FEDERAL COURT. Anamaria Carla Taban. and. Her Majesty the Queen MOTION RECORD

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "FEDERAL COURT. Anamaria Carla Taban. and. Her Majesty the Queen MOTION RECORD"

Homer Hudson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Court File No.: T FEDERAL COURT Anamaria Carla Taban and Plaintiff Her Majesty the Queen MOTION RECORD Defendant On plaintiff s motion to request that that the proceeding continue as a specially managed proceeding Anamaria Carla Taban Palintiff Walmer Road Toronto, Ontario M5R 2X3 Tel: (416) taban.carla@gmail.com

2 Court File No.: T FEDERAL COURT Anamaria Carla Taban and Plaintiff Her Majesty the Queen Defendant TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Notice of motion Affidavit of exhibits. 5 a) Copy of the letter from the Counsel for the Federal Crown to Anamaria Carla Taban, dated December 12, b) Copy of the letter from Anamaria Carla Taban to the Counsel for the Federal Crown, dated December 19, c) Copy of the letter from the Counsel for the Federal Crown to Anamaria Carla Taban dated January 16, d) Copy of the letter from the Counsel for the Federal Crown to Anamaria Carla Taban, dated January 22, e) Copy of the letter from Anamaria Carla Taban to the Counsel for the Federal Crown, dated January 26, Written submissions Copy of the statement of claim in Court File No. T filed on November 24,

3 Court File No.: T FEDERAL COURT Anamaria Carla Taban and Plaintiff Her Majesty the Queen Defendant NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE THAT: Anamaria Carla Taban, self-represented plaintiff, is making a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. THE MOTION IS FOR: 1. An order of the Court, under Rule 384 of the Federal Courts Rules, that the proceeding continue as a specially managed proceeding. 2. An order of the Court, under Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules and sections 7 and 15(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that duty counsel be assigned to assist, advise and/or represent me in the proceeding. 3. Costs for the production printing and copying of the documents pertaining to the present motion, as well as for the service of the documents on the Federal and the Provincial Crown. THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE: 1. Rules 3, 58, 133(3), 204(a), 210 and 384 of the Federal Courts Rules. 2. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 7 and 15(1). 2

4 THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS are used for the present motion: 1. Affidavit of exhibits a) Copy of the letter from the Counsel for the Federal Crown to Anamaria Carla Taban, dated December 12, 2014 b) Copy of the letter from Anamaria Carla Taban to the Counsel for the Federal Crown, dated December 19, 2014 c) Copy of the letter from the Counsel for the Federal Crown to Anamaria Carla Taban, dated January 16, 2015 d) Copy of the letter from the Counsel for the Federal Crown to Anamaria Carla Taban, dated January 22, 2015 e) Copy of the letter from Anamaria Carla Taban to the Counsel for the Federal Crown, dated January 26, Written submissions 3. Copy of the statement of claim in Court File No. T filed on November 24, 2014 January 27, 2015 Anamaria Carla Taban Tel: (416) Walmer Road Toronto, Ontario M5R 2X3 TO: Jacqueline Wilson Counsel Business and Regulatory Law Division Department of Justice Canada Ontario Regional Office The Exchange Tower 3

5 130 King St. West Suite 3400, Box 36 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 TO: Ministry of Attorney General for Ontario McMurtry-Scott Building 720 Bay Street, 11 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 SOR/ , s. 35 4

6 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 1. I, Anamaria Carla Taban, self-represented plaintiff on welfare, am requesting under Rule 384 of the Federal Courts Rules, an order of the Court that the proceeding regarding Court File No. T continue as a specially managed proceeding. My request grounds in Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules, namely the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. The reasons for my request are as follows. 2. As self-represented party with no legal counsel, advice or assistance of any kind and with no previous knowledge of Canadian laws and courts, I have to argue for the substantive issue of my action by myself. At the same time I make every effort to follow the rules and procedures of the Court to the best of my knowledge. However, because my knowledge of Court rules and procedures is limited, I do not want this proceeding be struck, delayed or otherwise dismissed on technical/procedural grounds. Special case management will ensure that all parties to this proceeding follow Court rules so as to achieve the aim in Rule 3, by minimizing even eliminating procedural irregularities. This enforcement is necessary because irregularities have already arisen in the proceeding. 3. Rule 204(a) of the Federal Courts Rules reads 204. A defendant shall defend an action by serving and filing a statement of defence within (a) 30 days after service of the statement of claim, if the defendant is served in Canada. I filed my statement of claim on November 24, A copy hereof was served on the Federal Crown on December 4, Even if one does not take into consideration Rule 133(3) according to which personal service of an originating document on the Crown is effective at the time the document is filed the Federal Crown should have already served and filed its statement of defence by January 20, Because it did not, I am bringing to the Court s attention this irregularity, as per Rule 58 of the Federal Courts Rules. 4. In her letter to me dated December 12, 2014, the Counsel for the Federal Crown signaled the Crown s intention to bring a motion to strike out my statement of 15

7 claim should I not discontinue my action by January 9, In the view of the Counsel for the Federal Crown, my statement of claim does not disclose a valid cause of action. 5. In my letter to the Counsel for the Federal Crown, dated December 19, 2014, I replied that I would not discontinue my action because, in my own view, its cause is reasonable. I also explained some of the reasons that ground my action. I will do my best to further argue matters of law in support of the reasonableness of my cause, although I am not a lawyer and I do not have previous knowledge of Canadian law. In any case, the fact that in my statement of claim I argue mainly facts is not a valid reason to consider that the cause of my action is unreasonable. 6. December 22 or 23, 2014 I also left a voic on the phone of the Counsel for the Federal Crown stating that I would not discontinue my action. I used this means of communication because I had mailed my letter dated December 19, 2014 by regular mail and I did not know how long it would take to reach the Counsel for the Federal Crown. Being on welfare, I cannot afford courier expenses for the communications that this proceeding requires. I cannot afford any other costs such as printing and copying for the production of the documents relating to this proceeding, either. Nor can I afford legal counsel. However, I am doing my very best to act according to Court rules, in a just, expeditious and cost-efficient fashion. 7. I expect the defendants to act the same way, that is in accordance with Court rules. Having decided to strike out my statement of claim and knowing that I would not discontinue my action, I expected the Federal Crown to have brought a motion to strike my statement of claim by January 20, 2015 at the latest. This, however, did not happen. In her letter to me dated January 16, 2015, the Counsel for the Federal Crown proposed that the hearing of the motion to strike take place in March. According to my understanding of the Court rules, this proposed date defies any Court timeline. 8. January 20, 2015 I left another voic on the phone of the Counsel for the Federal Crown stating that: the proposed date in March was overdue given the 16

8 fact that the deadline for serving and filing a statement of defense was 30 days after service of the statement of claim [Rule 204(a)]; that I am looking into the possibility of bringing a motion to request the special management of the proceeding under Rule 384; and that I am available for a hearing of the motion to strike out at the Counsel s earliest convenience before March. 9. The Counsel for the Federal Crown replied to my voic with the letter dated January 22, 2015 in which the same date of March continues to be proposed. In this letter the Crown also seeks my confirmation that I will not proceed with a motion for default judgment (Rule 210), a fact which acknowledges at least implicitly that the Federal Crown is in default. In my letter of reply to the Federal Crown dated January 26, 2015 I repeated that a hearing of the motion to strike my statement of claim in March is both contrary to any Court timeline and too late for me. 10. Since mid-december 2014, when the Counsel for the Federal Crown and I started to communicate, I have been wondering about the silence of the Provincial Crown on the proceeding. As explicitly stated in my statement of claim, I consider that both the Federal and the Provincial Crown are responsible for the violation of my rights. Until the morning of January 20, 2015 when I phoned the Court Registry I did not know that my statement of claim had been served only on the Federal Crown. I had assumed that my statement of claim had been served on all parties mentioned in it as being responsible for the violation of my rights, that is both the Federal and the Provincial Crown. 11. On the morning of January 20, 2015 when I phoned the Court Registry I learned that I myself had to serve the statement of claim on any other parties, beside the Federal Crown, which I considered to be a defendant in this proceeding. The very same day I personally served a copy of my statement of claim on the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario. I also filed the proof of personal service on the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario with the Court Registry on January 20, Had I known that I myself had to serve my statement of claim on the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario I would 17

9 have done so in December 2014, at the same time that it was served on the Federal Crown. 12. In order to enforce the compliance of all parties with Court rules and procedures in the future, as regards both set timelines/deadlines and directions to be followed by parties, I request, under Rule 384 and on the ground of Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules, that the proceeding continue as a specially managed proceeding. 13. Another vital reason for this request is that the substantive issue in my statement of claim is both complex and of public interest. The issue needs to be explicated and specified clearly in all its depth and breadth. A case management judge is essential to direct this process of clear explication and specification, as well as to avoid the narrowing of the issue to insignificance. The boundaries of the issue need to be both clearly defined and expanded as far as necessary in order for its full significance to become plainly evident. A case management judge is indispensable to this process. 14. Finally, I consider that it is plain and obvious from the way the proceeding has progressed so far that there is an imbalance of legal knowledge and power between the parties to the proceeding. In order to ensure that: the principle of fundamental justice that underlies both Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1 where it is explicitly mentioned in section 7 is upheld; and that my fundamental equal[ity] before and under the law as well as my right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law under section 15(1) of the Charter are guaranteed, I request that the Court order the assignment of duty counsel to assist, advise and/or represent me in the proceeding. Anamaria Carla Taban January 27, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), which came into force on April 17, 1982; hereafter the Charter. 18

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No.: CV-17-578059-00CP B E T W E E N: ROBIN CIRILLO Plaintiff - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO Defendant Proceedings under