Nothing really new to report this morning, there's plenty of recent blog posts to entertain you. Just a reminder that, before the upcoming August 20 "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 hearing at the Grande Prairie, Alberta courthouse, I will supply the Webex link so you can dial in and spectate.
As you will have read in the previous post, Patrick is making ominous sounds about how he's planning some sort of sinister surprise for me. I guess we'll just wait and see how that works out, given that he has promised to attend. That's right ... I have correspondence in which Patrick Ross has assured me that he will be attending that hearing. So he really better show.
BONUS TRACK: It is worth noting that if Patrick wants to contest this Application, he would do so by filing a "Response Affidavit" laying out the basis for his defense:
In other words, he must properly file such an Affidavit and give me time to examine it before the hearing, meaning he can't just show up on August 20 and try to surprise the Court with some novel and incomprehensible argument involving depression or garage sales.
4 comments:
How many days before the hearing does Patrick need to file that response affidavit? And would you be allowed to post it on this blog?
Anon @ 6:23 AM: Deadlines for submitting response affidavits appear to depend on the application but in general: "Responding evidence must give the applicant reasonable notice before the hearing date so as not to cause an ambush or prejudice." In short, Patrick can't just file something on August 19 and expect the Court to consider it on August 20.
Also, as long as it's filed properly and legally with the Court, I believe I have every right to post it here, but I will verify that first.
IANAL but I'm fairly sure that if an Affidavit is filed with the Court, you have every right to post it wherever you want. After all, the purpose of such a document would be for the respondent to argue what's in it before the Court, and since hearings are public, anyone attending the hearing would get to hear what's in it. So it can't possibly be protected by privacy, that would make no sense.
Anon @ 7:01 AM: Your logic is sound, I will still verify that with the appropriate authorities. The critical point here is that, despite what Patrick thinks and what he is threatening, he will not be allowed to spring anything on my lawyer at the hearing on August 20. And, again, he has assured me that he will attend that hearing.
Post a Comment