The Urgent Hearings
April 15th, 2018
“Justice in the hands of the powerful is merely a governing system like any other. Why call it justice? Let us rather call it injustice, but of a sly effective order, based entirely on cruel knowledge of the resistance of the weak, their capacity for pain, humiliation and misery. Injustice sustained at the exact degree of necessary tension to turn the cogs of the huge machine-for-the-making-of-rich-men, without bursting the boiler.” -Georges Bernanos (1888-1948)
On April 10th the Federal Court of Appeals issued their response to the illegal letter sent by the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”), which we reported on last week. The Court noted that “it was improper for the respondent to have sent his unsolicited submission, without the consent of the Court or the appellant.” Indeed so, but I can’t help noting how muted is the Court’s criticism. Contemptuous treatment of the Court should be treated contemptuously by the Court. But it isn’t.
Rather, the Court of Appeal is rewarding CSA’s conduct by accepting their unlawful submission. “The information provided by [CSA] may be useful to the Court in its deliberations of these matters and the Court will therefore consider it.”
So, our side will spend next weekend drafting a responding submission. And it goes on like this, interminably; one side respecting the law while the other disregards it, the Court treating both as moral equivalents.
Of course, CSA also filed their sixth lawsuit against us, as we reported here. Never matter that the Court deliberations that CSA’s interfering with are identical in subject and argument, and will shortly conclude the conflict one way or the other. And never mind that their newfound nuanced complaints were all known prior to the March 1st Hearing. No. There’s plenty of process to wallow in. And process is the punishment.
In this, the CSA filed for another injunction on PS Knight publications because, as you know, our books are still quoting from the law. How horrid! Anyway, CSA made this filing on “an urgent basis.” We’ve been publishing the same kind of content since 1967 but, claims CSA, it’s now so urgent that waiting a few weeks for the Court Ruling is unreasonable. No, they need a new Ruling to tide them over until the Ruling.
The urgent Hearing date for the sixth lawsuit is late this month. Even that’s way too far away, says CSA. Granted, its been 312 weeks since they launched their war in 2012, and through all that time they didn’t bother with an injunction on our annotated books because, they said, annotated books aren’t really a worry for them. Indeed, that which they’ve testified isn’t a problem is now, apparently, a problem. And granted, since 1967 there have been 2,652 weeks since PS Knight started publishing annotated books, and all without CSA filing an injunction on them. But now however, waiting two whole weeks is wholly unreasonable.
So CSA convinced the Court to allow an interim interlocutory injunctive Hearing for later this week. In this Hearing they’ll argue that PS Knight should be barred from business for the next week, until the sixth lawsuit Hearing is heard in two weeks’ time, whose Ruling will only be valid until the Court of Appeal Ruling arrives shortly thereafter. Got that? They want a Ruling to tide them over until the Ruling can tide them over until the Ruling.
And the Court is taking this seriously.
As a result, on Tuesday I have to fly to Toronto yet again for another round of Discovery testimony, and we’re all working feverishly on the filings for their sixth lawsuit in order to make the tight timelines the Court consented to, and all for absolutely nothing whatsoever. One of the Hearings will take place in Quebec City, the other will take place in Newfoundland, neither is attendable by our side due to scheduling and cost but, of course, CSA counsel will be there at both. That’s our disadvantage and there’s not much we can do about it.
The other big disadvantage? Well, both new Hearings are handled by Crampton’s Court.
You remember Kangaroo Crampton, right? He’s the Chief Justice of that Court, the man who selected Michael Manson, sometime CSA employee, media rep and fellow traveller, to serve as impartial judge between ourselves and his CSA colleagues. It was Crampton’s Court that issued Manson’s Law, the privatization of formerly public laws. It was Crampton himself who was confronted about his conduct on this file and Manson’s massive breaches of law, and it was Crampton who chose to cover up the crime and keep Manson from the discomfort of accountability. Kangaroo Crampton folks, that’s who’s choosing the judges for both of these Hearings.
We take seriously the reports that Crampton’s selection of Manson was influenced by certain civil servants. On September 15th of last year, we even filed a series of Access to Information orders on the matter. A sampling therefrom;
“Kindly provide of the records of Chief Justice Paul Crampton of the Federal Court of Canada, from his office and from staff reporting to or within his office, for the period September 01, 2015 - September 01, 2017; 1) all emails containing the [Court] numbers ‘1178’ or ‘646’, or the terms ‘Knight’, ‘CSA’, ‘CACN’, ‘Queen’s Printer’, ‘Smart’, ’S&B’, or ‘Isaac’, without regard to punctuation, and; 2) phone log records for any and all Government issued communications devices utilized by him or in his possession.”
This didn’t please the Court. Obviously they didn’t comply, even though the Access to Information Act doesn’t give an exemption to the administrative side of Court operations. Rather, Crampton’s Court decided to reinterpret provisions of the Act in their favour, exempting themselves from public scrutiny.
What do you suppose the Court’s phone logs show?
What do you think they’d show during the run-up to CSA’s two new Hearings?
Why do you think CSA’s suddenly pushing so hard to get multiple Hearings, specifically in Crampton’s Court?
Well, we have too much experience with this Court to have confidence in this Court. Whatever happens in these duplicate distractions, the resulting Rulings will only be valid until the Court of Appeals Ruling shortly thereafter. Cold comfort, but there it is.