Our evidence con’t.. Factum and our Affidavits

By  | June 21, 2011 | 6 Comments | Filed under: 2010 Municipal Candidates

Included here, is our Factum ( even tho the Act states you do not need to provide a factum when you file your application) One of the Judges we met insisted we prepare one. Clearly showing the Courts are not prepared to deal with this type of case. So why was it put into the Municipal Act?

Controverted Elections

Application

83.  (1)  A person who is entitled to vote in an election may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice requesting that it determine,

(a) whether the election is valid;

(b) whether a person’s election to an office in the election is valid;

(c) if a person’s election to an office is not valid, whether another person was validly elected or is entitled to the office;

(d) if an election is not valid or a person’s election to an office is not valid, whether a by-election should be held. 1996, c. 32, Sched., s. 83 (1); 2002, c. 17, Sched. D, s. 34 (1).

Time 

(2)  The application shall be commenced within 90 days after voting day. 1996, c. 32, Sched., s. 83 (2).

Summary procedure

(3)  The application shall be dealt with in a summary manner, without application records or factums. 1996, c. 32, Sched., s. 83 (3).

 

FACTUM Court file no C1150

***

Also included here, 12 Affidavits. … remember this Judge threw out 4 of them.. I will let you know which ones as I post them.

affidavit no 1

**

affidavit no.2

**

affidavit no3      this affidavit was  thrown out

***

affidavit no.4       this affidavit was thrown out

***

affidavit no.5       this affidavit was also thrown out

***

affidavit no6

***

affidavit no.7

***

affidavit no.8

***

affidavit no 9

***

affidavit no 10

***

Affidavit no. 11-12   the content of these affidavits was also rejected.

We submitted a total of 14 affidavits, including  the affidavits of myself and Thomas Van.

I will add my closing statement in my next post, which was also denied by the Judge… We know we were at a major disadvantage with not knowing our way around a court room…

Would we do it again? In a heartbeat!!  Next time, we will be better prepared…

Let’s hope there isn’t a next time.

**All the evidence I have included here is now public record.**

Facebooktwittergoogle_plus
cwalsh@assisting4u.net'

About 

6 Responses to Our evidence con’t.. Factum and our Affidavits

  1. agmarshall@rogers.com'
    agm June 22, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Your submitted Affidavits speak for themselves. They are straightforward and clear. Shame on the City of Cambridge, both for how they bungled the election and for how they handled legitimate complaints afterwards.

  2. bassfisherman@rogers.com'
    ron mcewen June 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Justice was not served.

  3. lvann_11@sympatico.ca'
    Thomas Vann June 22, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Too bad the Judge didn’t think so agm. Thanks Ron for being in court to see this case. Judges do have a tough job agm and we made it as easy to understand as we could but in the end the Hamilton Judge didn’t see it our way. Life goes on and my only hope now is for vast improvements for seniors and disabled with the most convienient locations chosen as the act states should happen next time. A fast lane for seniors and disabled, community board at the home with large print explaining everything, and home voting for the diabled as well. The city still feels or at least thats what they’re saying is that it did nothing wrong. lf l get on the voters to vote task fource l have a list of hopeful targets we could meet next time. We know exactly what happened but that’s how the cookie crumbles. lt was a heck of a time but worth doing. That person that paid our double dip city lawyers fee was so nice to see the support as well as all the other donations. Thanks folks enjoy the summer.

  4. lvann_11@sympatico.ca'
    W. Clarke June 22, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Well done both of you. This material seemed like pretty good evidence to me. The old saying is “you can’t fight City Hall is true”. But you two sure put a lot of egg on their faces. With what you both have done for democracy in Cambridge you should get an award. Debbie, no one else has the guts to print what you do!

  5. bemcdowell@sympatico.ca'
    Bev McDowell June 23, 2011 at 6:36 am

    Re: Affidavit’s # 11 and 12

    If a scrutineer voices a concern or poses a question on election day, are they not supposed to be dealt with on election day ????

  6. lvann_11@sympatico.ca'
    Thomas Vann June 23, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Ha, Ha, Bev that’s hilarious. Just like the Nuns should know the Municipal Act when voting, they may have been lying Bev. Who do you trust Bev?; a Nun or the city. Here’s a couple more, the best location for the voter to be chosen (l can’t stop laughing), Feds find all voters city misses 14,000, lalalalalalallalalala. We know what happened Deb. 83.1 is gonna be tossed one day and this biased unfair part of the act will mean rich or poor you get treated the same. This city is in trouble big time taxpayers so hang on to your wallets the show is picking up steam.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Archives