Quatloos!

Mr. Pomerleau’s March 23, 2016 Application in Pomerleau v CRA #1 states that the Meads v Meads judgment is invalid.

Yeah, that's the problem with any court judgement. If a SovCit claims that statutes don't apply to them, and court judgements don't apply to them, it's only another small step to claim that precedents don't apply either.

However, some GOOFies are persuaded by arguments like, "Don't bother billing your creditors and taking them to court. GOOFy Thor tried it, and had to pay thousands in costs."

In the McDougald case, the Master ordered "elevated" costs. If GOOFies lost in the UK through OPCA arguments, and had to pay thousands, and this was publicised, that would soon put a stop to it.

In the McDougald case, the Master ordered "elevated" costs. If GOOFies lost in the UK through OPCA arguments, and had to pay thousands, and this was publicised, that would soon put a stop to it.

One problem with this. It assumes that the costs will be paid. I doubt McDougald can pay costs even if he was willing too. Most of the idiots who try this stuff are broke and awarding costs against them is just a symbolic act. It isn't worthwhile to sue them for it. I was at Michael Millar's sentencing hearing today (to be written up) judge said that he should have the victim surcharge imposed against him, essentially a fine, but she wasn't going to bother because he clearly couldn't pay it.

Burnaby49 wrote:One problem with this. It assumes that the costs will be paid

Your arguments are forcing us to ask that Dickensian question: "Are there no prisons? Are there no poorhouses?"

Burnaby49 wrote:It assumes that the costs will be paid.

In the UK, costs can be deducted from wages or social security benefits. Sure, a deadbeat will be paying off the costs for decades, but it would discourage many of them from getting in that position.

And the argument has worked, stopping GOOFy debtors from "billing" their creditors.

It's tempting to classify all GOOFies as incurably stupid. But many do recognise the difference between what works at court and what doesn't.

littleFred wrote:

Burnaby49 wrote:It assumes that the costs will be paid.

In the UK, costs can be deducted from wages or social security benefits. Sure, a deadbeat will be paying off the costs for decades, but it would discourage many of them from getting in that position.

In Canada the creditor has to go to court to obtain a garnishment order. Assuming it is for "costs" rather than for something like child support, what and how much can be garnished then depends on province and what type of wages or social security the debtor is receiving and even if the social security payments are co-mingled with another person's bank account. Pay roll departments in Canada hate garnishment orders because there is the possibility of being led down a nasty legal slope that they really don't want to get involved in.

Bones wrote:[snip] ... http://whatsdifferentincanada.tumblr.co ... 0/hey[snip]

[snip]... Alberta, people will often say “Hey?” instead of “Eh?”... [snip]

call it a draw ?

I must live in a different Alberta - it's "Eh"!

No one I know uses "hey" in place of "eh". Maybe it's the younger generation rebelling again Eh?

Hyrion wrote:

Bones wrote:[snip] ... http://whatsdifferentincanada.tumblr.co ... 0/hey[snip]

[snip]... Alberta, people will often say “Hey?” instead of “Eh?”... [snip]

call it a draw ?

I must live in a different Alberta - it's "Eh"!

No one I know uses "hey" in place of "eh". Maybe it's the younger generation rebelling again Eh?

Here in Vancouver, where I've lived almost 70 years, neither is used to any significant amount. Very unusual to hear someone say it. One of my sons says Hey instead of hello but not as verbal filler. On the other hand "you know" is ubiquitous.