July 21, 2022 Note
In the materials Tyler submitted to the Court re Sandra Finley (2022), to substantiate my Contact Info (Service of Documents), he excerpts from an email I sent him.
A single page, an email I sent to Tyler following the Mediation on November 22, 2016. It says, “Thanks for your email of Dec 7.” And is dated December 10-16. He used that to substantiate my email address.
It is part of an exchange I initiated with Tyler in the week after Mediatio
Maybe I will have the opportunity to refer to Tyler’s evidence – – he confirmed that he participated in the email exchange.
EXCERPTS, FINLEY TO DAHL (full email below), 2016
- The rule-makers would not construct Rules that have no application. . . . How is the Rule, procedurally, brought to bear?
5-3(1) The Court may modify or waive any right or power pursuant to a rule in this Part or make any order warranted in the circumstances if:
a person acts . . . in a manner that is vexatious, evasive, abusive, oppressive, improper or tediously lengthy;
- I respect the intelligence of your client (Ashu Solo). His actions on November 22 (Mediation) were effective. Numerous times he has claimed knowledge of the law (I can provide those statements). But you don’t actually need to be conversant with the intricacies to know that if you do what he did, the Mediation would be drawn to a close, which is exactly what happened.
- My turn to speak was taken away because of actions specifically described in 5-3(1). You will of course know that under the Constitution Act, Section 2, I have the Right to express myself. Where could that be more critical than in legal proceedings?
- Why would the Plaintiff risk doing what he did when there were witnesses in the room? Do the cost-benefit-risk analysis.
The cost: 5 credible witnesses observe you (Ashu Solo) in action.
The benefit: the defendant is prevented from being heard.
The risk: little, because what is said and done in Mediation is inaccessible at Trial.
But again, rule-makers do not construct Rules that have no application. The (confidential) information must be sealed in a form satisfactory to the local registrar or a judge when filed, . . .
Since my proposed application has no hope of succeeding – – (your words, thank-you) – – I have been reading more to understand an alternate way in which the intention of the Law and Rules can be achieved.
It is obviously not the intention that persons can use abusive, oppressive actions and knowledge of how the system works to silence the testimony of others.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
From another communication to Tyler:
Search: “Canada Law Extortion Abuse Justice System”.
Result: Government of Canada, Department of Justice website: A Handbook for Police and Crown Prosecutors on Criminal Harassment. The (last) Date modified is 2016-04-27, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/har/part1.html
Search page: for the word “Extortion”.
It’s under 1.6.1 I view it in the context of:
- my email to you of November 28, I propose that the Expedited procedures for claims under $100,000.00 set out in the “New Rules”, July 2013, would be appropriate) and
- your reply of November 29, It is our position that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed expeditiously, for the following reasons:
- This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00, . . .
- My calculation of how you arrived at $100,000 is this:
There are 3 potential financial streams (for you):
- I pay to settle
- LFC pays to settle and
- lawyer expenses paid by your client, maybe out of the settlement he receives, I don’t know.
How would those be apportioned? . . . It is documented that when the Plaintiff threatens different people that he will sue them, he consistently says it will cost them (a number that is more than $20,000) in legal bills.
So:
- the lawyer expenses part of the pie is roughly $25,000.
- Which leaves approximately $75,000 to bring us to your figuring This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00,
- The obvious split is: Sandra will be forced to settle for $50,000 or more. LFC will be forced to settle for $25,000 or more, making up the $75,000
I presume you are aware of the history of Court awards in cases of Defamation, a few thousand dollars at most for ordinary citizens, if they are found to be guilty.
I don’t know when “settlement” becomes “extortion”, but I do know that participation in extortion is a serious criminal offence. The Handbook confirms it. (A Handbook for Police and Crown Prosecutors on Criminal Harassment.)
I remain committed to my reply to you, November 29. As I view it, it’s your call, and I have no desire to contest your decision which would only bring about more delay and expense.
From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: November 29, 2016 6:00 PM
To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP
Thanks for your reply Tyler.
No problem. We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning and pre-trial conference.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Nothing happened. Until now. Five years later.
It’s not about Justice. It’s about using the Justice System, with impunity, as a tool of threat and coercion.
– – – – – – – – – – –
From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: December 10, 2016 11:53 AM
To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for your email of Dec 7. (2016)
By next week I expect to respond more fully with an alternate proposal to my Dec 6 email to you.
My thinking:
- A role of the Justice system is to help achieve “Peace, order, and good governance”.
- The rule-makers would not construct Rules that have no application. I just have to figure out how the Rule, procedurally, is brought to bear.
5-3(1) The Court may modify or waive any right or power pursuant to a rule in this Part or make any order warranted in the circumstances if:
a person acts . . . in a manner that is vexatious, evasive, abusive, oppressive, improper or tediously lengthy;
- I respect the intelligence of your client. His actions on November 22 (Mediation) were effective. Numerous times he has claimed knowledge of the law (I can provide those statements). But you don’t actually need to be conversant with the intricacies to know that if you do what he did, the Mediation would be drawn to a close, which is exactly what happened.
- My turn to speak was taken away because of actions specifically described in 5-3(1). You will of course know that under the Constitution Act, Section 2, I have the Right to express myself. Where could that be more critical than in legal proceedings?
- Why would the Plaintiff risk doing what he did when there were witnesses in the room? Do the cost-benefit-risk analysis. The cost: 5 credible witnesses observe you in action. The benefit: the defendant is prevented from being heard. The risk: little, because what is said in Mediation is inaccessible at Trial. But again, rule-makers do not construct Rules that have no application. The (confidential) information must be sealed in a form satisfactory to the local registrar or a judge when filed,
Since my proposed application has no hope of succeeding – – (your words, thank-you) – – I have been reading more to understand an alternate way in which the intention of the Law and Rules can be achieved.
It is obviously not the intention that persons can use abusive, oppressive actions and knowledge of how the system works to silence the testimony of others.
Best wishes, Sandra
From: Tyler Dahl [mailto:tdahl@cuelenaere.com]
Sent: December 7, 2016 10:42 AM
To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE
Hello Ms. Finley,
Thank you for your email.
I strongly recommend that you seek legal counsel with respect to your desire to expedite the trial process. Your email mentions bringing a court application under Part 5 of the Queen’s Bench Rules. However, Part 5 is concerned with the disclosure of information stage of the proceedings and not with expediting matters.
In particular, Rule 5-4(2), which you mention, has no application to the privileged communications that took place in mediation; rather, it applies to the information and documents referred to in Rule 5-4(3), none of which have been produced in this case.
So too, Rule 5-3(1), which you mention, applies to modifying or waiving a right or power with respect to the disclosure of information. It is my opinion that this case requires the disclosure of information and documentation in order for all parties to identify what is in dispute and what evidence is available about the dispute.
Accordingly, my client will vigorously oppose the application that you described in your email. We suggest that you refrain from making unnecessary applications that lack merit. Otherwise, my client and Loose Foot Computing will be put to unnecessary expense, which will undoubtedly result in costs being awarded against you. Furthermore, since your application has no hope of succeeding, we will serve a formal offer in response to any such application, in order to be awarded double costs.
Govern yourself accordingly,
Tyler M. Dahl, B.A., J.D.
Cuelenaere, Kendall, Katzman & Watson
#500, 128 – 4th Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 1M8
Phone: (306) 477-7260
Fax: (306) 652-4171
Email: tdahl@cuelenaere.com
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING
This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. They may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachments associated therewith from your computer. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: December-06-16 1:42 PM
To: Tyler Dahl <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE
Hi Tyler,
I rescind the agreement I communicated to you on November 29th: We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning and pre-trial conference.
It was made in a state of ignorance.
Under the circumstances I seek to go directly to trial. I see where the Rules provide for protection against more of the abusive, oppressive and improper behavior exhibited by the Plaintiff at Mediation (5-3-1).
There is also provision for information from Mediation that would is confidential under normal circumstances (5-4-2).
Today, I spoke with the Court of Queen’s Bench, Deputy Registrar. It is agreed that I will send the Notice of Application for remedy (straight to trial) with any references to information from Mediation in a sealed, marked envelope.
I will get the documents to the Court as soon as possible.
Thanks Tyler,
Sandra Finley
—–Original Message—–
From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: November 29, 2016 6:00 PM
To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP
Thanks for your reply Tyler.
No problem. We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning
and pre-trial conference.
/Sandra
—–Original Message—–
From: Tyler Dahl [mailto:tdahl@cuelenaere.com]
Sent: November 29, 2016 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP
Hi Sandra,
Thank you for your email. I spoke with my client about your proposal, regarding going forward under the rules for expedited proceedings. It is our position that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed expeditiously, for the following reasons:
- This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00; 2. The parties will benefit from examinations for discovery, as the factual circumstances are largely in dispute between the Plaintiff and both Defendants; and 3. The parties will benefit from hearing from a Judge at a pre-trial conference, with respect to the trial’s possible outcomes and the strengths and weaknesses of their case/defence, which may increase the likelihood of resolving the matter without the need for a trial.
Nevertheless, my client does not wish to delay the proceedings in any way.
Accordingly, he has begun assembling his documentation for the Affidavit of Documents. We have already requested that Loose Foot Computing do so as well, and now we are requesting the same from you. We hope to have the Plaintiff’s Affidavit ready for you before the new year.
Once the Affidavits of Documents have been filed, we will attempt to schedule Questioning between the parties as soon as possible, while accommodating your and Loose Foot’s availability.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
Tyler M. Dahl, B.A., J.D.
Cuelenaere, Kendall, Katzman & Watson
#500, 128 – 4th Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 1M8
Phone: (306) 477-7260
Fax: (306) 652-4171
Email: tdahl@cuelenaere.com
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING
This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. They may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachments associated therewith from your computer. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
—–Original Message—–
From: sabest1@sasktel.net [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: November-28-16 4:08 PM
To: Tyler Dahl <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP
Hello Tyler,
The Dispute Resolution Office has submitted its certificate to the Court; the way is clear to move forward to the next step
I propose that the Expedited procedures for claims under $100,000.00 set out in the “New Rules”, July 2013, would be appropriate.
The pre-trial Questioning (formerly Examination for Discovery) and Pre-trial Conference with a judge can be skipped.
I wish to proceed directly to trial, under the Expedited procedures.
Please confirm that your client wishes to do the same.
Thank-you and
Best wishes,
Sandra Finley
— – — – – –
Tyler M. Dahl, B.A., J.D. . . . .