First, while a cursory reading of the cases he cites might suggest he has a point, it should not surprise anyone that those cases refer to the rights of an undischarged bankrupt in good standing; that is, someone who is following the rules of bankruptcy, and honouring his obligations, and is up to date with his payments and his legally-required annual filings.
Those precedents don't apply to someone like Patrick, whose trustee withdrew from his file in disgust, who has refused to make the required payments, who has been stripped of the protections of bankruptcy, who is now the target of collection proceedings and who currently owes me almost $110,000. Given Patrick's years of contemptuous behaviour and non-payment, I can assure you that no sane court on the planet is going to extend him even the slightest sympathy once it understands Patrick's utter lack of interest in following court orders. But wait ... there's more.
If Patrick truly wanted to clarify whether he had standing to pursue this action, there is a trivial way to do this -- contact the federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) and simply ask. What could be easier? Except that is not going to happen because Patrick is well aware that the OSB has been looking for him, and he has been dodging them for months now, which should tell you everything you need to know about how confident Patrick is in his own boy lawyer findings.
I look forward to learning the outcome of that hearing, wherein I'm fairly sure Patrick is going to have his pasty ass handed to him yet again, just like every other time when he assumed he was being stunningly clever but, instead, got disemboweled by the Court.
P.S. Even if the court allows that action to proceed, it will almost certainly require Patrick to put up significant surety, and if he manages to do that, I will be right there to ask where all that cash came from when he owes me as much as he does and refuses to pay.
Yeah, I'm sure this will all turn out just fine for Patrick. And by "fine," I mean spectacular dumpster fire.
P.P.S. The extra recent wrinkle in all of this is that, as I have already described, now that we have identified Patrick's employer, the Saskatchewan sheriffs have initiated garnishment proceedings. We'll see how that factors into the above.
BONUS TRACK: Ah, one last point. As we've noticed, Patrick does love to bury his audience under obscure precedents and rulings; what he has not done is admit to, or provide to his readership, the letter he received from the OSB making it thigh-suckingly clear that he has no right to pursue this (or any other) action.
I can state for a fact that, some time ago, the OSB sent a letter to Patrick, informing him that his current status as an undischarged bankrupt makes him ineligible to file or pursue actions like this. So one can ask the obvious question -- if Patrick is so eager to reproduce all of these precedents that ostensibly favour him, basic fairness suggests that he also publish that letter from the OSB, just so readers can draw their own conclusions. And yet .. and yet ... I am unaware of Patrick ever even mentioning the existence of that letter.
Perhaps interested parties can ask him to share it online. Or, at the very least, simply admit to its existence. That seems only fair, no?
MORE BONUS: There is one more observation worth making here and that is, except for one action where Patrick Ross hired an actual lawyer, he has chosen to represent himself in every action since 2010 ... with predictably disastrous consequences. Quite simply, Patrick has lost every single action to me over the last 12 years, even the one where he shelled out for a lawyer, and that's because, while Patrick fancies himself quite the legal scholar, he invariably misunderstands and/or misinterprets every single thing he reads; hence, his results year after year. Which suggests a simple question:
Given how deeply Patrick has buried himself, why would he not hire a lawyer to assist him at this point? Rather than invent ludicrous precedents out of nothing, why would Patrick not do the smart thing and let an actual lawyer explain to him what he is and is not allowed to do? And I submit the answer is obvious -- Patrick has no interest in knowing the actual law. He understands that he has nothing, he just does not want to be told that by someone competent to explain it to him.
Quite simply, Patrick lives in his own little world where precedents say what he imagines them to say, and he does not want any hint that he is utterly out to lunch and headed for disaster. He is clearly happier in his fantasy world where he can't be held accountable, and with no one to try to actually educate him on how the law works.
And we've already seen how that ends. Every single time. And this time will be no different.
ADDITIONAL MUSINGS: I have, in fact, notified the OSB as to where Patrick works these days. Let's see how that works out for him.