Duty to Consult and Decision to Fund

Full citation of case commented on – Citation: Saugeen First Nation v Ontario (MNRF), 2017 ONSC 3456 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/h4tf2&gt;, retrieved on 2017-07-20 Republished blog follows – original article http://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/46064 Saugeen First Nation v Ontario (MNRF), 2017 ONSC 3456 (CanLII) by … Continue reading Duty to Consult and Decision to Fund

Supreme Court rules on experts for mental injury recovery

Full case https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc28/2017scc28.html Excerpt follows on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia                     Torts — Negligence — Motor vehicles  — Mental injury — Damages —Claimant suing in negligence as result of … Continue reading Supreme Court rules on experts for mental injury recovery

National Self Represented Litigants Program

Thanks to NSRLP for another helpful article! Republished article follows//Emphasis added // Source https://representingyourselfcanada.com/case-law-research-is-like-cheesecake/ Case Law Research is like Cheesecake This week’s guest blog is written by Cynthia Freitag, a Law Clerk and an active member of the Toronto chapter … Continue reading National Self Represented Litigants Program

Cabana v Newfoundland and Labrador

“[36] Accordingly, I hold that in principle a successful self-represented litigant may claim, as part of taxed costs, an amount representing at least a portion of the time and effort he or she put into the case in the place of that which otherwise would have been expended on the case by a lawyer had one been retained.” Continue reading Cabana v Newfoundland and Labrador

Watterson v Canadian EMU

“[42] In the present case, the trial judge had an obligation to assist the self-represented litigant, Mr. Watterson, to the extent necessary to ensure that he could present his case to the best of his abilities. He failed to comply with that obligation when he failed to advise Mr. Watterson that he could request an adjournment for the purpose of preparing to cross-examine EMU’s witnesses, or for the purpose of summonsing witnesses in response to EMU’s witnesses or preparing to testify himself in response to their evidence.” Continue reading Watterson v Canadian EMU

ACCESS TO JUSTICE v. THE RULES

“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 on all grounds a represented party intends to argue in all instances, in advance, and with ample opportunity for them to access any available supports.” Continue reading ACCESS TO JUSTICE v. THE RULES

Williams v. Toronto (City), 2016 ONCA

“It is established that government actors are not liable in negligence for policy decisions, but only operational decisions. The basis of this immunity is that policy is the prerogative of the elected Legislature. It is inappropriate for courts to impose liability for the consequences of a particular policy decision. On the other hand, a government actor may be liable in negligence for the manner in which it executes or carries out the policy.” Continue reading Williams v. Toronto (City), 2016 ONCA

Canadian judge to rape accuser: ‘Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?’ | World news | The Guardian

A Canadian federal judge is facing possible removal for asking the accuser in a 2014 rape trial: “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) is determining the fate of justice Robin Camp, 64, who apologized … Continue reading Canadian judge to rape accuser: ‘Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?’ | World news | The Guardian

Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566

“That said, when a represented party invokes the mechanisms available under the Rules of Civil Procedure to seek some relief against a self-represented party, the represented party must ensure it complies fully with its own obligations under the rules, and not use the rules to take unfair advantage of the self-represented litigant.” Continue reading Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566

The evidence of unfairness in this case…

“…The court’s discretion would therefore include the discretion not to name a particular health practitioner if that health practicioner fails to meet the criteria set out in Rule 4.1.01 on the basis of bias. While it would be uncommon to find an expert biased and impartial, such an expert so found should not be allowed to have any role in the court process. Continue reading The evidence of unfairness in this case…

What would the world be like had the drug war not been waged? – Quora

“We’ve never heard of places like Ferguson, because the race wars there never happened and literally hundreds of thousands of families have fathers, instead of visiting hours.” Continue reading What would the world be like had the drug war not been waged? – Quora

MEANWHILE IN THE JUDICIAL CENTRE OF HAPPY VALLEY-GOOSE BAY… ;)

“lest there should be any doubt in this particular case, a blanket policy of presenting in-custody accused, such as Dina Kalleo, in leg shackles and handcuffs in court in Nain is illegal, may amount to a civil assault and give rise to an award of damages. She may also have other remedies under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” Continue reading MEANWHILE IN THE JUDICIAL CENTRE OF HAPPY VALLEY-GOOSE BAY… 😉

“[57] I conclude that actual jail time is the only realistic option in this case. It is completely unacceptable that the court process and its orders be deliberately, blatantly and continuously flouted as Mr. Sidhu has done. An exemplary custodial sentence should have the effect of deterring Mr. Sidhu specifically and also members of the public as a matter of general deterrence. Those who might be inclined to breach court orders, regardless of whether the orders are made within a matter of commercial litigation, or in a family or estate dispute or otherwise must realize that showing such disregard for the law and the court will not be tolerated. Likewise, it would be completely inappropriate for parties subject to court orders to assume that the penalty for a breach will be dealt with in some lenient way so as to give what amounts to a license for disobedience.” Continue reading

…spoliation required intentional destruction indicative of fraud or an intent to suppress the truth…

“… once the alleged spoliator’s action resulted in another party being deprived of the ability to prove or disprove some part of the case, the burden of proof with respect to intent was to be born by the alleged spoliator as the creator of the predicament…” Continue reading …spoliation required intentional destruction indicative of fraud or an intent to suppress the truth…

Dear ARCH, Disability Law Centre…

“…mentally ill people and would produce mentally ill people through infection, which in turn would be transmitted to the genes. Thus, this group would have to be studied and controlled as a contagious social disease. Police, hospitals, government, and schools would need to use the correct psychiatric authority to stop mental contagions from spreading” Continue reading Dear ARCH, Disability Law Centre…

“Case in point: Dr. George Doodnaught is still a doctor”

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2014/2014onca172/2014onca172.html?autocompleteStr=doodnaught&autocompletePos=1 [2] The trial judge found that with eight of his victims, Dr. Doodnaught inserted his penis into their mouths after lowering his scrub pants. He used five other victims for acts of masturbation; six others had their breasts squeezed, … Continue reading “Case in point: Dr. George Doodnaught is still a doctor”

speaking of ABSURD!

WordPress is blocking this post speaking of ABSURD! Thanks for clearing that up!  Are you by any chance a lawyer? Author Veronica M. Dougherty ** Excerpt Introduction The absurd result principle in statutory interpretation provides an exception to the rule that a statute should be interpreted according to its plain meaning. In an age of increasing debate about the proper approach to statutory interpretation, and of increasing emphasis on literal approaches, the absurd result principle poses intriguing challenges to literalism and to theories of interpretation generally. The absurd result principle is extraordinarily powerful. It authorizes a judge to ignore a statute’s plain words in order to avoid … Continue reading speaking of ABSURD!

…this motion for Summary Judgment is dismissed

“The question of causation is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge. It is not for this court to weigh conflicting evidence or to reassess the relative merits of contradictory expert testimony.” These comments on a parallel basis, in my view, apply here on this Summary Judgment motion which turns on the question of causation. [41] Additionally, as I noted above, the accuracy and reliability of the notes and records of the defendant dentist is in question. He was unable to produce to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario his original notes and records which apparently have gone missing … Continue reading …this motion for Summary Judgment is dismissed