Courtroom 209!

Good Day Readers:

Much of today was spent in court. Because of a recent death in MMF lawyer Murray Trachtenberg's family, yesterday's previouly scheduled session was cancelled. We'll be back at it tomorrow beginning at 2:00 p.m.

Since the meeting was a Motion Hearing it was open to the public. At one point three ladies (did not recognize them) attended during the morning. Also, present was a Crown Counsel from Manitoba Justice's Constitutional Law Branch. We'll have a lot more to say about that in upcoming postings.

Recall Counselor Trachtenberg was able to get a publication ban but it only applies to Pre-Trial Conferences and Case Management Meetings not Motion Hearings. Therefore, we'll have more to say about today's proceedings shortly.

Our meetings of September 14 and 17, 2009 have also been deemed as Motion Hearings so we'll be able to provide you with a lot more information than we have in the past.

We are able to publish the following letter from Madam Justice Simonsen because it relates to a Motion Hearing. By way of brief explanation, we tendered a 7 page 42 paragraph Affidavit on September 11, 2009 ("The 9-11!"). As you will read, all but 2 were ruled inadmissable but, in our view, these will be key to our defence, as well as, the eventual outcome of the trial.

At the request of Counselor Trachtenberg, recently Justice Simonsen ordered an interim sealing of "9-11," however, with Mylady's ruling as set out in Her letter of October 2, 2009 the process will be as follows:

(1) The 40 inadmissible paragraphs will be blackened, much like you often see in Access To Information requests made by the media. What's left will then be entered in Queen's Bench File Registry thereupon becoming a public domain document that can then be display on this site

(2) The original, complete version of the Affidavit will be sealed which, as we understand, will subsequently be unsealed once the trial begins

(3) There will be no requirement the media be advised a document has been sealed. When the expunged version of "9-11" makes it to the QBFR (a few days), in effect, the sealing order will no longer exist

The rest of Myladyship's letter relates to leave we were granted to amend portions of our original Statement of Defence filed in April of 2005.

Sincerely,

Clare L. Pieuk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 2, 2009

Mr. Murray N. Trachtenberg
Posner & Trachtenberg
710 – 491 Portage Avenue
WINNIPEG MB R3B 2E4 [by fax]

Mr. Clare L. Pieuk
2 – 371 Des Meurons Street
WINNIPEG MB R2H 2N6 [by e-mail and regular mail]

Mr. Terry Belhumeur
2020 Burrows Avenue
WINNIPEG MB R2R 0Y8 [by e-mail and regular mail]

Dear Sirs:

Re: Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. et al. v. Terry Belhumeur et al.
Q.B. File No. CI 05-01-41955

I advise that my decisions in connection with Mr. Pieuk’s motion to amend his statement of defence and his request to admit his affidavit of September 11, 2009 as evidence in support of that motion are as follows:

1. The only parts of Mr. Pieuk’s affidavit that are admitted into evidence are paragraphs 24 and 42. All other paragraphs are inadmissible and are therefore expunged.

2. Mr. Pieuk’s motion to amend his statement of defence is dismissed with the exceptions that he is granted leave to:

(a) In paragraphs 1 and 3 of his statement of defence, change the paragraph numbers of the statement of claim referred to, in order to reference the corresponding numbers in the re-amended statement of claim;

(b) Amend paragraph 2 of his statement of defence to deny all of the additional paragraphs now included in the re-amended statement of claim;

(c) Add paragraphs 2 (c) and (d) of his proposed amended statement of defence to respond to relief sought regarding the MMF documents; in so doing, he should actually list the corporations in paragraph 2(b), as he is not granted leave to add 2(b);

(d) Add paragraph 3 of his proposed amended statement of defence (which is a description of himself);

(e) Add those paragraphs of his proposed amended statement of defence that contain a specific denial that the statements in the Election Petition were defamatory, and specific denials of malice and punitive damages. These paragraphs are 22, 23(a) to (f) [first sentence only of (f)], 24, 34, 37 and 40 [first sentence only]. I note that, in drafting these paragraphs, Mr. Pieuk appears to have referenced paragraph numbers in the amended statement of claim rather than the re-amended statement of claim. I believe that his paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 34 and 37 should reference paragraphs 53, 55, 54, 73 and 81 of the re-amended statement of claim; and

(f) Add paragraphs 29 and 36 of his proposed amended statement of defence to respond to new allegations in the re-amended statement of claim. I again note that, in drafting these paragraphs, Mr. Pieuk has referenced paragraph numbers in the amended statement of claim rather than the re-amended statement of claim. I believe that paragraphs 29 and 36 of the proposed amended statement of defence should reference paragraphs 65 and 80 of the re-amended statement of claim.

As I stated in my letter dated September 29, 2009, I will provide my full reasons for decision when we are next court on October 7, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

Yours truly,
KAREN I. SIMONSEN

KIS/ij