In Patrick's letter of July 18 to my lawyer, Patrick insists that Alberta's standard 2-year limitation period magically does not apply to him because he sees my alleged defamation (or intimidation or harassment or whatever) as "continuous" and "ongoing":
As I have suggested before, Patrick has a talent for perusing the law, hopelessly misunderstanding what he reads, and pontificating wildly incorrectly and inaccurately so, as I've done before, I asked Google specifically whether a Rule 4.33 dismissal can be overruled and a dismissed lawsuit refiled by claiming "ongoing" damage or injury based on earlier claims. Uh, no:
Note well that Patrick is perfectly free to file a new lawsuit if he can identify "New Distinct Events or Causes" that occurred within the applicable 2-year limitation period (in this case, since late August of 2024), and that's perfectly reasonable and I have no problem with that. But it seems clear that the Court will have little patience with Patrick pointing at stuff that is more than four years old and insisting that it's still fair game.
P.S. It is amusing that, in that very paragraph at the top, Patrick openly concedes that he was suing me for stuff that happened over four years ago. When the time comes, I will definitely be placing that admission before the Court to establish that Patrick accepts that his claims are now out of time.
Sometimes, Patrick is his own worst enemy.
BONUS TRACK: "Google, could refiling a 4.33-dismissed lawsuit be considered abuse of process?"
I draw your attention to the second point above, where Patrick's many, many years of arrogance and contempt of court orders would be used against him.
Sometimes, Patrick is his own worst enemy.
1 comment:
Rather than arguing that you can dismiss Patrick's upcoming refiling, you should look at it from the other direction in that a new lawsuit would allow you to question Patrick for discovery and you could require him to hand over information about where he lives, and where he works, and his current assets, and how much he got in his father's will, and whether he has any assets tied up in the Lloydminster property, and his bank accounts and so on.
Post a Comment