As you know, if you've been following the case, the Master rejected the University's motion for Summary Judgement. In the meantime, various things have been put on hold, most notably:
1. The University has refused to file its affidavit of documents.
2. They have refused to provide answers to written interrogatories which I have filed and served.
3. They have refused to cooperate on oral Examinations for Discovery which I have been trying to schedule.
There is also the matter of my Motion for Exclusion of Parties which I filed last November and which has been on hold since January. That's the one where I ask the Court to exclude the University's various witnesses from each other's testimony so they don't have the opportunity to tailor their evidence. That motion has been on hold since January.
And there are also various other things sitting in limbo including Application for the Court to order Professor Metz to give me a grade on an assignment which he refuses to mark, and the Motion for Summary Judgement in my defamation suit against Professor Bush and his wife for accusing me of carrying out a home invasion, where I am still waiting for the University to file its Motions Brief.
To make a long story short, I wrote a number of emails over the last few weeks asking opposing counsel to inform me of their intentions on these and other matters, and I received basically no response. In the meantime they have appealed the Master's Ruling, and the Gordon Bell schoolteachers (the other defendants in this case) have announced that they intend to also file their own Motion for Summary Judgement.
So I finally decided I'd take matters into my own hands. I have been trying since last year to proceed with oral Examinations for Discovery, and had already scheduled an examination of former Academic Vice-President John Corlett when the University moved for summary judgement. Since then, Corlett has moved to Edmonton, which complicates my attempts to examine him. So I wrote him directly, explaining my intentions and asking him to comment. I copied my correspondence to opposing counsel and waited. A few days later, Corlett wrote back, saying only that he would comply with his legal duties.
It's understandable that a person just starting a new job (he's a Vice-President at Grant McEwen University in Edmonton) wouldn't want to get involved in old disputes involving his former employer. I respect that. So I wrote him back as follows, copying as always my correspondence to Mr. Meronek of D'Arcy and Deacon: (I don't intend to make a habit of reposting private correspondence in the blog, but I don't think I'm compromising anyone's confidentiality by showing you the letter I sent to Mr. Corlett).
Dear Mr. Corlett:
Thank you for your response to my inquiry. As you probably understand, your strict legal obligations are not engaged until such time as I serve you with a subpoena. However, I think it is not unusual in these situations for the parties to confer ahead of time on logisitics, e.g. convenient dates, acknowledgement of service, etc. Sometimes this is done through opposing counsel, but in this case I am not sure they have been communicating my intentions to you. That is why I approached you directly.
I am wondering if you would care to inform me as to dates, in August if possible or otherwise later in the fall, as to when you might be available; if you would agree to the sum of $600 as satisfactory compensation for travel and expenses which I am obliged to cover (Mr. Meronek can advise you if necessary on how this is calculated); and whether you would be willing to acknowledge service of Notice of Examination by return mail rather than put me to the expense of hiring a process server in Alberta. I hope you will let me know how you wish me to proceed in this regard.
And then things got interesting...