Category: Miscellaneous

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide To Finding A Lawyer (If You Must)

Characters such as Lionel Hutz may be a meme at this point, but they are certainly based on reality.

To clarify, lawyers aren’t hard to find. They’re everywhere. But what does matter is finding a good quality one who will actually protect your interests, and not bankrupt you. Alternatively, if you don’t need one, then it’s nice to know before wasting huge amounts of time and money.

Note: everything presented here is just for the purpose of INFORMATION, and not advice. As always, take everything with a grain of salt and research on your own. This is just a mix of opinion, common sense, and experience thrown in.

If it’s someone close to you, there may be a high level of trust already. Still, questions should be asked ahead of time, to avoid things getting complicated.

Another disclaimer should also be included. If you have nearly unlimited amounts of money, or are covered by insurance, it may not seem to be a big deal. Still, it’s wise to put effort into what can be a major financial or life altering decision.

1. Avoid Getting Into Such Situations In The First Place

There’s the old expression that “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of a cure”. Certainly, there’s logic to that. It’s (usually) better to avoid problems rather than have to fix them later. Ask whether or not this headache is even worthwhile.

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Options

A problem doesn’t always have to result in going to court. Other options such as mediation (voluntary) and arbitration (binding) are now much more common. True, lawyers are often involved, but they don’t have to be.

3. Self-Representing May Be An Option

A lot has changed in recent years. In the internet era, information is more accessible than ever before. Court forms are readily available to download. Electronic filing (largely) makes physical visits unnecessary, and hearings routinely take place virtually. Search sites such as CanLII allow anyone to look up relevant and related decisions.

Although clerks are prohibited from giving advice, they’re often very helpful in ensuring that the correct paperwork is submitted. Asking is for free.

If you’re aware of a resolved case with related issues, consider ordering (purchase, if needed) some of the filings. Getting ahold of the written arguments will be helpful in understanding what points keep coming up. And if need be, perhaps they can be incorporated into your case.

Also consider if you are self-representing, while the other side is not. This means they’ll be paying lawyer fees every step of the way, racking up expenses. In the long term, it can lead to attrition.

4. Low Cost Representation (i.e. Paralegals) May Be Available

This varies by Province, but lawyers are not always the only game in town. For example, Ontario and B.C. allow paralegals to take some types of cases that used to be more restricted. They charge a fraction of the cost, and can provide the same service. For less urgent matters, it’s worth considering.

Rates vary, but it may be only 10% to 30% of what a lawyer would bill.

An astute observer will realize that everything listed so far has focused on AVOIDING the use of a lawyer. This is not accidental. Circumstances vary, of course. However, sometimes the easiest and cheapest path forward doesn’t involve them.

5. Seeking Free (Or Low Cost) Consultations

Depending on what the situation is, the lawyer may recommend, or at least suggest options #2 to #4. This can actually be a good sign. If the person talks about ways to resolve your problem quickly and cheaply, it’s a clue that they may have your best interests in mind.

With this is mind, it might be better to pay a few hundred dollars for a serious talk. Ask about this type of case, common pathways, documents filed, issues raised at trial, etc….

But if you do end up hiring a lawyer to take your case, there’s much more to do. The more you can learn about this type of law ahead of time, the less likely a prospective hire will try to screw with you.

6. Conduct Background Check On Prospective Contractor

Think for a moment that you are an employer. You’re looking to hire an employee, or perhaps an independent contractor. If the job is serious, or involves a lot of money, then it would certainly be worth the effort to screen them.

Here are a few things to consider before handing over large amounts of money:

(A) Verify who they are: This should go without saying, but make sure the people representing themselves as lawyers are in fact who they claim to be. Checking their Law Society will be helpful. There may not be a photo, but check to see that the name and contact information match up, and that the licence is active.

(B) Search for history of bad conduct: While the respective Law Societies are notoriously bad for holding lawyers accountable, it’s still worth a look. Have they ever been reprimanded or suspended? Are there any active complaints? And do an online search of their name. Have they been involved in anything shady?

(C) Credit check the prospective contractor: This doesn’t mean contacting Transunion or Equifax. In this context, look at the office. Is it extravagantly furnished, or more practical? If the office (or building) appears to be very expensive, then they may promise anything in order to secure more clients. Likewise, seeing luxury cars may be a sign or debt, or overbilling.

(D) Check their portfolio: In this context, research earlier decisions made involving this lawyer. What kind of results are they getting? While it’s true that cases are typically settled, any lawyer who’s been around for a while will have at least some kind of history on CanLII. Look into it. Also, if you know of any (related) cases they’ve been involved with, ask the court for documents, and see what they file.

(E) Reference check for prospective contractor: This can be tricky, since many people aren’t sure what to look for. Is there a trustworthy friend or family member who has used this person with good results? Has anyone been burned by them? While general reputation may matter, finding someone who has dealt with this specific person adds context.

(F) Interview the prospective contractor: That initial meeting isn’t just about whether the lawyer will take your case. It’s also about whether you believe they are suitable to work on your problem. The best way to do this is ro prepare ahead of time. Have some idea who this lawyer is, they work they do, and what kind of litigation they focus on?

Here’s something that anyone who has ever held a managerial role, and hired people, will tell you. A person may present in a very appealing way initially, in order to get hired, but then change afterwards. In other words, they were just putting on an act. Your prospective counsel may be doing the same thing.

Fees may be: (a) hourly; (b) contingency; (c) flat rate; or (d) some combination thereof. It’s always important to get it in writing. If the lawyer refuses to put it in writing, walk away immediately.

All of this may sound excessive. And for cases involving low amounts of money, or other consequences, it is. But if your case involves hundreds of thousands — or millions — then it’s worth putting the effort in to screen out potential disasters.

7. The Critical Question: “Have You Done This Before”?

This one question had interesting results on a personal level.

Lawyers will often “sell” their abilities to handle a certain area of law. They’ll tell you that the subject is very complex, and that they can help get you through. The usual pitch is that this is too much for the typical person to deal with, but without getting into specifics.

Then, ask the lawyer: “Have you ever done this before?”

This has actually led to admissions that it would be a first time. Retaining such a lawyer would amount to paying them to learn how to do such a thing. Maybe it’s preferable for some or most people. But why not save the money and teach yourself?

Now, should the lawyer say yes, it’s good to follow up with requesting if the result is available on CanLII, or some other site. If there’s hesitation or unease about this, it’s a likely sign that you’ve caught out a grifter lying about their abilities.

Here’s the TL, DR (too long, didn’t read) summary. Depending on the circumstances, it may be worthwhile to avoid lawyers altogether. Many people are capable of learning things themselves. But if you must hire one, view it the way you would hiring an employee or contractor.

Posted on

A Little Discernment Can Go A Long Way….

Above is a photo from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. This exact image is available at my local library, and probably many others across Canada as well. It’s meant as a rough guide for filtering out information.

While it presumably is targeted at books, the same guidelines are valid for podcasts, articles, videos and other content. And there are worthwhile things to ask.

  • Are there any supporting sources to make the claims?
  • Is the title “clickbait”, or does it accurately represent the content
  • Is it satire? If the claims made are overly dramatic, the author may be trying to create humourous work.
  • Who wrote it, and why? Are there any obvious conflicts of interest?
  • Who can a person check with to verify the information?
  • Will biases be an issue in judging it objectively
  • Is the information current or outdated?

No one needs to point out how badly “ask the experts” has gone lately. Nonetheless, it can be a starting point for getting information on a topic.

Note: This isn’t meant at a specific person or group. Rather, it’s a pattern that has become a lot more noticeable over the last few years.

While many people have become proficient at spotting Government deception and propaganda, they either overlook or ignore it in the alternative media spheres. Of course, the reverse is also true for the normies. And examples?

(1) Some who dismissed Government fear mongering around this so-called “pandemic” will not look carefully into topics such as microchipping vaccines, DNA modification, gain of function, lab leaks, or bioweapons. Any dramatic claims deserve skepticism, regardless of the source.

(2) On a related note: there have been some who (rightly) question whether CV tests are accurate based on current methods. However, they will just take for granted that other viruses can be tested for using that same technology. We want authors who are logically consistent.

(3) Some of the larger political alternative voices will do a great job researching candidates and parties they don’t like, while making excuses for those they support. If they have a dog in the fight, then they can never be fully trusted.

(4) In a world where views and advertising dollars matter, catching attention is important. However, that’s not always the best option if the content doesn’t warrant sensationalism.

(5) While Government plants within the media are often easy to spot, “alternative” voices come out of nowhere and instantly gain huge followings. Such individuals do so despite addressing topics that are normally censored, or while not offering anything insightful. Similarly, if the content frequently borders on, or engages in outright Fed-posting, be wary.

(6) Lack of curiosity should always be viewed as a red flag. If a piece touches on really important issues, but only at a surface level — with no follow up — one should ask why. Rabbit holes are a fun, albeit exhausting, way to shake strongly held views.

These are just a few things that have come up in the alt-media landscape, and not just the Canadian scene. All media should be scrutinized, regardless of whether it has the slant and leanings that are preferred.

A question that comes up is who should the public be following. The answer is no one. Ideally, the best populace is one that’s full of inquisitive and resourceful people. Yes, research is time consuming, but there’s no shortcut to becoming educated. The alternative is to sit back and hopefully trust the right outlet. That seems to be a poor plan.

True, there’s no way to not view published media at all, but just realize that there will be gaps in what’s presented. If nothing else, different perspectives can at least draw attention to flaws and errors.

A little discernment can go a long way….

Posted on

Federal Court Strikes Claim By Coast Guard Worker Over Pay Issues, Cites Lack Of Jurisdiction

A member of the Canadian Coast Guard, Jennifer Horsman has had her challenge thrown out of the Federal Court, and lack of jurisdiction is cited.

This isn’t a case about being forced to take the clot-shots, but it’s still interesting. In August 2022, her employer claimed that she had been overpaid nearly $9,000, the remainder of a larger amount that was supposedly owed. Horsman says she kept her own records of all dates and shifts and contested the demand. This caused financial hardship.

She also tried to seek union representation, but was denied.

Despite attempts to resolve this internally, Horsman was unsuccessful. She eventually ended up suing the Government in March 2023 to resolve this, and here’s where it takes a turn.

Ottawa brought a Rule 221 Motion to Strike (throw out) the lawsuit on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Looking at Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, FPSLRA:

Individual Grievances
Presentation
Right of employee
.
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
.
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
.
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
.
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
.
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

Section 208 then goes on to list a series of conditions and limitations.

Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Taken together, it seems laid out that Federal workers have the rights to file grievances, but they have no real right to take their problems to Court.

This ruling confirms the Adelberg decision, a high profile ruling in February 2023 that permanently ended the cases of over 400 Federal workers. Another 200 workers of Federally regulated industries had a setback as well, since the pleading was so poorly drafted.

Adelberg was also cited by a former RCMP worker, whose case was struck because of the FPSLRA.

Lesson in here: members of the Federal Government, as well as most unionized employers, have no guaranteed right to go to Court. There’s almost always a grievance or arbitration requirement.

If there’s any consolation here, it’s that the person wasn’t ordered to pay any costs. Yes, the Attorney General asked, but the Judge declined. She also didn’t waste many thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer to get the exact same result. Still, she has guts for at least attempting this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2003-c-22-s-2/latest/sc-2003-c-22-s-2.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html

Posted on

5 Years Later: No Constitution Or Leadership Race For Bernier And PPC

It’s time to mention it again: the epicentre of “dissident” politics in Canada still doesn’t have even a basic framework in place, despite being launched 5 years ago. There are no governing documents whatsoever to outline how this organization will be managed.

Conveniently, there’s no way to force Bernier out either.

Interestingly, when this fact is pointed out to supporters, they indignantly point to “the platform”. Others may go off on a tirade about how establishment structures invite corruption. Apparently, allegations of the CPC being corrupt — whether true or not — is reason to abolish any sort of internal controls.

Some also point to an online vote following the 2021 Federal election. This doesn’t replace an actual leadership convention, with competing ideas and candidates. Heck, even the Communist Party of Canada is more democratic in structure.

It’s beyond obvious by this point that it was never intended to be any sort of a real party. Instead, this is a money-pit to suck up the cash of otherwise agnostic Canadians. But at $104,000 per year, plus whatever benefits are included, it’s lucrative.

Many theories have been floated as to why this “party” was launched, if there was no goal to make it a viable contender. These include:

(a) Spite and/or revenge
(b) Ego
(c) Grifting

While all are possible, there is another way to look at this. One of the arguments that supporters make is that they can’t stand the “LibCon” establishment. While valid, how does this help? How does forming an imitation of a political party upend things? It doesn’t. If anything, it helps to entrench the status quo by sucking out any energy and money that may have been better used.

But then, this may just be a cynical take.

Remember to donate!

(1) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/
(2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/48wpxl42BEdK/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-leadership-party-review-1.6274329
(4) https://www.bitchute.com/video/pFiBwmcHolxk/
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-canada-maxime-bernier-1.5695908

Posted on

Some Thoughts On The Fine Line Between Awakening And Demoralizing

This piece is going to be different than what’s normally covered.

The above meme is of Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector. He became famous decades ago for his talks on subversion and demoralization. Even when presented with hard evidence, demoralized people can be unable to see reality. Videos are widely available online.

A criticism that often comes up here is that it’s unproductive to expose a problem without proposing an alternative to it. At some point, trying to wake up a group of people devolves into depression and demoralization, where there’s no obvious solution to anything. Even when alternatives exist on paper, they seem completely impractical to implement.

Another comparison may be between “red-pilling” v.s. “black-pilling”.

A common instance where this comes up is with the problem-reaction-solution scenarios, or the Hegelian Dialectic. This is when it seems that the outcomes are prearranged, and to a degree, they are. It’s challenging to accept answers if it looks planned in advance.

What issues are important? Take a look around this site, and see what things are addressed.

There is a valid point to the notion that harsh doses of reality are needed. In order to come to sensible conclusions, it’s important to know just how bad a problem is. Sugar coating the depth of an issue does nothing to properly correct it. Is there any obligation to offer an alternative, or is pointing out the truth enough on its own?

But the flip side is that completely destroying people’s spirits by showing the depth of a situation may not be that helpful. Outlining in vivid detail how hopeless a situation is will be soul crushing. What’s the point of demonstrating the ugly truth if everyone feels powerless to fix it? Doesn’t draining the will to fight effectively lead to their defeat?

Reality and hopium cannot exist separately. At some point, we need both.

So, where do we draw the line?

I don’t have a clear answer to this, and don’t know if anyone does. Being a truther means going down all kinds of rabbit holes, and discovering incredible things. However, there are undeniable consequences for people who get into this. Constantly being suspicious of everything and everyone gets very tiring. It’s extremely time consuming and not a good way to live.

Anyhow, these are just some random thoughts on the subject.

As always, feedback is appreciated.

Posted on

A Look At Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

This piece will be a bit different. A case from a decade ago has helped bring a particular type of vexatious litigant to the public’s consciousness: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.

A bit of a disclaimer: this isn’t to suggest that everyone who employs such techniques does so for an underhanded purpose. There are true believers out there.

The case referenced is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). The facts themselves aren’t really as interesting as the background research that has been done in preparing this ruling. It contains a wealth of information from tactics and habits of such OPCA. litigants. While there is typically some truth in what they espouse, it’s rarely the full story.

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

While one can make valid arguments that Canadian laws are grossly insufficient or inadequate, that is not entirely the point with OPCA litigants. Instead, they allege that laws don’t apply. That can be very dangerous when it comes to institutions like the Canada Revenue Agency.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a surge of people who’ve lost faith in the judicial process in the last few years. There’s good reason for that, and it’s tempting to give these arguments another look.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

By selling commercial products, this typically refers to seminars or guidebooks on how to assert certain rights and avoid consequences. The courts view this as exploiting vulnerable people.

Starting at paragraph 99, the ruling lists other Canadian “gurus”, including:

  • David Kevin Lindsay
  • John Ruiz Dempsey
  • Robert Arthur Menard
  • Eldon Gerald Warman
  • David J. Lavigne
  • Edward Jay Robin Belanger

Such OPCA litigants are often seen as busybodies in the Courts. Many have been declared “vexatious litigants” for repeatedly initiating (and often appealing) baseless proceedings. While the techniques employed are interesting — as an observer — it’s hard to argue against the allegation that they seem designed to frustrate the function of Courts.

There’s no question that the courts in Canada are lacking in many ways. However, the techniques employed by OPCA litigants have essentially a zero percent success rate. Certainly, don’t pay them for their “services”.

Would society be better off if we were sovereign citizens and exempt from taxes and licenses? Certainly there’s a case to be made for that. However, Courts have never upheld this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca165/2007bcca165.html