| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
 Connie FournierMember
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
 Posted: 08/ 08/ 08 8:35 pm Post subject: Richard Warman vs Ouwendyk hearing 'an abuse of process' |
 |
|
Mark and I were planning on attending the Warman vs Ouwendyk CHRT hearing that was scheduled for August 18th because we wanted to have the chance to see Miss Lucy on the stand. I believe this is the last of the complaints that he has made that hasn't yet been heard (until he finds some more, one supposes).
Today, however, I found that the hearing has been postponed, and Ouwendyk's agent, Paul Fromm, is asking that the whole thing be thrown out. There is a lot of very interesting material in this letter, so I'm just pasting it all here for you.
I am not at all familiar with the Ouwendyk case, but it sounds as if it has already had its share of twists and turns...
| Quote: | OUWENDYK HEARING AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, FROMM ARGUES: DISMISS THE CASE & CENSURE WARMAN
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
August 7, 2008
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street
11th Floor
Ottawa, ON.,
KIA 1J4
Nichol Bacon, Registry Officer
Re: Richard Warman v. Northern Alliance and Jason Ouwendyk
Files: T1216/2807 & T1217/2907
Dear Ms Bacon:
I write in response to Mr. Poulin's submissions of August 6, seeking an adjournment of these proceedings. On behalf of Mr. Ouwendyk, I seek the immediate withdrawal or dismissal of this complaint.
Here are the material facts:
1. In 2004, Mr. Ouwendyk filed a Consumer Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
2. Mr. Warman had filed a libel claim against Mr. Ouwendyk in Small Claims Court. The proceedings were stayed.
3. Mr. Warman sought to strop Mr. Ouwendyk's Consumer Proposal. Although there has been no finding of wrong in Small Claims Court, Mr. Warman submitted a claim of $12,500. Although Mr. Ouwendyk objected, Mr. Warman threatened to take the matter top Court. Clearly, seeking a Consumer Proposal, Mr,. Ouwendyk had no resources to contest this. The result of the adding of Mr. Warman's claim was that the other creditors collected less.
4. Subsequent to this, Mr. Warman filed the current Sec. 13 complaint against Mr. Ouwendyk.
5. Sec. 69.2 of the Bankruptcy Act stays further action for the recovery of a financial claim: to wit, " ... On the filing of a consumer proposal ... in respect of a consumer debtor, no creditor has any remedy against the debtor or the debtor's property, or shall commence or continue any action, execution or other proceedings, for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy, ... until the administrator has been discharged."
6. Mr. Poulin indicated in his letter of August 6: "On August 6, ... we heard from the Trustee appointed as Administrator, Mr. David Howling. It is his position ... that Mr. Warman's claim is stayed by the Consumer Proposal and will be discharged upon completion of the obligations under the proposal."
7. The Joint Statement of Particulars filed by Mr. Warman and the Commission seek:
"14. An Order that the Respondents pay a penalty pursuant to Section 54(`1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act;
15. An Order that the Respondent pay compensation pursuant to Section 54(1)(b) Canadian Human Rights Act." [sic] That is, to compensate Mr. Warman as an alleged "victim" for having been named in the impugned communications.
8. Mr. Warman is a member of the bar in the Province of Ontario. It is presumed and must be presumed that he knows the law. Furthermore, Mr. Warman holds a Master's Degree in law. By the time he filed his CHRC complaint in March, 2006, he was well aware of the Consumer Proposal filed in Dec., 2004.
Near the end of his letter, Mr. Poulin somewhat tartly noted: "If Mr. Ouwendyk had been represented by legal counsel this issue would have arisen earlier." This is the rankest form of blaming the victim, Mr. Ouwendyk for being poor. Mr. Warman, as a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and as a respondent in these proceedings had a duty to disclose the matter of Mr. Ouwendyk's Consumer Proposal. Further the demands for financial compensation are clearly illegal and were known or should have been known to have been illegal.
As has so often happened with Mr. Warman's 20 some complaints, the victims are poor and unrepresented by counsel. This is one of the crying iniquities of Sec. 13, now the subject of a Constitutional Challenge in Warman v. Lemire, that a a victim, too poor to afford counsel -- and "poor" might be anybody from Middle Class on down, considering the weighty costs of litigation in Canada today -- is unable to obtain legal aid and is just ground down in what purports to be a "human rights" proceeding.
Mr. Warman knew of the Consumer Proposal, being active in trying to extract $12,500 from Mr. Ouwendyk for a claim that had never been adjudicated. Yet, he proceeded to file this complaint under the CHRA, knowing that he was not entitled to the financial penalties he sought.
It has been Mr. Ouwendyk's position from the beginning that this is a frivolous and vexatious complaint. This complaint stems from a long-standing animosity on Mr. Warman's part against Mr. Ouwendyk, stemming back at least to 2003, when Mr. Ouwendyk referred to Mr. Warman as a censor and enemy of freedom. In an August, 2005 speech to the communist and violent Anti-Racist Action group (ARA) in Toronto, Mr. Warman boasted that his tactics were those of "maximum disruption" of his perceived political opponents.
These proceedings are a case in point. They are one more act in a drama of singular political animosity on Mr. Warman's part, a vendetta against Mr. Ouwendyk.
This complaint has been filed in bad faith and in the pursuit of a political agenda. The financial remedies sought are contrary to law and, as a lawyer, Mr. Warman would have known they were contrary to law. In allowing this proceeding to drag on so long, the Commission has betrayed the public interest and has failed to perform due legal diligence, especially as the victim here, Mr. Ouwendyk was unable to afford counsel.
These proceedings have been an outrageous abuse of process. Mr. Warman has used Sec. 13 for vexatious purposes to damage Mr. Ouwendyk, as part of a long-standing vendetta.
Fairness requires a forceful statement of revulsion against this abuse of process. Accordingly, on Mr. Ouwendyk's behalf, I seek:
a. Immediate dismissal of this complaint as an abuse of process;
b. A stern condemnation of Mr. Warman for his conduct in this matter;
c. A referral by this Tribunal of Mr. Warman's conduct in this case to the disciplinary committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada;
Regrettably, under this cryingly unfair and lopsided Act, there is no provision for a Tribunal to award compensation or costs to an abused victim such as Mr. Ouwendyk. However, a statement by the Tribunal recognizing this deficiency would provide at least some sense of fairness to Mr. Ouwendyk.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm
Agent for Jason Ouwendyk |
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
styky
|
| Posted: 08/ 08/ 08 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well that certainly lays it all out for everyone to see, and it's not pretty. I only hope that someone finally listens and acts.
_________________
FREE DOMINION FORUM RULES
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope ~ Sir Winston Churchill
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 08/ 09/ 08 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | These proceedings have been an outrageous abuse of process. Mr. Warman has used Sec. 13 for vexatious purposes to damage Mr. Ouwendyk, as part of a long-standing vendetta.
Fairness requires a forceful statement of revulsion against this abuse of process. Accordingly, on Mr. Ouwendyk's behalf, I seek:
a. Immediate dismissal of this complaint as an abuse of process;
b. A stern condemnation of Mr. Warman for his conduct in this matter;
c. A referral by this Tribunal of Mr. Warman's conduct in this case to the disciplinary committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada; |
Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark! 
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter O'Donnell
Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Total posts: 7995 Location: BC Age: 60 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 08/ 09/ 08 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This whole situation in Canada today has developed into what I would call legal civil war, with the far left and radical Islam on one side, and conservatives on the other, except that only one side wants to fight this particular war. Our side would prefer to "fight" if that is the right word in the political realm, debating various issues with our opponents in the context of public policy and the electoral process. That would be democracy, this situation we have now is anarchy.
The government of Canada and of the various provinces (BC, AB and ON being the three major players at present) are in my view seriously delinquent in their responsibility to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It was apparent two years ago that this whole situation urgently needed review and radical intervention.
Human rights tribunals could serve a useful function as perhaps they once did. There are actually real human rights violations that take place in our society. We can accept the need for a less formal judicial system to deal with these, simply because the alternative would be to create more expensive and time-consuming venues in the regular court system. Many of the more legitimate cases that might be heard by these tribunals would involve mostly mediation and conflict resolution.
Trying to deal with complex political debates in this system is not only dangerous to free speech, it invites a total breakdown of public confidence in the whole system and the legal system in general. Police are drawn into political debates and asked to act like Soviet style thugs, bursting into homes and offices to check for evidence of illegal thought processes, as though we were living in China or the former Soviet bloc, or Cuba -- or Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
The longer the government stalls and hopes that some public groundswell will let them take an easy set of actions instead of going against the prevailing (misled) public mood of veneration for political correctness, the higher becomes the risk that somebody who is seriously annoyed at these perpetrators of "lawfare" will conclude that his or her best option is outside the system. Also, the longer the radical Islamists are allowed to abuse the system, the higher becomes the risk that one of them will get frustrated at the slow pace of jihad and go from soft to hard mode.
A responsible government (and PM in particular) would have sufficient understanding of their fundamental responsibility by now (or ideally two years ago) to begin necessary action to re-set the mandates of these tribunals and also bring in substantial disincentives for Richard Warman and the radical Muslim factions to abuse the system with nuisance lawsuits. This has reached the point where it can be described not only as anarchy, but social revolution being practiced right under the nose of the Canadian and provincial governments, for the private benefit of individuals. And we must not overlook the very lucrative careers that can now be found in a growth industry that many would identify as "joining the thought police."
If you like the above analysis, send it on wherever you think it will do some good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fabulous Fred
Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 08/ 09/ 08 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter O'Donnell wrote: | This whole situation in Canada today has developed into what I would call legal civil war, with the far left and radical Islam on one side, and conservatives on the other, except that only one side wants to fight this particular war. Our side would prefer to "fight" if that is the right word in the political realm, debating various issues with our opponents in the context of public policy and the electoral process. That would be democracy, this situation we have now is anarchy.
The government of Canada and of the various provinces (BC, AB and ON being the three major players at present) are in my view seriously delinquent in their responsibility to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It was apparent two years ago that this whole situation urgently needed review and radical intervention.
Human rights tribunals could serve a useful function as perhaps they once did. There are actually real human rights violations that take place in our society. We can accept the need for a less formal judicial system to deal with these, simply because the alternative would be to create more expensive and time-consuming venues in the regular court system. Many of the more legitimate cases that might be heard by these tribunals would involve mostly mediation and conflict resolution.
Trying to deal with complex political debates in this system is not only dangerous to free speech, it invites a total breakdown of public confidence in the whole system and the legal system in general. Police are drawn into political debates and asked to act like Soviet style thugs, bursting into homes and offices to check for evidence of illegal thought processes, as though we were living in China or the former Soviet bloc, or Cuba -- or Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
The longer the government stalls and hopes that some public groundswell will let them take an easy set of actions instead of going against the prevailing (misled) public mood of veneration for political correctness, the higher becomes the risk that somebody who is seriously annoyed at these perpetrators of "lawfare" will conclude that his or her best option is outside the system. Also, the longer the radical Islamists are allowed to abuse the system, the higher becomes the risk that one of them will get frustrated at the slow pace of jihad and go from soft to hard mode.
A responsible government (and PM in particular) would have sufficient understanding of their fundamental responsibility by now (or ideally two years ago) to begin necessary action to re-set the mandates of these tribunals and also bring in substantial disincentives for Richard Warman and the radical Muslim factions to abuse the system with nuisance lawsuits. This has reached the point where it can be described not only as anarchy, but social revolution being practiced right under the nose of the Canadian and provincial governments, for the private benefit of individuals. And we must not overlook the very lucrative careers that can now be found in a growth industry that many would identify as "joining the thought police."
If you like the above analysis, send it on wherever you think it will do some good. |
That analysis is fine to a point but it misses a major aspect that is absolutely vital in my opinion.
One side has the entire weight of government and it 's unlimited resources at it's disposal. The system is most decidedly stacked against conservatives, staffed by agenda driven minorities and completely unfair and biased in it's procedures and policy. The complainant pays ZERO, takes ZERO responsibility and stands ONLY TO GAIN from the inquisition and persecution that takes place.
The other side is on a stand alone, defend yourself if you are able, and shut out of "the loop" when it comes to access to information, disclosure and ability to get a fair hearing. The monetary costs alone are staggering and beyond the ability of most individuals to bear. There is ZERO recoup of expenses, NOTHING to be gained in any way whatsoever and EVERYTHING to be lost.
....and this passes for "human rights" in Canada?  
_________________
Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Kennedy
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Total posts: 11856 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 08/ 09/ 08 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is so true
A cannibal was walking through the jungle and came upon a restaurant operated by a fellow cannibal.
Feeling somewhat hungry, he sat down and looked over the menu...
+ Tourist: $5.00
+ Broiled Missionary: $6.00
+ Fried Explorer: $7.00
+ Baked Democrat or Grilled Republican: $100.00
+canuckistan inhman rights emplyee/inquisitor: $1000.00
The cannibal called the waiter over and asked, 'Why such a price difference for the inhuman rights inquisitors?
The cook replied, 'Have you ever tried to clean one?
They're so full of shit, it takes all morning.'
_________________
Please let me know if I said something that offended you. I may want to offend you again sometime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter O'Donnell
Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Total posts: 7995 Location: BC Age: 60 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 08/ 09/ 08 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| True enough, I have the feeling this is becoming an end-game situation, too many prying eyes now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Connie Fournier Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 21101 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 44 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 08/ 15/ 08 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bump.
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Warman vs Ouwendyk hearing 'an abuse of process' |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
