(SRL) SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS AND JUDGE ROBERT REILLY

One of my areas of focus in this Blog has been our judicial system here in Ontario. I am about to include an e-mail that I sent earlier this morning to a gentleman at the OCLA or Ontario Civil Liberties Association.


OCLA for SRLs Working Group


From: agmarshall....
To: denis.rancourt@gmail.com



Good morning Mr. Rancourt: I found your e-mail on-line, last night, while looking for related matters dealing with a local judge (Robert Reilly) here in Waterloo Region. I would like to receive announcements about the Working Group's activities. I was a self represented litigant in Superior Court ? in Kitchener a number of years ago. I was self represented because I quickly spent what little money I had on numerous frivolous Motions put forth by the teacher suing my wife and I. She of course had the full support of her union, colleagues and the Waterloo Regional District School Board. She and her husband are also very well off (he owns his own company) including having a custom built rural estate. Financially I never had a chance.

Judge Robert Reilly professed nuetrality and fair play at the start of a month long civil trial towards my unrepresented status. It did not happen. Out of the blue decisions such as denying me a jury trial took my breathe away. Asking me in court during the trial whether or not I would appeal a contrary decision surprised me. Refusing to seriously address my complaint during the trial that testimony from a verbal Discovery process was obtained after badgering me repeatedly. I of course was unrepresented during this Discovery? process. I was the last person on the stand (2 or 3 days) for cross-examination and when I was finished I was advised by Judge Reilly to put my wife Betty on the stand foe examination and cross-examination. I advised him that Betty and I had thought it over and decided not to put her on the stand. While she was a co-defendant (co-respondant?) with me there had virtually been zero evidence entered against her during the month long trail, hence our decision. I was frankly shocked by the response of Gary Petker, lawyer for the plaintiff, and by Judge Reilly. They were BOTH angry and upset. Judge Reilly told me that I had to put her on the stand in order to back up my evidence and testimony. By this late in the trial, as naive and totally inexperienced as I was, I had finally begun to believe that I was being railroaded. Therefore I advised Judge Reilly that I had had several nuetral, unbiased parent witnesses testify already on my behalf. If he wouldn't accept the undisputed testimony of citizens unrelated to me by blood or friendship then why would he remotely accept my wife's testimony on my behalf. He and Mr. Petker were very upset. In hindsight I'm pretty certain that as Betty was a co-defendant and they had zero testimony against her. The only purpose in putting her on the stand was to trip her up and attempt to twist her words into something incriminating. They virtually had nothing else on her as she was not and never had been remotely involved in any of my activities .

In Judge Reilly's approximate 86 page decision he totally dismissed all the testimony of six or seven other parents who had had similar problems with the teacher as Betty and I had had. I believed he used the term pied piper in suggesting that I had some influence over them. Most I had never even met prior to our mutual classroom difficulties involving the teacher and our children. Judge Reilly exonerated Betty and found me liable civilly. He awarded what ended up at $603,000 after interest to the teacher to be paid by myself. Obviously I had no funds to appeal his abortion of a decision. I believe that as a SLR (self-represented litigant) I was taken for a vicious ride through the judicial system.

Thank you for your attention and any information/announcements that you can send me.


Sincerely Alan Marshall (519) 6692801
99 Church st. West Elmira, Ontario N3B 3K7