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 now disabled, lawyerless litigant.

Somewhere here I just know I will be able to ask the question I should have asked before instead of stumbling around – When is expert opinion required?  

So, if I’m allowed, I’m leaning towards 4 separate replies, 2 in book form and 2 in letter form.

Feel free to dive in and point out my copious errors, before I serve and file it please!   

Here’s how I thought to start, if I was going with a joint reply, I only get 5 pages and once again, the paramedics put me on trial, why not, it worked twice before?  Oh, look how defective she is, ignore those texts, the audio, the video with the B&E from the cops, they apparently have no standard of care required if they can prove you’re anxious, when you’re damn-near dead.


  1. The Respondents contend, the Self-represented Applicant, Ms. Kueber, was provided fair access to justice, equal treatment, and their collective conduct is beyond reproach, completely in keeping with the spirit expressed by this court in Pintea v. Johns1.

  2. The evidence is clear, counsel for the 4 law firms, representing the 4 groups of respondents, then, jointly and severally libel, simply ran rough-shod over the Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial management timetables, the discovery plan, Rules of Evidence, their own rules and the Self-represented plaintiff, Ms. Kueber.

  3. The Respondents contend, they followed the Rules of Civil Procedure, but on November 13, 2015 when Ms. Kueber attempted to bring a motion in writing for relief, she submitted a spread-sheet of infractions to the case management justice, before Justice McCarthy found her guilty of abuse of process and ordered her to pay $1000.00 to learned counsel.

  4. Ms Kueber was given leave to motion in writing, after counsel blocked the motion for relief she served and filed to be heard on August 21, 2015, which was blocked utilizing the case management of August 10, 2015. According to information provided verbally by staff of the Barrie Courthouse, the August 10, 2015 management was not recorded by the court.

  5. The endorsement dated August 11, 2015, also gave leave to Ms. Kueber to bring a cross-motion, at the summary motion hearings, then scheduled for October 13-14, 2015.

  6. After the November 2015 case management, Ms. Kueber was barred from attempting to bringing any further motions, she had to get permission to appear in court in to have her cross-motion heard, the one heard February 24, 2016, that the Motion Justice declared moot, almost a full year after it was heard.

  7. The decision of the Motion Justice, Justice O’Connell weren’t released until an attempted appeal in the absence of reasons, 4 individual appeals were rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal, because they were lacking in reasons for decisions, on February 14, 2017.

  8. The 478 paragraph (further) Reasons, were released on February 22, 2017.

1Johns v. Pintea, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470 [Pintea]

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: