ACCESS TO JUSTICE v. THE RULES

Written by:  one Canadian

October 1, 2o16


 

Court File No.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Plaintiff

-and-

THE RULES”

Defendant

FRESH AS AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANT

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM, and $ 0.00 costs, within the time for serving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiff’s claim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court.

TAKE NOTICE: THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if it has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means within five years after the action was commenced unless otherwise ordered by the court.

Date: October 1, 2016 Issued by  Local registrar

Address of court office OTTAWA, ONTARIO

TO : RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RRO 1990, Reg 194 C/O HER MAJESTY IN HER RIGHT OF ONTARIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

CLAIM

  1. The plaintiff claims:

    (a) damages in the amount of $5,000.00;

    (b) prejudgement interest pursuant to the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O 1990, c. C.43, as amended;

    (c) punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00;

    (d) costs of this action together with applicable Goods and Services Tax payable pursuant to the provisions of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.O. 1985, C. E-15, as amended;

    (e) revision of The Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, as amended;

    (f) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

  2. The plaintiff, ACCESS TO JUSTICE, resides in the municipality of Ontario, in the Province of Ontario.

  3. The defendant, The Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, as amended, are hereinafter referred to as THE RULES, resides in the province of Ontario.

  4. The plaintiff, ACCESS TO JUSTICE claims THE RULES, do not require civil litigants in Superior Court to use the most cost effective and expedient and efficient methods to access justice due to their failure to require motions in writing, prior to hearing oral arguments;

  5. further, the plaintiff ACCESS TO JUSTICE claims THE RULES, do not allow civil litigants in Superior Court to use the most cost effective and expedient and efficient methods to access justice due to their failure to require motions in writing, prior to hearing oral arguments;

  6. finally, the plaintiff, ACCESS TO JUSTICE claims and respectfully submits, THE RULES, discriminate against self represented litigants, hereinafter referred to as SRLs and litigants with limited financial resources by failing to require advanced written arguments a represented party intends to argue in all instances, in advance, and with ample opportunity to access any available supports;

  7. According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, s 37.12.1 (4) Where the issues of fact and law are not complex, the moving party may propose in the notice of motion that the motion be heard in writing without the attendance of the parties, it is submitted, if the matters are complex, there is even more compelling reason to require written arguments in advance;

  8. it is further submitted that having all matters argued in advanced in writing, our justices would have an opportunity to make more meaningful inquiries, in advance of, or during oral arguments, which would only occur if the justice deemed them necessary after hearing the motion in writing;
  9. by failing to provide the most efficient; the most expedient; and the most cost effective means for arguments; the plaintiff, ACCESS TO JUSTICE, claims THE RULES fail to comply with THE RULES, and are contrary to Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, s 57.01(1)(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;
  10. it is submitted the failure of the defendant, THE RULES, to comply with THE RULES has caused; does cause; and will in the future cause delays, unnecessary costs, unnecessary oral arguments, and will continue to impair access to justice in Ontario causing incalculable harm to some of the provinces’ most vulnerable of her citizens.

AS TO THE DEFENDANT, THE RULES:

(a) they failed to provide access to justice in the most cost effective manner;

(b) they failed to provide equal access to justice.;

(c) they failed to provide access to justice in the most expedient manner.

October 1, 2o16 Access to Justice c/o One Canadian

Fresh as Amended October 2, 2016

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “ACCESS TO JUSTICE v. THE RULES

Add yours

  1. Before one of you moves to dismiss on the grounds it fails to disclose a cause of action, I’m going to amend this statement of claim long before pleadings are closed!
    Yours Truly,
    One Canadian

    Like

  2. I am ashamed of the Alberta Judiciary, it’s like living in a totalitarian regime where all freedoms,will and thoughts are being suppressed for the benefit of the privileged. The Judiciary are party to the problems, and not party to the solutions.I truly believe that there is a race to the gutter among Judicial jurisdictions, and among Judges within their particular jurisdictions!

    It’s a huge game amongst judges as to which one can destroy lives the fastest.

    They are merciless!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The systems in Ontario have some opportunity for improvement 🙂 but the thing is they know that and there are lawyers and SRLs working hard to get something more accessible. The “old boy mentality” are going to be forced into retirement if they aren’t able to adapt, in my submission, and it’s about time!!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: