What would Louis Riel think?
1. A Court of Queen's Bench Order limiting our ability to amend the original Statement of Defence filed without benefit of legal counsel on April 24, 2005
3. The expunging of large portions of our infamous "9-11 Affidavit" filed September 11, 2009
www.ptlaw.mb.ca; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca
Anyone know where we can find an updated photograph of him? Time to replace this tired, old picture. He's even more handsome and charming these days.
Then Counsel took the unprecedented step in a letter written January 21, 2010 to the Court of Appeal Registrar (Patricia Gough) of trying to have our appeal quashed before it even got off the ground:
I am counsel to the plaintiffs in this matter. The notice of appeal was filed by Mr. Pieuk on November 23, 2009. This is an appeal from the decision of Justice Simonsen dismissing in part, a motion brouight by Mr. Pieuk for leave to amend his statement of defence. As such, this is an appeal to which Rule 28 applies.
This action is scheduled for trial before a judge and jury commencing on March 1, 2010. In my respectful opinion, this appeal will become moot once the trial starts.
I have not had any communication from Mr. Pieuk with respect to this appeal since I received a copy of the notice of appeal.
I am requesting that you exercise your discretion pursuant to Rule 33(4) and issue a notice to Mr. Pieuk requiring him to perfect the appeal. (italics/emphasis ours)
Mr. Trachtenberg then suddenly backtracked (No pun intended!) in a subsequent letter suggesting he didn't think he'd indicated he was considering an attempt to quash our appeal.
But we prevailed, then there was this dated January 27, 2010 from the Deputy Registrar, Manitoba Court of Appeal:
This appeal will be heard on Monday, April 19, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 330, Law Courts Comples, 408 York Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba. (italics/emphasis ours). Note: The hearing will be open to the public.
Queen's Bench rules dictate once a litigant has been dropped from an action a line is to be drawn through their name. Google Blogs do not have this feature so we've shown them in blue.
Ever wonder what Louis Riel would think of the Plaintiffs and Counsel in this lawsuit? They're trying to do to us what was done to him over 100 years ago. Two wrongs never make a right.
Louis David Riel
Member of Parliament for Provencher
Preceeded by George-Etienne Cartier
Succeeded by Andrew Bannatyne
Born 22 October 1844 Red River Colony, Rupert's Land
Died: November 1885 (age 41) Regina, District of Assiniboia
Spouse Marguerite Monet dit Bellhumeur (1861-1897)
Children Jean-Louis, Marie-Angelique
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 February 2010
The System
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
MANITOBA METIS FEDERATION INC., ANITA CAMPBELL, DAVID CHARTRAND, ELBERT CHARTRAND, RITA CULLEN, RICHARD DELARONDE, DARRREL DESLAURIERS, JEAN DESROSIERS, WILLIAM FLETT, JOHN FLEURY, LAURA HYRICH, JULYDA LAGIMODIERE, JOYCE LANGAN, LEAH LAPLANTE, JUDY MAYER, BONNIE McINTYRE, ROSEMARIE McPHERSON, DARRYL MONTGOMERY, MARILEE NAULT, JACK PARK, CLAIRE RIDDLE, and DENISE THOMAS
(plaintiffs) respondents
-AND-
CLARE L. PIEUK (defendant) appellant
-AND-
TERRY BELHUMEUR and VANESSA EVERTON (defendant) respondent
__________________________________________________
NOTICE OF APPEAL
__________________________________________________
TAKE NOTICE that a motion will be made on behalf of the Co-Defendant Clare L. Pieuk before the Court of Appeal, as soon as the motion can be heard, by way of appeal from an Order of the Honourable Madam Justice K. I. Simonsen of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Winnipeg, Manitoba pronounced on the 8th day of October, 2009 and filed on the 27th day of October, 2009, whereby the learned judge did order:
This Learned Judge did order:
(1) All pleadings available to the Co-Defendant as outlined in the proposed, amended Statement of Defence dated April 3, 2009 be set aside
(2) Exculpatory evidence contained in the supporting Affidavit sworn September 11, 2009 was expunged by the Order registered with the Court on October 27, 2009
On the appeal, this court will be asked to set aside the said Order of the Honourable Madam Justice K. I. Simonsen and order that:
(1) All provisions of said Order be annulled
(2) No costs be awarded to the Plaintiffs
On the following grounds:
(1) The Learned Judge erred in using evidence from the Co-Defendant’s Examination for Discovery to bar pleadings raised in his proposed, amended Statement of Defence. It should only be used at trial
(2) The Learned Judge erred in failing to recognize the Plaintiffs are elected officials of a taxpayer funded organization. As such, it is in the public interest to hold them to a higher standard under The Defamation Act
(3) The Learned Judge erred in issuing a Court Order that prevents the Co-Defendant from raising a defence at trial
(4) The Learned Judge erred in ruling the Master’s oral decision delivered March 2, 2006 that the Co-Defendant had not received proper notification under The Act could not be raised at trial. It only stated at the time not enough information had been presented in support of the Motion
(5) The Learned Judge erred in failing to recognize the Co-Defendant is entitled to proper notice under The Act, and, therefore, should be allowed to make this argument in his pleadings. The Court Order prevents him from doing so
(6) The Learned Judge failed to recognize blogs and websites should be entitled to the same notice as newspapers
(7) The Learned Judge erred in ruling the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim should go ahead even though the notification requirement under the Act had not been met
(8) The Learned Judge erred in the Court Order which is prejudicial to the Co-Defendant who is not required to prove at the Motions stage that which should be established at trial
(9) The Learned Judge erred in ruling the burden of proof of the evidence contained in the Co-Defendant’s Motion and supporting Affidavit rests with the Appellant prior to trial. Rather, the only standard is whether it prejudices the Plaintiffs
(10) The Act contains no anti-SLAPP provisions (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)
(11) The Learned Judge erred in stating the Election Petition claimed MMF travel expenses for Plaintiff David Chartrand and his campaign expenses for the March 26, 2003 election were inappropriate. It was for the period after the date the election was held to when the appeal of a court challenge of the results was heard. (Court Transcript Page 2 Lines 10-14)
(12) The Learned Judge erred in neglecting Justice McCawley verbal instructions to the Defendant during a May 1, 2006 Motion Hearing by Counsel for return of the documents that they could be subpoenaed at trial. (Court Transcript Page 2 Lines 25-28)
(13) The Learned Judge erred in ruling paragraphs 1 to 19 and 25 to 41 of the Defendants September 11, 2009 Affidavit were scandalous and vexations and, therefore, expunged. (Court Transcript Page 3 Lines 20-22)
(14) The Learned Judge erred in ruling paragraphs 20 and 22 to 24, sub-paragraphs 20(ii) to (v) and (vii) sub-paragraph 20(vi) and paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Defendant’s September 11, 2009 Affidavit are irrelevant, have no connection to the allegedly defamatory statements and, therefore should be expunged. (Court Transcript Page 3 Lines 23-34; Page 4 Lines 1-3)
(15) The Learned Judge erred in failing to mention the Master did not provide a written decision for rejecting the Defendant’s two Motions. Further, shortly thereafter the 'Defendant became a self-represented litigant.(Court Transcript Page 4 Lines 26-34)
(16) The Learned Judge erred in failing to take into consideration that Justice McCawley told the defendant on more than one occasion if necessary the MMF documents could be subpoenaed at trial if necessary. (Court Transcript Page 5 Lines 1-6)
(17) The Learned Judge erred in failing to consider that: Lionel Chartrand was cybersmokesignals’ pro bono General Legal Cournsel; suggested the allegedly defamatory Petition; wrote it; sanctioned its publication; and at no time advised the Defendants it could contain defamatory wording. Further, at no time did Mr. Chartrand recommend it be removed. (Court Transcript Page 5 Lines 19-21)
(18) The Learned Judge erred in ruling for purposes of The Defamation Act websites and blogs are to be treated the same as traditional newspapers. (Court Transcript Page 5 Lines 27-34; Page 6 line 1)
(19) The Learned Judge erred in ruling paragraph 6 of the Defendant’s proposed amended pleading is irrelevant. Further, said paragraph does not deal with former Plaintiff Darrel Deslauriers who remains in the Re-Amended Statement of Claim. (Court Transcript Page 6 Lines 15-17)
(20) The Learned Judge erred in not advising the Defendant when a defence of justification can be raised. (Court Transcript Page 7 Lines 17-21)
(21) The Learned Judge erred in criticizing the Defendant for not advancing a defence of justification until recently. As a self-represented Defendant he was aware it was available. (Court Transcript Page 8 Lines 14-23)
(22) The Learned Judge erred in interpreting the Defendant’s comments during his September 2007 Examination for Discovery. (Court Transcript page 8 Lines 24-34 and Page 9 lines 1-11)
(23) The Learned Judge erred in ruling the travel advances cited by the Defendant were insufficient for a defence of justification. Said advances involved several Plaintiffs involving many thousands of dollars. (Court Transcript Page 9 Lines 12-19)
(24) The Learned Judge erred in setting trial dates at the insistence of Counsel prior to the issue of Judicially Assisted Dispute Resolution being settled. Doing so needlessly prejudiced the Defendant. (Court Transcript Page 9 Lines 30-33)
(25) The Learned Judge erred in ruling the Defendant could not amend his statement of defence to raise a defence of justification because it could result in an adjournment of the trial. Prior to the Examination for Discovery being conducted, the Plaintiffs did not correspond with or advance the process for approximately 6-7 months. (Court Transcript Page 9 Lines 25-34; Page 10 Lines 10-4)
(26) The Learned Judge erred in misinterpreting the Defendant’s testimony during his Examination for Discovery. The Defendant believed without the documents in question he would be unable to prove a truth-based defence. (Court Transcript Page 10 Lines 6-7)
(27) The Learned Judge erred in ruling a defence of qualified privilege is not available to the Defendant. (Court Transcript Page 10 Lines 14-34; Page 11 Lines 1-8)
(28) The Learned Judge erred in not allowing Paragraph 20 of the Defendant’s Affidavit into evidence. (Court Transcript Page 13 Lines 20-28)
Has a transcript of the evidence with respect to the judgment appealed from has been ordered from transcription services? Yes No Not required
DATED this 23rd day of November, 2009.
CLARE L. PIEUK
__________________________________________________
TO: Registrar of the Court of Appeal
AND TO:
Posner & Trachtenberg
Barristers & Solicitors
710-491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E4
Attention: Murray Trachtenberg
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
AND TO:
Terry Belhumeur
Co-Defendant
2020 Burrows Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R2R 0Y8
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXERCISE LANGUAGE RIGHT
The attached document begins a proceeding in the Court of Appeal. Your rights may be affected in the course of the proceeding. You have a right to use either the English or the French language even where the attached document is in the other language, but in order to exercise your right, you are required within 21 days to service of this document on you to file with the registrar of the court a notice of your intention to do so and to leave with the registrar an address for service. If you file such a notice, you will be notified, in the language indicated in your notice, of further stages in the proceeding by registered mail addressed to your address for service. If you do not file a notice of your intention to exercise your right, the appeal will continue in the language of the attached document. The time limited for your filing of a notice may be enlarged or abridged at any time by order of a judge made on application in either English or French.
Registrar
Manitoba Court of Appeal
Room 205 Law Courts Building
408 York Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 0P9
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 12:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home