he'll come across like he is supposed to. No worries.
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
I'm confident Conroy will handle him.
leaffan
Well-Known Member
I hope so...don't think this one will be a piece of cake though.
The Crown will let this guy go on and on and on....and he has information, reports etc...
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
Conroy specifically mentioned he was looking forward to questioning him so he must have some good questions up his sleeve.
leaffan
Well-Known Member
good to know, thank you my friend
leaffan
Well-Known Member
Are you nervous about tomorrow Len?
You're a busy guy Len...getting paid off from BC Hydro too eh?
https://www.facebook.com/Coalitiontostopsmartmeters/posts/572015206210782
CannaReview
Well-Known Member
Yah Garis will be a tough cookie. Wonder if Conroy will bring up the statement he made years ago that as the inspections in Surrey continued more people started to tap power. I had one customer who was Vietnamese and he got 3 48 hour inspections in 1.5 years. He went on to sue for profiling/discrimination but I lost touch with him when I left the other hydro store.
leaffan
Well-Known Member
I see Conroy has enough concern to have a rebuttal "fire chief" Moen to testify after Garis.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
Another day at the zoo I see...I haven't read all the docs yet just wanted to get caught up on the day's events...I was having some thoughts about vexation....isn't there something about using the courts for vexatious reasons? I would think appealing every fucking decision without presenting an argument before a judge would be considered vexatious...there was no other reason to dismantle the mmar other than to stop patients growing their own...vexatious....
wasnt to stop patients from growing.
It was set up in order to force pateints to BUY FROM THEM and MAKE A MULTI BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS OUT OFF IT and to make patients suffer along the way..
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
vexatious....the 'Big Book Word' of the day!
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
Follow
- 11m
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture
Just finished an interview with John Conroy, head lawyer for #Allard et al. Watch it tomorrow on CCN LIVE @ 4PM PT http://www.pot.tv
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
and further to my post above...
Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.
A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.
Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and such litigants therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or are required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions. In liberal democratic jurisdictions, declaring someone a vexatious litigant is considered to be a serious measure and rarely occurs, as judges and officials are reluctant to curtail a person's access to the courts.
These legal actions are occurring in some countries of the former British empire, where the Common Law System still remains: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, and US, which are specified below. The Civil (Codified/Continental) Law does not provide this kind of gate to limit equal access of citizens to the justice system.
Canada[edit]
Under the Constitution Act, 1867, section 92(14),[35] each province is vested with the power to enact and apply laws relating to the administration of justice within its own territory.
In Canada, Section 40 of the Federal Court Act[36] and in Ontario Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act,[37] restrict the ability to introduce or continue proceedings for those who have instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner.
Quebec[edit]
In Quebec, the Code of Civil Procedure is the principal legislation that sets rules related to civil procedure.
Under section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure,[38] all judicial courts and judges in Quebec are vested with "...all the powers necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction". Furthermore, they may:
"…at any time and in all matters, whether in first instance or in appeal, issue orders to safeguard the rights of the parties, for such time and on such conditions as they may determine. As well, they may, in the matters brought before them, even on their own initiative, issue injunctions or reprimands, suppress writings or declare them libellous, and make such orders as are appropriate to deal with cases for which no specific remedy is provided by law."[39]
Section 46 vests a very broad power on judicial courts and judges to ensure that the administration of justice is conducted according to decorum and according to the remedial nature of justice. As the courts's decisions have shown it, the authority to declare a litigant as vexatious is directly tributary to the power conferred by section 46.
Cases illustrating the application of section 46 are numerous. Among them, there are: Nguiagain v. Commission de la fonction publique,[40] in which the judge rejected the plaintiff's motion for a mandamus to enjoin his union to revise the grievance that he had filed on the grounds that the motion was groundless and abusive; De Niverville c. Descôteaux,[41] where an injunction was rendered declaring the respondent, disbarred lawyer Descôteaux, as a vexatious litigant due to the multiple unfounded and frivolous actions that he had sought against the plaintiff De Niverville; and in Fabrikant v. Corbin,[42] a motion to declare the plaintiff Valery Fabrikant as a vexatious litigant was granted to the defendant, Dr. Corbin. In all of the above cited cases, a litigant was only declared vexatious following a proceeding instated by the opposite party.
Moreover, section 46’s scope is limited to judicial courts and judges. Administrative tribunals are legislative creations and they can only exist and function within the limits that are imposed by law. Administrative tribunals in Quebec cannot declare a person a vexatious litigant.
As per section 90 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Québec in Civil Matters,[43] such litigants are now indexed in a registry kept by the Chief Justice in the judiciary district of Montreal. Lawyer and author Claude Duchesnay has reported in May 2003 that a document on the Quebec attorney general’s intranet contains the name of 58 persons who must obtain permission prior to instating proceedings before the courts.[44]
Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.
A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.
Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and such litigants therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or are required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions. In liberal democratic jurisdictions, declaring someone a vexatious litigant is considered to be a serious measure and rarely occurs, as judges and officials are reluctant to curtail a person's access to the courts.
These legal actions are occurring in some countries of the former British empire, where the Common Law System still remains: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, and US, which are specified below. The Civil (Codified/Continental) Law does not provide this kind of gate to limit equal access of citizens to the justice system.
Canada[edit]
Under the Constitution Act, 1867, section 92(14),[35] each province is vested with the power to enact and apply laws relating to the administration of justice within its own territory.
In Canada, Section 40 of the Federal Court Act[36] and in Ontario Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act,[37] restrict the ability to introduce or continue proceedings for those who have instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner.
Quebec[edit]
In Quebec, the Code of Civil Procedure is the principal legislation that sets rules related to civil procedure.
Under section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure,[38] all judicial courts and judges in Quebec are vested with "...all the powers necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction". Furthermore, they may:
"…at any time and in all matters, whether in first instance or in appeal, issue orders to safeguard the rights of the parties, for such time and on such conditions as they may determine. As well, they may, in the matters brought before them, even on their own initiative, issue injunctions or reprimands, suppress writings or declare them libellous, and make such orders as are appropriate to deal with cases for which no specific remedy is provided by law."[39]
Section 46 vests a very broad power on judicial courts and judges to ensure that the administration of justice is conducted according to decorum and according to the remedial nature of justice. As the courts's decisions have shown it, the authority to declare a litigant as vexatious is directly tributary to the power conferred by section 46.
Cases illustrating the application of section 46 are numerous. Among them, there are: Nguiagain v. Commission de la fonction publique,[40] in which the judge rejected the plaintiff's motion for a mandamus to enjoin his union to revise the grievance that he had filed on the grounds that the motion was groundless and abusive; De Niverville c. Descôteaux,[41] where an injunction was rendered declaring the respondent, disbarred lawyer Descôteaux, as a vexatious litigant due to the multiple unfounded and frivolous actions that he had sought against the plaintiff De Niverville; and in Fabrikant v. Corbin,[42] a motion to declare the plaintiff Valery Fabrikant as a vexatious litigant was granted to the defendant, Dr. Corbin. In all of the above cited cases, a litigant was only declared vexatious following a proceeding instated by the opposite party.
Moreover, section 46’s scope is limited to judicial courts and judges. Administrative tribunals are legislative creations and they can only exist and function within the limits that are imposed by law. Administrative tribunals in Quebec cannot declare a person a vexatious litigant.
As per section 90 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Québec in Civil Matters,[43] such litigants are now indexed in a registry kept by the Chief Justice in the judiciary district of Montreal. Lawyer and author Claude Duchesnay has reported in May 2003 that a document on the Quebec attorney general’s intranet contains the name of 58 persons who must obtain permission prior to instating proceedings before the courts.[44]
The Hippy
Well-Known Member
The crown has these guys ready to go for next week....watch out as the little car they came in has NO brakes
The Hippy
Well-Known Member
I just had a fire here.....on the end of a fatty though if that counts at all.
The Hippy
Well-Known Member
Oh fuck...too funny...what is this a Hardy boys story
that fire was huge, it spread over here but I have it under control