Only two weeks left until my Rule 4.33 Application hearing, and there is precious little time for Patrick "Cheeseburger Boy" Ross to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit:
If Patrick waits too long to file and serve that Affidavit, I could argue that it is out of time and inadmissible. However, if it's the typical spittle-flecked whining we've come to expect from Patrick, it might be in my best interest to just let it be admitted, knowing it's going to piss off the judge. But another possible slimy trick from Patrick just occurred to me.
Rather than properly contest my scheduled Application, Patrick might try to ambush the Court with a last-minute motion to have my Application tossed out, claiming that it is, in some way, improper or invalid or violates the Alberta Rules of Civil Procedure. I have no idea what argument he would make, but I bring this up because he's actually done this before.
It was in 2018 when I filed a motion to have Patrick's long-dormant appeal of his 2014 bankruptcy ruling dismissed for (irony) inordinate and inexcusable delay. Rather than properly prepare for that hearing, Patrick showed up at that hearing and personally served my lawyer with an unexpected application, then insisted that the Court needed to hear his application first. Here is that part of the judges' eventual ruling:
Note how Patrick, rather than arguing the motion properly before the Court, whips out a "gotcha" counter-motion, and insists that because it claims that my motion is improper (or something like that), it must be addressed and resolved first before the Court should be allowed to continue. As you can see, the Court was having none of Patrick's childish games and booted his surprise motion to the side of the road.
I'm wondering if Patrick is going to try something similar this time; that is, file a counter-application that argues that my application can't be heard until his counter-application is scheduled, heard and resolved. It would be a slimy way to get an extension but, as I showed above, it would not be the first time Patrick has tried something like this.
In any event, two weeks to go and, as far as I know, no Response Affidavit yet.
THE SIMPLICITY OF MY APPLICATION: I already posted the salient contents of my Rule 4.33 Application, which is about as simple and straightforward as anything can be, so I have no idea how Patrick could argue that it should be dismissed for any reason:
BONUS TRACK: For the entertainment value, I should reproduce the very last paragraph from Patrick's December 2022 Affidavit against me during which, after having spent the vast majority of the Affidavit complaining about the actions of one Peter Skinner, Patrick ends that Affidavit with this gem:
Make sure you read the above slowly and carefully to truly appreciate what Patrick is admitting to the Court. After having spent several pages spewing accusations of harassment, intimidation and threats of violence, Patrick concedes that I did not do any of that.
I'm fairly sure that that closing paragraph is going before the judge on August 20.
ABOUT THAT RULE 3.68 ... I was interested in the most recent anonymous commenter's reference to Alberta Rule 3.68 and how one could use it to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application, so I simply asked Google, "How could I use Rule 3.68 to defeat a Rule 4.33 Application?" It doesn't look like that would be an option for Patrick:
I won't pretend I understand the intricacies of the above, but the first paragraph seems adequate to confirm that you can't use Rule 3.68 here, so I won't pursue that any further.
5 comments:
Are you serious? Patrick filed an entire Affidavit only to admit at the very end that he was not accusing you of those things? Then what was the point?
Anon @ 9:12 AM: I'm just as baffled as you are. I have no idea of the value of an Affidavit that whinges on for 56 paragraphs about accusations of threats of violence, then in the last paragraph admits that I did not do any of that. I'm going to let the judge figure out how to deal with that.
Just as a hypothetical question, how do you think the court will likely respond to him trying some last minute ambush tactic when the matter before the court is clearly your Rule 4.33 application?
Anon @ 9:47 AM: I honestly don't know, I can only assume that the Court will be massively unimpressed with that sort of childish game-playing. Perhaps those with some legal background can weigh in here and suggest the Court's possible reactions to being blind-sided by an unexpected counter-application whose only purpose is clearly to stall the proceedings.
I am not a lawyer but I just asked Google the obvious question, "How do you strike an application in Alberta?", and it immediately answered with "Rule 3.68." I looked that up and it sure looks like what you'd file if you wanted to cancel someone else's action against you if you thought it was improper or invalid, it lists all the reasons that would apply. Try it yourself, Google that same question and you should get the same reference.
Post a Comment