Dripping roast

I'm a layperson litigant, known for defending Arbabi v. McLelland. I write about vexatious litigation, focusing on estates & advocating for court reform.

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

@dripping_roast

“I am concerned that a large estate file is perceived by both executors and estate lawyers as a ‘dripping roast’. "

The Honourable Mr. Justice Clark. Anderson Estate 2012 ABQB 517

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

@DNetolitzky Thank you for posting about this case, as frustrating as the outcome is. An interesting question may be whether advanced AI could one day enable the kind of meaningful communication the Charter requires.

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

Millions of dollars worth of fraud alleged to have happened at B.C. social development ministry | https://t.co/HZ1RL5LeBK https://t.co/4ydrACRf8U

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

I completely agree with your observations on written submissions. Over the years I've gradually developed my own survival strategy as a self-represented litigant:

1. File my application record at the first available opportunity, hoping it increases the chances the judge has time to read it before the hearing.

2. If appropriate, ask whether the judge would prefer to rely on the written submissions rather than have me repeat them orally (which one judge kindly agreed to).

3. At a minimum, provide a concise Bench Outline.

4. Slip the judge a $20 if they read everything in advance... 😉

Humour aside, I do think well-organized written materials can reduce stress for everyone involved and allow the issues to be considered more carefully.

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

Reading this decision reminded me of a previous post where I said I wished judges would be more "uncut and uncensored" in their reasons. Netolitzky kindly explained why judicial restraint often serves important purposes, including fairness and avoiding unnecessary appeal issues.

Netolitzky also notes that reproducing a litigant's own submissions helps guard against later arguments that the court misunderstood or mischaracterized their position. He further observes that he has long advocated for attaching key documents as appendices in appropriate cases. That reminded me of Arbabi v. McLelland, where the associate judge attached key documents as Appendices A and B.

It also made me wonder whether these techniques have value beyond prolific or vexatious self-represented litigants. In complex litigation generally—whether involving self-represented parties or experienced counsel—they may help demonstrate that the court accurately understood the issues before reaching its decision.

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

Thanks to everyone who has read the article. Several people asked for a printable, non-X version, so I've uploaded a PDF here:

INSIDE the UNDERGROUND WORLD of the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE of LAW

https://t.co/dj7hlBAifu

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

@RuleofLawCanada https://t.co/RowUyXyces

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

https://t.co/cb8wWYtfXG

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

Flat-fee billing: how one litigation firm competes with Big Law https://t.co/TNVxd1UTaj

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

https://t.co/DrkCeJajHu

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

@RuleofLawCanada @DNetolitzky Thanks for referencing this article. My takeaway is that the system itself can sometimes create incentives that encourage escalation rather than resolution.

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

https://t.co/7Mww76ejWw

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

@DNetolitzky Another thing I have noticed is the more complicated the factual history becomes, the more tempting it is for a court to say:

"Let's let the matter continue and sort it out later."

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

Dr. Netolitzky's comments got me thinking.

The legal system has two competing values:

⚖️ Value #1: Give people a chance to be heard.

⚖️ Value #2: Bring disputes to an end.

So the question becomes: Who shuts the barn door, and when?

Or put another way:

At what point does access to justice stop being access to justice and become perpetual litigation?

[Dr Donald J Netolitzky KC @DNetolitzky]

Had interesting questions after a Canadian Bar Association educational seminar I presented yesterday.

As usual, I didn't think of some answers at the time. I'm slow.

Eg, what are possible solutions to manage this?

I have nothing but bad answers. But I missed one.

GTFO.

The sad news is that Canadian common law and legislation do not provide adequate mechanisms to address problematic litigants. And I said "litigants" here specifically, because as best I can establish, the central problem isn't "bad litigation" (though that's bad enough), it's that the Canadian legal system and academia fail to acknowledge that problematic litigation is the product of problematic people. People come first. Litigation is the result and consequence of that.

I call these people "abusive litigants". That's because the usual language, "vexatious litigants", in my opinion misrepresents who these individuals are. They're not out to "vex". Instead, their litigation is honest, heartfelt, a centre of their lives and perspectives, and in their minds necessary. Absolutely necessary.

The problem is that what they seek is usually impossible. They are misusing or "abusing" dispute resolution systems.

Many abusive litigants are affected by mental health conditions: delusion, querulous paranoia, extreme overvalued beliefs. They become very, very upset when they are told their litigation is "frivolous". That they have nefarious "vexatious" purposes. I get that. I've probably read more of their writing and filings than anyone else in Canada.

If there is a fault, it's a system that doesn't recognize the fundamental mismatches between an apparatus that purports to provide "justice", and people who will never get the result they want. Incidentally, I have no idea what "justice" is - so don't blame me if I'm vague on that.

Maybe "justice" is the Eric Cartman perspective: "Justice means I win. I always win."

So, back to the first point. What do you, lawyer, do when your client is being sued by someone who is an abusive litigant?

End every possible link with that person. Little to nothing good will ever come of that interaction. The problem isn't the lawsuit. The problem is the person behind the lawsuit.

Get that person as far away from you as you can. Now. It's not going to get better.

You're a bank, and you have a pseudolaw litigant as a client? End that relationship as soon as you can. You have an employee whose interactions are now into this abusive scale? End the employment - on generous, reasonable terms. But you don't want that person around further.

You can't treat the pathology, but you can move away from the problematic individual.

Now, if you're government? If you're a condo association with a problem owner? If you're the police? Well ... tough. You're going to have to dance the tango to the bitter end. Sometimes, you can't dodge these people, and Canadian courts have no adequate tools to help you.

Or to help the abusive litigant. Everyone has a negative outcome. Maybe that's "democratic"?

Oh well.

Remember, it's a triumph of our society that everyone has their day in court. And then the next day. And then day after that. It's called "access to justice", I'm told.

(No, I don't know what "access to justice" means either.)

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

@DNetolitzky @IanRunkle @rhiannaschmunk @GlenKorstrom

The owner of the Jacksonville Florida building listed on the Envision Law website told me: "I have never heard of this person or this firm, nor is there a Suite 95. This appears to be fraud."

That left me with one question: What is Naomi Arbabi's current licensing status in any jurisdiction?

Digital Wack-a-Mole:

https://t.co/hq8Lnn2PGi

[Dripping roast @dripping_roast]

https://t.co/fqgS05YFQq