The Gory Details

In two more weeks I'll be in court arguing the University's Motion for Stay of Discovery. I filed my Brief just the other day. You can read it online here.

It's a really long brief but it's worth reading if you want to know exactly how the University has screwed me over since the day two years ago they removed me from the teaching practicum at Gordon Bell. What emerges is a picture of how they have relentlessly and shamelessly frustrated my right to disclosure, thereby making it impossible for me to answer the charges against me. The present motion, to put a hold on my right to oral discovery while they proceed with their Motions for Summary Judgment, is just a continuation of what they've been doing for the last two years.

I conclude my Brief with a kind of post-script, where I justify the fact that I'm pushing hard to move forward with my case. It's not exactly a legal argument, but I think it sums things up pretty well. I've reproduced it here for your enjoyment:

Epilogue (to the Plaintiff's Motions Brief)

84.       As a Canadian citizen of the Mosaic persuasion, the Plaintiff has frequent occasion, whether in Temple or in ordinary social situations, to encounter co-religionists  who are members of the legal profession, wherupon the Plaintiff has often taken advantage of the opportunity to discuss his experiences as a self-represented litigant.

85.       In one such conversation with a well-known Member of the Bar, a co-religionist of the Plaintiff whom we will hereinafter refer to as Mr. K, the Plaintiff expressed his indignation at learning of a recent case where it took twenty-two years from the time the action was launched until it was argued in Court. The Plaintiff recalls expressing his frustration using words similar to “the legal system is a farce”; whereupon Mr. K admonished him that it was not so; that the system was not “broken”, and it was more likely that lack of sufficient diligence on the part of counsel  was to blame for such inordinate delays of justice. Mr. K further expressed the opinion (or perhaps it was a boast) that working within the rules, he could get any case to trial in 18 months (or 24 at the most), provided he saw fit to devote his fullest efforts to that end.

86.       In the present case, the Defendants have frequently expressed resentment (as described in the foregoing) at the efforts they have had to exert in response to the Plaintiff’s actions. We, for our part, believe we are doing nothing more than using the Queen’s Bench Rules for their intended purpose; namely, the speedy and expeditious determination of justice. Perhaps it is commonly accepted within the Legal Profession that many of the “deadlines” mandated by the QB rules are not meant to be taken literally, but we do not feel bound to acquiesce to this state of affairs simply because it has become the norm. Indeed, given the age of the Plaintiff, if we were to allow this case to languish for twenty-two years before going to trial, the issues would most likely have become moot in the most definite sense of the word before then.

87.       We therefore feel fully justified in agressively taking up the challenge which Rocky has laid down before us: namely, to get our case to trial inside of two years. At the time of this filing it will have been thirteen months, so we feel we are still “on track” to make target. We urge the Court to respect our desires in this regard, even if it may seem that in practise “speedy justice” has become more the exception than the rule. 

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

October ______ 2013                                              Martin Green