The Court of Appeal appeal panel, headed by Justice Marina Paperny, that heard the plaintiff/appellant's appeals and egregiously erred in its September appeal determination, also deprived the plaintiff of procedural fairness during the appeal hearing in this lawyer misconduct lawsuit against lawyers Megan McMahon, Taryn Burnett and their law firm Gowlings.
This procedural unfairness includes that the appeal panel told the plaintiff she was "past her allotted time" for appeal oral submissions just 33 minutes into her oral submissions. The Rules of Court in fact provide for 45 minutes of oral submission time. Readers of this blog will be familiar with the case management officer Laurie Baptiste's egregious refusal to file the plaintiff's amended factum, at opposing counsel Perry Mack's request, despite that the plaintiff submitted the amended factum in accordance with the court's deadline and page-limit instructions, and that this necessitated that the plaintiff have every opportunity to fairly present her appeal submissions, including oral submissions.
The plaintiff had requested confirmation multiple times from the Court of Appeal, since October 1, that the appeal panel misinformed the plaintiff she was past her allotted time for oral submissions just 33 minutes into her submissions, despite that she still had crucial time remaining. The court finally provided confirmation of the timing yesterday, October 15.
This procedural unfairness is one of the many issues concerning the appeal panel's treatment of the self-represented plaintiff. As previously reported in this blog, after Justice Paperny refused to recuse herself from the appeal panel, she then bypassed the plaintiff's already filed application for permission to appeal her recusal, and then proceeded to rush a full appeal decision which egregiously failed to acknowledge the many distinct grounds of appeal in the plaintiff's factum and other materials and submissions. This includes that Justice Paperny egregiously stated she did not review the plaintiff's many grounds of appeal because, she said, she was being "expedient". Review of all of the plaintiff's grounds of appeal are critical to fairly adjudicate the serious errors made by Court of Queen's Bench judge Justice Michele Hollins.
While the plaintiff is addressing many of Justice Paperny's "errors" at the Supreme Court of Canada, she is also addressing some of the matters that still need to be addressed at the Court of Appeal, in accordance with the court's remedies and Rules. Watch this blog which shall be updated with the plaintiff's filed materials.
