Below is the text of a letter sent to the Regional Senior Justice’s Office in an attempt to prevent a miscarriage of Justice.
Dear Regional Senior Justice
Service to all required parties (r. 74.18) and notification of when a party has appointed counsel (15.03) are fundamental to Justice. When they do not occur a miscarriage of justice is likely.
This is especially so when the required counsel for a litigation guardian (r.7.05) is still not on file and neither they (if hired) or the litigation guardian has filed response to a property guardian’s accounts (originally unserved to most parties).
On June 30/2018 Justice Hackman had an opportunity to Order the parties to comply with the rules. I appeared at a hearing asking to be listed as a party, as I have a vested interest and was not been served. I requested Orders for proper service and the litigation guardian have required counsel. I noted that other parties required to be served by the rules were also not served.
Without all the required parties present, and without the required opinion of counsel for the litigation guardian (r. 7.08[4 a & b]), Justice Hackman delayed the review of an incapable person’s accounts, in my opinion leaving their assets at risk. His entire endorsement for that hearing is attached. Lack of service and required representation are not mentioned. There is no mention of other required parties were not in attendance and were also not served.
We are now 21 days from the Ordered Case management hearing, which did not occur in September as Justice Hackman allowed the property guardian to make arguments to delay the hearing until December, while refusing to hearing arguments that an earlier date was in the incapable person’s interest.
The litigation guardian has written that he has objections to the accounts. He did not file the required Notice of Objection (r. 74.18) for the June hearing and has not as of this date. He cannot meet the rules and file in time before the case management hearing.
I am expected to attend case management without knowing the position of a significant party.
Further as there is no counsel on record for the litigation guardian their opinion on the litigation guardians’ position required for any settlement is unknown. This applies whether the litigation guardian agrees with the accounts or not. If there is counsel, I do not know what they have reviewed my Notice of Objection or not, as no service to them can be done without appointment.
I trust that you are as concerned about these lapses as I am.
I would suggest that the interests of Justice are best served by a delay in case management until all parties comply with the rules.
I would also suggest that these breaches are significant enough to suggest bias and provide grounds for appeal if hearing proceed under Justice Hackman. Replacing him would have no bearing on the hearings as aside from his breaches of the rules he is not ceased of the matter.