The Second FCA Appeal

November 19th, 2018

“A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Appellant.  The relief claimed by the appellant appears on the following pages.”

Well, that didn’t take long. 

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has indeed filed yet another action in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) to overturn the results of their previous action in Federal Court.

We won on the last go, it’s just that CSA isn’t taking it well.

The arguments that CSA filed this time aren’t especially compelling or imaginative, so we’ll spend only a moment discussing them.  Indeed, only two points…

First, as CSA lost every argument they made in Federal Court, they are now arguing at FCA that Justice Barnes erred in every aspect of his Ruling.  The line “His Lordship erred in law…” features six times in their filing.  It’s a bit condescending, at one point featuring the line; “If his Lordship had construed the [argument] properly…”

Arguing that a judge has erred is fair dinkum, provided there’s evidence to support the claim.  Arguing that a judge is compromised, in conflict or even crooked, is likewise fair game if there’s compelling evidence for the assertion.  What CSA’s done however, is to argue that Justice Barnes is a colossal screwup, yet they offer a pittance of evidence to support the claim.

Second, about this pittance, the CSA writes that Knight’s Code is indeed as dangerous to public safety as they argued before Justice Barnes.  But his Ruling that their claims of danger to life and property is more or less hogwash doesn’t wash, says CSA.  How so?

Well, read carefully;

“All changes [to the law] are necessary to understand the content and meaning of the Code from an electrical safety perspective, even if such changes may appear relatively minor from a lay perspective.”

Ah, yes.  But regular readers know what those changes are, we chronicled them here

Yes, mere lay readers could be excused for thinking that the spelling of “Sub-rule” could be changed to “Subrule” without compromising safety, or changing “(8)” to “8)” could be managed without bloodshed.  Lay readers just might think so, it’s true.  The trouble for CSA however, is that people in the trade, the experts they claim to represent, are just as unconvinced by CSA’s hyperventilating arguments as Justice Barnes was.

Of course, what CSA wants of the FCA is the usual bundle of loveables; the setting aside of Justice Barnes’ Ruling, the imposition of an injunction on sales of Knight’s Code, and a massive punitive payment of monies so as to bankrupt PS Knight which was, you know, the whole point all along.

This filing will get them farther along, by the way.  The fact is that Court processes are ghastly expensive and, unlike CSA, we can only defend with our own revenues.  The CSA, in contrast, has access to the Federal Treasury.

So here’s where we land;  The CSA’s latest FCA filing will take about a year to reach a Ruling.  Their filing is now before the same FCA that’s still deliberating on CSA’s previous injunctive Ruling, the big one we’ve been waiting for since March of this year.  They’re asking the FCA to Rule on a matter already under deliberation by the same Court.  Yes, absurdities abound.  Anyway, if the FCA issues the long-awaited Ruling before the hearing on this latest CSA filing, then that latest filing is dead on arrival and all material matters are settled, save for the various duplicate lawsuits CSA filed (which should be easily dispatchable at that point) and for the obvious and inevitable, and expensive, financial recoveries filings of PS Knight.

It’s annoying, all this pointlessness, but we’re not in a funk about it.  Things are tight but they’re good, and it’s close enough to the close of it to take some comfort.

The CSA is making other efforts of course, some of these in Ottawa, well proving the line from two weeks ago that “CSA’s capacity for bloodymindedness and legal masochism […] is almost a fetish over there.”  We’re aware of what they’re doing and we’ve positioned for it.

To paraphrase a big thinker; in time, I think, they’ll end up in the ash heap of history.  That was Trotsky.  Would you prefer a friendlier one?

“Let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”

That was Reagan, someone who knew how to fight against a massive entrenched bureaucracy.  And he won.