Filed/Served: Fresh 202302xx pdf A-A Statement of Claim (& online version with links to evidence of allegations)                      CV-22-89804  

Snir‘s 202302xx Statement of Defense: Statement of Defense (& my EOMO Analysis)

Addelman’s 20230320 Statement of Defense (& my EOMO Analysis)

My 20230628 Combined Reply (& my two, now-required, separate 20230629 versions re: Snir and Addelman)

Addelman’s 20230608 Motion to Set Aside Default || My 20230801 Motion for Extension || Back to intro: Craig O’Brien (& a fun limerick!) 

work-in-progress > Books of Documents: #1   #2   #3   #4                    

(back to w-i-p court-enabled fraud as this Civil Action progresses)

ONTARIO

202307xx Factum of Snir

pdf version

b e t w e e n

Deirdre Moore   (plaintiff)

and

Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP   (defendant)

Snir Law Office   (defendant)

Para # Statement  

Rebuttal
   

PART 1 – NAUTRE OF MOTION

  
01 The plaintiff seeks leave of the court to file a reply pleading because the time for doing so expired while she was occupied with opposing the motion of the co-defendant to set aside their noting in default. The plaintiff’s motion to file the reply is opposed by this defendant not because of the short extension of time that is required but because the proposed reply contravenes several fundamental rules of pleadings. Simply put, the plaintiff should not be permitted to file a reply that fails to comply with the applicable rules for proper pleadings. Housekeeping:

  1. Associate justice Marie T. Fortier needs to recuse herself for previous bias shown including, but not limited to, 20230308 schedule endorsed for OPSB’s Vexatious Application to have me denied just in ALL branches of court.
    • timing of Affidavits
    • timing of Factums
    • outright refusal of late materials
  2. Defendant’s Affidavit is inadmissable: forgery S. 366(1) and false sworn statement S. 134(1),
  3. Value of defendants’ credibility is zero and easily evidenced in compendium at beginning of Motion Record (Caselines file number 008)
  4. Snir’s complaint: Reply does not comply with the Rules – FALSE

They also stated that I was “occupied” opposing a motion to set aside default. TRUE. Why? I’ve already experienced lawlessness of THREE liberal-appointed judges who used Rule 21 Motions to continue to deny me justice:

  • Liberal-appointed Sally Gomery who stated my action was stayed until after divorce concluded as “[quality of advice received from defendant could only be ascertained then]”. LOL. MY children were unlawfully ripped from my life over four years ago and I am now in between homeless shelters with ZERO spousal support while co-owning a $1M+ matrimonial home.
  • Liberal-appointed Heather Williams who separated the collusion between crooked psychiatrist Dr. Paule Kemgni and fraudster ex John Kiska which resulted in the theft of all my property, a bogus NCR opinion and an unlawful child protection/restraining order courtesy of Judge Calum MacLeod.
  • Liberal-appointed Ryan Bell who permitted the theft of $500,000 in property to go unpunished via an obvious Eviction Scam that left me with nothing.
   

PART 2 – SUMMARY OF FACTS

  
  “Procedural Background”  
02 The defendant, Snir Law Office (“Snir”), is the business name of the law firm of Gonen Snir, a lawyer licensed by the Law Society of Ontario. Mr. Snir acted for the plaintiff for a few months, from approximately November 19, 2019 to March 11, 2020, during ongoing matrimonial and child protection proceedings. FALSE: Snir was on record November 2019 until illegally self-removed August 2020
03 After Mr. Snir was no longer acting for the plaintiff, the child protection proceedings were determined by way of summary judgment, in a decision upheld on appeal by the Divisional Court.1

At paragraphs 196-208 of the Reasons for Decision, the Divisional Court considered and dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel against Mr. Snir.2

 SJM was illegally scheduled by former CAS employee Justice Tracy Engelking and illegally heard with a restraining order illegally granted by Lametti-appointed Mary Fraser.

Appeal ignored Moore’s evidence and implicated Liberal-appointed Kristjanson and others. Also, False statement:

    • I never named Snir for inadequate counsel and
    • I did provide Nahum notice.

See comic gold at appeal denials para. [268], even though:

  • I am clearly not mentally ill,
  • the only reason I am broke is because of all the fraud (including that of Snir and Addelman) and
  • only reason I am homeless is due to theft and perpetual fraud in Family court furthered by more Liberal-appointed judges including, but not limited to, Pamela MacEachern, and Julie Audet who both ignored volumes of evidence of severe domestic violence and child abuse.
04 The plaintiff subsequently commenced the within action. In the most recent version of the “Fresh Amended Amended Statement of Claim”, the plaintiff seeks damages of $1,750,000 against Mr. Snir’s law firm for breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, negligent infliction of emotional suffering and/or malice.3 Appeal ignored Moore’s evidence and implicated Wilson-Raybould appointed Kristjanson and others. Also, False statement:

    1. I never named Snir for inadequate counsel and
    2. I did provide Nahum notice.

Para [268] though I am not mentally ill, only reason I am broke is because of all the fraud including Snir’s and Addelman’s and homeless is due to theft and perpetual fraud in Family court permitted by more Liberal appointed judges Pamela MacEachern, Julie Audet and former CAS lawyer Tracy Engelking who ignored years of evidence of domestic violence.
05 Mr. Snir delivered his statement of defence on February 13, 2023.4 Note, Divorce Act has federal paramountcy with respect to custody and access: still married … 10 years.
06 The chronological background of the within action is set out in paragraph 25 of the Ruling on Motion of the Honourable Madam Justice Corthorn, which set aside the noting in default against the co-defendant law firm, Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP.5 Corthorn faced criminal obstruction of justice charges in 2018 & should be facing them again given the degree of organized crime evidenced in my materials for the 20230608 Motion.
07 Following the decision of Corthorn J., the Addelman firm delivered their statement of defence.6 Addelman’s defence contains as much error, omission and malicious obfuscation as Snir’s &, in places, is identical.
   

Plaintiff’s Reply

  
08 On or about June 28, 2023, the plaintiff served a combined reply to both  defendants’ pleadings and asked whether Mr. Snir would consent to late service and filing of the pleading. TRUE: combined reply was served to make it easier for the court to assign damages.
09 The plaintiff’s reply pleads that Mr. Snir should have reported all of his “accomplices” including Justices Perell, Justice Kristjanson and Justice Matheson, and other individuals who are allegedly part of “Ottawa’s taxpayer-funded crime syndicate”. In this regard, Appendix A to the reply lists no less than 21 judges, 7 Crown Attorneys, and other individuals whom the plaintiff identifies as “perpetrators”.7 FALSE: My reply identified all the ways in which Snir’s defense was false or misleading and identified for the court the crimes that he committed
10 Contemporaneously, a post on the plaintiff’s public Twitter page states that she “banged out a 20-page reply” that “doubles as part of a federal-level police complaint for torture, human trafficking & domestic terrorism, naming ~75/200 of the Syndicate.”8 TRUE: it has been filed with NL police and RCMP is also involved—this is a massive, taxpayer-funded crime ring of which I have ten years of evidence.
11 On or about June 28, 2023, Mr. Snir’s counsel advised the plaintiff that Mr. Snir does not consent to the filing of the reply in the form received, not due to the late timing but because the proposed reply contravenes several rules applicable to pleadings pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and greatly expands the scope of the ongoing litigation.9 Repeat of para. 1
   

PART III – ISSUES AND SUBMISSIONS

  
  Plaintiff’s proposed reply contravenes fundamental rules of pleading  
12 As noted above, Mr. Snir does not oppose the filing of the plaintiff’s proposed reply on the basis of its late delivery but rather because of its improper form. In that regard, Mr. Snir submits that paragraphs 20, 23, 24, 25 and Appendix A in its entirety should not be permitted. Snir opposed to paras.:

  • 20 – note to court that Snir violated the CCC … but, my obigation TO alert the court (and refers to App A)
  • 23 – re mish-mash of relief vexatious, abuse of process etc. (and refers to App A)
  • 24 – refuting Snir’s statement that damages are “excessive, exaggerated, etc.) (and refers to App A)
  • 25 – public interest (and refers to App A)
  • States they SHOUD NOT BE PERMITTED
13 Rule 25.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedures outlines the basic rule with respect to a reply and addresses when a reply is necessary: a party who intends to prove a version of the facts different from that pleaded in the opposite party’s defence shall deliver a reply setting out the different version, unless it has already been pleaded in the claim.10  
14 The importance of proper pleadings is well-established law:

The purpose of pleadings is to define the issues for the parties and for the Court.
The pleadings govern the trial and the interlocutory proceedings. A case properly
pleaded permits an efficient use of judicial resources and the parties’ resources.
Bad pleadings do the opposite and more. They are instruments of potential mischief in the litigation process. One of the functions of pleadings is to govern discovery. If a matter is pleaded, it may be discovered upon. Where a pleading is replete with evidence or irrelevant material … it is calculated to open the door to prolonged and potentially abusive discoveries which do not address the real issues between the parties.11

 13-18 Rebuttal

  1. I DO intend to prove a different version of “factS” claimed by Snir,
  2. Reply DOES comply with the Rules other than perhaps minor oversights which the court is permitted to overlook.
  3. My changes should expidite a fair trial as the number of ways in which the defendants committed torts and crimes is now more clear: there is nothing vexatious or scandalous other than the defendants behaviour: they are simply abusing court process in order to convert my valid claim into a cost award via another crooked judge.
  4. I can prove all allegations: in fact, I already have in the materials served for this motion … and they know it.

 
15 The plaintiff’s proposed reply should comply with the rules of pleading before the plaintiff is granted leave to file it, as proposed amendments to a pleading must nevertheless comply with the rules of pleading.12 It does.
16 Had the plaintiff filed the current version of the reply, it would have been subject to Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, under which the court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading on the ground that the pleading:

(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;

(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or 

(c) is an abuse of process of the court.13

 My reply does not violate Rule 25.11 in any way.
17 Rule 25.11 essentially prohibits a party from pleading facts that cannot reasonably affect the determination of the issues to be heard. Such facts are treated as being irrelevant or scandalous. Specifically, under Rule 25.11(b) pleadings will be deemed scandalous if they are offensive allegations solely to prejudice the other party, if they are irrelevant, hyperbolic or inserted for “colour”, or if they are bald allegations not capable of being proven.14 Bald Allegations? They’ve been proven and defense has already been served same as per Motion Record (not linked). Surprise? Hell no. You’re a fraudster and a liar who’s been caught … and now you’re just lying harder.
18 Further, any consideration of the pleadings rules should be informed by proportionality in order to balance the complexity and potential prejudice of pleadings against potential probative value. In Resolute Forest Products Inc. v Greenpeace, the court struck numerous allegations under rule 25.11 (a) because “the impugned pleading would greatly expand the scope of the litigation and transform the trial into an inquiry into Greenpeace rather than into the allegations of defamation, threats and intimidation that lie at the heart of the claim.”15 FALSE: Inclusion simply reveals character of the defendant; namely, he is pro-domestic violence, falsely accused and child abuse. 
   

Plaintiff’s Reply adds unnecessary complexity and expands scope of ongoing litigation

  
19 Mr. Snir submits that the plaintiff’s reply, specifically paragraphs 20, 23, 24, 25 and Appendix A, contain allegations that are irrelevant to the issues in the action, and if not struck out, will prejudice or delay the fair trial of this action. 16 Repeat of para. 12
20 It is clear from the plaintiff’s own public Twitter post that the purpose of the plaintiff’s reply goes well beyond the current litigation against Mr. Snir and the issues arising from the scope of his former retainer. Indeed, the plaintiff’s reply seeks to implicate Mr. Snir in misconduct of various unrelated “perpetrators” in the judicial system. Yet it is completely unclear from Appendix A how the alleged misconduct is linked to Snir or how any evidence related to these allegations would be utilized at trial. FALSE: Inclusion simply reveals character of the defendant; namely, he is pro-domestic violence, falsely accused and child abuse. 
21 Aside from prejudice that would result if the plaintiff was allowed to file her reply in the current form, it is appropriate to disallow the filing of the reply where, the form of the reply violates the pleading rules, or where the reply would result in the pleading being struck under Rule 25.11. It is respectfully submitted that the application of these rules ought to prevent the plaintiff from being allowed to include the above-mentioned paragraphs and Appendix A in the reply to which Mr. Snir objects. Repeat of para. 12
22 The bald allegations against Snir as pleaded in the reply make it difficult for Snir to know the case he is required to meet, and create further challenges for trial  preparation and may lead to surprise at trial. Bald Allegations? They’ve been proven and defense has already been served same as per Motion Record (not linked). Surprise? Hell no. You’re a fraudster and a liar who’s been caught … and now you’re just lying harder.
23 Furthermore, the added complexity of the reply outweighs its probative value and will lead to oppression and unfairness by unduly lengthening the discovery phase and ultimately the trial of this action. Even if there was some marginal probative value to the reply, it would be far outweighed by the added complexity that would arise from Snir’s obligation to respond to such allegations. 23 – 24 If Snir wanted to keep the case simple, he should not have lied so much in his statement of defense. He should have been honest and made an offer to settle which would have included the lien from my $1M home and his scandalous, self-triggered $60,000 fee.
24 Based on the foregoing, there is no justification for permitting the plaintiff to plead the reply in its current form. It is both unreasonable and prejudicial to require Snir to essentially disprove the validity of the plaintiff’s complaints against the other “perpetrators” which the plaintiff seeks to rely on in her claim against Snir. The scope of examinations for discovery and the trial would involve the evidence of no less than 21 judges, 7 Crown Attorneys, and countless other individuals that the plaintiff identifies as “perpetrators”. FALSE: Inclusion simply reveals character of the defendant; namely, he is pro-domestic violence, falsely accused and child abuse. 
   

PART IV – ORDER REQUESTED

  
25 It is respectfully submitted that the plaintiff’s motion to seek leave to file her reply in its current and improper form ought to be dismissed with costs, and the plaintiff should not be permitted to file a reply unless it is amended to comply with the applicable rules. SNIR’s AFFIDAVIT IS INADMISSIBLE & EVIDENCE OF HIS MALICIOUS SELF-SERVING FALSE STATEMENT IS SIMPLE TO VERIFY as noted in compendium.

The remainder of my Motion Record was included to assist the court in assigning costs &, hopefully, also alert law enforcement.
  James R.G. Cook / Delila Bikic
GARDINER ROBERTS LLP
Accomplices Lawyers for the Responding Defendant, Snir Law Office