I believe that things are going to get worse....
It will be an awful few years in Ontario. But, as Chernyshevsky promised, because of that, the revolution will come more quickly.
Yeah. The speechy revolution is coming, Ezra! Someday just down the road and around the bend. An old socialist said so.
And, interestingly enough, on Feb. 12th Ezra wrote:
I had a preliminary discussion with my lawyer today. My aim is to file an abuse of process claim in the Court of Queen's Bench [against Syed Soharwardy] within the month. Whether or not I sue the commission itself, and its inquisitor Shirlene McGovern, is something I haven't discussed yet with my lawyers.
Its been over a month, been over two in fact. Where's all the paperwork, Ez? Maybe your lawyers are otherwise occupied?
God, give us break, LeCunt.
ReplyDeleteWell, he could file a tort of malicious prosecution. I've recently learned that that tort can likely be used in this way. I even dropped Ezra a note telling him that.
ReplyDeleteAs I read Ezra's post, going through all his smearing jabs and exaggerated claims, I found myself (again) wondering 'what kind of dark, paranoid world does this man live in?'
The next thought was 'why should I care?'
On to other things...
Shorter Ezra: How dare Barbara Hall express her opinion. Methinks it's time to shut her up.
ReplyDeleteWell, he could file a tort of malicious prosecution.
For what, Mark? He hasn't been prosecuted.
I found myself (again) wondering 'what kind of dark, paranoid world does this man live in?'
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't live in any dark paranoid world; unless his mental health has declined lately, of which I don't get any indication (he's still the giddy, mouthy, over-stimulated, doughy dweeb (which Canadian pundits describe as 'irascible,' or some crap like that) he's always been.
He's enjoying himself tremendously, what with all his illiterate minions fawning over him because he's so clever when he writes things like Czarina Hall.
I just think that, at some point, the Law Society of Alberta will have to come face to face with some issues of conduct unbecoming. I'm detecting quite a bit of unfamiliarity with the language of law...
Not to go off topic, but Malicious Prosecution is "a tort which compensates a person for the malicious, unfounded and unsuccessful institution of criminal or disciplinary proceedings."
ReplyDeleteThis includes unfounded (meaning "malicious" and/or "for a purpose other than what the law intends") complaints against a lawyer to a law society, false attempts to place a peace bond upon a person and so on.
Given that the HRC does fine people, and that proceedings, even failed ones, can cause defamation just like any proceeding can, the tort likely fits.
So Ezra should stop his whining and tort. He is a lawyer, after all.
There haven't been any proceedings against Levant though. A complaint was filed and an investigation held. That's it, so unless this applies to investigations Levant has no cause to file a tort of malicious prosecution.
ReplyDeleteMark is right and Ezra is wrong. The cause of action-if he had one- would be for malicious prosecution and not abuse of process.
ReplyDeleteAn abuse of process requires a collateral purpose - you use a process to obtain something the process isn't designed for.
In a malicious prosecution you use the process to obtain its proper end-but with bad intentions.
An example:
1.
I want to buy your car. You won't sell it. I tell the police you did some crime knowing you'd be arrested and could not pay your bail. I then offer to pay your bail in exchange for the car.
2.
I want to buy your car. You won't sell it. I decide that if I can't drive it nobody should. I tell the police you did some crime knowing you'd be locked up for a long time and unable to drive.
1 is an abuse of process since I use it for a purpose it was not designed (extortion). 2 is malicious prosecution since I use it for the purpose it was designed (punishment) albeit with bad intentions.
Ezra claims the HRC,the complainant and the investigator were "trying to shut him up". That is something the HRC has the power to do. He does not set out any collateral purpose - ergo it would be malicious prosecution