Update and Funny CSA Statements

October 29th, 2018

There’s no Ruling yet in the Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA’s) latest duplicate lawsuit.  This latest Ruling was expected before Oct 15th, and this article was supposed to be a reporting and expository on that Ruling. 

So where’s the Ruling?

Well, it seems there was a bungle.  Not a nefarious bungle, just a bumbling sort of bungle. 

Apparently the Judge in the latest Hearing expected both parties to submit costs (for cost award on Ruling) before issuance of the Ruling so that cost awards could be included within that Ruling.  Legal counsel for both sides misunderstood and were awaiting the Ruling before submitting costs.  Sometimes stuff happens.

Bungle sorted, the cost submissions were submitted last week, so we should have the latest Ruling sometime this week. 

in the interim, it might amuse our readership to be graced by some of CSA’s reasoning, as contained in their cost submissions.

For instance, said CSA; “This matter was of great importance to CSA, involved complex legal issues, and featured an extensive evidentiary record.”

Really?  You’ve read the Queen’s Printer Copyright on this site before, but consider CSA’s claim about how complicated this law is as you read it again;

“Alberta Queen’s Printer permits any person to reproduce Alberta’s statutes and regulations without seeking permission and without charge”.

It’s so hard to know what that means, eh?  Lots of pondering needed.

Well, CSA thinks so, or at least they said they thought so.  This matter “involved complex intellectual property issues requiring extensive evidence and argument.”  Uh-huh.

Then they got to the pricey bit, the cost claims themselves.  The CSA is claiming the princely sum of $56,000.00 for this one redundant Hearing.  Remember, this is how much they want the Court to charge PS Knight for CSA’s being bothered by us defending ourselves. 

Readers may recall that CSA’s pattern in Court is to inflate costs as much as possible, in duplicated hearings, multiple motions, injunctives, -anything really, to drive up legal costs so as to financially imperil PS Knight.  Indeed, readers may recall our predicting exactly this pattern in media interviews as early as 2013, warning that CSA sought to “bleed us financially” as a means of destroying us.

They tried the same thing right after the infamous Manson Ruling and Crampton’s coverup of the, shall we say, irregularities therein.  They demanded roughly $100,000.00 in costs, enough to wipe out PS Knight Co just in penalties.  And Manson Ruled that sum in favour of his colleagues at CSA.  And it took Justice Mary Gleason the Federal Court of Appeal to stay that sham and give us a chance to appeal.

Anyway, this time CSA’s “very reasonable” cost inflation features over $45,000 for “photocopying, binding, scanning and other miscellaneous fees”.  How does one spend forty-five grand on photocopying?  By generating massive amounts of irrelevant paperwork.  As we said in our cost response; “Knight was required to review over fifteen volumes of CSA motion records [yet] CSA only relied on about three records during submissions.”

That’s right, they used only 3 of the records submerged in one of their 15 volumes of submitted paperwork.

For comparison, while CSA is claiming costs of $56,000.00, our side had costs of exactly $6,741.46.  Again, from our response to Court; “CSA’s tariff costs are double Knight’s costs [and] CSA’s solicitor and client costs are four times higher than Knight’s costs.” 

The CSA also charged for the services of an “expert”.  Alas, they didn’t bother to submit an invoice for expert fees and, as we responded; “in any event, the expert report was inadmissible and CSA barely referred to [their] expert during their submissions.”

In sum then, the CSA massively cost inflated an unnecessary Court Hearing as paralleled to a duplicate litigation, itself already a duplicate of their first litigation, subsequently further duplicated again in Provincial Court, while we await a Federal Court of Appeal Ruling on their second litigation, this latter Ruling expected to resolve all that CSA is routinely, expensively and redundantly complaining about.  And all, of course, in an effort to bankrupt PS Knight in legal fees.  As Mark Steyn is fond of quoting; “the process is the punishment.”

Alright, so if CSA’s got quite a history of trying to pull this sort of thing, how do you suppose they’d try to justify it this time?  Well folks, here we go, feast your eyes;

“For its part, CSA made every effort possible to resolve this matter short of a hearing.”

Actually, the Judge responded to CSA’s filing with a request that both sides instead agree to mediation.  We accepted immediately.  The CSA refused mediation, instead demanding the full Hearing.

How about this one;  “CSA demonstrated reasonableness throughout the litigation and sought to avoid incurring unnecessary costs for the parties and wastage of the Court’s scarce resources.”

Wow.  I mean, just, wow. 

“At every step, CSA has looked for creative and practical approaches to resolving this matter.”

Odd really, I think I’d remember CSA efforts to resolve this matter.  Somehow we missed all of these.

“It is clear that, as between the parties, CSA is the party who proceeded diligently with this motion and in good faith.”

It’s clear what they’re up to alright, for anyone willing look at it.  But truth is nothing in the civil service.  We just hope it’s still something to this one judge in Crampton’s Court.