Obviously ahead of time (hearings start at 10 a.m. Alberta time), I've logged into the Webex URL for the Grande Prairie virtual courtroom. Nothing's happening yet, but it's promising that I can see two other people already waiting in the Webex lobby.
I've been told that after virtual hearings start in about 40 minutes, we are approximately number 14 on the docket. If the judge has a clue and sticks to the law, it should be a short hearing. If the judge starts wandering afield and discussing underlying merits, I'm hoping my lawyer slaps him (or her) down in a hurry.
I'll see you there, and feel free to invite your friends.
FOLLOWUP: Hearings start in 15 minutes and already a dozen people waiting on Webex.
AND WE'RE OFF ...
FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A COMMENT IF YOU'RE DIALED IN.
P.S. This might take a while if they handle all the adjournments and uncontested hearings first.
Apparently, there is another "dismissal for delay" case to be heard. Will be interesting to see how different that case is.
We have simply been pushed down the queue so the judge can handle the short hearings first. The contested hearings will be heard afterwards.
It sounds like *this* 4.33 case is hung up on the precise definition of "three years" and that the defendant jumped the gun by a couple of weeks -- my case has no such issue.
I am encouraged that this judge is being *very* pedantic about how the full period of three years is critically important.
I am feeling better about this since the current hearing is going on at length about the steps that *were* taken and whether they were sufficient since, in my case, there was ***nothing*** that was done by Patrick Ross since December of 2022. Nothing. For over three and a half years.
Grrrrrrr ... is it possible that the judge won't even get to our case today? How annoying.
OK, a contested Rule 4.33 Application ... and it sounds like the disagreement will be over when advancements happened and whether those advancements were "significant". Again, this is not relevant for my case -- there were *no* advancements of any kind within the last three and a half years. Legally, based on the judge's treatment of this case, I should feel optimistic.
This should be interesting ... lawyer for Plaintiff arguing why action should *not* be dismissed because stuff happened. Once again, not relevant for my case since *nothing* was done in over three years.
Yet again, I am encouraged that the entirety of *this* current Rule 4.33 hearing hinges on the contested significance of events that occurred within the three years prior to the Defendant's Application since, in my case, absolutely NOTHING happened. So if the judge subsequently rules against me, she would be mind-numbingly inconsistent with what she's been saying all morning.We're up next
Sounds like judge is pretty much done with this case, but I'm not sure how far we are down the list. There's one more hour available for hearings.
Sounds like we *might* be heard today, if the current case can be brief and articulate.
OMFG ... are we going to get in today?
OFFS, get *on* with it. I'm up next if this case can be closed.
Jesus Christ, how long can you argue about a freakin' truck?
OK, I'm cautiously optimistic so far ...
13 comments:
That seemed anti-climactic. WTF happened?
We will be up after the shorter hearings (uncontested, adjournments, and so on).
Thanks, back to the popcorn bag!
This might be the other "dismissal for delay" case being heard right now, which sounds like it needs more work before it can be heard.
Good thing you are disciplined, and waited the *full* three years to file the motion to dismiss. This lawyer of the other 4.33 case might have scored an own-goal by jumping the gun by a couple of weeks.
Having said that, the words "inordinate and inexcusable" fit Patrick "Twatsy" Ross perfectly.
RossOwesDay: The more I listen to *this* hearing, the more optimistic I am that there is NOTHING this judge can fault in my case.
Now this Volvo case will go to costs so I don't think we get entertainment for today..... hopefully fairly soon though!
OOOPS, too soon, mnore popcorn!
Ruh roh.
Twatsy's lawyer had some real "FML" energy in court today.
Seems like a bit of a cop-out by the judge to dismiss the proposed costs presented because they didn't like the language of this blog. Especially given the already established record of someone hiding and not paying their legal judgements previously. It strikes me as a sort of lazy media "both sides" when they don't want to just admit one side is clearly acting way worse, and the other side is just using salty language to explain facts.
Wait, did the judge not attach additional costs on Twatrick?
The lawyer went to ask for enhanced damages, and the judge basically said she was unhappy with CC and how he talks about the case and so she wouldn't be awarding extra costs. CCs lawyer even made a comment at one point along the lines of "well, if damages are off the table then we won't get into it". But the judge ultimately went with $1000 to cover costs of the filing, I believe. It sounded like CCs lawyer was asking for $5000. So the judge basically gave the minimum because she didn't like CCs langauge. Which to me says people can break the law for years and get away with it, but good forbid you use bad words when fighting for your own rights! Then again, this is Alberta...
Post a Comment