preyed upon by the legal trade and until we accept that, we will never use our strength in numbers to get rid of the unnecessary adversity, elect judges and bar lawyers and paralegals from Small Claims Court and Family Court.
Until then, Small Claims actions will drive up litigation costs beyond the $50,000 as is now happening with regularity, and families will continue to be bankrupted when all they want is a fair division of property.
I can prove that the main reason for backlogs in court cases are mostly lawyers prolonging matters to generate obscene billable hours. They do not follow the rules and judges are only to happy to use their ‘discretion’ against the SRL that does follow the rules. Judges will happily refuse an SRL an adjournment, while allowing a series of adjournments simply because the opposing lawyer requests it.
In Ontario, they brought in a Rule 2.1 Dismissal of an Application or Claim, simply on the request of the opposing lawyer, WITHOUT notice and without submissions. And the Judges simply rubber stamp them. The Ottawa Registrar told me that it is happening to thousands of people and they are shocked to see this…all it takes is a short letter from an opposing lawyer to the Registrar and the Judge dismisses the Application or Claim. They trying to get a fair appeal costs thousands….
the judicial system,, in any province you are in,,, has been conducting themselves in this vindictive manner now forever, The trial lawyers association out here in BC, have just issued statements that the courts, want icbc claimants to be self represented. in court or in tribunal really doesn’t matter, but they are claiming this would mean the constitutional rights of the public would be violated, Same with the right to bring any number of expert witness reports to counter other reports,,, it should not be limited, funny,,, no one said a thing for the last many years while we,, the self represented, who could not even GET, complete disclosure of ONE expert evidence report, and had to represent ourselves,, where were the trial lawyers then??? Unless we hold these people to account ourselves,,, it does not appear anything will change, The devastation of our rights will continue, So,, what do we do,
I believe this is stateside but you may find this interesting to read re Judicial Immunity and it’s exceptions:
https://www.tmcec.com/public/files/File/Course%20Materials/FY13/Judges/Tyler/Henry%20-%20Immunity%20-%20BINDER.pdf
You provoke a good thought Lynda when you raise the issue of “CONTEMPT” maybe the law and/or rules ought to be changed that one must have been held in “CONTEMPT”. Before the Judge can declare them a “vexatious litigant”. It seems to me that declaring SRLS a “vexatious litigant” is too blunt an instrument and arbitrary or a whimsical tool that can used if the judge doesn’t like your face.
It’s overuse is undeniable and is being used like a judicial garbage disposal unit as if some lawyers and some judges have struck gold.
To be candid Lynda, I’d rather be held in “CONTEMPT” then I would know for certain what I had done wrong! Most SRLS that I have encountered never knew why they were declared “vexatious litigants” as the reasons were ambiguous and discretionary and that shouldn’t be! Even the 7 criterion in The Judicature Act 23(1) for the most part are discretionary. Which is easily abused by anyone in power, one just has to observe Donald Trump for the veracity of that statement to be a fact?
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Lord Acton (18th century)
The CJC reminds me of “The Wall” that Donald Trump wants to build to keep out refugees and immigrants. And Norm Sabourin at the CJC is just like a border security Guard. Forgive my cynicism, but facts are facts if you measure the success rate of any SRL who has relied on the CJC. If the CJC were for real, the law would have a better chance at ensuring s 7 & s 15 of The Charter. Unfortunately it has a long way to go!
Lord Acton’s pithy line is rarely quoted by members of the legal profession. Though many Lords have been members of the profession, he apparently wasn’t. Wikipedia says he was an historian, politician and writer.
That Norman Sabourin still has a job at the CJC attests to the absence of the rule of law in Canada. His gatekeeper role was put in place in 2003 (under then CJC Chair Beverley McLachlin) contrary to the mandate the Council receives from the Judges Act. To what agency does one complain about the conduct of the members of the CJC?
Someone though could file a complaint against Norman Sabourin, because he’s a member of the Quebec Barreau. Of course it would get dismissed, but what the legal establishment apparently doesn’t get is that the final arbiter is posterity.
I agree Lynda, I am always prepared, respectful of the court, and answer questions succinctly and on topic. The hardest part about being a SRL, is keeping the emotion in check. There is a place for it and I use the Victim impact Statement submitted at the correct time. If not for this site I would be a bigger mess than I am. Thank you Professor McFarlane for your amazing work!
My last comment is about being called vexatious. The term is a legal term and has to do with fighting the wrong decision. If you continue to fight a decision made by the original jurisdiction that is no longer appealable, you are legally vexatious. No one, and I repeat, no one will tell you what the decision was that you are no longer able to appeal, but that is the reason. For example, here in BC WorksafeBC has original jurisdiction to decide if bullying and harassment occurred. If they decide it did not occur, no aspect of that case, including complaints of incompetent nursing to the regulatory body for nursing, will be heard. I know because I was denied and determined vexatious for bringing a complaint previously decided and no longer appealable. Also called forum shopping. Except no one will tell you. That is our justice system. Not required to tell you.
Thank you all for advancing SRL work, I have certainly benefitted from your experience paving the way!
I was declared vexatious, and my court decisions, were made in the supreme court of BC All decisions made in the supreme court are appeal able to the court of appeal, i filed my appeal,,, but the staff at the court of appeal refused to accept my filing, they kept insisting they did not receive my faxed filing, even though i had a fax confirmation sheet, This happened three times, before it clicked,, they were refusing to accept my filing, But i am still declared vexatious,, and my case. is all appealable,, as all cases are, when decided in the lower court.
Yes the judges even use vexatious litigant as a from of revenge also Lorelei , in my opinion . read this & tell us what you think https://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/vexatious-litigant-scam/
i would like to ask,, since so many of us have been declared vexatious, Do we not have the right under the charter to access to justice?? without blocks, i have read that,, or i seem to remember that, but now as of today,, there is a fellow in the vancouver sun comments who goes by RWH,,, who is insisting the charter guarantees us,, {vexatious} people, you know,, scum,, anything, and we are just a scourge, i posted some comments in the section about legal aid being increased, it was in the vancouver sun, If anyone can confirm this or not, it would be helpful, if we had an actual legal standing on this,
The opposing lawyer likes to use the vexatious, abuse of process and overly litigious card against a determined STL.
In my case, the Law Society petitioned the court requiring me to seek the court’s permission to file another lawsuit even to the point of providing a security bond which due to my meager pension, I was unable to secure.
As SRLs, you need to know your legal rights because neither the opposing lawyer nor judges/masters will tell you your rights.
Example: The very first time I lost a motion that the side had filed, I was ordered to cough up the $4,000 in court costs. The opposition lawyer wanted me to pay up immediately the second time I lost a motion. Fortunately for me this time around, I did an Internet research and discovered that due to my low pension income, I could tell the court to keep a running tab of accumulated court costs until the conclusion of my court case at which time the accumulated court costs were payable within 60 days. It came out to $53,578 and I filed for personal bankruptcy. Canadian courts must not deny a financially poor SRL his/her day in court due to court costs, otherwise the opposition lawyer will motion an STL to death.
i was told i had to pay over 6000 up front in order to appeal my decision, but more then that, even when that worked temporarily,, when i tried to file another appeal, the clerk kept insisting they did not receive my faxed submissions, i had a fax confirmation sheet saying otherwise, I repeated the fax send, same thing, same thing the third time, By now i knew he was lying to me,,and refusing to accept my filing, So, the clerks at the courts refuse to provide a court filing number, and magically,, you are gone, Never mind that this is illegal and wrong, They do it anyway., Comfortable in the knowledge they are supporting their buddies, lawyers and judges, who just do not want to hear from you, This is NOT JUSTICE!!
well,, we have all asked some good questions,,, why are we not getting any answers this is just like court, a bunch of bull with no story line at the end,
The breadth of frustration with our current system is obvious in these comments.
The exchange between Randi and I was not intended to give a clear answer, but to create a conversation to hopefully lead to better work between reasonable lawyers (they do exist) and SRL’s.
There is a fundamental difficulty with a system predicated upon calm, rational objective perspectives being advanced – while knowing, inherently, that particularly with SRL’s – the system is almost designed to push them to frustration and anger. We should know people will become frustrated and design a system to respond to that.
Couple that with the manner in which a veiled “members only club” exists in our system (I made this comment in a relatively recent Alberta Court of Appeal case for an SRL) and you see, above, just how alienated consumers of “justice” become.
It is indefensible that the integrity of the “legal system” is compromised and deeply flawed. Mr Harvie’s comments that “reasonable lawyers do exist” is tantamount to saying they’re few and far between or a “needle in a haystack”
The “members only club” comment by Mr Harvie suggest a collusive environment between judges and lawyers is existential. SRL’s are tasked by fighting this stacked and compromised system. Mr Harvie is clearly a “reasonable lawyer” to raise this issue. But it is sad commentary to see this corruption toward SRL’s as a reality in our courts.”Evidence”, “Legislation” and “Case Law” are irrelevant when SRL’S are involved, it’s that simple!
this is one of the subjects I will be attempting to raise on the gillian hadfield speech on may 14 at the pan pacific in Vancouver, we will see how many opportunities I get to speak at all, I will try to bring up what is really happening in the judicial system and how disadvantaged the self represented REALLY are, Instead of allowing the lawyers to keep bitching because we are in court at all,
Good for you!
I hope you do get chance to speak.
Rule of 3 may serve you best – simple short POINTED
“members only” = Corruption
Vexatious Litigant unlike other civil causes of action has no 2 year limitation
Clearly discriminatory
GO GIRL!
All the best
I wish you all the best Sandra, I have followed your thteads for awhile. And it is clear to me that you are determined to make a positive difference for SRL’S!
There is no doubt in my mind that Judges virtually anoint lawyers as privileged when they go up against SRL’S in our courtrooms from coast to coast to coast.
I was forced to disclose a confidential accessibility services request. This does not meet the Charter nor International Human Rights for disabled. I am appauled. Within minutes of my having to disclose…opposing counsel behaved polar-opposite to my accessibility request. He became aggressive, angry, abusive, and didn’t even listen to his own client’s instructions. It was the most bizarre abuse of disability rights. The lawyer did everything that happens once a accessibility request is disclosed, as is described in Dr. Karin Huffer’s book, Unlocking Justice. I will never ever ever agree to disclose again. The judge has “chilled” accessibility services requests for persons with invisible disabilities because opposing lawyers will use the information to abuse the self-represented PWID…just as Dr. Huffer said in her book would happen.
I like your comment to the Alberta Court of Appeal: “the manner in which a veiled ‘members only club’ exists in our system.
This raises the question of how much weight does the “oath of office” mean to this “members only club”. Moreover, it has been my experience that it is more blatant than “veiled”. It evidently explains why Alberta has the lowest rating in the MacDonald Laurier report on judicial fairness and other aspects of justice in Canada.
Hello SRL Friends 🙂 Just letting you know I saw a twitter post saying there will be a Legal Aid Cuts protest on TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2019 @ 10:30AM at QUEENS PARK, TORONTO. It was posted by a lawyer calling all “Civil Lit Lawyers, Entertainment Law Lawyers, Animal Rights Lawyers, Blue Lawyers, Pink Lawyers, Short Lawyers, Tall Lawyers…” to unite for “Access to Justice”.
I am hoping to attend as a #SRL & #LegalConsumer who feels passionate about #AccessToJustice for All Ontarians & Canadians. I hope to see you there with your own protest signs. This is a good opportunity to get the word out and to express our frustrations and need for Affordable Alternative Legal Services.
British Columbia has an online “Civil Resolution Tribunal” main points:
Claims up to $5,000 (for now) CONDOMINIUM Claims UNLIMITED.
You can WAIVE anything above $5,000 –
NO LAWYER FEES – (except in CONDOMINIUM claims WITH EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES)
I have looked at 30 cases involving “Statutory obligations” e.g. by condo boards and insurers
VERY surprised that IN BC – YES they were found to have breached “Statutory obligations”
DECISIONS OF BC CRT: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/en/nav.do
AT least (since 2016) in BC at the CRT there are only 13 cases of “vexatious conduct” against the SRL. Only one had a “special costs” against the SRL. At least on the surface – it seemed appropriate.
AUTO accident claim UNLIKE IN BC – IN Ont-LAT – Insurers, Tarion – ask for costs because you are VEXATIOUS
In my experience in Ontario – I have seen SELF REPS found vexatious but I have NEVER seen anyone
Insurer, Tarion, Information Privacy Commissioner, Municipality etc. NONE were ever found vexatious!
NONE has been found to breach “Statutory obligations”
Whatever else – the BC system – will NOT expose you to HUGE costs
e.g. I brought a $2,400 small claims action, lost on a MOTION – the Deputy Judge ordered me to PAY $3,750 costs!
the Municipality submitted a bill of costs of $19,000!!!
Interesting that a system designed to apply justice and fairness to an individual s case is so diverse from province to province, thereby in itself leaving room for injustice and unfair treatment !
What is really needed on ONLINE systems is ONLINE PUBLIC submissions!
YES whatever BS you or the LAWYER submits – is all there to see.
Including the so called decision with “meaningful reasoning path”
So often the written decision – e.g. on canlii.org is complete BS when you know what the actual submissions were.
“Justice must be seen to be done” OH YEAH?
WHERE!?!?!
I know that there are VERY VERY few good examples and TONS of case of imperfect and flawed “justice”
Remember Canadian judge Robin Camp who kept calling the victim – “the accused”
or in the US Monmouth County Superior Court Judge James who not only decided not to prosecute a 16-year-old boy for rape but also chastised the victim for even reporting the incident.
SURE there ARE plenty of good judges and lawyers – but WHY is there ALMOST no accountability?!?!?!
BAD judges condone BAD lawyers
YES!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! YES!!! why is the judicial system allowing the appointment, the patronage and the condoning of the appointment and then the behavior of judges and lawyers who behave like this.
the legal community is loyal to the legal community !!!
ICBC provides 24/7 services for the people who get injured and faced property (vehicle and others) damages. You can claim your report to ICBC, and it will ensure your compensation valid and justified to your injuries and damages. But there is a time limit for making your claims to ICBC. It may vary, though. In the next section of this article, you will know the details about the time limits in ICBC claims and the amounts they pay for your injuries. As I was looking for such information, I have found a site useful like this; you can check it out here Time Limits in ICBC Claims
Why do I think ICBC is the most sued insurer around? Quite a number of Landmark Insurance Court rulings have been against ICBC. There is Eccleston v Dresen (and two others released the same date) then there is Shongu v Jing and I could go on and on. I am sorry Corine Harris but what you read and what obtains at ICBC are two different kettles of fish