Influencing the Deliberations

April 2nd, 2018

As you know, we had a plenty-big showdown with the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) at the Federal Court of Appeals on March 1st.  While we can’t comment on how things went at that Hearing, and while we’re still waiting for the Ruling of the Court, readers may draw their own conclusions on how things went for CSA in the Courtroom by the actions taken by them last week.

What actions?  Well, CSA is suing us.  Again.

On Monday, March 26th, we received a Notice that CSA filed yet another lawsuit against us in Federal Court.  This is the sixth lawsuit they’ve filed against us in six years, and only three weeks after the Appeals Court Hearing.

This latest lawsuit, officially the T-577-18 lawsuit, is the same as CSA’s T-646-15 lawsuit, which itself was a copy of their T-1178-12 lawsuit, the latter being the basis for their 2015 provincial lawsuit, and their two filings against us at CIRA and WIPO. 

The contents of their latest litigation are basically the same selective argument and one-sided pedantry that CSA’s known for, but the timing of their filing is brash at best, and it’s rarely wise to assume the best of the worst at CSA.

The issues of this new lawsuit are identical to the issues dealt with on the March 1st Hearing (claim of private law, Queens Printer law, Manson’s law).  The particulars they’re now complaining about were known to both parties prior to the Hearing and were either argued at that Hearing or at least were known for that purpose.  That is, CSA was afforded the opportunity to argue on all of these issues before the Court.  Whether they availed themselves of that opportunity isn’t supposed to be a concern to the Court, nor to their opponent.  Yet, the fact that they chose not to argue some of their points at the Hearing is now the excuse they use for filing an entirely new lawsuit on exactly the same issue.

You see, their sixth lawsuit, filed in Federal Court, was also copied to the Justices at the Court of Appeals.  The CSA is trying to use this latest duplicate lawsuit as a means of making additional arguments to the Court of Appeals, after the Hearing had already concluded.

The March 1st Hearing happened on March 1st; it concluded on March 1st.  The Court is now in deliberation and is presumably writing its Ruling.  It is not lawful to try to influence the Court during the writing of a Ruling. 

The CSA knows this, of course, they know that they can’t make new submissions.  But, goes the logic, if they dummy up a new lawsuit, make it look as distinct and legitimate as possible, then they wouldn’t be unlawfully trying influence a Court Ruling, they’d merely be advising the Court of Appeal of a new filing.  Which just happens to contain fifteen pages of new argumentation.  Coincidentally.

That’s still massively unethical, and it’s still a big breach of Court Rules.  But with the excuse of a new lawsuit, their conduct at least has the look of being a lesser violation than it actually is.

I recently had a private meeting with a well known political leader in western Canada.  I regaled him on how the CSA Civil Service has been behaving.  He responded with the observation that revolutions are borne of conduct like this.  Corruption at CSA isn’t likely the coming cause of social unrest, but the accumulation of such instances of corruption, combined with wavering confidence in the integrity of the Courts to resist it, and the registry of these realities in the public consciousness, is what sudden and chaotic change is made of.  Said another political leader in Europe, when the Courts become a weapon instead of a refuge, when lawful recourse is denied or suppressed or perverted, “then all they have left is nationalism and violence.”

If you can tell, I am pretty disgusted by the Government’s conduct in their latest attempted debauchery of the Judicial system.

I consider it a personal disrespect that CSA’s Counsel should try to influence the deliberations of the Court in the interval between the Hearing and the Ruling.  It is a further disrespect to the Court itself that CSA’s Counsel should presume that any such inappropriate and unlawful influence would be entertained, or acted upon in their favour, by the Court.

For all that, in the absence of special permission from the Court we cannot equivalently respond to these new submissions without violating the same Rules violated by CSA.

The Court may well reward CSA for their conduct by considering only their invectives, divorced of context, absent opposing submissions and, as is depressingly usual for CSA, all passed through the tortured logic of palatine, entitled elitists; that the law is their own personal property, that recourse at law is their own exclusive privilege, and that the lesser peoples’ place is perpetually at their heel.

Or the Court may ignore their conduct, or may smite them for it.  We don’t know. 

Of course, CSA knows that even if they get a proper thrashing from the Court, with CSA’s sixth lawsuit against us they’ve at least caused us yet more financial damage.  My friends, litigation is ruinously expensive.

But lets end on a positive.  The Court may well notice that the content of CSA’s seemingly new submissions is actually very dated argumentation.  They may note the dates involved, as being entirely prior to the March 1st Hearing.  The Court may rightly conclude that CSA’s brought nothing new, and therefore nothing honest to their table.

And finally, from the CSA-is-so-inept-that-they’re-entertaining file, the new CSA lawsuit claims that I personally never appealed the Manson Ruling.  They made that argument to the Court of Appeal, to the Judges handling our appeal of the Manson Ruling.  Think about that. 

Oh, and the corporate address they featured in their filing, the one they told the Court was my street address, appears to be for a grocery store.  My office is nowhere near that location.

But hey, let’s give CSA some slack.  I mean, phonebooks are so horridly difficult to sort out, and it’s only been six years of litigation, with files constantly being mailed back and forth, you know, to addresses.  How on earth could an Agency so crammed with uncluttered minds be expected to keep track of something so immensely complex as my address?

[sigh]