Source - Ontario Medical Association v. Ontario (Information, 2018 ONCA 673 (CanLII) Excerpt follows, with emphasis added [1]         A reporter for the Toronto Star requested access to information from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (the “Ministry”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (the “Act”). She sought access... Continue Reading →

Advertisements

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal – Housing

Citation: G.(R.) v Nova Scotia (Department of Community Services), 2018 NSCA 69 (CanLII) Excerpt follows // Emphasis added   Link to full decision on CanLII http://canlii.ca/t/ht66k [36]         Apart from the discretion found in s. 46, G.(R.) qualified for total assistance of $810 per month to cover her basic needs, including shelter. However, she was unable to... Continue Reading →

4 Replies for 4 Responses?

via 4 Replies for 4 Responses? Having some challenges replying to the, no longer jointly and severally liable groups of respondents. I don’t see anything in the Rules that would prevent 4 replies, which seems only fair but I  must inquire since fairness doesn’t really seem to have the same meaning to our judiciary as it does to a... Continue Reading →

Supreme Court of Canada – Memorandum of Argument

Kueber v. Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre

APPLICANT’S MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
PART I – OVERVIEW
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
1. The applicant, Ms. Kueber, is self-represented, the plaintiff and appellant in the
courts below where she faced 4 law firms in a complex medical negligence, with
evidence of lack of consent and fraud.
2. Ms. Kueber did put forth a coherent case in the courts below. There was a large
amount of evidence, and multiple facta, and briefs, were filed. There were also oral
submissions, yet, the Self-represented Applicant submits, she was not heard, her evidence, and arguments were given no consideration, in either courts.
3. In the Superior Court of Justice, H.K. O’Connell declared Ms. Kueber’s evidence,
the evidence of the responding and moving Plaintiff, was moot, almost year after the 5th
day of summary judgment finding the Defendants, all met their burdens as moving parties on their respective summary motions, and, the partial cross-motion…

View original post 166 more words

Cannabis kills Cancer Stem-cells

Cannabis REALLY CAN cure cancer.... Listen to this Cancer Scientist The Future of Cannabis Medicine - A Cancer Scientist's Position  Cancer biologist Michael Masterman-Smith, PhD, speaks at the LAAHU (Los Angeles Association of Health Underwriters) annual conference. Key takeaway: cannabis, like any effective medicine to treat various medical conditions, such as cancer, epilepsy, and pain,... Continue Reading →

Cannabis compared to Alcohol

“Why are marijuana and alcohol treated differently from other drugs? They each have effects that can be used for medicinal purposes, as well as undesirable side effects, so why are they not produced and regulated the same as the other medicines?” Cannabis and alcohol are absolutely not similar in use and benefit. Here are the... Continue Reading →

The Case – Very Briefly

Kueber v. Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre

I was injured and left severely disabled by the actions of some of the defendants, caused by their malpractice or negligence, lack of consent, and fraud.

There were 14 defendants who advanced 4 motions in Superior Court for full or partial summary judgment.  I’ve been trying to release some of the defendants, since 2014.

The groups of defendants are jointly and severally liable, with cross-claims.  I advanced a cross-motion but did not appeal that decision.  Fresh Statement of Claim

In Superior Court, long after commencement of my appeal, the defendants were awarded costs, $165,000 $135,000 and there was no Sanderson or Bullock order  Endorsement and cost submissions 

My Appeal was on 3 grounds, my Supplementary Appeal focused on the errors of law:

  1. The defendants failed to meet their individual Evidentiary Burdens on motion;
  2. Meaningful Review, the (further) reasons lacked any legal reasoning or consideration of the facta and briefs

View original post 269 more words

Don’t be surprised if you lose!

Kueber v. Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre

I am not a lawyer and nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice.

I warn you, and please take this to heart, despite the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada, which you can find here: Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23, which in 2017, confirmed the 2006 recommendations of the Canadian Judicial Council that you can find here:    Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants , despite that ruling in which essentially, the Supreme Court of Canada said, everyone, the whole gang of you need to start treating self-represented litigants, SRLs fairly, take heed and fair warning, no matter how good the advice is you’re given, no matter how many years you’ve studied the law, no matter how tall your mountains of evidence….. your legal arguments and your evidence, might not even be considered.

Not a lawyer, however, in my understanding the evidentiary…

View original post 165 more words

Kueber v RVH and The Gang

I’ve set up a new website, I’m getting organized for the next round,   https://kuebervroyalvictoriaregionalhealthcentre.wordpress.com I read, and I studied, I even saw, how others have published their factums, I didn't see any reason why I couldn't publish the factum for my appeal.  Admittedly, it's not perfect, I got a bit rushed and sleep deprived, but... Continue Reading →

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: