Erika Watson

In a nutshell, ..

I sued the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (  ) for ~$10,000,000 and they retained Blaney McMurtry LLP to defend them.

Blaney McMurtry’s first offence as an organization was the improper service of their 20240826 Statement of Defence as evidenced here: https://twb.rocks/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/001569KJ-20240826-Screenshot-Improper-Service_Blaney-McMurtry-LLP_CAS-20240826-Statement-of-Defence.pdf.

I responded with a 20240827 e-mail which, among other things, alerted them of their “mistakes”: https://twb.rocks/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/001569KJ-20240827-0735_Email-to-Blaney-McMurtry-re-CV-23-61855_Moore-v-CAS_Mistakes.pdf.

Their Statement of Defence? It’s a 48-paragraph piece of self-incriminating evidence (just like that which was produced by Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP and Gardiner Roberts LLP for a different group of shysters); or, at least it will be.

The draft Errors, Omissions & Malicious Obfuscation (“EOMO”) Analysis has been published at https://twb.rocks/domestic-terrorism/perpetrators/entities/blaney-mcmurtry/20240826-defence-eomo-analysis.

Insert photograph of Brenda Gross, another smiley lawyer with zero conscience who should be removed from any position of power or influence.

See article outline “Make them Pay: a suggestion worth considering for prison reform” here:  https://twb.rocks/blank-00/living/opinion/00000007_make-them-pay_a-suggestion-for-prison-reform_saqotu_andee-jak-002

20231107 Statement of Claim

Their hope?

That some judge will strike my claim because I wasn’t able to serve it within the prescribed six-month window. As every judge who has ruled in any of my matters, however, has no problem dispensing with CJA‘s Rules of Civil Procedure when it favours the perpetrators, they shouldn’t have a problem permitting my late service of such an important claim; especially, under the circumstances as detailed below.

Given Rules 2.01-2.03 of the CJA’s Rules of Procedure, there is no valid reason why my action should be prevented from proceeding:

• Rule 2.01 (1) “A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity and does not render a proceeding or a step, document or order in a proceeding a nullity, and the court,
  • (a) may grant all necessary amendments or other relief, on such terms as are just, to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute; or
  • (b) only where and as necessary in the interest of justice, may set aside the proceeding or a step, document or order in the proceeding in whole or in part.”
• Rule 2.01 (2) “The court shall not set aside an originating process on the ground that the proceeding should have been commenced by an originating process other than the one employed.”
• Rule 2.02 “A motion to attack a proceeding or a step, document or order in a proceeding for irregularity shall not be made, except with leave of the court:
  • (a) after the expiry of a reasonable time after the moving party knows or ought reasonably to have known of the irregularity; or
  • (b) if the moving party has taken any further step in the proceeding after obtaining knowledge of the irregularity.”
• Rule 2.03 “The court may, only where and as necessary in the interest of justice, dispense with compliance with any rule at any time.”