While I insisted recently that I was not going to blog as much about Lloydminster's Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen, there is one outstanding issue to clarify and that relates to whether undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross has been properly "served" lately with respect to the Saskatchewan sheriffs' financial questionnaire that he's been sent, and the answer is ... oh, yes. Absolutely.
To recap, a while back (based on Patrick's relentless refusal to follow the rules of the court), I applied for -- and was granted -- "substituted service" for Patrick, which means that, with respect to this specific action of enforcing my collection proceedings against him, I do not need to serve Patrick personally. Rather, the sub service I was granted made it clear that I was obligated to do exactly two things to effect legal service against Patrick:
- Email to his personal email address, and
- Send registered mail to his alleged Lloydminster address.
That't it ... as long as I did both of the above, Patrick was considered to have been served.
A few people have wondered whether, given that Patrick has been refusing to reply to emails, and also refusing to have anyone sign for the registered mail that shows up at his (alleged) door, doing this still constitutes legal service. I have checked and, oh, yes, it absolutely does.
The few precedents people have linked to here are in no way relevant, as they apply to people clearly being served for the first time and who might not understand the import of that service (those precedents also don't relate to sub service), so those precedents are not relevant here. Patrick knows full well the conditions of my sub service for him, so ignoring emails or registered mail makes no difference. At this point, Patrick has refused to accept the service of documents sent to him via legitimate sub service, which means he really and truly has evaded service in the eyes of the Saskatchewan sheriffs who sent those documents.
Just in case you were wondering.
P.S. As I understand it, given Patrick's current evasion of service, I am going to have a truly compelling argument to get substantial costs out of every single thing I am required to do from now on to enforce my judgment, so what Patrick owes me is likely to skyrocket over the next while as he continues to evade service.
Just in case you were wondering.
1 comment:
I saw that link to a case where a judge ruled that a defendant wasn't properly served, but I knew right away that didn't relate to this case. Based on what I've read, you've been serving Patrick for quite some time using sub service. If that's the case, then he can't just stop accepting sub service, that's not how it works. Once you've established a pattern of accepting sub service, you're stuck with it. So if Patrick hasn't been replying to sub service, then he's guilty of evasion of service. That's not even a tough call.
Post a Comment