ESTABLISHED BY YOUR ROYAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY HEAD OF STATE UNDER CHRIST THE HEAVENLY SACRED KING OF SALVATION; HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY: THE ROYAL MONARCH PRESIDENT KING DAVID ll "THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE / CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; CHIEF A MILLER...
THE PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROYAL INTERNATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE;
TO FURTHER ESTABLISH OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY BY FEDERALLY INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL SELF-GOVERNED JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTIONS, SPECIFICALLY INSTITUTED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCES OF CANADA & TO PROTECT OUR INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS OUR POPULATION OF PEOPLE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UNLAWFULNESS & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
OUR MAIN OBJECTIVES ARE:
TO STRENGTHEN OUR "NATIONAL SECURITY" INSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION, INCLUDING IT'S CITIZENS, IT'S ECONOMY & IT'S INSTITUTIONS, WHICH IS NOT ONLY OUR OBLIGATION & RESPONSIBILITY, BUT IS ALSO REGARDED AS A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY.
OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO STRENGTHEN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WHICH MEANS ESTABLISHING OUR FOUNDATION OF OFFICERS REPRESENTING THE CIVIL AUTHORITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT. OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER & SAFETY, ENFORCING THE LAW, AND PREVENTING, DETECTING & INVESTIGATING LAWLESSNESS, PROSECUTING OFFENDERS OF THE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH "THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ACT" OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE ALL FEDERALIZED INSTITUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY CONSTITUTION.
OUR PURPOSES ARE CLEAR & CONCLUSIVE WITHOUT ANY DOUBTS OR CONFUSION. WE ARE PEACEFULLY ALLIED WITH CANADA & THE UNITED NATIONS, UNIFIED IN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, FOCUSING ON STRENGTHENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND PROVIDING OUR POPULATION & OUR INSTITUTIONS WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCE OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION, PROTECTING OUR HUMAN RIGHTS & OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHILE IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONS OF CULTURAL ADVANCEMENTS ESTABLISHED UPON THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOUNDED UPON SOCIAL JUSTICE & A CIVILIZED SOCIETY RESERVING THE PRIORITIZATION TO SERVE THE MOST HIGH ALMIGHTY HEAVENLY FATHER GOD IN OBEDIENCE, RIGHTEOUSLY.
Elements That Establish a Civil Litigation Claim / Civil Lawsuit against an Offending Organization, Institution / Agent for committing Criminal / Human Rights Offenses against Our People:
Negligence : Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances.
The law of negligence requires that persons conduct themselves in a manner that conforms with certain standards of conduct. Where a person’s actions violate those standards, the law requires the person to compensate someone who is injured as a result of this act. In some instances, the law of negligence also covers a person’s omission to act.
In tort law, negligence is a distinct cause of action. The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines negligence as “conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.” Negligence generally consists of five elements, including the following: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an actual causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting harm; (4) proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable; and (5) damages resulting from the defendant’s conduct.
In some instances, a statute or other law may define specific duties, such as the duty of a person to rescue another. Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, are also required to uphold a standard of care expected in their profession. When a professional fails to uphold such a standard of care, the professional may be liable for malpractice, which is based on the law of negligence
Negligence is a legal theory that must be proved before you can hold a person or company legally responsible for the harm you suffered. Proving negligence is required in most claims from accidents or injuries, such as car accidents or "slip and fall" cases. Negligence claims must prove four things in court: duty, breach, causation, and damages/harm.
Generally speaking, when someone acts in a careless way and causes an injury to another person, under the legal principle of "negligence" the careless person will be legally liable for any resulting harm. This basis for assessing and determining fault is utilized in most disputes involving an accident or injury, during informal settlement talks and up through a trial in a personal injury lawsuit.
Elements of a Negligence Claim
In order to win a negligence case, the plaintiff (the person injured) must prove the following four elements to show that the defendant (the person allegedly at fault) acted negligently:
- Duty - The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances;
- Breach - The defendant breached that legal duty by acting or failing to act in a certain way;
- Causation - It was the defendant's actions (or inaction) that actually caused the plaintiff's injury; and
- Damages - The plaintiff was harmed or injured as a result of the defendant's actions.
Element #1: Duty
When assessing a negligence claim, the first step is to look to see whether or not the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care. In some circumstances, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant might create a legal duty -- for instance, a doctor owes a patient a legal duty to provide him or her with competent medical care. Or, the defendant may owe the plaintiff a legal duty to act with reasonable care in a certain situation -- as is the case when one is expected to operate a motor vehicle safely and with a certain level of due care.
Element #2: Breach of Duty
Next, the court will look to see whether the defendant breached this duty by doing (or not doing something) that a "reasonably prudent person" would do under similar circumstances. The term "reasonably prudent person" refers to a legal standard that represents how the average person would responsibly act in a certain situation. Stated simply, the defendant likely will be found negligent if the average person, knowing what the defendant knew at the time, would have known that someone might have been injured as a result of his or her actions -- and would have acted differently than the defendant did in that situation.
Element #3: Causation
The third element requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant's negligence actually caused his or her injury. Sure, someone might be acting negligently, but the plaintiff can only recover if this negligence somehow causes the injury. For example, it wouldn't be fair to sue someone who was negligently texting and driving for a totally unrelated fender bender that happened just across the street -- just because the driver was negligent.
Another aspect of this element looks at whether the defendant could reasonably have foreseen that his or her actions might cause an injury. If the defendant's actions somehow caused the plaintiff injury through a random, unexpected act of nature, the injury would most likely be deemed unforeseeable -- and the defendant will not likely be found liable.
Element #4: Damages
The final element of a negligence case is "damages." This element requires that the court be able to compensate the plaintiff for his or her injury -- usually through monetary compensation for expenses such as medical care or property repair.
How Canadian law weighs negligence
People are generally considered to have a duty to ensure that their actions do not expose other people to unreasonable risk of harm. This is called a “duty of care.” If someone fails in that duty, they could be liable for negligence.
The Supreme Court of Canada defined negligence as conduct that creates “an objectively unreasonable risk of harm.” This can include intentional and unintentional actions, or even lack of action, such as not shoveling your sidewalk in the winter.
To avoid liability for negligence, you must exercise what the court calls “the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances.”
So what does “reasonable” mean? The courts consider three questions:
- Could the accused have anticipated their conduct would create harm?
- How serious was the harm done?
- What cost or burden would the defendant have incurred to prevent the harm?
hen weighing whether a defendant was negligent, the courts consider the following:
- Whether a duty of care existed.
- Whether the accused failed in that duty.
- Whether their failure caused any harm.
Establishing that duty of care can be tricky, especially as plaintiffs will often name multiple parties. Courts have to look at the “proximity” of some defendants.
In one case, an 18-year-old Ontario woman sued a drunk driver who struck her car, severing her spine. She, in turn, sued the hosts of the party where the driver got drunk in the first place. The judge had to consider whether the host had enough proximity to the victim to create a duty of care. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the hosts were not liable in part because the party was BYOB (bring your own booze) so the hosts didn’t serve the driver and couldn’t monitor his intake.
“Negligence” can cover a wide swath of harms, from slipping on a sidewalk to medical malpractice and even fatal accidents. The law identifies different types of negligence according to the type and the seriousness of the incident.
Gross negligence implies a flagrant disregard for the consequences or the safety of others. Where regular negligence is basically the failure to be careful, gross negligence is closer to abject recklessness. It’s not intentional though; a knowing disregard for care and safety would be called wilful misconduct.
Criminal negligence is "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others." Driving while intoxicated is a typical example. This can be further categorized into Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm or Criminal Negligence Causing Death.
Misconduct : In law, misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts. Misconduct can be considered an unacceptable or improper behavior, especially for a professional person
Limitations of Liability: Guide to Understanding the Gross Negligence & Willful Misconduct Exceptions
It is common practice for parties entering outsourcing contracts to limit their liability to each other. However, one of the most common exclusions of the limitation on liability are damages caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct.
What constitutes gross negligence and willful misconduct? The definitions vary from state to state. Many times the determination of whether the conduct rises to these levels is based upon the specific facts of the case.
,The limitation of liability provision typically prevents one or both parties from being held liable for a variety of damages. It is also common for a cap to be placed on the total amount of damages either party can be held responsible for under the contract. Allocating risk in normal breach of contract matters is usually acceptable, but when a party acts with gross negligence or willful misconduct, it doesn’t make sense to limit recovery. In fact, there should be incentives for preventing such types of behavior.
You should confer with a business attorney regarding the law governing your contract and how gross negligence and willful misconduct are defined. Typically, gross negligence includes conduct that demonstrates “reckless indifference” or a “complete disregard” for the rights or safety of others. In other words, you must show a serious deviation from reasonable care. Willful misconduct usually involves a party acting or not acting in a situation where the act or inaction is clearly required. You should be able to show an intentional act of unreasonable character that resulted in foreseeable harm. As you can see, the standards for proving gross negligence and willful misconduct are very strict.
Most contracts provide that if gross negligence or willful misconduct occurs, the non-breaching party has the right to damages which can exceed any liability cap. A few examples of exclusions from limitations of liability include:
- breach of confidentiality
- refusal to provide required services
- bodily injury or death
- damage to property
- violation of the law
- gross negligence or willful misconduct
Several of the above exceptions can be easy to prove, but establishing that the actions of the party rise to the standard of gross negligence or willful misconduct can be difficult. If you believe another party has materially breached your contract through gross negligence or willful misconduct
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-
After alleging gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct on the part of the driver, the statement of claim continues (para. 6):
6. The gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct on the part of the defendant Raymond N. Studer consisted of:
(a) He knew, or should have known, that he was approaching the railway crossing referred to in Paragraph 4, hereof.
(b) He was driving the said Dodge Sedan at a speed of sixty (60) miles an hour or more northward on said Lome Avenue road as he approached said railway crossing at a time when the said road was, to his knowledge, covered with snow and/or ice and unsafe for driving at such speed or at any speed in excess of twenty (20) miles an hour.
(c)He knew, or should have known, that, at the speed at which he was travelling, he would not be able to bring the said Dodge Sedan to a stop in time to avoid a collision in the event that a train should come or be upon the said railway crossing.
(d)He was "showing off" and seeking to impress the infant plaintiff with his reckless handling of the Dodge Sedan.
(e)He failed to observe that a box freight car was on said railway crossing as he approached the said crossing.
(f) He was keeping no proper or any look-out as he approached the said railway crossing.
(g) He was not giving due attention to the driving of the said Dodge Sedan at the said time.
(h) He was driving the said Dodge Sedan with a reckless disregard of consequences.
With the consent of all parties, this paragraph was handed to the jury. The questions to be submitted to them had been agreed to by counsel for all parties, and the relevant questions, together with the answers thereto, given after a charge that is not objected to, read as follows:
1. Was there on the part of the Defendant Raymond Studer gross negligence, or wilful and wanton misconduct which caused the accident?
Answer: Yes.
2. If so, of what did such gross negligence, or wilful and wanton misconduct consist?
Answer: Statement of Claim sections a, c, f, g.
(a) He knew or should have known, that he was approaching the railway crossing referred to in paragraph 4 hereof (The Statement of Claim).
(c) He knew, or should have known, that at the speed at which he was travelling, he would not be able to bring the said Dodge Sedan to a stop in time to avoid a collision in the event that a train should come or be upon the said railway crossing.
[Page 453]
(f) He was keeping no proper or any look-out as he approached the said railway crossing.
(g) He was not giving due attention to the driving of the said Dodge Sedan at the said time.
3.2 Liability Issues
3.2.1 Child Protection Agency Liability to the Wrongfully Accused Parent
There have been a number of highly publicized cases in Canada in which individuals have claimed that they have been wrongfully accused of sexual abuse by "overzealous" investigators, and have sought redress in the courts. In most cases, these individuals have been satisfied with an acquittal in criminal court, or a finding in a civil proceeding that refutes the abuse allegation. However, in a few cases individuals have sued investigators for monetary damages to compensate for the expense and emotional anguish from being wrongfully alleged to have abused their child.
Perhaps the most noteworthy case[36] of agency incompetence and bad faith began in 1987 when a Children's Aid Society in Ontario supported allegations of sexual abuse made by a mother against her former husband. The initial allegation of abuse arose in the context of parental separation and related to the couple's young children. The agency worker with primary responsibility for the investigation was inexperienced, and the judge in the later civil case brought by the former husband concluded that the investigation and subsequent agency conduct were negligent in several critical respects.
Shortly after the initial report from the mother was received, and without interviewing the father, the worker quickly concluded that the mother's sexual abuse allegations were well-founded. The worker's initial interview with the children had many leading questions, and was conducted in the presence of the mother, who was clearly hostile to the father. The worker later displayed hostility towards the father and his lawyer, and dismissed any concerns about the mother without investigation. Indeed, reports by the children of ill treatment by the mother and the worker's direct observation of poor treatment of the children by the mother were ignored by the worker. The father was not adequately interviewed for his version of the alleged incidents until two years after the initial allegations. The worker kept very poor notes of the various interviews and none were audio or video recorded.
As the child protection trial proceeded in Family Court, it became apparent that the agency's allegations were groundless, but the agency refused to discontinue the protection application unless the father agreed to forego any claim for court costs. The child protection trial eventually took 51 days to complete. The judge in the protection hearing dismissed the agency allegations against the father, awarded him custody of the children, and ordered the agency to pay $60,000 towards the father's legal fees.
The father then began a civil suit against the agency and the child protection worker to recover the balance of his legal and other expenses incurred in his lengthy battle to regain his reputation and custody of his children, as well as punitive damages. In 1994 in D.B. v. C.A.S. of Durham Region, Justice Somers of the General Division of the Ontario Court of Justice awarded the father over $110,000 in damages resulting from the false allegation of sexual abuse.[37] The judge in the civil suit concluded that the agency and worker had been negligent and unprofessional in their treatment of the father, negatively affecting both the father and his children. The judge found that the father, an Anglican minister, suffered emotional trauma and loss of reputation as a result of the child protection proceedings and awarded $35,000 in damages for this, and an additional $10,000 for exemplary damages to punish the "bureaucracy's" incompetence and abusive actions. The court also awarded a total of $1,500 to the two children for their emotional harm and loss of enjoyment of their relationship with their father. The trial judge also awarded the father $77,000 to cover legal, travel and telephone costs not previously paid as a result of the Family Court proceeding, though the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced that part of the award by $25,000, ruling that the issue of recovery of legal expenses was fully resolved in the earlier Family Court proceedings. While the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced the damage award, it affirmed the principle that an agency could be liable if it was both negligent and biased in its investigation.
The decision in D.B. v. C.A.S. of Durham Region may seem burdensome for a public agency with an obligation to investigate all reports of abuse[38] despite limited financial resources. However, the Court of Appeal emphasized that there was not merely negligence, but actually a demonstration of bias sufficient to conclude that the agency staff was not acting in "good faith." Not only did the agency carry out an inadequate and biased investigation, it continued a lengthy child protection proceeding only because the father pressed a legitimate claim for payment of his legal costs in the protection hearing. The decision emphasizes the need for child protection agencies and their workers to conduct fair investigations, and treat fairly those alleged to have abused children.
While D.B. is a very disturbing case, it is the only reported case in Canada where a child protection agency has been found liable to a falsely accused parent. In other cases where an agency has been found to have supported an unfounded allegation of parental abuse and been sued for alleged incompetence in investigating abuse allegations, the courts have dismissed the claims, generally by finding that the agencies were acting in "good faith" and hence entitled to statutory immunity from civil suits for "mere" negligence, or the cases are still before the courts.[39]
Tort law surrounding defamation law does not directly curb your right to free expression; it is not illegal per se. Rather, defamation is generally about paying damages to people that have been harmed by your speech. You can still say whatever you want, but you may have to pay for it (and you may have to pay a lot).
It should also be noted that defamation law in Canada varies from province to province. In Ontario, for example, legislation on defamation is found in the Libel and Slander Act. Defamation can be subdivided into libel and slander:
- Libel: defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc.
- Slander: defamation with no permanent record, such as a spoken statement or even a hand gesture.
If you are suing for libel in Canada, you do not need to prove that you suffered damages—you only need to prove that a false statement with a permanent record was made about you to a third party, and the court will presume that damages were suffered. If you are suing for slander, however, you usually do need to prove that damages were suffered. Proving that slander caused you financial loss is difficult, which is why slander cases are far less common than libel cases. There are a number of legal defenses against defamation:
1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory.
2. You can claim “absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.
3. You can claim “qualified privilege,” which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.
4. You can claim “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.
5. You can claim “responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.
Key rulings in Canadian defamation law
In Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the Supreme Court departed from the American standard of requiring “actual malice” for libel; this makes libel easier to prove in Canada than it is in the U.S.
The Court also dismissed arguments that awarding damages in this case would cause “libel chill”—refraining from speaking out for fear of being sued for defamation—in Canada. In this case, the Court awarded Mr. Hill over $1.5 million in damages. This was certainly a loss for free expression in Canada.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT (FBI CANADA) IS THE NATIONAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE AGENCY BEING INSTITUTED WITH THE POWER OF AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW & EXECUTE IT UNDER THE COMMAND & DIRECTORSHIP OF THE CHIEF SHERIFF WHO ALSO HOLDS THE POSITION OF CHIEF FIREARMS OFFICER OF THE FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSING COMMISSION, WHICH HOLDS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INITIATING & TRAINING SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS & PROVIDING OUR DEPUTY SHERIFF'S WITH THE FIREARMS SAFETY & LICENSING REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR OUR OFFICERS TO LAWFULLY CARRY RESTRICTED FIREARMS TO FULFILL THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES AS REQUIRED & NECESSARY, UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY
REPENTANCE & CORRECTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH OBEDIENCE, FOUNDED EXCEEDINGLY EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE MORALISTIC VALUES OF THE ISRAELITE BIBLICAL PRINCIPALITIES, INCLUDING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE KJV & THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 28 , VERSE 1.
Economic development
Economic and social development is the process by which the economic well-being and quality of life of a nation, region, or local community are improved according to targeted goals and objectives. Wikipedia
.
THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY OBJECTIVE, IS CLEARLY JUSTIFIED AS AN ACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, WHICH IS NOW INSTITUTING FULL CO-ORDINATION & PARTICIPATION BETWEEN THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THE UNITED NATIONS, ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF CANADA: WHICH IS IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WITH SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN ALLIANCE WITH THE UNIVERSAL CODE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS & THE CRIMINAL CODE UPHOLDING OUR JUDICIAL STRUCTURES IN COORDINATED PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS THAT ARE ALSO ALIGNED WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
ANOTHER ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES IS TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE INJUSTICES BEING SUBJECTED ON OUR POPULATION AS WELL AS OUR INCORPORATED INSTITUTIONS. IN CONCLUSION, SERVING JUSTICE WITH THE LAWFUL EXECUTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS & MANDATED STATUTES IN OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH INCLUDES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
DEFINITIONS:
JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION - The administration of justice is the process by which the legal system of a government is executed. The purpose of this justice administration is to provide justice for all those accessing the legal system through law enforcement & civil litigation lawsuit adjudication court proceedings which holds the offending party accountable for the unlawful actions of themselves & their counterparts through civil liability.
How do the courts administer justice?
The Chief Justice's responsibility of judicial administration is exclusively Directed by The Chief Justice of The Most High Supreme Court of The Government Sovereignty, then assigns management of jurisdictions of Superior court administration to each individual court while retaining sovereign ultimate authority over the overall supervision & perfection of our judicial system's institution of the most high justified judicial processes including writs of execution, executing lawful judgements for damages & restitution for Civil Damages suffered at the hands of the unlawful entities in our society.
By way of statute and administrative practice, each Superior Court Chief Judge's Panel appoints deputy sheriff's over our department of justice's law enforcement agency, which involves coordinating with The Chief Sheriff's Department of FBI CANADA, supervising court processes and managing court records, furthermore, in accordance with The Canadian Criminal Code,
Civil damages are monetary awards owed to a winning plaintiff by the losing defendant in a civil case tried in a court of law. ... General damages include payment for nonfinancial damages, such as pain and suffering. Punitive damages include payment for losses caused by the gross negligence of a defendant.
. By statute and administrative practice, each court appoints support staff, supervises court processes, and manages court records.
What do we mean by justice?
noun. the quality of being just; righteous, equitable or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: the moral principle determining just conduct.
Why do we need The NHRJA Courts of Justice?
Courts are important because they help protect our constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law. Both criminal and civil courts provide the opportunity for our national population to finally utilize, Sovereign right to Liberty & have Justice Enforced through Our Israelite Government Sovereignty National Security & Law Enforcement Agency, The National Human Rights Justice Administration & The Superior Court of Civil Litigation Adjudication for Justice, law & a peaceful society amongst all of our communities in Canada nationwide, which is The Israelite Government's priority.
Why is it important to establish justice?
The ultimate importance of establishing 'justice' (i.e. the rule of law) in society. ... It's administration of justice — impartiality to give equal ability to everyone to exercise their rights and presuming the wrongdoer to be innocent first until proven guilty in a competent court of law, where Justice Administration remains our Israelite Government's top priority as well as a fundamental obligation to our population /nation of people, in accordance with International Law Statutes / The National Israelite Government Sovereignty Declaration of Independence, Human Rights & Freedoms, National Sovereignty, Ethnic Nationalism & National Self-Determination. All Rights Reserved.
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43
Print Download
Courts of Justice Act
R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 194
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Consolidation Period: From October 23, 2019 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: 344/19.
This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
| GENERAL MATTERS | |||||
| Rule | |||||
| 1 | Citation, Application and Interpretation | ||||
| 2 | Non-Compliance with the Rules | ||||
| 2.1 | General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc. | ||||
| 3 | Time | ||||
| 4 | Court Documents | ||||
| 4.1 | Duty of Expert | ||||
| PARTIES AND JOINDER | |||||
| 5 | Joinder of Claims and Parties | ||||
| 6 | Consolidation or Hearing Together | ||||
| 6.1 | Separate Hearings | ||||
| 7 | Parties under Disability | ||||
| 8 | Partnerships and Sole Proprietorships | ||||
| 9 | Estates and Trusts | ||||
| 10 | Representation Order | ||||
| 11 | Transfer or Transmission of Interest | ||||
| 12 | Class Proceedings and Other Representative Proceedings | ||||
| 13 | Intervention | ||||
| COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS | |||||
| 13.1 | Place of Commencement and Hearing or Trial | ||||
| 14 | Originating Process | ||||
| 15 | Representation by Lawyer | ||||
| SERVICE | |||||
| 16 | Service of Documents | ||||
| 17 | Service outside Ontario | ||||
| 18 | Time for Delivery of Statement of Defence | ||||
| DISPOSITION WITHOUT TRIAL | |||||
| 19 | Default Proceedings | ||||
| 20 | Summary Judgment | ||||
| 21 | Determination of an Issue Before Trial | ||||
| 22 | Special Case | ||||
| 23 | Discontinuance and Withdrawal | ||||
| 24 | Dismissal of Action for Delay | ||||
| 24.1 | Mandatory Mediation | ||||
| PLEADINGS | |||||
| 25 | Pleadings in an Action | ||||
| 26 | Amendment of Pleadings | ||||
| 27 | Counterclaim | ||||
| 28 | Crossclaim | ||||
| 29 | Third Party Claim | ||||
| DISCOVERY | |||||
| 29.1 | Discovery Plan | ||||
| 29.2 | Proportionality in Discovery | ||||
| 30 | Discovery of Documents | ||||
| 30.1 | Deemed Undertaking | ||||
| 31 | Examination for Discovery | ||||
| 32 | Inspection of Property | ||||
| 33 | Medical Examination of Parties | ||||
| EXAMINATIONS OUT OF COURt | |||||
| 34 | Procedure on Oral Examinations | ||||
| 35 | Procedure on Examination for Discovery by Written Questions | ||||
| 36 | Taking Evidence Before Trial | ||||
| MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS | |||||
| 37 | Motions — Jurisdiction and Procedure | ||||
| 38 | Applications — Jurisdiction and Procedure | ||||
| 39 | Evidence on Motions and Applications | ||||
| PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS IN PENDING LITIGATION | |||||
| 40 | Interlocutory Injunction or Mandatory Order | ||||
| 41 | Appointment of Receiver | ||||
| 42 | Certificate of Pending Litigation | ||||
| 43 | Interpleader | ||||
| 44 | Interim Recovery of Personal Property | ||||
| 45 | Interim Preservation of Property | ||||
| PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES | |||||
| 46 | Place of Trial | ||||
| 47 | Jury Notice | ||||
| 48 | Listing for Trial | ||||
| 49 | Offer to Settle | ||||
| 50 | Conferences | ||||
| 51 | Admissions | ||||
| TRIALS | |||||
| 52 | Trial Procedure | ||||
| 53 | Evidence at Trial | ||||
| REFERENCES | |||||
| 54 | Directing a Reference | ||||
| 55 | Procedure on a Reference | ||||
| COSTS | |||||
| 56 | Security for Costs | ||||
| 57 | Costs of Proceedings | ||||
| 58 | Assessment of Costs | ||||
| ORDERS | |||||
| 59 | Orders | ||||
| 60 | Enforcement of Orders | ||||
| APPEALS | |||||
| 61 | Appeals to an Appellate Court | ||||
| 62 | Appeals from Interlocutory Orders and Other Appeals to a Judge | ||||
| 63 | Stay Pending Appeal | ||||
| PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS | |||||
| 64 | Mortgage Actions | ||||
| 65 | Proceedings for Administration | ||||
| 66 | Partition Proceedings | ||||
| 67 | Proceedings Concerning the Estates of Minors | ||||
| 68 | Proceedings for Judicial Review | ||||
| 72 | Payment into and out of Court | ||||
| 73 | Reciprocal Enforcement of United Kingdom Judgments | ||||
| 74 | Estates — Non-Contentious Proceedings | ||||
| 75 | Estates — Contentious Proceedings | ||||
| 75.1 | Mandatory Mediation — Estates, Trusts and Substitute Decisions | ||||
| 75.2 | Court-Ordered Estates Mediation | ||||
| 76 | Simplified Procedure | ||||
| 77 | Civil Case Management | ||||
| TABLE OF FORMS | |||||
| TARIFF A Lawyers’ Fees and Disbursements Allowable Under Rules 57.01 and 58.05 | |||||
| TARIFF C Lawyers’ Costs Allowed on Passing of Accounts without a Hearing | |||||
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |||||
| GENERAL MATTERS | |||||
| RULE 1 CITATION, APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION | |||||
| 1.01 | Citation | ||||
| 1.02 | Application of Rules | ||||
| 1.03 | Definitions | ||||
| 1.04 | Interpretation | ||||
| 1.05 | Orders on Terms | ||||
| 1.06 | Forms | ||||
| 1.07 | Practice Directions | ||||
| 1.08 | Telephone and Video Conferences | ||||
| 1.08.1 | Video Conference — References Under the Solicitors Act | ||||
| 1.09 | Communications out of Court | ||||
| RULE 2 NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES | |||||
| 2.01 | Effect of Non-Compliance | ||||
| 2.02 | Attacking Irregularity | ||||
| 2.03 | Court May Dispense with Compliance | ||||
| RULE 2.1 GENERAL POWERS TO STAY OR DISMISS IF VEXATIOUS, ETC. | |||||
| 2.1.01 | Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding | ||||
| 2.1.02 | Order to Stay, Dismiss Motion | ||||
| 2.1.03 | Order for Stay, Dismissal | ||||
| RULE 3 TIME | |||||
| 3.01 | Computation | ||||
| 3.02 | Extension or Abridgment | ||||
| 3.03 | When Proceedings May be Heard | ||||
| 3.04 | Timetables | ||||
| RULE 4 COURT DOCUMENTS | |||||
| 4.01 | Format | ||||
| 4.02 | Contents | ||||
| 4.02.1 | Bilingual Documents | ||||
| 4.03 | Certified Copies of Court Documents | ||||
| 4.04 | Notice to be Given in Writing or Electronically | ||||
| 4.05 | Issuing and Filing of Documents | ||||
| 4.05.1 | Civil Claims Online Portal | ||||
| 4.06 | Affidavits | ||||
| 4.07 | Binding of Documents | ||||
| 4.08 | Requisition | ||||
| 4.09 | Transcripts | ||||
| 4.10 | Transmission of Documents | ||||
| 4.11 | Notice of Constitutional Question | ||||
| RULE 4.1 duty of expert | |||||
| 4.1.01 | Duty of Expert | ||||
| PARTIES AND JOINDER | |||||
| RULE 5 JOINDER OF CLAIMS AND PARTIES | |||||
| 5.01 | Joinder of Claims | ||||
| 5.02 | Joinder of Parties | ||||
| 5.03 | Joinder of Necessary Parties | ||||
| 5.04 | Misjoinder, Non-Joinder and Parties Incorrectly Named | ||||
| 5.05 | Relief against Joinder | ||||
| RULE 6 CONSOLIDATION OR HEARING TOGETHER | |||||
| 6.01 | Where Order May be Made | ||||
| 6.02 | Discretion of Presiding Judge | ||||
| RULE 6.1 separate hearings | |||||
| 6.1.01 | Separate Hearings | ||||
| RULE 7 PARTIES UNDER DISABILITY | |||||
| 7.01 | Representation by Litigation Guardian | ||||
| 7.02 | Litigation Guardian for Plaintiff or Applicant | ||||
| 7.03 | Litigation Guardian for Defendant or Respondent | ||||
| 7.04 | Representation of Persons under Disability | ||||
| 7.05 | Powers and Duties of Litigation Guardian | ||||
| 7.06 | Removal or Substitution of Litigation Guardian | ||||
| 7.07 | Noting Party under Disability in Default | ||||
| 7.07.1 | Discontinuance by or Against Party under Disability | ||||
| 7.08 | Approval of Settlement | ||||
| 7.09 | Money to be Paid into Court | ||||
| RULE 8 PARTNERSHIPS AND SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS | |||||
| 8.01 | Partnerships | ||||
| 8.02 | Defence | ||||
| 8.03 | Notice to Alleged Partner where Enforcement Sought against Partner | ||||
| 8.04 | Person Defending Separately | ||||
| 8.05 | Disclosure of Partners | ||||
| 8.06 | Enforcement of Order | ||||
| 8.07 | Sole Proprietorships | ||||
| RULE 9 ESTATES AND TRUSTS | |||||
| 9.01 | Proceedings by or against Executor, Administrator or Trustee | ||||
| 9.02 | Proceeding against Estate that has no Executor or Administrator | ||||
| 9.03 | Remedial Provisions | ||||
| RULE 10 REPRESENTATION ORDER | |||||
| 10.01 | Representation of an Interested Person who cannot be Ascertained | ||||
| 10.02 | Representation of a Deceased Person | ||||
| 10.03 | Relief from Binding Effect of Order | ||||
| RULE 11 TRANSFER OR TRANSMISSION OF INTEREST | |||||
| 11.01 | Effect of Transfer or Transmission | ||||
| 11.02 | Order to Continue | ||||
| 11.03 | Failure to Obtain Order to Continue Action | ||||
| RULE 12 CLASS PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS | |||||
| 12.01 | Definitions | ||||
| 12.02 | Title of Proceeding | ||||
| 12.03 | Discovery of Class Members | ||||
| 12.04 | Costs | ||||
| 12.05 | Contents of Judgments and Orders | ||||
| 12.06 | Leave to Appeal | ||||
| 12.07 | Proceeding against Representative Defendant | ||||
| 12.08 | Proceeding by Unincorporated Association or Trade Union | ||||
| RULE 13 INTERVENTION | |||||
| 13.01 | Leave to Intervene as Added Party | ||||
| 13.02 | Leave to Intervene as Friend of the Court | ||||
| 13.03 | Leave to Intervene in Divisional Court or Court of Appeal | ||||
| COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS | |||||
| RULE 13.1 PLACE OF COMMENCEMENT AND HEARING OR TRIAL | |||||
| 13.1.01 | Place of Commencement | ||||
| 13.1.02 | Transfer | ||||
| RULE 14 ORIGINATING PROCESS | |||||
| 14.01 | How Proceedings Commenced | ||||
| 14.02 | Proceedings by Action as General Rule | ||||
| 14.03 | Actions — By Statement of Claim or Notice of Action | ||||
| 14.03.1 | Ordinary and Simplified Procedure | ||||
| 14.05 | Applications — By Notice of Application | ||||
| 14.06 | Title of Proceeding | ||||
| 14.07 | How Originating Process Issued | ||||
| 14.08 | Time for Service in Actions | ||||
| 14.09 | Striking out or Amending | ||||
| 14.10 | Dismissal of Action where Defendant Pays Claim | ||||
| RULE 15 REPRESENTATION BY lawyer | |||||
| 15.01 | Where Lawyer is Required | ||||
| 15.01.1 | Interpretation | ||||
| 15.02 | Notice of Authority to Commence Proceeding | ||||
| 15.03 | Change in Representation by Party | ||||
| 15.04 | Motion by Lawyer for Removal as Lawyer of Record | ||||
| 15.05 | Duty of Lawyer of Record | ||||
| 15.06 | Where a Lawyer of Record has Ceased to Practise | ||||
| 15.07 | Lawyer from Another Province | ||||
| SERVICE | |||||
| RULE 16 SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS | |||||
| 16.01 | General Rules for Manner of Service | ||||
| 16.02 | Personal Service | ||||
| 16.03 | Alternatives to Personal Service | ||||
| 16.04 | Substituted Service or Dispensing with Service | ||||
| 16.05 | Service on Lawyer of Record | ||||
| 16.06 | Service by Mail | ||||
| 16.06.1 | Service by E-mail | ||||
| 16.07 | Where Document does not Reach Person Served | ||||
| 16.08 | Validating Service | ||||
| 16.09 | Proof of Service | ||||
| RULE 17 SERVICE OUTSIDE ONTARIO | |||||
| 17.01 | Definition | ||||
| 17.02 | Service outside Ontario without Leave | ||||
| 17.03 | Service outside Ontario with Leave | ||||
| 17.04 | Additional Requirements for Service outside Ontario | ||||
| 17.05 | Manner of Service outside Ontario | ||||
| 17.06 | Motion to Set Aside Service outside Ontario | ||||
| RULE 18 TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE | |||||
| 18.01 | Time for Delivery of Statement of Defence | ||||
| 18.02 | Notice of Intent to Defend | ||||
| DISPOSITION WITHOUT TRIAL | |||||
| RULE 19 DEFAULT PROCEEDINGS | |||||
| 19.01 | Noting Default | ||||
| 19.02 | Consequences of Noting Default | ||||
| 19.03 | Setting Aside the Noting of Default | ||||
| 19.04 | By Signing Default Judgment | ||||
| 19.05 | By Motion for Judgment | ||||
| 19.06 | Facts Must Entitle Plaintiff to Judgment | ||||
| 19.07 | Effect of Default Judgment | ||||
| 19.08 | Setting Aside Default Judgment | ||||
| 19.09 | Application to Counterclaims, Crossclaims and Third Party Claims | ||||
| RULE 20 SUMMARY JUDGMENT | |||||
| 20.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 20.02 | Evidence on Motion | ||||
| 20.03 | Factums Required | ||||
| 20.04 | Disposition of Motion | ||||
| 20.05 | Where Trial is Necessary | ||||
| 20.06 | Costs Sanctions for Improper Use of Rule | ||||
| 20.07 | Effect of Summary Judgment | ||||
| 20.08 | Stay of Execution | ||||
| 20.09 | Application to Counterclaims, Crossclaims and Third Party Claims | ||||
| RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL | |||||
| 21.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 21.02 | Motion to be Made Promptly | ||||
| 21.03 | Factums Required | ||||
| RULE 22 SPECIAL CASE | |||||
| 22.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 22.02 | Factums Required | ||||
| 22.03 | Removal into Court of Appeal | ||||
| 22.04 | Form of Special Case | ||||
| 22.05 | Hearing of Special Case | ||||
| RULE 23 DISCONTINUANCE AND WITHDRAWAL | |||||
| 23.01 | Discontinuance by Plaintiff | ||||
| 23.02 | Effect of Discontinuance on Counterclaim | ||||
| 23.03 | Effect of Discontinuance on Crossclaim or Third Party Claim | ||||
| 23.04 | Effect of Discontinuance on Subsequent Action | ||||
| 23.05 | Costs of Discontinuance, Deemed Dismissal | ||||
| 23.06 | Withdrawal by Defendant | ||||
| 23.07 | Application to Counterclaims, Crossclaims and Third Party Claims | ||||
| RULE 24 DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR DELAY | |||||
| 24.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 24.02 | Where Plaintiff under Disability | ||||
| 24.02.1 | Notice of Order | ||||
| 24.03 | Effect of Dismissal on Counterclaim | ||||
| 24.04 | Effect of Dismissal on Crossclaim or Third Party Claim | ||||
| 24.05 | Effect on Subsequent Action | ||||
| 24.05.1 | Costs of Dismissal, Deemed Dismissal | ||||
| 24.06 | Application to Counterclaims, Crossclaims and Third Party Claims | ||||
| RULE 24.1 MANDATORY MEDIATION | |||||
| 24.1.01 | Purpose | ||||
| 24.1.02 | Nature of Mediation | ||||
| 24.1.03 | Definitions | ||||
| 24.1.04 | Application | ||||
| 24.1.05 | Exemption from Mediation | ||||
| 24.1.06 | Mediation Co-ordinator | ||||
| 24.1.07 | Local Mediation Committees | ||||
| 24.1.08 | Mediators | ||||
| 24.1.09 | Mediation Session | ||||
| 24.1.10 | Procedure before Mediation Session | ||||
| 24.1.11 | Attendance at Mediation Session | ||||
| 24.1.12 | Failure to Attend | ||||
| 24.1.13 | Non-Compliance | ||||
| 24.1.14 | Confidentiality | ||||
| 24.1.15 | Outcome of Mediation | ||||
| 24.1.16 | Consent Order for Additional Mediation Session | ||||
| PLEADINGS | |||||
| RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION | |||||
| 25.01 | Pleadings Required or Permitted | ||||
| 25.02 | Form of Pleadings | ||||
| 25.03 | Service of Pleadings | ||||
| 25.04 | Time For Delivery of Pleadings | ||||
| 25.05 | Close of Pleadings | ||||
| 25.06 | Rules of Pleading — Applicable to All Pleadings | ||||
| 25.07 | Rules of Pleading — Applicable to Defences | ||||
| 25.08 | Where a Reply is Necessary | ||||
| 25.09 | Rules of Pleading — Applicable to Replies | ||||
| 25.10 | Particulars | ||||
| 25.11 | Striking Out a Pleading or Other Document | ||||
| RULE 26 AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS | |||||
| 26.01 | General Power of Court | ||||
| 26.02 | When Amendments May be Made | ||||
| 26.03 | How Amendments Made | ||||
| 26.04 | Service of Amended Pleading | ||||
| 26.05 | Responding to an Amended Pleading | ||||
| 26.06 | Amendment at Trial | ||||
| RULE 27 COUNTERCLAIM | |||||
| 27.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 27.02 | Statement of Defence and Counterclaim | ||||
| 27.03 | Counterclaim to be Issued where Defendant to Counterclaim not already Party to Main Action | ||||
| 27.04 | Time for Delivery or Service of Defence and Counterclaim | ||||
| 27.05 | Time for Delivery of Defence to Counterclaim | ||||
| 27.06 | Time for Delivery of Reply to Defence to Counterclaim | ||||
| 27.07 | Amending Defence to Add Counterclaim | ||||
| 27.08 | Trial of Counterclaim | ||||
| 27.09 | Disposition of Counterclaim | ||||
| 27.10 | Application to Counterclaims, Crossclaims and Third Party Claims | ||||
| RULE 28 CROSSCLAIM | |||||
| 28.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 28.02 | Statement of Defence and Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.03 | Amending Defence to Add Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.04 | Time for Delivery of Statement of Defence and Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.05 | Time for Delivery of Defence to Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.06 | Contents of Defence to Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.07 | Effect of Default of Defence to Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.08 | Time for Delivery of Reply to Defence to Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.09 | Trial of Crossclaim | ||||
| 28.10 | Prejudice or Delay to Plaintiff | ||||
| 28.11 | Application to Counterclaims and Third Party Claims | ||||
| RULE 29 THIRD PARTY CLAIM | |||||
| 29.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 29.02 | Time for Third Party Claim | ||||
| 29.03 | Third Party Defence | ||||
| 29.04 | Reply to Third Party Defence | ||||
| 29.05 | Defence of Main Action by Third Party | ||||
| 29.06 | Effect of Third Party Defence | ||||
| 29.07 | Effect of Default of Third Party | ||||
| 29.08 | Trial of Third Party Claim | ||||
| 29.09 | Prejudice or Delay to Plaintiff | ||||
| 29.10 | Third Party Directions | ||||
| 29.11 | Fourth and Subsequent Party Claims | ||||
| 29.12 | Application to Fourth and Subsequent Party Claims | ||||
| 29.13 | Application to Counterclaims and Crossclaims | ||||
| 29.14 | File Number | ||||
| DISCOVERY | |||||
| RULE 29.1 DISCOVERY plan | |||||
| 29.1.01 | Non-Application of Rule | ||||
| 29.1.02 | Definition | ||||
| 29.1.03 | Discovery Plan | ||||
| 29.1.04 | Duty to Update Plan | ||||
| 29.1.05 | Failure to Agree to Plan | ||||
| RULE 29.2 proportionality in discovery | |||||
| 29.2.01 | Definition | ||||
| 29.2.02 | Application | ||||
| 29.2.03 | Considerations | ||||
| RULE 30 DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS | |||||
| 30.01 | Interpretation | ||||
| 30.02 | Scope of Documentary Discovery | ||||
| 30.03 | Affidavit of Documents | ||||
| 30.04 | Inspection of Documents | ||||
| 30.05 | Disclosure or Production not Admission of Relevance | ||||
| 30.06 | Where Affidavit Incomplete or Privilege Improperly Claimed | ||||
| 30.07 | Documents or Errors Subsequently Discovered | ||||
| 30.08 | Effect of Failure to Disclose or Produce for Inspection | ||||
| 30.09 | Privileged Document Not to be Used Without Leave | ||||
| 30.10 | Production from Non-Parties With Leave | ||||
| 30.11 | Document Deposited for Safe Keeping | ||||
| RULE 30.1 DEEMED UNDERTAKING | |||||
| 30.1.01 | Application | ||||
| RULE 31 EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY | |||||
| 31.01 | Definition | ||||
| 31.02 | Form of Examination | ||||
| 31.03 | Who May Examine and be Examined | ||||
| 31.04 | When Examination may be Initiated | ||||
| 31.05 | Oral Examination by More Than One Party | ||||
| 31.05.1 | Time Limit | ||||
| 31.06 | Scope of Examination | ||||
| 31.07 | Failure to Answer on Discovery | ||||
| 31.08 | Effect of Lawyer Answering | ||||
| 31.09 | Information Subsequently Obtained | ||||
| 31.10 | Discovery of Non-Parties with Leave | ||||
| 31.11 | Use of Examination for Discovery at Trial | ||||
| RULE 32 INSPECTION OF PROPERTY | |||||
| 32.01 | Order for Inspection | ||||
| RULE 33 MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTIES | |||||
| 33.01 | Motion for Medical Examination | ||||
| 33.02 | Order for Examination | ||||
| 33.03 | Dispute as to Scope of Examination | ||||
| 33.04 | Provision of Information to Party Obtaining Order | ||||
| 33.05 | Who May Attend on Examination | ||||
| 33.06 | Medical Reports | ||||
| 33.07 | Penalty for Failure to Comply | ||||
| 33.08 | Examination by Consent | ||||
| EXAMINATIONS OUT OF COURT | |||||
| RULE 34 PROCEDURE ON ORAL EXAMINATIONS | |||||
| 34.01 | Application of the Rule | ||||
| 34.02 | Before Whom to be Held | ||||
| 34.03 | Place of Examination | ||||
| 34.04 | How Attendance Required | ||||
| 34.05 | Notice of Time and Place | ||||
| 34.06 | Examinations on Consent | ||||
| 34.07 | Where Person to be Examined Resides outside Ontario | ||||
| 34.08 | Person to be Examined to be Sworn | ||||
| 34.09 | Interpreter | ||||
| 34.10 | Production of Documents on Examination | ||||
| 34.11 | Re-Examination | ||||
| 34.12 | Objections and Rulings | ||||
| 34.14 | Improper Conduct of Examination | ||||
| 34.15 | Sanctions for Default or Misconduct by Person to be Examined | ||||
| 34.16 | Examination to be Recorded | ||||
| 34.17 | Typewritten Transcript | ||||
| 34.18 | Filing of Transcript | ||||
| 34.19 | Videotaping or Other Recording of Examination | ||||
| RULE 35 PROCEDURE ON EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS | |||||
| 35.01 | Questions | ||||
| 35.02 | Answers | ||||
| 35.03 | Objections | ||||
| 35.04 | Failure to Answer | ||||
| 35.05 | Improper Conduct of Examination | ||||
| 35.06 | Filing Questions and Answers | ||||
| RULE 36 TAKING EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL | |||||
| 36.01 | Where Available | ||||
| 36.02 | Procedure | ||||
| 36.03 | Examinations outside Ontario | ||||
| 36.04 | Use at Trial | ||||
| MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS | |||||
| RULE 37 MOTIONS — JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE | |||||
| 37.01 | Notice of Motion | ||||
| 37.02 | Jurisdiction to Hear a Motion | ||||
| 37.03 | Place of Hearing of Motions | ||||
| 37.04 | Motions — To Whom to be Made | ||||
| 37.05 | Hearing Date for Motions | ||||
| 37.06 | Content of Notice | ||||
| 37.07 | Service of Notice | ||||
| 37.08 | Filing of Notice of Motion | ||||
| 37.09 | Abandoned Motions | ||||
| 37.10 | Material for Use on Motions | ||||
| 37.10.1 | Confirmation of Motion | ||||
| 37.11 | Hearing in Absence of Public | ||||
| 37.12.1 | Hearing Without Oral Argument | ||||
| 37.13 | Disposition of Motion | ||||
| 37.14 | Setting Aside, Varying or Amending Orders | ||||
| 37.15 | Motions in a Complicated Proceeding or Series of Proceedings | ||||
| 37.16 | Prohibiting Motions without Leave | ||||
| 37.17 | Motion Before Commencement of Proceeding | ||||
| RULE 38 APPLICATIONS — JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE | |||||
| 38.01 | Application of the Rule | ||||
| 38.02 | Applications — To Whom to be Made | ||||
| 38.03 | Place and Date of Hearing | ||||
| 38.04 | Content of Notice | ||||
| 38.05 | Issuing of Notice | ||||
| 38.06 | Service of Notice | ||||
| 38.07 | Notice of Appearance | ||||
| 38.08 | Abandoned Applications | ||||
| 38.09 | Material for Use on Application | ||||
| 38.09.1 | Confirmation of Application | ||||
| 38.10 | Disposition of Application | ||||
| 38.11 | Setting Aside Judgment on Application Made Without Notice | ||||
| 38.12 | Striking out a Document | ||||
| 38.13 | Applications under s. 140 (3), Courts of Justice Act | ||||
| RULE 39 EVIDENCE ON MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS | |||||
| 39.01 | Evidence by Affidavit | ||||
| 39.02 | Evidence by Cross-Examination on Affidavit | ||||
| 39.03 | Evidence by Examination of a Witness | ||||
| 39.04 | Evidence by Examination for Discovery | ||||
| PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS IN PENDINg LITIGATION | |||||
| RULE 40 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION OR MANDATORY ORDER | |||||
| 40.01 | How Obtained | ||||
| 40.02 | Where Motion Made Without Notice | ||||
| 40.03 | Undertaking | ||||
| 40.04 | Factums Required | ||||
| RULE 41 APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER | |||||
| 41.01 | Definition | ||||
| 41.02 | How Obtained | ||||
| 41.03 | Form of Order | ||||
| 41.04 | Reference of Conduct of Receivership | ||||
| 41.05 | Directions | ||||
| 41.06 | Discharge | ||||
| RULE 42 CERTIFICATE OF PENDING LITIGATION | |||||
| 42.01 | Issuing of Certificate | ||||
| 42.02 | Discharge of Certificate | ||||
| RULE 43 INTERPLEADER | |||||
| 43.01 | General | ||||
| 43.02 | Where Available | ||||
| 43.03 | How Obtained | ||||
| 43.04 | Disposition | ||||
| RULE 44 INTERIM RECOVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY | |||||
| 44.01 | Motion for Interim Order | ||||
| 44.02 | Order to Contain Description and Value of Property | ||||
| 44.03 | Disposition of Motion | ||||
| 44.04 | Condition and Form of Security | ||||
| 44.05 | Setting Aside Order | ||||
| 44.06 | Release of Security | ||||
| 44.07 | Duty of Sheriff | ||||
| 44.08 | Where Defendant Prevents Recovery | ||||
| RULE 45 INTERIM PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY | |||||
| 45.01 | Interim Order for Preservation or Sale | ||||
|
45. |
|||||
(EMPEROR YAHUDAH / KING DAVID REINCARNATED).
THE PURPOSES & OBJECTIVES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT & NATIONAL SECURITY / INTELLIGENCE AGENCY OF THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION & THE FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSING COMMISSION OF CANADA (FBI CANADA) ARE;
TO FURTHER ESTABLISH OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY WITH ADDITIONAL SELF-GOVERNED JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTIONS, SPECIFICALLY INSTITUTED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCES OF CANADA & TO PROTECT OUR INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS OUR POPULATION OF PEOPLE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UNLAWFULNESS & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
OUR MAIN OBJECTIVES ARE:
TO STRENGTHEN OUR "NATIONAL SECURITY" INSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION, INCLUDING IT'S CITIZENS, IT'S ECONOMY & IT'S INSTITUTIONS, WHICH IS NOT ONLY OUR OBLIGATION & RESPONSIBILITY, BUT IS ALSO REGARDED AS A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY.
OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO STRENGTHEN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WHICH MEANS ESTABLISHING OUR FOUNDATION OF OFFICERS REPRESENTING THE CIVIL AUTHORITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT. OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER & SAFETY, ENFORCING THE LAW, AND PREVENTING, DETECTING & INVESTIGATING LAWLESSNESS, PROSECUTING OFFENDERS OF THE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH "THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ACT" OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE ALL FEDERALIZED INSTITUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY CONSTITUTION.
OUR PURPOSES ARE CLEAR & CONCLUSIVE WITHOUT ANY DOUBTS OR CONFUSION. WE ARE PEACEFULLY ALLIED WITH CANADA & THE UNITED NATIONS, UNIFIED IN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, FOCUSING ON STRENGTHENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND PROVIDING OUR POPULATION & OUR INSTITUTIONS WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCE OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION, PROTECTING OUR HUMAN RIGHTS & OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHILE IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONS OF CULTURAL ADVANCEMENTS ESTABLISHED UPON THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOUNDED UPON SOCIAL JUSTICE & A CIVILIZED SOCIETY RESERVING THE PRIORITIZATION TO SERVE THE MOST HIGH ALMIGHTY HEAVENLY FATHER GOD IN OBEDIENCE, RIGHTEOUSLY.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT (FBI CANADA) IS THE NATIONAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE AGENCY BEING INSTITUTED WITH THE POWER OF AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW & EXECUTE IT UNDER THE COMMAND & DIRECTORSHIP OF THE CHIEF SHERIFF WHO ALSO HOLDS THE POSITION OF CHIEF FIREARMS OFFICER OF THE FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSING COMMISSION, WHICH HOLDS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INITIATING & TRAINING SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS & PROVIDING OUR DEPUTY SHERIFF'S WITH THE FIREARMS SAFETY & LICENSING REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR OUR OFFICERS TO LAWFULLY CARRY RESTRICTED FIREARMS TO FULFILL THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES AS REQUIRED & NECESSARY, UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY WITH THE EQUAL POWER OF AUTHORITY AS THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA WHILE ENFORCING THE SAME LAWS WITHIN THE EXACT SAME SOCIETY, WHILE FOCUSING ENTIRELY ON TARGETED OPERATIONS STRATEGICALLY ASSIGNED TO BE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT TO POLICING OUR INSTITUTIONS & PROTECTING OUR POPULATION FROM THE UNPREDICTABLE VARIETY OF OPPRESSIVE CRIMES, UNLAWFULNESS & EVEN TYRANNY, WHICH HAVE ALL BECOME TOO COMMONPLACE IN OUR SOCIETIES .
REPENTANCE & CORRECTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH OBEDIENCE, FOUNDED EXCEEDINGLY EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE MORALISTIC VALUES OF THE ISRAELITE BIBLICAL PRINCIPALITIES, INCLUDING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE KJV & THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 28 , VERSE 1.
Economic development
Economic and social development is the process by which the economic well-being and quality of life of a nation, region, or local community are improved according to targeted goals and objectives. Wikipedia
.
THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY OBJECTIVE, IS CLEARLY JUSTIFIED AS AN ACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, WHICH IS NOW INSTITUTING FULL CO-ORDINATION & PARTICIPATION BETWEEN THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THE UNITED NATIONS, ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF CANADA: WHICH IS IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WITH SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN ALLIANCE WITH THE UNIVERSAL CODE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS & THE CRIMINAL CODE UPHOLDING OUR JUDICIAL STRUCTURES IN COORDINATED PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS THAT ARE ALSO ALIGNED WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
ANOTHER ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES IS TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE INJUSTICES BEING SUBJECTED ON OUR POPULATION AS WELL AS OUR INCORPORATED INSTITUTIONS. IN CONCLUSION, SERVING JUSTICE WITH THE LAWFUL EXECUTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS & MANDATED STATUTES IN OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH INCLUDES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EXCLUSIVE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER ALL FEDERALIZED ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS WITH SOVEREIGNTY.
DEFINITIONS:
JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION - The administration of justice is the process by which the legal system of a government is executed. The purpose of this justice administration is to provide justice for all those accessing the legal system through law enforcement & civil litigation lawsuit adjudication court proceedings which holds the offending party accountable for the unlawful actions of themselves & their counterparts through civil liability.
How do the courts administer justice?
The Chief Justice's responsibility of judicial administration is exclusively Directed by The Chief Justice of The Most High Supreme Court of The National Israelite Government Sovereignty, who then assigns management over specific jurisdictions of court administration obligations to chief justice's of each divisional superior court, while ultimately retaining sovereign authority over the overall supervision & perfection of our judicial system's institution to ensure the most justified judicial processes are being executed, including writs of execution, executing lawful judgements for damages & restitution for Civil Damages suffered at the hands of the unlawful offenders within our society's institutions.
By way of statute and administrative practice, each Superior Court Chief Judge's Panel appoints deputy sheriff's over our department of justice's law enforcement agency, which involves coordinating with The Chief Sheriff's Department of FBI CANADA, supervising court processes and managing court records, furthermore, in accordance with The Canadian Criminal Code,
Civil damages are monetary awards owed to a winning plaintiff by the losing defendant in a civil case tried in a court of law. ... General damages include payment for nonfinancial damages, such as pain and suffering. Punitive damages include payment for losses caused by the gross negligence of a defendant.
. By statute and administrative practice, each court appoints support staff, supervises court processes, and manages court records.
What do we mean by justice?
noun. the quality of being just; righteous, equitable or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: the moral principle determining just conduct.
Why do we need The NHRJA Courts of Justice?
Courts are important because they help protect our constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law. Both criminal and civil courts provide the opportunity for our national population to finally utilize, Sovereign right to Liberty & have Justice Enforced through Our Israelite Government Sovereignty National Security & Law Enforcement Agency, The National Human Rights Justice Administration & The Superior Court of Civil Litigation Adjudication for Justice, law & a peaceful society amongst all of our communities in Canada nationwide, which is The Israelite Government's priority.
Why is it important to establish justice?
The ultimate importance of establishing 'justice' (i.e. the rule of law) in society. ... It's administration of justice — impartiality to give equal ability to everyone to exercise their rights and presuming the wrongdoer to be innocent first until proven guilty in a competent court of law, where Justice Administration remains our Israelite Government's top priority as well as a fundamental obligation to our population /nation of people, in accordance with International Law Statutes / The National Israelite Government Sovereignty Declaration of Independence, Human Rights & Freedoms, National Sovereignty, Ethnic Nationalism & National Self-Determination. All Rights Reserved.
FOR THE RECORD, THIS CORPORATE CONSTITUTION WAS ESTABLISHED BY HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY, PRESIDENT / CHIEF JUSTICE KING-DAVID YAHQUB-YSRYAHEL
(EMPEROR YAHUDAH / KING DAVID REINCARNATED).THE PURPOSES & OBJECTIVES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT & NATIONAL SECURITY / INTELLIGENCE AGENCY OF THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION & THE FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSING COMMISSION OF CANADA (FBI CANADA) ARE;
TO FURTHER ESTABLISH OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY WITH ADDITIONAL SELF-GOVERNED JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTIONS, SPECIFICALLY INSTITUTED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCES OF CANADA & TO PROTECT OUR INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS OUR POPULATION OF PEOPLE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UNLAWFULNESS & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.OUR MAIN OBJECTIVES ARE:
TO STRENGTHEN OUR "NATIONAL SECURITY" INSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION, INCLUDING IT'S CITIZENS, IT'S ECONOMY & IT'S INSTITUTIONS, WHICH IS NOT ONLY OUR OBLIGATION & RESPONSIBILITY, BUT IS ALSO REGARDED AS A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY.
OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO STRENGTHEN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WHICH MEANS ESTABLISHING OUR FOUNDATION OF OFFICERS REPRESENTING THE CIVIL AUTHORITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT. OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER & SAFETY, ENFORCING THE LAW, AND PREVENTING, DETECTING & INVESTIGATING LAWLESSNESS, PROSECUTING OFFENDERS OF THE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH "THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ACT" OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE ALL FEDERALIZED INSTITUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY CONSTITUTION.OUR PURPOSES ARE CLEAR & CONCLUSIVE WITHOUT ANY DOUBTS OR CONFUSION. WE ARE PEACEFULLY ALLIED WITH CANADA & THE UNITED NATIONS, UNIFIED IN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, FOCUSING ON STRENGTHENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND PROVIDING OUR POPULATION & OUR INSTITUTIONS WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCE OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION, PROTECTING OUR HUMAN RIGHTS & OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHILE IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONS OF CULTURAL ADVANCEMENTS ESTABLISHED UPON THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOUNDED UPON SOCIAL JUSTICE & A CIVILIZED SOCIETY RESERVING THE PRIORITIZATION TO SERVE THE MOST HIGH ALMIGHTY HEAVENLY FATHER GOD IN OBEDIENCE, RIGHTEOUSLY.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT (FBI CANADA) IS THE NATIONAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE AGENCY BEING INSTITUTED WITH THE POWER OF AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW & EXECUTE IT UNDER THE COMMAND & DIRECTORSHIP OF THE CHIEF SHERIFF WHO ALSO HOLDS THE POSITION OF CHIEF FIREARMS OFFICER OF THE FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSING COMMISSION, WHICH HOLDS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INITIATING & TRAINING SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS & PROVIDING OUR DEPUTY SHERIFF'S WITH THE FIREARMS SAFETY & LICENSING REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR OUR OFFICERS TO LAWFULLY CARRY RESTRICTED FIREARMS TO FULFILL THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES AS REQUIRED & NECESSARY, UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY
REPENTANCE & CORRECTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH OBEDIENCE, FOUNDED EXCEEDINGLY EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE MORALISTIC VALUES OF THE ISRAELITE BIBLICAL PRINCIPALITIES, INCLUDING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE KJV & THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 28 , VERSE 1.
Economic development
Economic and social development is the process by which the economic well-being and quality of life of a nation, region, or local community are improved according to targeted goals and objectives. Wikipedia
.
THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY OBJECTIVE, IS CLEARLY JUSTIFIED AS AN ACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, WHICH IS NOW INSTITUTING FULL CO-ORDINATION & PARTICIPATION BETWEEN THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THE UNITED NATIONS, ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF CANADA: WHICH IS IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WITH SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN ALLIANCE WITH THE UNIVERSAL CODE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS & THE CRIMINAL CODE UPHOLDING OUR JUDICIAL STRUCTURES IN COORDINATED PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS THAT ARE ALSO ALIGNED WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.ANOTHER ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES IS TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE INJUSTICES BEING SUBJECTED ON OUR POPULATION AS WELL AS OUR INCORPORATED INSTITUTIONS. IN CONCLUSION, SERVING JUSTICE WITH THE LAWFUL EXECUTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS & MANDATED STATUTES IN OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH INCLUDES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
DEFINITIONS:
JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION - The administration of justice is the process by which the legal system of a government is executed. The purpose of this justice administration is to provide justice for all those accessing the legal system through law enforcement & civil litigation lawsuit adjudication court proceedings which holds the offending party accountable for the unlawful actions of themselves & their counterparts through civil liability.How do the courts administer justice?
The Chief Justice's responsibility of judicial administration is exclusively Directed by The Chief Justice of The Most High Supreme Court of The Government Sovereignty, then assigns management of jurisdictions of Superior court administration to each individual court while retaining sovereign ultimate authority over the overall supervision & perfection of our judicial system's institution of the most high justified judicial processes including writs of execution, executing lawful judgements for damages & restitution for Civil Damages suffered at the hands of the unlawful entities in our society.
By way of statute and administrative practice, each Superior Court Chief Judge's Panel appoints deputy sheriff's over our department of justice's law enforcement agency, which involves coordinating with The Chief Sheriff's Department of FBI CANADA, supervising court processes and managing court records, furthermore, in accordance with The Canadian Criminal Code,Civil damages are monetary awards owed to a winning plaintiff by the losing defendant in a civil case tried in a court of law. ... General damages include payment for nonfinancial damages, such as pain and suffering. Punitive damages include payment for losses caused by the gross negligence of a defendant.
. By statute and administrative practice, each court appoints support staff, supervises court processes, and manages court records.
What do we mean by justice?
noun. the quality of being just; righteous, equitable or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: the moral principle determining just conduct.Why do we need The NHRJA Courts of Justice?
Courts are important because they help protect our constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law. Both criminal and civil courts provide the opportunity for our national population to finally utilize, Sovereign right to Liberty & have Justice Enforced through Our Israelite Government Sovereignty National Security & Law Enforcement Agency, The National Human Rights Justice Administration & The Superior Court of Civil Litigation Adjudication for Justice, law & a peaceful society amongst all of our communities in Canada nationwide, which is The Israelite Government's priority.Why is it important to establish justice?
The ultimate importance of establishing 'justice' (i.e. the rule of law) in society. ... It's administration of justice — impartiality to give equal ability to everyone to exercise their rights and presuming the wrongdoer to be innocent first until proven guilty in a competent court of law, where Justice Administration remains our Israelite Government's top priority as well as a fundamental obligation to our population /nation of people, in accordance with International Law Statutes / The National Israelite Government Sovereignty Declaration of Independence, Human Rights & Freedoms, National Sovereignty, Ethnic Nationalism & National Self-Determination. All Rights Reserved.On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:39 AM THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT <thenationalisraelitegovernment@gmail.com> wrote: FOR THE RECORD, THIS CORPORATE CONSTITUTION WAS ESTABLISHED BY HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY, PRESIDENT / CHIEF JUSTICE KING-DAVID YAHQUB-YSRYAHEL
(EMPEROR YAHUDAH / KING DAVID REINCARNATED).THE PURPOSES & OBJECTIVES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT & NATIONAL SECURITY / INTELLIGENCE AGENCY OF THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION & THE FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSING COMMISSION OF CANADA (FBI CANADA) ARE;
TO FURTHER ESTABLISH OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY WITH ADDITIONAL SELF-GOVERNED JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTIONS, SPECIFICALLY INSTITUTED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCES OF CANADA & TO PROTECT OUR INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS OUR POPULATION OF PEOPLE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UNLAWFULNESS & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.OUR MAIN OBJECTIVES ARE:
TO STRENGTHEN OUR "NATIONAL SECURITY" INSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION, INCLUDING IT'S CITIZENS, IT'S ECONOMY & IT'S INSTITUTIONS, WHICH IS NOT ONLY OUR OBLIGATION & RESPONSIBILITY, BUT IS ALSO REGARDED AS A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF OUR ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY.
OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO STRENGTHEN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WHICH MEANS ESTABLISHING OUR FOUNDATION OF OFFICERS REPRESENTING THE CIVIL AUTHORITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT. OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER & SAFETY, ENFORCING THE LAW, AND PREVENTING, DETECTING & INVESTIGATING LAWLESSNESS, PROSECUTING OFFENDERS OF THE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH "THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ACT" OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE ALL FEDERALIZED INSTITUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY INSTITUTION.OUR PURPOSES ARE CLEAR & CONCLUSIVE WITHOUT ANY DOUBTS OR CONFUSION. WE ARE PEACEFULLY ALLIED WITH CANADA & THE UNITED NATIONS, UNIFIED IN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, FOCUSING ON ENFORCING NATIONAL SECURITY, AND PROVIDING OUR POPULATION & OUR INSTITUTIONS WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCE OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS WHILE IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONS OF CULTURAL ADVANCEMENTS ESTABLISHED ON THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES & THE INTERNATIONAL LAW FOUND UPON SOCIAL JUSTICE & A CIVILIZED SOCIETY RESERVING THE PRIORITIZATION TO SERVE THE MOST HIGH ALMIGHTY HEAVENLY FATHER GOD IN REPENTANCE & CORRECTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH OBEDIENCE, FOUNDED EXCEEDINGLY EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE MORALISTIC VALUES OF THE ISRAELITE BIBLICAL PRINCIPALITIES, INCLUDING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE KJV & THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 28 , VERSE 1.
Economic development
Economic and social development is the process by which the economic well-being and quality of life of a nation, region, or local community are improved according to targeted goals and objectives. Wikipedia
.
THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY OBJECTIVE, IS CLEARLY JUSTIFIED AS AN ACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, WHICH IS NOW INSTITUTING FULL CO-ORDINATION & PARTICIPATION BETWEEN THE ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THE UNITED NATIONS, ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF CANADA: WHICH IS IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION WITH SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN ALLIANCE WITH THE UNIVERSAL CODE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS & THE CRIMINAL CODE UPHOLDING OUR JUDICIAL STRUCTURES IN COORDINATED PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS THAT ARE ALSO ALIGNED WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.ANOTHER ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES IS TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE INJUSTICES BEING SUBJECTED ON OUR POPULATION AS WELL AS OUR INCORPORATED INSTITUTIONS. IN CONCLUSION, SERVING JUSTICE WITH THE LAWFUL EXECUTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS & MANDATED STATUTES IN OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH INCLUDES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
DEFINITIONS:
JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION - The administration of justice is the process by which the legal system of a government is executed. The purpose of this justice administration is to provide justice for all those accessing the legal system through law enforcement & civil litigation lawsuit adjudication court proceedings which holds the offending party accountable for the unlawful actions of themselves & their counterparts through civil liability.How do the courts administer justice?
The Chief Justice's responsibility of judicial administration is exclusively Directed by The Chief Justice of The Most High Supreme Court of The Government Sovereignty, then assigns management of jurisdictions of Superior court administration to each individual court while retaining sovereign ultimate authority over the overall supervision & perfection of our judicial system's institution of the most high justified judicial processes including writs of execution, executing lawful judgements for damages & restitution for Civil Damages suffered at the hands of the unlawful entities in our society.
By way of statute and administrative practice, each Superior Court Chief Judge's Panel appoints deputy sheriff's over our department of justice's law enforcement agency, which involves coordinating with The Chief Sheriff's Department of FBI CANADA, supervising court processes and managing court records, furthermore, in accordance with The Canadian Criminal Code,Civil damages are monetary awards owed to a winning plaintiff by the losing defendant in a civil case tried in a court of law. ... General damages include payment for nonfinancial damages, such as pain and suffering. Punitive damages include payment for losses caused by the gross negligence of a defendant.
. By statute and administrative practice, each court appoints support staff, supervises court processes, and manages court records.
What do we mean by justice?
noun. the quality of being just; righteous, equitable or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: the moral principle determining just conduct.Why do we need The NHRJA Courts of Justice?
Courts are important because they help protect our constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law. Both criminal and civil courts provide the opportunity for our national population to finally utilize, Sovereign right to Liberty & have Justice Enforced through Our Israelite Government Sovereignty National Security & Law Enforcement Agency, The National Human Rights Justice Administration & The Superior Court of Civil Litigation Adjudication for Justice, law & a peaceful society amongst all of our communities in Canada nationwide, which is The Israelite Government's priority.Why is it important to establish justice?
The ultimate importance of establishing 'justice' (i.e. the rule of law) in society. ... It's administration of justice — impartiality to give equal ability to everyone to exercise their rights and presuming the wrongdoer to be innocent first until proven guilty in a competent court of law, where Justice Administration remains our Israelite Government's top priority as well as a fundamental obligation to our population /nation of people, in accordance with International Law Statutes / The National Israelite Government Sovereignty Declaration of Independence, Human Rights & Freedoms, National Sovereignty, Ethnic Nationalism & National Self-Determination. All Rights Reserved.On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:42 AM THE NATIONAL ISRAELITE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT <thenationalisraelitegovernment@gmail.com> wrote: Civil procedure, the body of law concerning the prescribed methods of resolving disputes through litigation (see Civil Law). "Civil" distinguishes this body of law from criminal procedure, which concerns the methods of prosecuting criminal offences.Civil Procedure
Civil procedure, the body of law concerning the prescribed methods of resolving disputes through litigation (see Civil Law). "Civil" distinguishes this body of law from criminal procedure, which concerns the methods of prosecuting criminal offences. The subject matter of civil procedure includes the organization and jurisdiction of courts competent to dispose of civil suits, the conduct of actions from their institution through trial and to judgement, the conduct of appellate litigation, and the enforcement of judgements and judicial orders.
The law of evidence, which is germane to civil procedure, governs the admissibility and weight of proof adduced in the course of a trial. The study of civil procedure also extends to problems such as the advisability, cost of and alternatives to litigation, whether litigants are eligible for legal aid, and the duties of the legal profession in the conduct of litigation.
In the same way as rules of commercial law by their configuration and soundness affect the course and volume of business, rules of civil procedure affect the administration and the quality of civil justice. They determine, among other important questions, when and how citizens can have their "day in court."
Legislative Authority
Constitutionally, the primary responsibility for the administration of justice lies with the provinces and therefore most of the legislation pertaining to civil procedure emanates from provincial legislatures. However, under a special provision of the Constitution Act, 1867, 2 of Canada's existing courts were created by Acts of Parliament: the Supreme Court of Canada (the highest appellate court in the country), created in 1875, and the Federal Court, a court created in 1971 for the better administration of federal law. The statutes establishing these courts also specify the main features of their procedure.
The Reform and Future of Civil Procedure
In the last 20 years efforts have been made in most provinces to modernize and improve the law of civil procedure. A growing concern with the costs and delays of civil litigation and with the poor accessibility of the courts led to the creation and improvement of legal-aid schemes, Small Claims Courts, class-action procedures, and methods of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation in family law.
During the same period, the need for the simplification and rationalization of civil procedure led to the appearance of reforming bodies in many provinces - some of which extensively revised local rules of practice. Procedural reforms must strike a delicate balance between form and substance.
On the one hand, procedural law should be the servant of substantive law: parties to litigation ought to be heard expeditiously on the merits of their claims and should not be forced into a debate on the manner in which their claims must be presented or heard.
On the other hand, a body of procedural rules, the enforcement of which inevitably generates side issues, is essential to the achievement of justice: in a process of adjudication that defines itself as adversarial, what a court decides depends very much on how it is presented with the issues, which in turn depend on how procedural rules assist the parties in preparing their case.
Sources and History
In common-law provinces (ie, all provinces except Québec), the legal rules forming the core of civil procedure are contained in statutes, such as the Judicature Acts, or Rules of Practice, or Rules of Court. These Acts, inspired by English legislation, unified the courts of common law and the courts of equity. They made possible the collection into Rules of Practice of numerous and technical rules of procedure, most of which had been made by judges on a case-by-case basis. Today, judges still participate in making these rules.
In the courts created by Parliament, detailed and often complex rules of practice also regulate most aspects of practice and procedure. In Québec the Code of Civil Procedure, an Act containing over 2000 articles, codifies most of the procedural rules and fulfils a similar function to rules of practice with which it shares many characteristics. Its origins can be traced to the French Ordonnance de la Procédure of 1667. Judicial precedents are another important source of law in civil procedure, primarily in the common-law provinces.
The Process of Civil Litigation
Throughout Canada the systems of civil procedure are adversarial in nature, designed to ensure opposing parties access to information necessary for the preparation of their case and to offer them an opportunity to argue against each other in court. Typically, individuals who believe they have suffered an infringement of their rights will consult a lawyer about the costs and risks of a suit. If it is decided to commence an action, the choice of the appropriate court will be the first procedural question considered by the lawyer. The answer depends on the nature of the case, the amount of the claim and on territorial considerations.
There are several levels of trial courts in most provinces of Canada (see Courts of Law), and within a province some of these courts are subdivided according to the territorial limits of counties or judicial districts. Once the choice is made, the lawyer representing the party who sues (the plaintiff) will attend the office of the court to have issued against the party being sued (the defendant) a document called a petition (or summons, statement of claim, writ of summons).
In most cases the writ will be delivered (served) to the defendant in person by a bailiff. The document will inform the defendant of the nature of the claim against him and explain that if he does not appear and defend the action against him, the plaintiff may obtain judgement by default against the defendant.
After service, each party in turn will give details of the claim or the defence or rebuttals of the opponent's claim in written pleadings (a statement of claim or declaration, sometimes already served with the original document, a statement of defence, an answer and a reply).
The pleadings, served on the other party and filed with the court, will assist the plaintiff and defendant in determining the precise issues between them. The parties will also benefit from several "discovery procedures" (Examination for Discovery, disclosure or discovery of documents, medical examination, etc) designed to facilitate the gathering of relevant information and the joining of issues.
If the parties cannot agree on a settlement out of court, they will proceed to trial. Because of the backlog of cases awaiting trial, months and sometimes years will elapse between the institution of the suit and the actual trial. The trial will take place either before a judge sitting alone or before a judge and a jury. In Québec all civil trials are heard by judges sitting alone.
At the trial each party will be entitled to lead (present) evidence, usually by live witnesses or by documents. Every witness called and examined by a party can be cross-examined by the other party. At this stage of the case, the rules of evidence are crucial. The parties then, through their lawyers, present closing arguments on the facts and the law of the case. The judge commonly renders judgement after preparing written reasons.
Where there is a jury, however, the jury delivers a verdict on the issues of fact at the end of the trial and the judge renders judgement accordingly. When the defendant has failed to appear or to defend the action or where the plaintiff has failed to proceed with the action, judgement can be obtained summarily, without a trial. After judgement, the losing party may choose to appeal. Depending on the nature of the case and the amount in dispute, he may do so as of right or with the permission (leave) of the court of appeal.
There is a court of appeal for each Canadian jurisdiction, provincial or federal. Appellate litigation is usually confined to questions of law. No new evidence is led by the parties, who must rely on a record of the evidence presented at trial. With written arguments ("factums") and later orally, the appellant and the respondent will respectively argue against and in favour of the judgement appealed. The court of appeal may confirm, vary or reverse the trial judgement, or order a new trial.
In some cases the party who loses on appeal will bring a second appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the judgement of which is not subject to a further appeal. The final judgement in the case (either by an appellate court or by the trial court if no appeal is brought) will dismiss the action, or maintain it in whole or in part. The costs of the action will usually be awarded to the winning party, who will recover them from the losing party. These costs usually amount to a mere fraction of the total expenses and normally do not include all the lawyers' professional fees.
The rules of civil procedure also provide for the compulsory enforcement of judgements in the event that the party against whom judgement was rendered fails to comply with the order of the court. The seizure and sale of property and the garnishment of moneys owed are among the measures available for this purpose. Sometimes a disobedient party may even be jailed.
Civil procedure, the body of law concerning the prescribed methods of resolving disputes through litigation (see Civil Law). "Civil" distinguishes this body of law from criminal procedure, which concerns the methods of prosecuting criminal offences.Civil Procedure
Civil procedure, the body of law concerning the prescribed methods of resolving disputes through litigation (see Civil Law). "Civil" distinguishes this body of law from criminal procedure, which concerns the methods of prosecuting criminal offences. The subject matter of civil procedure includes the organization and jurisdiction of courts competent to dispose of civil suits, the conduct of actions from their institution through trial and to judgement, the conduct of appellate litigation, and the enforcement of judgements and judicial orders.
The law of evidence, which is germane to civil procedure, governs the admissibility and weight of proof adduced in the course of a trial. The study of civil procedure also extends to problems such as the advisability, cost of and alternatives to litigation, whether litigants are eligible for legal aid, and the duties of the legal profession in the conduct of litigation.
In the same way as rules of commercial law by their configuration and soundness affect the course and volume of business, rules of civil procedure affect the administration and the quality of civil justice. They determine, among other important questions, when and how citizens can have their "day in court."
Legislative Authority
Constitutionally, the primary responsibility for the administration of justice lies with the provinces and therefore most of the legislation pertaining to civil procedure emanates from provincial legislatures. However, under a special provision of the Constitution Act, 1867, 2 of Canada's existing courts were created by Acts of Parliament: the Supreme Court of Canada (the highest appellate court in the country), created in 1875, and the Federal Court, a court created in 1971 for the better administration of federal law. The statutes establishing these courts also specify the main features of their procedure.
The Reform and Future of Civil Procedure
In the last 20 years efforts have been made in most provinces to modernize and improve the law of civil procedure. A growing concern with the costs and delays of civil litigation and with the poor accessibility of the courts led to the creation and improvement of legal-aid schemes, Small Claims Courts, class-action procedures, and methods of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation in family law.
During the same period, the need for the simplification and rationalization of civil procedure led to the appearance of reforming bodies in many provinces - some of which extensively revised local rules of practice. Procedural reforms must strike a delicate balance between form and substance.
On the one hand, procedural law should be the servant of substantive law: parties to litigation ought to be heard expeditiously on the merits of their claims and should not be forced into a debate on the manner in which their claims must be presented or heard.
On the other hand, a body of procedural rules, the enforcement of which inevitably generates side issues, is essential to the achievement of justice: in a process of adjudication that defines itself as adversarial, what a court decides depends very much on how it is presented with the issues, which in turn depend on how procedural rules assist the parties in preparing their case.
Sources and History
In common-law provinces (ie, all provinces except Québec), the legal rules forming the core of civil procedure are contained in statutes, such as the Judicature Acts, or Rules of Practice, or Rules of Court. These Acts, inspired by English legislation, unified the courts of common law and the courts of equity. They made possible the collection into Rules of Practice of numerous and technical rules of procedure, most of which had been made by judges on a case-by-case basis. Today, judges still participate in making these rules.
In the courts created by Parliament, detailed and often complex rules of practice also regulate most aspects of practice and procedure. In Québec the Code of Civil Procedure, an Act containing over 2000 articles, codifies most of the procedural rules and fulfils a similar function to rules of practice with which it shares many characteristics. Its origins can be traced to the French Ordonnance de la Procédure of 1667. Judicial precedents are another important source of law in civil procedure, primarily in the common-law provinces.
The Process of Civil Litigation
Throughout Canada the systems of civil procedure are adversarial in nature, designed to ensure opposing parties access to information necessary for the preparation of their case and to offer them an opportunity to argue against each other in court. Typically, individuals who believe they have suffered an infringement of their rights will consult a lawyer about the costs and risks of a suit. If it is decided to commence an action, the choice of the appropriate court will be the first procedural question considered by the lawyer. The answer depends on the nature of the case, the amount of the claim and on territorial considerations.
There are several levels of trial courts in most provinces of Canada (see Courts of Law), and within a province some of these courts are subdivided according to the territorial limits of counties or judicial districts. Once the choice is made, the lawyer representing the party who sues (the plaintiff) will attend the office of the court to have issued against the party being sued (the defendant) a document called a petition (or summons, statement of claim, writ of summons).
In most cases the writ will be delivered (served) to the defendant in person by a bailiff. The document will inform the defendant of the nature of the claim against him and explain that if he does not appear and defend the action against him, the plaintiff may obtain judgement by default against the defendant.
After service, each party in turn will give details of the claim or the defence or rebuttals of the opponent's claim in written pleadings (a statement of claim or declaration, sometimes already served with the original document, a statement of defence, an answer and a reply).
The pleadings, served on the other party and filed with the court, will assist the plaintiff and defendant in determining the precise issues between them. The parties will also benefit from several "discovery procedures" (Examination for Discovery, disclosure or discovery of documents, medical examination, etc) designed to facilitate the gathering of relevant information and the joining of issues.
If the parties cannot agree on a settlement out of court, they will proceed to trial. Because of the backlog of cases awaiting trial, months and sometimes years will elapse between the institution of the suit and the actual trial. The trial will take place either before a judge sitting alone or before a judge and a jury. In Québec all civil trials are heard by judges sitting alone.
At the trial each party will be entitled to lead (present) evidence, usually by live witnesses or by documents. Every witness called and examined by a party can be cross-examined by the other party. At this stage of the case, the rules of evidence are crucial. The parties then, through their lawyers, present closing arguments on the facts and the law of the case. The judge commonly renders judgement after preparing written reasons.
Where there is a jury, however, the jury delivers a verdict on the issues of fact at the end of the trial and the judge renders judgement accordingly. When the defendant has failed to appear or to defend the action or where the plaintiff has failed to proceed with the action, judgement can be obtained summarily, without a trial. After judgement, the losing party may choose to appeal. Depending on the nature of the case and the amount in dispute, he may do so as of right or with the permission (leave) of the court of appeal.
There is a court of appeal for each Canadian jurisdiction, provincial or federal. Appellate litigation is usually confined to questions of law. No new evidence is led by the parties, who must rely on a record of the evidence presented at trial. With written arguments ("factums") and later orally, the appellant and the respondent will respectively argue against and in favour of the judgement appealed. The court of appeal may confirm, vary or reverse the trial judgement, or order a new trial.
In some cases the party who loses on appeal will bring a second appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the judgement of which is not subject to a further appeal. The final judgement in the case (either by an appellate court or by the trial court if no appeal is brought) will dismiss the action, or maintain it in whole or in part. The costs of the action will usually be awarded to the winning party, who will recover them from the losing party. These costs usually amount to a mere fraction of the total expenses and normally do not include all the lawyers' professional fees.
The rules of civil procedure also provide for the compulsory enforcement of judgements in the event that the party against whom judgement was rendered fails to comply with the order of the court. The seizure and sale of property and the garnishment of moneys owed are among the measures available for this purpose. Sometimes a disobedient party may even be jailed.