Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My time was cut short

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My time was cut short

    Has anyone experienced this or know what to do about it?

    I had a Motion scheduled for a couple of hours. The docket was full and other shorter Motions went ahead of us. The first part of the Motion (my Motion) well but then after the other side argued their Motion (he talked so slow), we were running out of time. It was my turn afterward to rebut his Motion. The Judge said that I only had a short amount of time because Court rose at that time. The other lawyer made all his submissions and I had to rush through mine, trying to skip around and hit on the important points but I missed some points.

    The Motion was scheduled for 4 hours and we got about 3 hours. The other lawyer argued his whole motion and I didn't get a chance to argue against if effectively because of the time crunch.

    I didn't mind the Judge, he was reasonable, patient and as accommodating as he could be. I am sure that he will make a fair decision based on what her heard but I didn't get a chance to point out all the discrepancies in the other sides case.

    Anyone here get cut short? What did you do? It doesn't seem fair that the other side presented their whole case and I didn't get the same amount of time

  • #2
    If it doesn't go in your favour then you order the transcripts, file an appeal, and ask for a new motion given that the judge rushed you and only allowed 3 hours for a 4 hour motion. You should also then report the judge to the judicial council after your case is finished - not before as it may make the judge biased against you.

    Comment


    • #3
      You should also then report the judge to the judicial council after your case is finished - not before as it may make the judge biased against you.
      Part of the judge's duty is to run their court room. It is within their power to limit how long parties have to make submissions. Triton is offering poor advice.

      get cut short? What did you do?
      If your time was limited before the motion started (for example, you are starting at 2:00 p.m. for a 4 hour motion, you know that you only have 3 hours) - then a prudent idea would be to address it with the judge, perhaps suggesting that moving party argues for no more than 80 minutes, responding party for 80 minutes, and right of reply for 10 minutes at most (with a 10 minute recess rounding out the afternoon).

      As a second option, if you run out of time but have not finished your submissions, you can ask that the motion continue another day (if you are lucky, the next morning; otherwise, later). The judge can grant this, or refuse it.

      As a final point, you will have submitted a factum because of the length of your motion. The judge will have seen that you were doing a speed run. He is going to go through your material, which is just as effective as making submissions. More often than not, the decision is made based on the materials rather than submissions.

      Comment


      • #4
        Agree with OrleansLawyer

        Judge's are the boss in the courtroom.
        Keep in mind that your situation is not unique and judge has handled similar situations many times.

        Hopefully your submission was concise and didn't ramble on an on with repetitive stuff.

        Boring a judge can be the kiss of death.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
          Part of the judge's duty is to run their court room. It is within their power to limit how long parties have to make submissions. Triton is offering poor advice.

          Telling you that you have 2 hours and cutting you off abruptly right on the clock like a robot is one thing and telling you that you have 2 hours then allowing other side to rant on for 3 hours and giving you only one hour and cutting you off abruptly is another thing. If the judge is limiting the parties then both parties should be cut off at their 2 hour time to not take time away from the other party. Definitely warrants a complaint and if enough citizens have that same issue with that particular judge then perhaps the judge needs to review their mandates and ensure they are not abusing their powers to the determinant of the parties, and quite possibly the best interests of the child.

          I've been before a judge that initially told me too late I had my chance already when i mentioned I had something else to say following conclusion of my oral submission. But then I gave off the body language that I had somethimg very important to say and that I was saddened and shpuld maybe report the judge to the judical council and just sat there quietly and the judge turned to me very politely and asked me to go ahead and say what I had to say and listened to it and thanked me for sharing it with her. I have tons of respect for that particular judge.

          Just remember that judges are supposed to permit you to speak and listen to you when you speak. They also mandated to be professional and treat you with respect.
          Last edited by trinton; 08-01-2017, 08:28 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            Judge's are the boss in the courtroom.
            Yes, but they don't get to break laws just because they are a judge.


            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            Keep in mind that your situation is not unique and judge has handled similar situations many times.
            It's the way it was handles that makes the issue unique. Did judge allow both parties they time they were granted or take an hour from one party and give it to the other to a party's determinant.

            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            Hopefully your submission was concise and didn't ramble on an on with repetitive stuff.
            Doesn't matter. A judge has to let you speak and listen to you when you speak. If they have any questions they could ask but generally this will allow opportunity for an appeal on the basis of bias as only the other party/ lawyer shoupd ask questions. If their questions are in relation yo driving the trial to relevant arguments then that is different.

            Boring a judge can be the kiss of death.

            Originally posted by arabian View Post


            Boring a judge can be the kiss of death.
            I didnt realize parties were in court to entertain the judge , or the boss, as you like to refer to them. I would also sure hope that your very own relationship with your boss is one that of a 2 way street.
            Last edited by trinton; 08-01-2017, 08:27 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
              As a final point, you will have submitted a factum because of the length of your motion. The judge will have seen that you were doing a speed run. He is going to go through your material, which is just as effective as making submissions. More often than not, the decision is made based on the materials rather than submissions.

              That is a very good point and argument but 70 % (Don't recall exact value) of what you are trying to communicate is communicated through your body language and tone of voice.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by trinton View Post
                Yes, but they don't get to break laws just because they are a judge.




                It's the way it was handles that makes the issue unique. Did judge allow both parties they time they were granted or take an hour from one party and give it to the other to a party's determinant.



                Doesn't matter. A judge has to let you speak and listen to you when you speak. If they have any questions they could ask but generally this will allow opportunity for an appeal on the basis of bias as only the other party/ lawyer shoupd ask questions. If their questions are in relation yo driving the trial to relevant arguments then that is different.

                Boring a judge can be the kiss of death.



                I didnt realize parties were in court to entertain the judge , or the boss, as you like to refer to them. I would also sure hope that your very own relationship with your boss is one that of a 2 way street.
                Ex has taken me to court 8+times - unsuccessfully. My opinion is based on observations of errors my ex made.

                Judges are very busy with MANY files. They are acutely aware of time constraints and, in fairness to other people who have matters to be decided, they have to curtail nonsensical, time-consuming, repetitive arguments by high-conflict litigants (something they are quite adept at I might add).
                I speak with my boss 1 - 2 times/year. I work and he pays me. Yes, it is a two-way street.... not sure what my boss has to do with this LOL.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by arabian View Post
                  Ex has taken me to court 8+times - unsuccessfully. My opinion is based on observations of ..

                  Judges are very busy with MANY files. They are acutely aware of time constraints and, in fairness to other people who have matters to be decided, they have to curtail nonsensical, time-consuming, repetitive arguments by high-conflict litigants (something they are quite adept at I might add).


                  I speak with my boss 1 - 2 times/year. I work and he pays me. Yes, it is a two-way street.... not sure what my boss has to do with this LOL.
                  Your boss doesn't have much to do with it. You're the one that brought up the word boss and related the word boss to a judge. I was quite frankly comparing the scenario to a nornal relationship that you wouod have with a boss. However, in your case and apparantly with your preception of a boss, it seems he/she just tells you what to do and you do it. Desn't sound like you are actively involved in discussions about things and are just told what to do. Doesn't seem like a 2 way street at all. Why would i even be surprised an idiom about communications and accountability gets precieved that way and into the topic of money. At least I know what is your priority in life and brings in to question your motives to be on this site given you've been to court with your ex 8+ times, more likely than not, about money. Yes arabian.. everything in life is about money.

                  Anyway, Not everyone is your ex that makes irrelevant arguments. Doesn't seem that was the issue for OP, but instead judge granted the other party extra time not realizing they were taking time away from op, then had to rush op as judge failed to fairly manage his/her times. Yes it must be fair to other matters in court but it should also be fair to the parties of each matter.
                  Last edited by trinton; 08-01-2017, 09:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wah wah wah.

                    I will repeat - judge is the "boss" of the courtroom and he/she alone decides what is "fair" and "not fair."

                    My boss is highly-regarded in his field/medical expertise (one of 14 in Canada). He employs people who do not require hand-holding and who can make decisions independently.

                    Questioning my "motives for being on this site" ??? I simply believe in giving back some of the valuable experience I have gained through the 7 years I spent in litigation with my ex. Of course Family Court revolves around money. In your situation access = money does it not?

                    So you think a judge is unfair? Tough titty. You have to take the good with the bad. Unless a judge errors in law you have absolutely no recourse. Crying and babbling over how unfair one thinks a judge is will get you nowhere. Option is to do what many people do is put big money on the table and hire a lawyer. Then you can spend $500.00+ an hour crying to the lawyer.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would also add that Orleans Lawyer is, in fact, a real lawyer. He has offered his sage advice.

                      Written submissions/factums are extremely important. Too often, however, people make the mistake of not submitting concise documents and can also ramble on and on with irrelevant and yes, very boring, information.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by arabian View Post
                        Wah wah wah.
                        Yes. Wah wah wah. Why are you crying ?


                        Originally posted by arabian View Post
                        I will repeat - judge is the "boss" of the courtroom and he/she alone decides what is "fair" and "not fair."
                        Yes, they have that right. But if you don't agree with their decision, then you have rights too.

                        Originally posted by arabian View Post
                        My boss is highly-regarded in his field/medical expertise (one of 14 in Canada). He employs people who do not require hand-holding and who can make decisions independently.
                        I was right then. The relationship with your boss is a "one-way" street. He tells you what to do, and you just do it. No feedback or insight into processes or discussions about ongoing improvements. I am not quite convinced that you work for Einstein here, but rather for Mr. Tim Hortons, Mr. McDonalds, or Jordan's roofing factory.


                        Originally posted by arabian View Post
                        Questioning my "motives for being on this site" ??? I simply believe in giving back some of the valuable experience I have gained through the 7 years I spent in litigation with my ex. Of course Family Court revolves around money. In your situation access = money does it not?
                        So what you have learned in the 7 years of your spousal support battle is that Family Court revolves around money. I wonder why. Everybody only ever goes to court because of money and never because of their children right ? I would have thought that in those 7 years you have would learned that access and money are separate issues. But I suppose when your life revolves around money then everybody who ever goes to family court goes there for money and not for their children. Quite a skewed perception actually. But I don't blame you, I really don't.

                        Originally posted by arabian View Post
                        So you think a judge is unfair? Tough titty. You have to take the good with the bad. Unless a judge errors in law you have absolutely no recourse. Crying and babbling over how unfair one thinks a judge is will get you nowhere. Option is to do what many people do is put big money on the table and hire a lawyer. Then you can spend $500.00+ an hour crying to the lawyer.
                        Actually, you don't need to cry to anybody. You could (and are encouraged ) to file a complaint with the Judical council (you have that right). Not sure if you have that right when it comes to your "boss" based on the information you have shared here however. We do however have that right when it comes to our "judges". You also can file an appeal if there is reasonable apprehension of bias. You don't need a $500 + an hour lawyer for either of that. Again, I am not sure what exactly you have learned in those 7 years other that Judges are always right and gods and that people go to court just because of money and never because of their children.
                        Last edited by trinton; 08-01-2017, 11:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by arabian View Post
                          I would also add that Orleans Lawyer is, in fact, a real lawyer. He has offered his sage advice.

                          Written submissions/factums are extremely important. Too often, however, people make the mistake of not submitting concise documents and can also ramble on and on with irrelevant and yes, very boring, information.
                          How is he in fact a lawyer? Where is the evidence ? How did you form that so called fact? Regardless, lawyers and judges are always right and paralegals and self represented litigants are always wrong, right?

                          Yes, factums are important indeed. But so are oral arguments made in court based on any questions or other arguments or allegations/statements that may come up during the motion. Otherwise, then why do we even attend and speak and why not just email our factum to the judge to read and make a decision? Why do we conduct job interviews in person / phone and why not just make a decision merely based on the resumes / written material ?

                          And I am sure judges may often hear the same things over and over and over again, and find them boring, and would rather hear something they haven't heard before. But that doesn't give them any right to cut people off during their submissions because the judge failed to properly manage the motion and conduct it fairly, i.e., shortening the motion by one hour and giving one party the majority of the time to speak realizing the other side won't have enough time to speak. They have a duty to listen to you and hear what you have to say. Again, I don't see any indication from OP that they were ranting on and on about irrelevant information. Actually, based on a previous post of yours in another thread, you had mentioned that we presume what posters say to be true, and give advise based on that. But as stated, I am not surprised due to your perceptions that lawyers and judges are always right, and that people who don't get time to finish their submissions are being irrelevant, and that people who go to court are going their because of money.
                          Last edited by trinton; 08-01-2017, 11:50 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Trinton - Presuming to know anything of my professional relationship with my employer is quite funny.

                            Not many people on this forum have actually made it as far as trial. We are fortunate that OrleansLawyer (yes he is a real lawyer with experience in Family Law) will pop in now and then and offer advice. If you want assurance about his credentials then perhaps you should PM the owner of the site.

                            Re-read OrleansLawyer's post. Memorize it and ..... get over yourself.

                            You gave incorrect advice to the poster on this thread and OrleansLawyer politely corrected you.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              telling you that you have 2 hours then allowing other side to rant on for 3 hours and giving you only one hour and cutting you off abruptly is another thing.
                              Since that is not the situation described by the OP your analogy is irrelevant.

                              I've been before a judge that initially told me too late I had my chance already when i mentioned I had something else to say following conclusion of my oral submission. But then I gave off the body language that I had somethimg very important to say and that I was saddened and shpuld maybe report the judge to the judical council and just sat there quietly and the judge turned to me very politely and asked me to go ahead and say what I had to say and listened to it and thanked me for sharing it with her. I have tons of respect for that particular judge.
                              Based on your description, the judge's line of thought was "this person will be more satisfied with the result if they are able to whinge on right now instead of feeling justice was not served later. Thus I will bend the rules for them". The judge used their discretion to allow you to make additional submissions. They were not obliged to do so.

                              Just remember that judges are supposed to permit you to speak and listen to you when you speak.
                              There are rules. Parties, whether represented or not, are expected to follow them. Being a litigant does not grant you an audience for an indefinite period of time. Judges can, and are expected to, set time limits for matters.

                              they don't get to break laws just because they are a judge.
                              No laws were broken.

                              I didnt realize parties were in court to entertain the judge , or the boss, as you like to refer to them. I would also sure hope that your very own relationship with your boss is one that of a 2 way street.
                              Litigation is about persuasion. If you are meandering on then the judge is unlikely to follow your arguments; therefore you will not be persuasive. The judge is present to make a decision based on the facts and law, not hold your hand as you vent about how unfair life can be.

                              cut people off during their submissions because the judge failed to properly manage the motion and conduct it fairly, i.e., shortening the motion by one hour and giving one party the majority of the time to speak realizing the other side won't have enough time to speak.
                              Reading comprehension - the OP did not say they received half of the time. They argued their motion, other side responded and argued a cross motion, their responding submissions to the cross motion were truncated.

                              Perhaps they went long with their initial motion, or the judge had heard enough information, or they ought to have included more in their initial motion? You are assuming information not given.

                              Orleans Lawyer is, in fact, a real lawyer.
                              DISCLAIMER:
                              Everything said in this, and any other, message is not intended to be taken as legal advice. I do not hold myself out to be a lawyer, adult or literate. Any resemblance this or any other message may have to legal advice or common sense is entirely coincidental. This message was generated through the combination of a monkey hitting a keyboard with a rock and advanced spell check software.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X