the London capers(summary)
Before my Motion Hearing in London I read very thoroughly the book called Ontario Annual Practices.I had heard about third party defences and believed that they should not have great merit in another case but I decided to review it again.First I got a copy of the decision from St.Thomas.The grounds for the decision were not adequately spelled out but it was an order for dismissal.
I checked more thoroughly Ontario Annual Practices and saw that a third party defence had almost no merit in my claim.The statute said that a third party defence was not allowed to cause"undue or extreme prejudice" against my claim.But this is exactly what Bette Collard's motion had done .It had caused extreme and undue prejudice as it had caused a dismissal.Ontario Annual Practices also stated that court decisions made in another jurisdiction should not have any bearing upon a claim.A decision made in St . Thomas was in Elgin county whereas my motion hearing was heard in London in Middlesex county.This is the definition of another jurisdiction;it was in a separate county.It is surprising that Judge Galinski who seemed like a seasoned veteran would not be familiar with these two statutes.However it was absolutely clear that the only defence that the city and the mayor of London had was not invalid but illegal.The question that some lawyers might be asking now is what steps should the city of London take to remedy this situation.
I checked more thoroughly Ontario Annual Practices and saw that a third party defence had almost no merit in my claim.The statute said that a third party defence was not allowed to cause"undue or extreme prejudice" against my claim.But this is exactly what Bette Collard's motion had done .It had caused extreme and undue prejudice as it had caused a dismissal.Ontario Annual Practices also stated that court decisions made in another jurisdiction should not have any bearing upon a claim.A decision made in St . Thomas was in Elgin county whereas my motion hearing was heard in London in Middlesex county.This is the definition of another jurisdiction;it was in a separate county.It is surprising that Judge Galinski who seemed like a seasoned veteran would not be familiar with these two statutes.However it was absolutely clear that the only defence that the city and the mayor of London had was not invalid but illegal.The question that some lawyers might be asking now is what steps should the city of London take to remedy this situation.
Comments
Post a Comment