Originally published on Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine; written by Julie Macfarlane and Megan Campbell. This is the fourth in a regular series of columns for Slaw, written by the NSRLP team.
Our daily interactions with self-represented litigants (SRLs) from across Canada, along with our continuous tracking of the developing jurisprudence around SRLs, disclose the emergence of a judicial strategy that amounts to a war on self-represented parties in some courts and jurisdictions. The resulting mistrust and anger among many reasonable members of the public should be a cause for alarm among members of the profession.
Not only does this strategy undermine our commitment to a right of access to the courts, and ignore the Supreme Court of Canada’s clear statement in Pintea v John that SRLs cannot and should not be treated the same way as expert counsel, but by punishing SRLs for their unintended mistakes with vexatious litigant and court restriction orders, this strategy is also making the public angrier and even more indignant at their treatment in Canada’s Access to Justice crisis.
Public antipathy toward legal regulators, as well as the profession and courts as a system, is reaching unprecedented levels. Please, let’s not make it worse.
Doubling down
There is an unfortunate tendency for oppressive systems to “double down” when challenged, in the misguided belief that being “really tough” will fix the problem. Is this what we have come to?
The drift toward doubling down – justified by a particular reading of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Hryniak – is especially plain in the expanding strategy used to limit access to the courts in Alberta. Since 2016, and the decision in Hok, the Alberta courts have asserted an “inherent jurisdiction” in regulating access to the courts by SRLs. Rather than using a rule of court, the “inherent jurisdiction” approach allows for limitless expansion of who can be barred from access without special leave (more on this special leave in a moment). It also, critically, allows the court to anticipate future behaviour rather than have to show a past and persistent pattern of misconduct.
This is not a small change, and it is proving extraordinarily hard for those of us keeping track to keep up (and we appreciate and commend to you the blogging of our colleague Jonnette Watson-Hamilton on this topic). Over the past six months, the NSRLP’s SRL Case Law Database team has drafted a series of research reports on vexatious litigant case law across the country, only to find on the completion of each draft that it is suddenly out-of-date. Hence this blog, as we refocus our efforts on an intervention on this issue in the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Back to basics
In case we need reminding, the primary reason for self-representation (confirmed by studies in the US, England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and New Zealand[1]) is lack of resources[2].
The average Canadian makes $53,000 per year, or about $4500 take-home a month. Many lawyers charge upwards of $450 per hour. That means that 100% of a litigant’s monthly income will buy 10 hours of legal assistance (and with the present due diligence regimes, try purchasing less than 10 hours of legal work for any matter).
And of course, public assistance is only available in some family and civil cases, where the applicant lives on or below the welfare line (and this was Ontario’s situation before the recently announced 30% cuts…).
So people come to court without lawyers, or having purchased only a limited amount of legal help, and they make mistakes. The Supreme Court of Canada[3], the Newfoundland Court of Appeal[4] and the Ontario Court of Appeal[5] have all made important and authoritative statements about:
- The fundamental inequality of those with and without legal training;
- The intimidation and confusion that is inevitable for even the most well-educated and experienced SRL.
But this nuanced approach is being ditched in some courts. Instead, SRLs are being punished for procedural mistakes by being told that they cannot come back to court without formal leave, in some cases having an additional requirement imposed that they must come back with a lawyer (whom they cannot afford to pay).
There is an effort to persuade us that an order requiring an individual to obtain leave to return to court is not unduly onerous (“minimal”[6]). Try telling that to SRLs who, unclear regarding the appropriate procedure, attempt to apply for leave, wait months for a response, and fail over and over again. Since Hok was decided in 2016, until March 2019, we have found 50 court restriction orders in Alberta alone. We have not yet found a single successful application for leave to return to the court. The leave application is a written document, going up against a judgment (sometimes hundreds of paragraphs) written by a judge. How is this a level playing field?
The evaluation game: How judges are assessing SRL behavior
Judges are not trained to divine the internal mores of litigants, and of course usually they don’t need to even consider this – they simply have to engage with the legal arguments of counsel.
But where an SRL comes without counsel, some judges are spending more and more time analyzing the litigant’s beliefs and evaluating their behavior in order to justify vexatious litigant orders, court restriction orders, and punitive costs (for example, NSRLP pointed out last year that this was leading to an alarming reliance on gendered assumptions and stereotypes).
The first foray into this zone of personal and ideological evaluation came with the Meads decision in 2012, introducing the concept of an “OPCA”[7] litigant. While there are a few examples of “Freeman on the Land” (who do not accept the authority of the courts) appearing in the Alberta courts, Meads raises concerns that there could easily be conflation between some of the characteristics attributed to such litigants (for example, filing a lot of paperwork, suing a lot of people) and the behaviour of an SRL reading up on the net about how to “best” bring a law suit. In the ensuing years there has been mounting evidence of conflation between an “OPCA”[8] litigant and an SRL who makes basic errors, including “irregular”[9] and “inappropriate”[10] behaviours.
Now a new judgment has been handed down from Associate Chief Justice Rooke in the Alberta Queen’s Bench, in which Justice Rooke summarizes the decision to bar an SRL from coming back to court without leave in Alberta’s new “inherent jurisdiction” as based on three heads of evidence:
- The litigant’s entire public dispute history, including litigation in other jurisdictions and non-judicial proceedings (at para 580) (and see Makis v Alberta Health Services);
- Having been previously declared vexatious, probably sufficient to ensure that the litigant will be again declared an abusive litigant (at para 582);
- The “personal attributes” of the abusive litigant including their affiliations, activities outside the courtroom, demeanour, and political values.
In another twist, there are judicial declarations that the test for barring access to the courts is the impact of behaviour, and not its motive. The actions of an SRL which have an abusive “effect” will be subject to restrictions[11]. Somehow, we have lost sight of intentionality and its importance in punishing mistakes, which seems to open the door to still more conflation between SRLs on an ideological mission, and those who file late, or file too much paperwork, or file incorrectly by mistake. Should these be treated the same way? Ignoring the reasons for mistakes and misjudgments that might then be seen as process abuse denies the reality of the stress and frustration experienced by many SRLs, as Drew Yewchuk and Christine Laing point out.
There is also the disturbing reassertion of an argument historically used by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent, limit opposition, and control individuals: “querulousness”. Pathologizing people’s justifiable anger at having no meaningful access to court is not useful. It is an echo of the early days of the NSRLP when we were forced to constantly debunk the popular “theory” that those filing self-represented could be “explained” by Psychology 101 – i.e. that they all had pre-existing mental health conditions.
How Hyrniak Offers a Better Strategy
So what should we do when SRLs make mistakes, or act in a way that seems disrespectful of the court, or neglect a better and more constructive course of action?
The answer is not simple. But Hryniak offers guidance. Karakatsanis J. says: “…The balance between procedure and access struck by our justice system must come to reflect modern reality and recognize that new models of adjudication can be fair and just.”[12] Some courts are now using the language of “culture shift” (procedures that are “proportionate, timely and affordable” [13]) to justify “…control of persons who abuse court processes.”[14]Hryniak is about access, and constantly reiterates the importance of fairness and justice. This means more than just system efficiencies, and fairness ought not to be trumped by efficiencies. As an Ontario Court of Appeal case in which the NSRLP intervened last month (Kawartha-Haliburton CAS[15]) confirmed, the principle of fairness in Hyrniak must recognize the vulnerable nature of certain litigants, including those without counsel.
The courts are in danger of becoming an elitist forum. With more legal aid cuts, and no sign of the expansion or de-regulation of private legal services, expect greater and greater numbers of people unable to seek redress for injustices done to them. If in addition some courts are shifting away from their core commitment to enable litigant rights, this should trouble us all.
__________________
[1] “Cases Without Counsel: Research on Experiences of Self-Representation in Family Court” IAALS, University of Denver 2016 available at https://iaals.du.edu/publications/cases-without-counsel-research-experiences-self-representation-us-family-court; “Access to Justice for Litigants in Person” (2011) Civil Justice Council Report and Recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, England and Wales available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/report-on-access-to-justice-for-litigants-in-person-nov2011.pdf; Toy-Cronin, Bridgette. “Keeping up Appearances: Accessing New Zealand’s Civil Courts Without a Lawyer”, (2015) Executive Summary of PhD Thesis, University of Oregon; “Litigants in Person in Northern Ireland: barriers to legal participation Gráinne McKeever, Lucy Royal-Dawson, Eleanor Kirk and John McCord available at https://www.ulster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/309891/179367_NIHRC-Litigants-in-Person_BOOK___5_LOW.pdf
[2] Julie Macfarlane, “The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants”, 2013 https://representingyourselfcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/srlreportfinal.pdf
[3] Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23
[4] Young v Noble, 2017 NLCA 48
[5] Moore v Apollo Health & Beauty Care, 2017 ONCA 383
[6] Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 946
[7] Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments: see Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 A.R. 215 and my blog at the time warning of conflation https://representingyourselfcanada.com/avoiding-conflation-opcas-and-self-represented-litigants/
[8] Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments: see Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 A.R. 215 and my blog at the time warning of conflation https://representingyourselfcanada.com/avoiding-conflation-opcas-and-self-represented-litigants/
[9] For example writing a letter to a judge, something that many members of the public believe they should be able to do. Mazhero v CBC/Radio-Canada, 2014 QCCA 107 at para 28.
[10] For example, asking for an explanation of procedure: Boyda v Shaw, 2015 ABQB 780
[11] For example, Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 27
[12] Ibid at para 2.
[13] Ibid at para 28
[14] For example, Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at para 29 per Verville J..
[15] Kawartha CAS v MW, Curve Lake First Nation and Office of the Children’s Lawyer2019 ONCA 316, with thanks to our pro bono counsel Kate Kehoe
IMHO, SRLs failed more often than not is because the Canadian judicial system is shrouded in darkness and the solution is to shine a light on it to make it very transparent. Even though each year the percentage of SRLs keeps rising (especially in Divorce Court), SRLs continue to lose in Superior Court and Court of Appeal and the numbers of SCC SRL applicants getting a hearing is miniscule.
In major Canadian cities, there is an opportunity to form an association of SRLs which can offer advice, emotional support, and group think. We can help each other out greatly. Whenever there’s an upcoming motion hearing or a trial, SRL members can bandy together and attend the hearing/trial in large number. With them in the visitor gallery, will the judge and opposition lawyer dare conduct a kangaroo court? If so, tell it to the press media.
“… and the numbers of SCC SRL applicants getting a hearing is miniscule.” Let’s not give the wrong impression! Actually, it’s less than that. A SRL has a better chance at winning the main prize in Lotto 6/49 during his or her life time than having an appeal heard by the SCC.
I have two small claims actions in Ottawa. I brought two Motions to Strike the Defences of the Defendant lawyer, complete with on-point citations, etc. One pro bono lawyer told me I had done a better job of preparing my motion materials and factum than many lawyers. In fact, I brought the Motions to Strike because an unbundled legal opinion was that there was no defence whatever to missing a limitation period and then abandoning the file.
The LawPro lawyers for the Defendant lawyer cross-appealed with NO justification, citations, etc and requested an order that my motions be dismissed and that I be prevented from bring further motions without the Leave of the Deputy Judge who had shown an excessive amount of interest in the files from the day I had filed them.
Guess what…the Deputy Judge indeed dismissed my motions without reason, made orders that I could not bring motions without his leave and made orders ultra vires small claims rules so that now I am into full litigation procedures, complete with expensive expert reports. He noted that interlocutory orders in small claims courts cannot be appealed! So, its a system alright.
Ontario’s LawPro like all monopoly provincial insurers of lawyers know all the legal tricks of the trade. If you as an SRL think you got a slam dunk case of legal malpractice against your former lawyer, guess what?! You are deluding yourself.
Regardless of the merits of your case, expectant roadblocks are the Law Society, its lawyer assigned to defend your incompetent former lawyer, the motion judges/masters, the Supreme Court judge, the 3-justices Appeal Court panel, and lastly the Supreme Court of Canada.
Expect to be motioned to financial death and the proverbial feet dragging. Whereas you are there from start to finish, the opposing lawyers are sometimes replaced, retire, die (yes, they do die!), disbarred, etc.
Most people you ask will advise you to accept your loss and not file a lawsuit even a small court claim.
Now, knowing what I know, I would not have sued. I would have said good-bye to over $150,000 in lost fees and costs awarded against me and instead put my time and energy into changing the style of government we have to a republic with elected judges, common law courts and a huge clean up of the rot.
Live and learn.
when the courts are assessing our behavior,,, maybe they should also include their own, Lawyers who use sharp practice against the self represented,, why are they not “controlled”. Judges who are shocked by how angry we are getting,,Let me help, When confronted with disrespect, lies,, fraud,, and deceipt,, most NORMAL people are angry, It is bullying, And no one likes to be bullied, No one is MENTALLY ILL because we are angry, It is simply normal when being abused, instead of focusing on our behavior and why,, maybe the courts need to look at the actual evidence in our cases, Some questions to ask,, Was sharp practice used? Was evidence fully disclosed and examined? Is there the possibility of something having been done procedurally that was incorrect and had the effect of incorrectly influencing the case?? If the answer to any of these suggestions is yes,, that is why we are angry, People who approach the court expect to be treated fairly,, honestly, and accurately, If any of these is NOT MET, you get angry people,. look to yourselves as to why the public is becoming angry, That is your answer,
As pointed out by Donald Best “judges are former lawyers” I appreciate your frustration Sandra but as Donald Best explained. We are fighting a “Legal Club” therefore, judges or even Ministers of Justice are not going to “control” lawyers.
It is a fact that most if not all judges aspire to be appointed to the SCC so even the SCC will not give leave to a SRL over a member of the “Legal Club” and do not depend on the CJC either as they are also made up of judges dubbed by Donald Best as “former lawyers”.
The roadblocks are all in place to stop and elliminate the pure existent of SRL’S and the lower Appeal Courts know that you have a better chance at winning Lotto Max than getting leave at the SCC.
To clarify Derek, I personally have never been before ACJ Rooke I was responding to his quote of my case at para [77] & [78] in Unrau v. National Dental where he obviously did not know the details. In a nutshell I had two (2) actions against the same Degendants. The (“2012 action”) ABQB 502 Docket 0601-12779 was for “breach of fiducuary duty” the (“2015 action”) was for FRAUD in the same 2012 action. That was indidputably proven JA Veldhuis declared it “res judicata” and dismissed it.
I challenged it with settled case law that FRAUD is an Exception to “res judicata”. So her only recourse was “vecatious litigant” application. The SCC never even looked at my Leave to Appeal…too embarrasing for a SRL to win against a top lawyer is my conclusion.
Alex, they are not former lawyers, they ARE lawyers. Once a lawyer always a lawyer. Many judges go right back to their lawyering after their judging days are over: Judge keep your knees together, many even from SCC, Terry MaMahon and many others I am sure you know of
OK Allen, I was quoting Donald Best’s take on while they are judges they’re former lawyers for the period they are acting as judges. Of course they do not lose their legal licence.
Not their legal licence Alex. They only pretend to no longer be lawyers but they ARE and I mean while they are judges. I am sure you have come up on the brotherhood right there in court.
For the record Sandra I have 13 years legal experience through the whole gamit;
1. All court document preparations and filing
2. Dispute resolution
3. Case management
4. Full Trial
5. Summary Judgment hearing
6. Summary Trial with viva voce
7. Numerous Appeal hearings
8. Two SCC Leave to Appeal submissions
I was deemed by the Court of Appeal as “sophidticated” “well-informed” and “articulate”. In other words I knew opposing counsel, the rules of court and procedures too well. So to shut me up and dumb me down I was arbitrary declarex a “vexatious litigant”.
We’re fighting a corrupt judiciary Sandra I have no doubt in my mind of that!
In my opinion our only hope is better treatment from Pro bono, The SCC treating us with more credible eyes or intervention from The Ministers of Justice. Public media needs to get involved in a major way before something serious happens.
My experience self representing in family court is traumatizing. I am no having to appeal by myself. Lawyers I have shown the trial transcripts to gasp while reading it. One even apologized that I had to self represent with the judge I had. Now two of four respondents have laid private charges of harassment against me after they tried to get a court in a different county to order that the child was in need of protection and need a urgent special juvenile immigrant status. Now I’m having to defend myself against criminal charges while perfecting an appeal while living on a disability income. There is so much wrong with the system. My trial judge answered witnesses questions, fabricated finding in his ruling where the transcripts evidence was in my favor. He told me I had to believe a situation existed and the threw it in my face in his findings. He made inappropriate comments about my trial management judge who was wonderfully far. Anyone know any intervener’s who want to dive into my mess?
Sorry for the typos in my last reply
Well well! Maybe NSRLP should listen to us victims more and sooner. Take us seriously if only for the fact that we are right there to see such things as judges’ and lawyers’ demeanor.
Maybe NSRLP will get a better picture by doing any or all of the following studies:
1). What are the lawyers arguments in their application for VLO
2). What reasons do the judges give for issuing the VLO (in my case I sued too many
3). How often did the judges get facts correctly or is it obvious the judge wilfully twisted the facts?
4). How often is it plain that the judge is livid the SRL can make a sensible argument and worse point out the lawyer’s unbecoming behaviour: We dare not point out the judges unbecoming behaviour
5). How often does it point to/appear the VLO is used to silence the SRL about some evil going on in high society?
6). How often does it point to injudicious or other questionable conduct?
I could go on and on but NSRLP can easily figure out the others
In one of my cases the police denied the incident happened and fought me 8 years saying so. Only to sneakily file a document showing emails among themselves discussing the incident. The judge immediately dismissed my case
Let me just here state, I live in Alberta for 23 years and had I really been litigious I would have a case filed in court every week so that is 1,196 (23 x 52) cases and I do not mean any frivolous case and especially so during the Harper government years when people’s rights were trampled on by repressive laws
I think in this there is an opportunity to examine a fundamental issue I’ve never seen examined. I recognized this years ago in my battle with B.C.’s labour law regime. After the labour board dismissed three complaints from me I went to the provincial Supreme Court and won – only nominally but as much as any lawyer could have won. And the BCSC decision ordered more “due” process – back at the board.
.
Had that BCSC decision been allowed to stand the LRB would have seen in due course a marked increase in complaints brought by self-represented union members. (The record in fact shows that the numbers peaked around the time I was engaging the board.) If SRLs start to enjoy success against professional counsel in any forum, there will be more SRLs commencing actions. The legal establishment sees the prospect as opening the floodgates.
.
That was certainly the prospect at the B.C. Labour Relations Board. It is an inherent conundrum. With respect to B.C.’s labour law regime what I would have done is ensure that when those SRL complainants won there would be appropriate consequences for the responding parties. For example if someone had been fired as a direct result of bad faith conduct then those guilty of the bad faith conduct should face the possibility of the same fate. Let the punishment fit the crime. That, in theory anyway, is what the criminal justice system is supposed to do. In the civil justice system all to often the result is that the victims are re-victimized. Does the criminal justice system work? Does it discourage or encourage more crime?
I just glanced over Unrau (2019 ABQB 283) and obviously Rooke J went off on a rant again that he thinks he is entiteld to do and that we the public must tolerate. Obviously Rooke J does not have the temperament required to be a judge. We need to petition his removal from the Bench and I am ready to join that. we must act now for we have been talking for too long and no one is listening. We do not have to tolerate any of that. I should point out that in para 42 there is the warning to lawyers to not represent those the court takes issue with for “it digs a grave for two” . So obviously those folk have totally lost their right to legal representation and since they are barred from going to court. We are the rightless citizens but no one is concerned about that. “The Court” should look at its own short-comings of not being able to understand non-legal language which is the language of ordinary folk. They are the problem and we pay them to do a job they obviously are incapable of doing
Obviously Mr Unrau, has no legal training and to him his claim seems quite clear and normal. I actually understand what he is trying to say so if our judges are too removed from ordinary folk and their short-comings they are in the wrong job. They are wrongfully getting paid by us. Come on who here is willing to take lawful action to rid our justice system of bullies and thugs
It is scandalous that people seeking justice is subject to such mockery and other abuse and we are telling the world how tolerant we are as a country
Rooke J and others have been openly stating the the Rule of Law does not exist. If the SCC holds that the International Covenants are binding on the government and s. 26 of the Charter states clearly that it does not deny the rights that exist in Canada if they are not specified in the Charter, then any Judge who ridicules someone for standing on those Covenants, Bill of Rights, etc should be removed. They are defying the SCC and imposing UN law.
Regarding petitioning for Rooke A.C.J.’s removal from the bench. The suggestion itself is perfectly reasonable. You (or better yet we) can do that by sending a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council, of which Rooke A.C.J. is a member. There is in the CJC’s rules something about how the Council should deal with a complaint about the conduct of one of its members. It says that the Council must retain an outside person to review the complaint. The record will then indicate whether or not this person concurred with what the Council decides to do (no prize for guessing how that has gone to date). But you (or better yet we) won’t get that far. The complaint will almost certainly be dismissed by the Executive Director, Norman Sabourin.
.
Yesterday I sent an email to Rooke A.C.J. And I cc’d former CJC members Neil Wittmann – https://calarbs.com/the-honourable-neil-wittmann-q-c/ and Michael MacDonald – https://stewartmckelvey.com/people/macdonald-the-honourable-j-michael/, former SCC justice Thomas Cromwell, and former B.C. Court of Appeal justice Wally Oppal. That email was a bit too long to include here, but I’ll share in another comment how I concluded it.
Ha, ha! When the chickens have teeth.
Chris you alone sending that email i snot a strong enough voice to get anyone at CJC to pay attention. We need to petition the CJC IN NUMBERS. Lead Now has a petition provision and we could use that or start one among ourselves so they get the idea WE (rather than just one of us at a time) are demanding that the justice system functions as a justice system.
You are perfectly right that Sabourin will just dismiss it but there is always strength in numbers so I know even he will think twice when a number of us with experience of injudicious conduct against us act together. Are you aware for instance that we have a strong Class Action Suit though we dare not take it to court? So just think where else we should be taking it TOGETHER. We also have a forum where we can stop some of them in their tracks when they try to get to higher office and we MUST USE IT! We can MAKE THEM TAKE US SERIOUSLY! That will only happen if we act together SENSIBLY. I say sensibly because I have seen foolishness happen already. We have to be disciplined and most of all NEVER FOOLISH
So I suggest if Sabourin tries his old tricks with your email complaint (was it a complaint) let us go after Sabourin in numbers and teach him a lesson SENSIBLY. We can do it together
How I concluded my email sent yesterday to Rooke A.C.J.:
.
If I had ever doubted the wisdom of being so persistent it was dispelled by what I uncovered after I engaged the Canadian Judicial Council: that the Council, in making certain changes to its by-laws effective in 2003, had chosen deliberately to contravene the Judges Act by giving the Executive Director a new role as an autonomous and unchallengeable gatekeeper. In 2015 the wording was changed but the effect is exactly the same. How are you, the Council members, planning on dealing with this problem? I don’t think you have a plan to deal with it. Your plan, if it can be called that, is to stay on the same course you’ve always been on. And to keep building the walls higher and higher, on a foundation that appears already to be crumbling.
Justice Rooke is clearly obsessed with eradicating the Self-Represented Litigant from Alberta Courts. He lacks the intellectual curiosity to the damage he is doing to the lives of SRL’S and neither does he care.
The unfortunate effect of his tyrannical obsession against SRL’S is that he is the “puppet master” over other Alberta judges who are being indoctrinated to a truth that justice Rooke lives by.
Thank goodness he cannot control the “court of public opinion” who also have a truth that they live by.
It is unfortunate justice Rooke has made all the good work achieved in Pintea worthless in Alberta Courts…very sad.
In the game of chess, a rook does a lot of damage and so did Justice Rooke. I don’t trust any judge to bend over backwards to assist SRLs
I appreciate your knowledge of the wonderful game but a KNIGHT jumps over a rook! The Queen is the strongest piece on the board. Let us all be KNIGHTS!
[77] Similarly, Veldhuis JA in Clark v Pezzente, 2017 ABCA 403 (CanLII) at para 11, leave refused 2018 ABCA 76 (CanLII), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38161 (24 January 2019) [Clark #1] concluded:
There is no doubt that Mr Clark sincerely believes he has been wronged by the respondents. But the sincerity of his belief does not entitle him to pursue redress through the courts indefinitely – at considerable expense to the respondents – when his claims have already been considered and dismissed in accordance with the law.
This is so wrong! it was dismissed by “their law” but not the RULE OF LAW. FRAUD was proven against the Respondents and couldn’t be disproven so Veldhuis JA invoked “vexatious litigant” to avoid dealing with the truth. The panel in ABCA 76 was not going to rule against her for a “self-represented litigant”. They knew my chances at the SCC were zero and left me no recourse. Corruption will continue AT THE LOWER COURTS until the SCC starts giving credibility to SRL’S!
Alex that same wording/phrasing is in my VLO. It seems to be boiler plate. LOL. Mine also says “the only saving grace is that she is not malicious (something to that effect). Well that must be the only “saving grace” that failed to save what it was supposed to save. It also failed to save the judge writing it from declaring himself certified ignorant and incompetent. Imagine in a court room a saving grace that saves nothing, not even himself. Help me laugh. Every time stupid lawyers try to use that VLO against me, although dying on the inside, I’d say, please read para 45 for us? They are always foolish to read it aloud and then look really stupid. The judge also said in mine, “she is a terrorist” so under attack I’d ask so what’s the question please? They’d ask, did the judge say that? Then I always retort, “sounds about right. and we are to believe that right-minded persons are here seeking to fight with a terrorist. My face is always straight and their contorted in defeat. Yet I would be dying on the inside because it is demeaning, humiliating and actually slanderous.
We need to act fast because so many of those abusive judges in Alberta now have asterisks beside their names. That means they are retiring and an appointment is imminent to replace. Let us make sure evil does not take those seats on our Bench (Yep it is our Bench-they just think its theirs). Let us arrange to meet
here are some interesting questions regarding the way the courts deal with the issue of fraud raised by a srl. why are they asking us to explain why someone would do that?? i am not a psychic,, i am only making a factual statement and requesting my rights to examine the evidence,, Why is the court so invested in attacking anyone who suggests fraud in the evidence?? Unless you have full knowledge of it and are attempting to hide it,,, attacking the person making the statement is odd to say the least. Why is there such hostility to the idea of full disclosure being a requirement before decisions from the court in summary judgement?? it is simply common sense that without full disclosure,, you cannot make a judgement with full reliability on the merits of any case, I believe what we are seeing from the court is suspicious behavior, What is the problem with following full disclosure rules??? And finally,, when there is sharp practice involved in a case in order to win,, why would the courts allow this?? Isn’t sharp practice forbidden??? If so,,turning a blind eye to it means you are now condoning it, So is perjury,,, why is this not being penalized sharply??? I am asking because i cannot fathom why our courts are so angry with the self represented,, when we are doing our best to ask for and use the procedures as we read them,, When we are doing that,, and are met with dishonesty and anger,, for what is being stated as our rights,, it is not just confusing,, it suggests an ulterior motive to the discourse we receive from the courts, When it comes back as a personal attack,, it simply cannot be logically explained,
Sandra they don’t consider it “professional”. They actually consider that vexatious. We are only allowed to say they were ” incorrect” (instead of lie), misapprehend for (confused and stupid). We may escape with “untruthful” but it depends on the judge. We can also say, “that is not so” (instead of lie or even false). You may get away with false but again that depends on the judge
May the good Lord help you if you do not know certain legal terms for if you say it in plain language the judge has no clue what you mean and may punish you for being “unreasonable” or making no sense”. it has to be at page number this or that of Law Book A,B or C. Once I asked for an order and the judge wanted to help me but was not sure what I was asking for. So she asked opposing counsel and he told her, “she is asking for injunctive relief my lord”. I got the order but I was offended and thought she ought to have asked me. Later on I complained that was risky because he could have told her a false story but the lawyer close by explained that when she asked him she covered the bases because that proved he understood what I was asking for
Or when SRLs force them to have no other choice than to recognise our credibility. We can lawfully do that but we have to act with good sense. We cannot be silly, jumpy or run around like chickens without heads. For us we have to use the strength we have in numbers for they will ignore us singularly
I am in Manitoba which only until 2018 was one of two remaining provinces where Appeal Court hearing transcripts were not available to anyone except the panel of 3 or 5 appellate judges.
The result of the former lack of openness/transparency led to appeal judges acting and saying whatever they wanted inside the court and the aggrieved party couldn’t do a thing about it.
In the past whenever I appeared before the Court of Appeal, even though I had indicated I needed one to 1.25 hours for my oral presentation, the first thing the chairperson said to me was “Mr. SRL, all three of us have gone over your materials including your Factum. We want to ask you a few questions.”
I would respond with “My lord, I have my speech ready to be read” to which their reply was “We just want to ask you some questions.” End Result: I had to answer their questions pertaining to my arguments contained in my Factum and afterwards I got quite flustered and distracted in that I never got to read my speech thinking to myself “they already reached their decision before this hearing and most likely have a draft decision created and with a few tweaks, one of them will read it in court today.”. Bingo!
Now, I can obtain a transcript of the appeal hearing and if the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear my case, I could use the transcript in my complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council although they deal with complaints against a judge’s conduct, they will not deal with the merits of a case. Will they deal with appellate judges who collectively ignore Federal Statutes and case law?
Of course, once an SRL filed a complaint against a judge, that poor SRL will be blackballed forever in that however meritorious his new cause of action may be, he/she will lose for sure.
I may be totally wrong with this comment; so please don’t take it personally. I realize it is never good to assume things. However, one of the biggest misunderstandings about the Court Of Appeal both from SRLs and parties who are represented is that the Court Of Appeal is another kick at the can (so to speak). The Court Of Appeal and appeals are for instances where a party feels the judge made an error in law! It’s not a place to bring new evidence that was not put before the Court! So it’s not a forum to re-argue the issues at hand but a forum to present where the party feels the judge erred in law! If you go to CanLii into Court Of Appeal decisions it will make more sense! Again, if I am wrong and your Factum was indeed as it should be and not another “kick at the can” I apologize! If the judges did as you said and your Factum was an argument of law; shame on them!
I do not know about your province, but in Manitoba, it’s quite appalling that knowledgeable plaintiffs including SRLs know more about statutes and case law than their own lawyers and judges. In my province, we have civil judges whose forte is insurance law assigned to criminal cases and a former PC Federal Conservative MP acting as a civil judge who is clueless in bankruptcy matters. In fact, he readily admitted in court that he only “cursorily” read my file the night before my hearing!
I had two ex-lawyers of mine totally unaware of the statute of limitations pertaining to a cause of action discovered outside the normal limitation period. She was clueless about never hearing the word “tolled” used in the legal profession. I spoke to a so called expert on bankruptcy and insolvency law and he incorrectly advised me to make sure my trustee list my personal injury lawsuit as an asset that would vest with my trustee.
It’s the same story in Alberta (maybe worse) the Judges are literally rewriting legislational statutes and the Charyer and getting away with it because the CJC is such a farce. They also know we have snowballs chance in hell at getting leave at the Supreme Court of Canada where the gatekeepers stop SRL’S in their tracks. It’s deplorable and will continue because they enjoy the power in this one-sided fight. I can understand why you do not reveal your identity because you are absolutely correct they do black ball and target “Persistent” SRL’S by declaring them “OPCA’S” or “VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS” to cover up the judicial misconduct of their “CONFIRMATION BIAS”.
If we are to believe the veracity and the sincerity of what the CJC purports to be, and what they ought to be!
They must change the make up of their organization just as Chief Justice announced in the National Post in March of this year. Will it be, or not to be that is the question?
To quote Shakespeare.
I read that only around 16% of applications for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada are accepted each year and that a majority of criminal cases are accepted among that 16%. (The so called justice system considers someone who could spend 5 to 25 years in prison more important than an appellant whose doctor(s) screwed up medically and whose Appeal Court ruled in the doctors’ favour.) Courts of Appeal throughout Canada know this so essentially the “justice” buck stops there and not at the SCC yet every lower court judge would sarcastically throw that at our faces.
I propose that since some 63% of civil litigants are SRLs and the percentage is increasing every year so why aren’t SRL cases being accepted by the SCC in that same proportion? Blatant discrimination, I would say! Did you all know that most provinces’ Human Rights Code has a category of discrimination if you being to a certain class of people, e.g. bankrupts, self-represented litigants?
Last year, I filed a Human Rights Commission complaint against the Manitoba Justice Department because our province is the only province that requires an SRL to pay 100% of the cost of trial transcripts BEFORE the SRL can file a Notice of Appeal. I couldn’t afford $6,320 so I was denied my constitutional right to file a Notice of Appeal. Get this… Regular clients represented by lawyers have lawyers who set up a Transcript Credit Account whereby the lawyers would deposit say $10,000 into that account and replenish it any time they wish. When lawyers want to order trial transcripts, the Manager of the Transcription Department would simply debit that account for say $6,320 so they can immediately file their Notice of Appeal.
We SRL’S are indeed victims of “CONFIRMATION BIAS” I ask you to GOOGLE that term as it sums up how SRL’S have been getting treated at all levels of the Courts including the SCC.
It is shameful and discriminatory at the highest level where the Courts indisputably believe we have no rights. Drspite the lip service from the most powerful. Only 1 in over 5000 given leave at the SCC in the past 5 years is verification of this.
And yes, your 63% number is plausible, judges do not acknowledge the fact that we cannot afford a lawyer it is a travesty of the judiciary.
Ironically, I saw that an author in the U.S. just released a book this week called “CONFIRMATION BIAS” related to the U.S. SUPREME COURT inductee of Brett Kavanaugh so it is everywhere. Power does indeed tend to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely to paraphrase philosopher Lord Acton in the 1800’s. I know he wasn’t a lawyer but his wisdom was spot on!
These lawyers charge ridiculously high rates for their legal advice. Many of us who cannot afford their fees are forced into debt in order to get their legal advice. Yet, they provide incorrect advice to us and complicate our situations. Although we see it as a problem, we cannot dare to say that because no one would believe us. They would rather consider/treat us as crazy people. In order to answer the court’s question “Did you get legal advice?”, we have to seek legal advice from a lawyer. However, we do not need to pay $300 to get such advice. $26/month should be enough for a family for this purpose. You can get legal advice on any topic, any number of times, from a law firm without retaining the lawyer or the law firm if that advice can be provided without a retainer.
On general legal information materials, it is, usually, mentioned that this information cannot replace the legal research and advice of a lawyer. However, for those who seek legal advice from lawyers, I would say your lawyer’s legal advice cannot replace your own diligence, legal research and analysis. You have to take your own responsibility. Keeping this in mind, I suggest anyone who wants to get legal advice on any topic involving one of his/her family members legal issue (any number of times from a law firm without retaining a lawyer) for $26 a month, to get a personal legal plan at this site https://srlsupportgroup.wearelegalshield.com/
With us SRLs, there’s a fine line between asserting our rights and offending the judge.
Why shouldn’t we insist on being heard fully in court and not be rushed by the judge (through his stares and sighs)? We are entitled to argue at our Appeal Court hearing and not accept the court saying they all read our written brief. Oral argument with a new perspective and additional case law is just as important as our brief that was written months ago. Regular lawyers argue orally so why can’t we?
If the judge appears to bully us, we can call him on it saying “My lord, with due respect, I insist that case law such and such be entered into the record as being paramount to my case”.
I should note that the para [77] was quoted from Justice Rooke’s Unrau v National Dental ABQB 283
In reply to Alex Clark . I also had a terrible experience every time I had to deal with ACJ Rooke . Look at this site where the other Lawyer states Justice Nielsen & ACJ Rooke set up this vexatious litigant declaration against me . http://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/vexatious-litigant-scam/
Then I had to take it to the supreme court of Canada on breaches on my Charter of rights & discrimination violations only to be dismissed by top judges protecting these other judges that abused me !! http://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/supreme-court-of-canada/
Thank you for continuing to “ring the warning bells” to warn every Canadian that our justice system, in its present state, is not functioning effectively or efficiently. It is deeply unsettling and disturbing to read about these strong arm tactics against the public in some courts. I am wondering if this information is reaching the governing bodies of these courts (and justices)? If it is, then they need to MAKE the time to carefully contemplate the implications of ignoring these reports. I hope someone wise and courageous from these governing bodies will reach out to your team to help work on solutions.
interesting program on TV this morning about a lab named Theranos, They claimed to do all kinds of blood work,, they didn’t have the equipment for,, And their reliability was horrendous, They were investigated here and there,, but always managed to hide what was happening,, One or two whistleblowers stepped forward,, at great personal risk. slimy lawyers attempted to silence them, Threatened them,, End of the day,, years later,, company is dismantled,, CEO, Elizabeth Holmes is charged with many crimes,, along with her partner Sunny, Still insisting they are innocent,, No one in this side of shady ever wants to take responsibility, Apparently one trick used is to get involved with as many highly connected people as you can,, If they own stock,, they will protect your ass, This brings me to the courts, Why would they allow dna testing into our courts as indisputable evidence without any regulatory body or approval, They are now personally responsible for the applications of dna and the problems their false reports will produce, false imprisonment,, identity theft,, immigration applications, No wonder they don’t want to hear what i am saying, The courts are now as guilty as the labs, Unfortunately,, it is a fact of life,, shit rises to the top, And this one is floating for all to see, No hiding the truth, It just depends on how many want to try to tell you the smell doesn’t count,
Wow what a great topic . Thank You so much to all involved with the NSRLP & all others sharing their pain & abuses with us all to prove how bad the judges in Alberta & Canada really are . This is a unaccountable judge problem not an SRL problem.
When the lawyers are funded by the Insurance companies like Great America Insurance – there is no chance to get anywhere. When the former lawyer who is now a Justice use to receive payment from the same source, we should ask about impartiality first.
Almost all of these court restrictions are punishement of insurance companies to reduce their cost.
This is beyond corrupted system and power game. As I am outside now these Jurisdictions, I am more free to speak out.
To the NSRLP. How many SRLs appeal their vexatious litigant declaration made agaisnt them ? Do they get more abuse at the appeal level also Like I did? http://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/tricks-scams-they-use-at-the-appeal-level/
How many where appealed to the SCC? Where they all dismissed like all 4 of my were ?
http://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/supreme-court-of-canada/
will the NSRLP do stats on these areas of the courts also?
Derek (and other declared vexatious litigants here), have you completed the survey ? NSRLP has a survey out for us to complete. We all need to do it. Please do it today
Can you provide the link to the survey again? Thanks.
Hi Grace the survey can be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LQGVD68
Thank you…looks like I’ve already completed that one.
Yes the first day it came out . Thanks though.
Yes I did the survey the first day it came out .
Here in Québec that is the same thing and I think one reason for that is because they are not accountable for their discrimination aganst SLRs.
If info is good in US the people vote for choising them and not the Crown meaning the Federal Government and that make a big difference. In Canada, the juges feel they are not accountable to the people only to the Federal government. In that case we have to use the 2019 to make pression for changing the Federal law of juges to include the obligation to include SLRs strong rights in it.
Yes,, how do we make judges accountable?? They truly operate with no consequence, And we pay for that. How do we change the legislation set up to make the judicial system so separated from the law,, that they do not even have to follow the legal rules that exist,
BTW let it be noted that JA Veldhuis Alberta Court of Appeal quoted by ACJ Rooke in Unrau v National Dental ABQB 283 at para [77] is one of the majority judges that was overturned in Pintea v. Johns 37109.
Not a good record for JA Veldhuis to the act of inflicting punishment on SRL’S who are very vulnerable. FYI, Mr Pintea was assessed an $80,000.00 penalty for a procedural issue that was vacated by The SCC. and given a retrial.
I doubt he would have had the same success if not for lawyers Colin Feasby and the interveners arranged by this NSRLP group through Bennet Jones by Julie who deserves a big shout out for precedent setting on the “Statement of Principles” (Which Alberta justices ignores). But it is still a point of reference when being abused by Alberta judges like in my case. When I asked JA Veldhuis for a little help she retorted that I wasn’t entitled because I was “sophisticated” “well-informed” and “articulate”. Which to any right minded reasonable person would see that she did not want to disturb the rubric of declaring me a “vexatious litigant”. In other words a “cop out” in street language!
Every SRL should ask their lawyer about Section 15.2(5) Spousal misconduct of the Divorce Act (Federal law) under the heading Spousal Support Orders. Similar sections can be found in provincial legislation for family law legislation. The biggest problem I see is people are in “fight mode” getting their lawyers to prepare lengthy Affidavits bashing their spouse, wasting court time and valuable family funds. Shouldn’t your lawyer tell you that it won’t get you the order you want? Shouldn’t they tell you the Courts make decisions using sections of legislation (law)? Ask your lawyer what section can get you what you want. If you’re in fight mode; confirm what your limitation period is (time to start an action) do this through a lawyer! Then get yourself some counselling! Otherwise you are wasting your $ and causing great stress for yourself and your children! Abuse cannot be defined as abuse by you alone! Experts have to be used, reports prepared and then arguments had! If there is abuse, seek help through professionals first then go to court. You can search “what is abuse” on court resources! Educate yourself on the court system even if using a lawyer! You will better be able to instruct yourself! John Paul Boyd wrote a great book for British Columbia residents! You can read cases on CanLii and search for cases in your province using key words that relate to your family issues! These are court decisions and you will see what the court needs to make decisions and what sections of legislation (law) are used! Do counselling first, education second then you will be able to represent yourself properly if you don’t have the $ to retain a lawyer which is the case for many! Find a lawyer that offers unbundled legal services and confirm you’re on the right track!
I don’t know the rule number in other provinces, but in Ontario there is the Rule 57.07 (motion) that permits a Judge to hold a lawyer personally responsible for costs that were incurred by their client unnecessarily, etc. Two cases stand out as very helpful: Giglio v. Peters, (2009) 265 O.A.C. where the Court of Appeal also states that there is no limitation period to worry about. In Giglio, it took about 8 years or so for them to bring the motion.
The other case is Galganov v. Russell (Township), (2012) in which there is a long analysis of the Rule 57.07 factors and worthwhile reading.
I think that where the LawSociety will not compensate and the Courts will let LawPro drag out clear-cut cases forever, it might be a good avenue to recovering unjust fees and costs award against a client because of a dishonest and unscrupulous lawyer’s actions.
Well said, Connie Johnson! “The biggest problem I see is people are in “fight mode” getting their lawyers to prepare lengthy Affidavits bashing their spouse, wasting court time and valuable family funds. Shouldn’t your lawyer tell you that it won’t get you the order you want? Shouldn’t they tell you the Courts make decisions using sections of legislation (law)?”
Clients are not educated or trained on law, but the lawyers are said to have received extensive legal and ethical training. However, the lawyers exploit the lack of legal education of clients to their advantage. Instead of providing competent advice to their clients, they fuel the hostility between the spouses. It may help the lawyers prolong the case/their work and make more money. To complicate further, in my observation, many judges allow the hostility between the spouses to grow by keeping silence.
I would alert the public to not presume that all lawyers are adequately competent and acting only on their clients’ best interest without having any financial interests in their minds. I would also alert the public to not presume that lawyers are properly regulated by their regulators. Public members who choose to go to a Tribunal or Court should do their own homework and, when they receive legal advice from lawyers, should be able to ask legal reference/basis from the lawyers for their advice. It would be even better, if basic legal education is included in the school syllabus.
Quote: I would alert the public to not presume that all lawyers are adequately competent and acting only on their clients’ best interest without having any financial interests in their minds.
In all my lifetime dealings with lawyers (real estate, civil), I have yet to encounter a competent, all for his/her client lawyer.
Yes, education is key for SRLs! There are so many resources available; and there must be to keep the scales of justice balanced! Having said that, how do you find them when you don’t know what you’re looking for, you’re in fight mode and you need some mental health care (counselling)?
Lawyers did not keep their client in “fight mode” years ago! Family law started with 1 party’s Lawyer writing a letter setting out what was agreed to/what wasn’t and then a proposal to resolve was set out in the letter and a suggestion for a draft settlement agreement was set out in the letter; which would then be cut/pasted into the agreement! The lawyers would advise their clients if their wants were unreasonable (using sections of legislation)! If they still wanted to fight by going to an application or trial the lawyer would advise the client what their chances of success were and what the approx. cost would be! Usually the cost would motivate settling unless the client was unreasonable and had $ to burn! I typed many of these types of letters in the mid 80s! I’m not sure what happened, but big law firms with partnerships m, fancy offices and luxurious lifestyles are suspects of change in my mind!
Well I kind of thought that Lawyers would figure out a way to get us SRL’s out of their trough.
I don’t mean to be picky but a person making 53,000 /yr. does not take home 4,500 /mon. probably a more reasonable way to see what an average person has to spend on a Lawyer is 450 dollars per month. So yes, ten hours of a lawyer’s time takes ten months of saving. Just saying.
Cheers,
Dave
This will be my fourth comment here. Two days ago I also submitted a comment to the copy of this column on Slaw. It is evidently still being reviewed by Slaw’s moderator, who has refused on occasion to allow my comments to appear.
.
My view is that it’s not likely that we are going to make much progress until the most fundamental issues are acknowledged. We have a legal system that – according to the author of The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession (published in 2008) – has been evolving since roughly 1200 A.D. But I use that term “evolve” advisedly. While It has certainly grown, in size and complexity, it seems to have failed to adapt to society’s real and evolving needs.
.
I think the legal profession has responded to growing pressure with rhetoric – claims that can be easily refuted. A key one is the claim of “independence”. We are supposed to believe that when we put ourselves in the hands of an adjudicator that person presides and deliberates independently – that is, without any bias in favour of any party.
One can easily find now a huge amount of rhetoric about the purported independence of both judges and lawyers. I have just found The Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers – https://www.icj.org/themes/centre-for-the-independence-of-judges-and-lawyers/ – which is an initiative of the International Commission of Jurists. I had returned to the ICJ website yesterday because I found in my email archives, dating from 2014 and 2015, two emails I’d sent to someone there and one reply – to the first one, that I had addressed to Sir Nigel Rodley. I received no reply to my second email. The ICJ had come to my attention in 2014 when it was persuaded to add its voice to the criticism of then PM Stephen Harper in the dispute that arose over the attempt to have Justice Marc Nadon appointed to the SCC. The ICJ is going to be hearing from me again.
Here’s one for the books, my wife and I were at The Calgary Courts Center today to file a writ of enforcement on her “consructive dismissal” “order of judgment” we won against my wife’s former employer.
Outside the Court building there was a middle aged woman sitting on a lawn chair with a white board marked “Hunger Strike against Alberta Courts and Judges”. This caught my interest as the poor woman looked shattered, I asked her why she was doing this and in a word she said “corrupt judges” and asked me to sign a petition so both my wife and I obliged and signed the petition.
We were in the Court building for approximately 1/2 hour. When we came out the “hunger strike” woman was gone but her white board and easle was still there with a small sign “back in 15 minutes”. I doubt she’ll be there tomorrow I only hope she wasn’t on a lunch break during her hunger strike. Funny, if it wasn’t so sad!
Poor soul really didn’t know what or why she was pissed at the Courts and lawyers, she only knew that she was!
Sad, sad state of affairs in Alberta Courts, even for the legally savvy SRL’S let alone this poor woman and there are many just like her. “Confirmation Bias” is a standard practice in Alberta Courts and something has to give!
Well let me say it again. We need to get going. We need a disciplined group of us to take up the mantle and deal with this problem
If you are in Ontario, contact me asap: gracejodance at gmail dot com.
i will do what i can,,, don’t know what you have in mind, but i am in,
Sandra we should at this point try to make a group at the provincial level. A group can be just 3 SRLs (SRLs convicted about the need for change aimed at giving us a voice as a group so we can demand certain protections/rights). we need SRLs who are convinced we must be heard and not easily be brushed off when we try to raise our voice as individuals).
So Sandra, if you can, try to get together a group for your province. I am doing likewise in Ontario.
Ok Allen, i am game,, i have no idea who else is from BC,, I am here, And if anyone else is out here and wants to form this group,,just email me, or post on line at this site,
Hello. Count me in for Manitoba!
Good Sandra. Is there anyone willing to co-ordinate Alberta? To overcome distance and being scattered a far from one another, you can start by using email. Also there is Skype among others. In short order there should be a dedicated email so soon there will be a common link point
Allen, my name is Peter, please send me your contact information because I can get 3 or more to join your group. I was at convocation last week and was disgusted at the thought process of some of the benchers. You would think that there was nothing more important to discuss about our broken legal system than what the StopSop wanted. The profession is self-serving and out-of-touch and will ignore the public interest and focus on their own interests, which is used as a distraction from what is most important and urgent to most people. This applies throughout the legal system from lawyers to judges. I have no idea how many officials from the legal system I have written to from the higher-ups down, at least 30, and invariably I never got a response and if I did, it was insignificant. The reason being that those at the top talk a good game, telling us all what a good job they are doing, when in reality they do not want to make change.
It is also strange that the LSO, the OJC and the CJC will almost always protect their own instead of the public and as long as these organizations are self controlled, things will never change. Just look at the LSO as an example, how do lawyers deal with complaints against their fellow member lawyers and then have LawPro to back them up? This becomes a biased, unjust and unfair system, complaints against judges, lawyers, etc. should be handled by a separate and completely independent body if we want change and A2J.
For one of my comments to the post “Access to Justice Demands Basic Customer Service from the Legal System”, DT replied “Perhaps it is time for a website? http://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/”
I visited that website. That website may be a good start for us. If the owner of that website agrees, we can work collaboratively with him/her. Of course, as of now, the website does not look very professional and does not seem to include features for online communication or collaboration. However, we can improve that if that person agrees. Anyway, I have asked a friend of mine who does IT work to review the website and to let me know how that website could be further improved.
To Koba .it looks like it would be better for you to start A new site that way you can start it off so it looks professional & you can control every thing you want on it
Koba, I do not think we should put our activities on a web site (especially a website that is not administered by the group). It allows “infiltration” and it makes what we are doing too public when it should not be that public: We ought to control what and how much we want to make public. Also we should be independent of any other action. What we are taking on is serious and we can’t put ourselves in a losing position or one that can be beaten down easily. Those judges love to shut down websites that show them up. Here is my suggestion for start-up. The province with the biggest and worst problem is Alberta so we need a group to start in Alberta and meet face to face, We should have one in Ontario and one in BC (BC Justice seems to be taking steps to get its act together) AND then we join all the groups. There are ways to get our action going and we need to get going. I am ready!
Are you located in Ontario Allen?
I can be Grace and I can be available for meet – up. We need to get going. When and where? ( Not Saturday or Friday night)
LOL. This website is funny. Comment can be too long and guess what? Too short too
This is a great idea Allen, i am on board, i however have serious doubts about the process of access to justice in BC I live here,, and have seen nothing to suggest that, Also,, no acknowledgement or invitation to discuss the previous victims of their attacks has been suggested. Nothing so far,
I hear you loudly and clearly Sandra. I think they just see the writing on the wall and want to pretend that they are dealing with the problem. It sounds pretty much like Legal Aid: It aids nothing legal. Lets get going. Check my posts to Koba and Grace and we can get going
Allen, I accept your suggestion to create a group for each province and a national group. However, the problem is with having face to face meetings on a regular basis. We all live in different places many 100km apart. It is not practicable for us to have face to face meeting on a regular basis. That is the main reason we are looking for online communication. As you suggested, the website can be administered by the group. It is also possible to make members only sites and public sites.
D, I want to work with the group. If I do something on my own without the input of other SRLs, it would sound like one person’s voice. I am afraid it may also make it difficult for me to get the support of SRLs at critical times.
When you fight individually, you are vulnerable to attack and oppression. Therefore, it is necessary that affected people fight united.
Thanks Koba. Great points. Yours is the thinking that will get us to a good place. However, I must say, we can actually have face to face meetings despite our distance. This is the age of technology. I don’t want us doing too much on anyone’s website (this one included) less we over step our bounds. So are you in Ontario? I have a feeling I will be meeting with others soon. I should also point out that being in the group does not mean you cannot continue doing your personal action. We have our individual journey. It is just that we will have to keep group stuff separate. We just have to act with good sense lest we help them make us a joke that they do not have to take seriously. Our aim is to make them take us seriously.
Yes Allen, I am in Ontario. My city is Guelph. You stated you would be meeting with others soon. Please let me know how the meeting went. You can reach me at koba19k@hotmail dot com.
I understand that people living far apart from each other can have skype meeting. My only concern is that finding a convenient time for all the people living in different time zones may pose a little challenge.
Skype tracks and records your meetings without your consent. We use Zoom…excellent technology with no tracking or recording of our meetings.
Some people praise about the Common Law system over Civil Law system. However, I am not a fan of Common Law system. In my view, Common Law system provides too much power to Judges and allows them to create their own law for their own convenience and defence. The principles of “inherent Jurisdiction” in regulating access to the courts by SRLs mentioned in the blog and the strong presumption of impartiality that cannot be displaced without serious grounds (while the proper test only requires the determination whether a reasonable person fully apprised of the situation would think that the judge would not decide the case fairly) are few examples for that.
I prefer Civil Law system because it requires the judges to strictly adhere to the law passed by legislature, and it decreases the need for assistance by lawyers. We also need not to be worried about bad decisions creating bad precedents. If new laws are required, elected representatives, and not a single judge, will pass such laws.
The Civil Law system also allows for the development of law. In a Common Law system, one judge may help develop the law by one step up but another judge may repress it by two steps down. This is the reason why our Human Rights law is not developing as fast as possible. The Tribunals and the Courts are struggling over three decades to settle that intention is not a required element in Human Rights law.
However, in the Civil Law system, the legislature or its delegate such as a Commission chooses only the good cases and decisions to codify or develop approved policies. The wisdom of applying the law to various circumstances is also carefully considered and preserved; the public is also protected from bad precedents.
Legislation is The Law! Judges must make decisions in accordance with “The Law”.
Legislation are enactments of parliament and the provincial legislature. Legislation trumps case law (common law). If a lower court judge uses case law over legislation that is grounds for appeal. They do it by applying a “reasonable apprehension of confirmation bias” against SRL’S, and get away with it until you challenge it under appeal. “Inherent jurisdiction” falls under the Rules of Court (Alberta) 10.55 and they will use that to leverage your case into oblivion.
You are correct that Judges will try and “make the law” to satisfy their “confirmation bias”. All Judges purpose is to interpret “The Law” not make it! Therein lays the problem, we must Appeal if that happens, even though their brethren at the Appeal Court are reluctant to overrule when dealing with a SRL. It is still on the record, make contemporaneous notes as a SRL will be denied transcripts. BTW I agree with you on the Civil Code system as the facts of the case by case is more complete and thorough. Quebec have the Civil Code and more cases from Quebec appear to be given leave at the SCC.
These are just my observations from what I have experienced, so I stand corrected for any misconstruance.
What do you do if both the lower court (Court of Queen’s Bench) and the Court of Appeal both disregarded a Federal Act and arbitrarily decided a case against an SRL and the Supreme Court of Canada won’t consider your application for appeal?!
You would have reached the end of your protracted litigation and the Appeal of Court’s affirmation of the lower decision could be used as a precedent by a represented defendant against another SRL!
A very good question, I had that happened to me. If you have factual documentary evidence and transcripts etc. The CJC is the next step to demand a wide scale investigation into a complicit conspiracy within in our judiciary. Send copies to all media as this is your only hope (but only if you have concrete proof). It’s an uphill battle but either fight or give up. If you decide to fight it is an imperative that you must do your homework.
The system is completely broken where it shows a history of judges finishing sentences for each other and repeating and echoing reasons in their judgments. This is prevalent when SRL’S are involved, if we do not fight this wrongdoing in the judiciary then our justice system is and will continue to be that of the same level as a “banana republic”.
We have all been dubbed OPCA’S and/or “vexatious litigants” because of the many SRL’S that go to court unprepared. The other obstacles we have to overcome is the fact that judges “Hate you if your clever and despise a fool, till you’re so crazy you can’t follow their rule” to borrow a line from John Lennon’s “Working Class Hero”. You are factually correct that not only lawyers will cite your failed case as precedent and judges will too. As Justice Rooke quoted my case.
Yes, the system is completely broken. It is incapable of identifying its own flaws and rectifying those flaws. That is why it is not worth fighting within this unworkable system. By doing this, we only lose our significant and valuable life time and expose ourselves to injustice, oppression and high cost orders.
If it is possible to establish breach of an article of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we can take the issue to the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee under the first optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, some people believe it would allow the United Nations to occupy Canada, and we should not do that.
Our system needs radical change. Unless the public come forward to demand that radical change, we cannot achieve it.
Ai have learned the Injustices of the Justices of Quebec Injustice System as a self-represented.
The Quebec Justices no longer stand on integrity of Administration of Justice or evidentiary exhibits but who can pull the wool over their eyes in false credibility tests. Example. A Judge showed his bias and prejudice and double standards by the meaning of “Without Prejudice”. If I a self-represented uses this term in an email to an Estate Liquidator, it means I am Harrassing her. If a Legal Professional uses “Without Prejudice” in a letter to me having an Ultimatum/ Threat, it is is not “Harrassment” towards me. I agree with the article as I have experienced first hand Judges protecting other Judges lying in court tra scripts. Please contact me as I wish to expose the Injustices of Justices in the Quebec system. Thank you.