Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Representation from a Non-Lawyer

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    With respect, that sounds like shit advice. Ex parte is only appropriate in unusual emergencies.
    Welcome back OrleansLawyer!

    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    The judge at the ex parte motion said to the lawyer, "look dumbo, serving the other side is a fundamental part of our justice system. Get out of my courtroom, serve the other side, and bring the motion properly."

    The lawyer did that, at which time a different judge said to the lawyer, "look dumbo, motions are only to happen before a case conference in case of emergency. This wasn't an emergency. Follow the normal process."
    Note to everyone... See, this is why you want a properly trained lawyer like OrelansLawyer. I tried to say this in my previous response but, he summed it up in two simple paragraphs while I mucked through trying to say the same thing.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tayken View Post
      Bullshit. 100% bullshit. None of that is grounds to break someone's chartered right to stand before the court and defend themselves. A motion where the other party is not given notice and not provided an opportunity to defend themselves is VERY VERY serious stuff.
      Sorry for my ignorance on the matter, but may I ask how this is such a big error? From what I gathered, OP put in an ex-parte motion to allow himself the option to represent his wife. How was this a violation of the other parties chartered rights as it didn't directly effect him? What was there to defend?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Hide on Bush View Post
        Sorry for my ignorance on the matter, but may I ask how this is such a big error? From what I gathered, OP put in an ex-parte motion to allow himself the option to represent his wife. How was this a violation of the other parties chartered rights as it didn't directly effect him? What was there to defend?
        You should do some research on what an ex-parte motion is... Why its serious stuff... You have a RIGHT, as defined in the charter, to defend yourself. So, the court is taking away your RIGHT to appear to defend yourself.

        Read this article I wrote on this forum about the topic... If you use the search command you will find hundreds if not thousands of previously explained things...

        GIS-0161 is "Hide on Bush".

        https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ad.php?t=15139

        FYI: GIS-0161/Hide on Bush

        OrleansLawyer is a real bonified lawyer... He called your move / lawyer "dumbo".
        Last edited by Tayken; 02-01-2022, 01:54 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tayken View Post

          GIS-0161 is "Hide on Bush".

          https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ad.php?t=15139

          FYI: GIS-0161/Hide on Bush
          I don’t know what any of this means

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Hide on Bush View Post
            I don’t know what any of this means
            Reason 30942823049 you should not be representing your wife Corporal.

            Comment


            • #21
              I am so confused

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                Reason 30942823049 you should not be representing your wife Corporal.

                Wrong poster Tayken.

                Hide on Bush, he has you mistaken with the original poster of this thread. The item you reference is a document Tayken posted several years ago outlining things the court considers/looks at and it is good advice if you find yourself there.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                  Wrong poster Tayken.

                  Hide on Bush, he has you mistaken with the original poster of this thread. The item you reference is a document Tayken posted several years ago outlining things the court considers/looks at and it is good advice if you find yourself there.
                  Okay thank you for the reply I had no idea what was going on.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Just wanted to give an update that I was able to acquire a lawyer after getting approved for a loan, who basically said what Tayken told me (in a less aggressive way). Just wanted to thank the people that provided me the positive information that they did!

                    I hope this post will maybe help someone in the future if they are looking to represent someone else or seeking to have a non-lawyer represent them. According to my lawyer the bar is freakishly high to achieve that, that it’s probably not worth it in general.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      How was this a violation of the other parties chartered rights as it didn't directly effect him? What was there to defend?
                      There are a variety of reasons why someone would want to insist the other side is either represented by a lawyer or not at all. Broadly, because a lawyer is insured and licensed so if they act badly they can be sued or disbarred, while a self-represented party can be sanctioned within the case with costs (and losing the case).

                      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