Volume CCXC: The Sensei Sean All Saturday Edition; How to Dress One’s Character to Lose a Suit

Hello every One and welcome to the Sensei Sean all Saturday Edition, thank King or Queen You for joining Me, it is always an Honour to have You in My House. One does not typically Dress One’s Character to lose a Suit, though that’s exactly what the City of Ottawa has done, Gifting Me with an except-Sean-all Suit for My Case before the Social Benefits Tribunal. Although I’m far more interested in teaching the Common Man how to Dress One’s Character in a sharp Suit, fitting for their Case that Will win, it is sometimes simpler to teach People what NOT to do. My recent Appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal is an excellent example.

Today’s feature photo is the front page of ‘Form 3’, the only Response I received to My Appeal (September 15th) before the Notice of the Amended hearing date of October 19th, sent out to Me last Tuesday, October 10th.

I’m highlighting the dates with italics and or bold type because the dates are what I Wish for One to pay the most attention to.

I was required to file My Appeal before June 5th and filed the Appeal electronically. I received confirm a Sean of receipt almost immediately (within twenty-four hours for sure) by Way of email, and this is confirm a Sean that My documents have been accepted.

This is only important because if the SBT were not able to hear My Appeal for any reason, this would be when they would let Me know and be requesting additional inform a Sean. I have fully read the practice directions for the SBT because they are very straightforward (and One should any Way), and the practice directions specifically state that the SBT Will let the Appellant know if they do not have sufficient inform a Sean to process the Appeal. If the Tribunal didn’t have Jurisdiction to hear the Matter (for example), this would be the time to let Me know.

It’s also important because I know that Ontario Works have now received Notice of My Appeal and have thirty days to respond. This is why I was tall King about how strange it was to have not heard a Word for months! There was an Early Resolution Hearing (video conference) set up for August 28th, but Ontario Works objected to the Early Resolution Opportunity (it must be consensual by both parties)!

I finally called the Tribunal to find out what was going on, and they advised Me that there was a video conference hearing scheduled for January sometime (17th I think but don’t quote Me on that) and that they were scheduling a date to deal with the rights violation. I was as King if the City had provided any reply at all yet and why I hadn’t received it. I was assured that they had not replied except to object to the Early Resolution Opportunity!

And honestly, the receptionist over at the SBT sounded almost as bewildered as I was because this is the polar opposite of how One should respond to an Appeal! The City Will also have plenty of experience with the Tribunal, especially by comparison to any Appellant before it, so they Will absolutely know what the Rules are and be very familiar with them. It would Truly be unreasonable to presume the City doesn’t know they are in default and that they missed their opportunity to participate in the proceedings! They were already (technically) in contempt of Court.

‘Human Rights’ code challenges (I don’t like the Word ‘human’ – it is a shade (hue) of Man under the colour of Law) are treated as a separate Issue and require a different jurisdiction (remember, ‘jurisdiction’ is just the language of the Court, so in this case the ‘jurisdiction’ changes to the ‘Ontario Human Rights Code’, and it becomes the ‘Trust’ Instrument of the Court). So once again, We receive confirm a Sean that the Tribunal has the authority and jurisdiction to hear the Matter in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

But again, the deadline to respond to both the initial Appeal and the rights code challenge is thirty days…

Rule 4 – Responding to an Appeal

4.1	The SBT will deliver the Appeal (Form 1) to the respondent and any other parties.
4.2	The respondent must deliver to the appellant and file with the SBT a completed Response to Appeal (Form 3) within 30 days of receipt of the Appeal (Form 1). The Response to Appeal (Form 3) must: provide contact information for the respondent’s representative; identify any preliminary objections or jurisdictional issues; where the respondent intends to rely on a written submission provide respondent’s submissions on the merits of the Appeal and documents relied on; or where the respondent does not intend to rely on a written submission confirm this in the Response to Appeal.
4.3	Where the respondent’s position changes with respect to a preliminary objection or jurisdictional issue as identified in the Response to Appeal (Form 3) or it identifies new jurisdictional issues or preliminary objections, the respondent must deliver an amended Response to Appeal to the appellant and file it with the SBT at least 30 days before the hearing.
4.4	Where a respondent has filed a written submission on the merits of an appeal and its position changes, and it intends to raise new issues, or it intends to rely on additional facts, the respondent must deliver an amended written submission to the appellant and file it with the SBT no later than 30 days before the hearing.
4.5	Unless the parties agree otherwise, where the respondent intends to rely on any further evidence or submissions in reply to the evidence and submissions of the appellant it must be delivered to the appellant and filed with the SBT no later than 10 days before the hearing.
4.6	Where a respondent does not comply with its Rule 4 obligations the SBT may: adjourn the hearing, refuse to consider the respondent’s evidence or written submissions, new argument or objection, or accept the respondent’s evidence or written submissions.

This is just the second page of Form 3, the form Ontario Works was required to serve upon Me and the SBT within thirty days of receipt of My Appeal and the rights code violation! It is dated September 15th!!! That is sixty days overdue!!!

Notice that where the Form is as King if there are any Written materials they Wish to Present in response to the Appeal, they check ‘NO’!!! They could have checked ‘YES’ and highlight ‘submission is attached’. But if they check NO… Then they are not even as King of the Tribunal to consider the additional (Written) submissions!

Why is that strange? Well, they appear to have quite a lot they were Wishing to say in response to My Appeal.

In fact, so much in the Way of Written submissions, they have an Appendix! But they didn’t bother to send any of this within the timeline provided for by the Rules, and even when they send it to Me sixty days too late, they are quite literally as King of Me not to consider the attachments? I can throw this entire Appendix and everything it references straight in the trash. Doesn’t make any difference because it’s a garbage reply whether I trash it or not.

Caroline Forget is not as King for any One but her Self to be at the hearing, and Caroline has already confirmed to Me that she is not there to do anything more than Present the inform a Sean prepared by the City – which is effectively NOTHING!!! She’s not a party to the Claim, just service of documents for the City, and she has nothing to Present!

Now, One may Note that the Tribunal may choose to hear inform a Sean Presented outside of the Rules, the Court has discretion on whether or not late materials Will be accepted. The problem for the City of Ottawa is that the Court Will not consider late submissions if One is not as King, and it is unlikely that they Will be feeling generous with a litigant demonstrating this much contempt. Generally, if the Court were to hear late submissions, it would be because One was subject to some condition that made it impossible for them to respond in time. If there are no unusual circumstances and the only reason is contempt?.. Not so likely the Court Will be feeling generous.

Samantha Montreuil’s ‘submission’ on September 10th is completely irrelevant and was not considered by the Court. Samantha is also beyond her deadline to be as King to attend and she hasn’t been invited, so Will not even be able to defend against Me as King for criminal prosecution for contempt of Court and allowing the harm to continue.

As far as not being specifical about Ontario Rights Code violations, the Code covers pretty much everything the constitution covers, one of which is the right of contract and to not be discriminated against for such things as ‘nationality and citizenship’, rendering the request for proof of Canadian citizenship a valid trespass upon the Ontario Human Rights Code under threat of economic harm. I was also very specific about the rights violation regarding health care, which is the right to reasonable autonomy over health care choices (and to not be compelled under threat of economic harm to seek out a doctor).

Alright, that’s the Sensei Sean all Saturday Edition, and the Real lesson here, is that ignorance is only Bliss for One’s adversary in Law, failing to Respond to a Claim of any kind within the timelines provided is almost always a fatal mistake. Default is never a Good position to be starting from.

Love and Blessings,