04-28-05 12:56 PM
RADIO SHACK InterTAN CANADA LIMITED SOLD AND ON THE RUN TO AVOID
$2.5BILLION LITIGATION (SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Docket S.H. NO.
160145C; COURT OF APPEALS OF NS – Docket CA Nos. 244714 & 245177)
April 28, 2005
Open note:
1. The Originating Notice (Action) and Statement of Claim S.H. No.
160145C (Supreme Court of Nova Scotia) filed on November 25, 1999, the
Plaintiff (Black), Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume claims against the
Defendants, Special/General Damages of $2.5billion. The Prime
Ministers of Canada (Messrs. Jean Jacques Chretien and Paul Martin)
through the Attorney Generals/Ministers of Justice control the entire
law courts and justice system of Canada. Judges, law courts and
Lawyers have are closely funded and controlled with the harsh power of
do or die more than any dictatorship in the world. The Appeals posted
below are some of the opposition of the Plaintiff against the reckless
applications of the Defendants to delay the Originating Notice
(Action) and Statement of Claim from proceeding to trial, 1999 –
present.
2. The action of the Defendants (100% white) rendered the Plaintiff
poor and vulnerable and insolvent to do business including securing
business loan and credit. The fact that the Defendants are supported
by the Primes Ministers of Canada further insolvency was made by
sanctioning over 98% of the Plaintiff's means of livelihood including
right to employment, welfare or social assistance and seizure of his
home, goods, properties and cash valued over $11million on December
17, 2003. The Plaintiff who was a very rich and prosperous
businessperson and academician in Nigeria and other west Africa
sub-region, lives in Canada under these harsh conditions without
income.
3. Across Canada, notwithstanding that the majority of the First
Nation, Metis, Inuit, Blacks, Arabs, Filipino, and related racial
group, immigrant, non-Canadian whites and foreign investors,
professionals and experts apart from the fact that in Canada the
Plaintiff would have been self-made businessperson and scholar, other
factors created these harsh persecution and the same summarized as
follows:
a. The Plaintiff's interest for the President of Nigeria 2007 or
thereafter next election. The Plaintiff is the ONLY Candidate in any
Nigeria Presidential elections with the overwhelming potential to win
across Nigeria because he is a neutral candidate from minority region
of the Niger Delta and also neutral in this region thus, the first in
the history of Nigeria with the mandate as mediator and impartial
player to mediate into and resolve the longstanding Religion, Ethnic
and Cultural disputes of Nigeria. Focus of unfounded fear of Canada:
Canada's fraudulent economic interest in Nigeria which places secret
and paid blockade or sanction on other countries and investors to do
business in Nigeria and as result Nigeria under any standards is a
rich, industrialized and developed country but Nigerians suffer
poverty and access to the right to services and set out oversea in
search of risky and unseen greener pasture; review of the case on the
murder of Mr. & Mrs. Abiola; etc.
b. In Canada, in collaboration with several NGOs, the Defendant
demanded the Canadian government to improve the conditions of the
oppressed Canadians. This solemn plea infuriated the Canadian
government and its agencies.
c. In Canada the Plaintiff joined dissident and non-dissident
scientists to look for the CURE MEDICATIONS for AIDS/HIV and followed
by the campaign for the purchase of the cure medications for AIDS/HIV
victims inside and outside Africa. Canadian government and its
agencies have secret and open terrorist forms of policies and
practices of hate, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and
related cruelty against Black Africa and the Blacks inside and outside
Canada. The campaign for the purchase of the cure medications for
AIDS/HIV is branded an offensive campaign across Canada. The Canadian
campaign for the elimination of AIDS/HIV in Africa is "INDIRECT
MISSION PROJECT AND MOCK CAMPAIGN" designed to proliferate AIDS/HIV in
Black Africa (see over 78 Confessions on proliferation and
geographical spread of AIDS/HIV in Africa.
d. On March 19, 2005 and April 7, 2005, to impede the campaign
mentioned in para. (c) above; plan to process the application to
repatriate to Nigeria to join his domestic campaign to meet the
election 2007; and contact with peoples/governments/NGOs inside and
outside Canada, the Canadian government ordered the ALIANT/MTT to
disconnect the Plaintiff's telephone, fax and Internet with
over-payment of $927.07 in favour of ALIANT/MTT and Cable Network also
with over-payment in favour of BELL EXPRESSVU.
e. Suspicion/fear of the intention to litigate against Canadian
genocide, murder and other cruelties against the First Nation, Metis,
Inuit and Blacks over 400 years - present.
f. The persecutory and oppressive travail of the Defendants and
Canadian government against the Plaintiff, his family and NGOs are
consuming over $35million of the tax dollars. These corporate
irresponsibilities and other domestic and foreign indirect missions or
irresponsibilities are the CENTER OF THE ON-GOING "SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL
PROBE" AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTERS OF CANADA (JEAN CHRETIEN & PAUL
MARTIN).
g. In Canada majority (over 99.5%) of the infraction against
non-white, immigrant, non-Canadian whites and foreign investors,
professionals and experts are not restituted, mediated, negotiated and
settled, instead they prefer to use bribes and force including
killing the victim. 1999 – present (Adjourned for April 28, 2005 Nova
Scotia Court of Appeal Docket Nos. 244714 & 245177). 1999 – present,
the management of Radio Shack Canada (hereinafter "RADIO SHACK
InterTAN CANADA LIMITED") has spent several million dollars of tax
money to pay lawyers, Judges, law courts administration and others
purpose of plot dehumanize, arm-twist and oppress the Plaintiff.
________________________________________
_____________________________
1/10
NOTICE OF APPEAL C.A. No.
IN THE NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
PHILLIP OFUME
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
- AND -
RADIO SHACK InterTAN CANADA LIMITED and ASSOCIATES
FINANCIAL SERVICE OF CDA and NOR-DON COLLECTION
NETWORK INC. and WORLD WIDE FURNITURE LIMITED, a
body corporate
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS
________________________________________
____________________________
BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE APPEALED FROM THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HILROY S.
NATHANSON IN THE NOVA SCOTIA SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS S.H. No. 160145 ON
APRIL 19, 2005
HEARD BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HILROY S. NATHANSON
PLACE HEARD: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE HEARD: April 19, 2005
DATE OF ORDER: April 19, 2005
DATE DECISION WAS RECEIVED: April 19, 2005
COUNSEL:
Dr. Phillip Ofume: Plaintiff
Mr. Hugh Wright Radio Shack InterTAN Canada
Limited
Mr. Stephen T. McGrath: Worldwide Furniture
2/10
N. Kent Clarke: Nordon
Stewart Mckelvey Stirling Scales : Associates
________________________________________
__________________________
TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant/Plaintiff Dr.
Phillip Ofume apply for leave to appeal and, if granted, will appeal
from the Decision of the Honourable Hilroy S. Nathanson in Chambers of
the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia 1815 Upper Water Street Halifax, Nova
Scotia Canada B3J 1S7, on April 19, 2005 that being Order dated the
19th day of April, 2005 dismissing the Originating Notice (Action)
and Statement of Claim dated November 25, 1999 in the Supreme Court of
Nova Scotia docket S.H. No. 160145.
for non-payment of the security for costs of forty thousand
($40,000.00) by the Appellant/Plaintiff without income including
personal social assistance or income assistance.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds of appeal are:
1. THAT the Presiding Honourable Justice in Chambers on
April 19, 2005 erred by holding that his error in Chambers on January
20, 2005 for not considering that poor people in Canada has chance and
right to Canadian law courts and in issuing the oral Order said,
" I know that your appeal in this matter has been filed but I must
consider my reputation and that of this court on January 20, 2005 …any
revision of my Order on January 20, 2005 would not go down well…I
prefer to relief this court and myself and I prefer to push my Order
and Justice Pickup's to the court of appeal to decide…you are advised
to appeal both Order…the two appeals be heard the same day…"
2. The Presiding Honourable Justice Nathanson in
Chambers on January 20, 2005 erred by,
a. granting security for costs of $40,000.00 with full
knowledge that the Appellant/Plaintiff has no income including
personal social assistance which was filed by the Defendants without
Affidavit evidence and other material affidavit evidence to proof what
they called vexatious and frivolous action;
b. on April 19, 2005 the Presiding Honourable Justice
Nathanson in Chambers realized that he had erred on January 20, 2005
and on April 19, 2005 he advised the Counsels for the Defendants that
demanded for another voluminous costs of $500.00 for the action and
the Learned Judge said,
"…even if I award less or more, the Plaintiff will not be able to pay
anything…";
3/10
3. The Presiding Honourable Justice Nathanson in Chambers
on January 20, 2005 and April 19, 2005 erred by not reviewing the
Appellant/Plaintiff's cause of Action on November 25, 1999 and the
lengthy statement/evidence submitted in support of the action November
25, 1999 through present as follows:
a. Cause of Action - summarized:
i. In 1998 the Defendant, Radio Shack claimed they had new computer
and other accessories for sale in one of their accredited stores in
Halifax. In addition, the Defendant claimed that they have unlimited
warranty. The Defendant personally agreed to install the equipment in
the Plaintiff home. They install the computer and it failed to work.
All the processes of stalling and testing the computer occurred
within about two hours and finally nothing worked.
ii. The Plaintiff demanded for new and working computer and
accessories or refund the down-payment but the Defendant refuse,
neglected and failed to replace the unserviceable computer and
accessories with new ones or refund his money. Surprisingly, the
Defendant that claims that the computer and other accessories were new
and with unlimited warranty, issued a business card of a professor
which the Defendant claimed teaches at St. Mary's University.
iii. With the knowledge that the Plaintiffs was new in Canada, the
Defendant threatened to call police on him and based on this threat
and the Plaintiff insisted they call the police, the Defendant
forcibly abandoned the computer and all other accessories in the home
of the Plaintiff and they left with further threat.
iv. The Plaintiff contacted the Professor at St. Mary's University
and he did several works which the plaintiff paid in full without
making the computer and other accessories to work.
v. The Defendant, Worldwide furniture sold household furniture and
imposed several harsh conditions including forcing the Plaintiff to
pay cash in full. The Plaintiff was forced to pay cash because the
defendant refused to refund the down payment, which they compelled the
Plaintiff to pay. After paying cash, the Defendant removed all the
warranties and other facilities attached to the furniture. Cruelly,
the Defendant failed to credit the payment but debited the Plaintiff
and publicized the debit and shattered the credit of the Plaintiff and
rendered him permanently insolvent.
vi. The other Defendants that were operating on the capacity of
financiers and debt collector neglected and failed to consult the
Plaintiff and swiftly they destroyed his credit by publishing the bad
credit worldwide and respect any Customer Service, Purchase and Sales
Acts inside and outside Nova Scotia.
vii. The Plaintiff is a very rich businessperson oversea. In Canada
prior to the evil action of the defendants, few days upon landing in
Canada he started negotiating to buy home and he bought home in the
best place to live in Canada (Bedford) including buying the above
stated properties.
b. Lengthy statement/evidence submitted in support of the action,
November 25, 1999 and present – summarized:
4/10
(i) Originating Notice(Action) and Statement of Claim, November 25,
1999 -Dr. Phillip Ofume
(ii) Demand for Particulars, December 17, 1999 - World Wide Furniture
(iii) Answer to Interrogatories, January 28, 2000 -Dr. Phillip Ofume
(iv) Defence - InterTAN Canada Limited, February 08, 2000
(v) List of Documents - InterTAN Canada Limited, February 08, 2000
(vi) Further Answer to Interrogatories, February 22, 2000 - Dr.
Phillip Ofume
(vii) List of Documents, February 22, 2000 - Dr. Phillip Ofume
(viii) Defence and Counterclaim - Associates Financial Service of CDA,
March 08, 2000
(ix) Defence - Nor-Don Collection Network Inc., March 13, 2000
(x) Order of the Supreme Court transferring matter to the Standard
track, March 22, 2000
(xi) List of Documents, May 24, 2000 - Associates Financial Service of
CDA
(xii) List of Documents, May 25, 2000 - World Wide Furniture
(xiii) List of Documents, March 31, 2000 - Nor-Don Collection Network
Inc.
(xiv) Further List of Documents, July 27, 2000 - Dr. Phillip Ofume
(xv) Supplementary List of Documents, September 18, 2000 - InterTAN
Canada Limited
(xvi) Further List of Documents, October 31, 2000 - Dr. Phillip Ofume
(xvii) Letters petitioning the snail motion of this matter and the
deplorable conditions of the Plaintiff due to the mischief of the
Defendants.
(xviii) Interrogatories used by the Defendants – May 2, 2003
(xix) Answer to interrogatories filed by the Plaintiff, Dr. Phillip
Ofume with the court on June 19, 2003.
(xx) Application of the Dr. Phillip Ofume to the Court dated on August
29, 2003
etc. etc. etc.
4. In the two affidavits of the Defendants on January 20, 2005
and April 19, 2005 to demand for security for costs on one part and
dismiss the action for lack of payment of the security for costs on
the second part, the Defendants did not file any material affidavit
evidence and at the same time notarized, marked as any exhibits and
sworn on oaths accordingly to be recognized as legal documents worthy
of presentation to law courts to dispute errors on fact and law or
material affidavit evidence to show what is vexatious and frivolous.
The Defendants did not present anything before the Presiding
Honourable Justices in Chambers on January 20, 2005; March 10, 2005
and April 19, 2005. All the documents filed will be part of the
Appellant/Plaintiff's Appeal Book in support of this Appeal.
5. On January 20, 2005 and April 19, 2005 the empty Affidavits
and speculative grounds for the Respondents/Defendants' application to
dismiss the Appellant/Plaintiff's Originating Notice (Action) and
Statement of Claim dated November 25, 1999 in the Supreme Court of
Nova Scotia docket S.H. No. 160145 are brought under the following
Applications:
a. that the Appellant/Plaintiff failed to appeal the Order of the
Honourable Justice Nathanson on January 20, 2005;
b. . that the Appellant/Plaintiff failed to pay security for costs
- $40,000.00
5/10
The Honourable Justice Nathanson erred by failing to review the Notice
of Appeal (CA No. 244714) filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff on April
7, 2005 and stamped by the Law Courts of Nova Scotia on April 14,
2005. This appeal against the Decision of the Honourable Justice
Pickup to vary the Order of the Honourable Justice Nathanson or
payment of the $40,000.00 security for costs. If the
Appellant/Plaintiff received the Decision of the Honourable Justice
Pickup on April 5, 2005 and appealed on April 7, 2005, the appeal has
certified and met the statutory period approved by the Court of Appeal
of NS.
6. The Counsels for the Respondent/Defendants did not reflect their
attention to the following post- January 20, 2005 activities in which
parties must perform pursuant to the Order/Decisions of the Presiding
Honourable Justices, Nathanson on January 20, 2005 and Pickup on March
29, 2005,
a. before 60 days on March 10, 2005 respecting the Order of the
learned Judge Nathanson on January 20, 2005 the Appellant/Plaintiff
filed Application with supporting Affidavit Evidence in accordance
with the Order of the Learned Judge in Chambers on January 20, 2005;
b. the application was heard on March 10, 2005 by the Honourable
Justice Pickup and the Learned Judge released his Decision on March
29, 2005 after several letters to Justice Pickup. The Order was mailed
to distance mailbox of the Plaintiff. Because of this mailing problem,
the Plaintiff received the Order on April 5, 2005;
c. reason why the Appellant/Plaintiff did not get the law courts
stamps on April 7, 2005 - on April 7, 2005 when the Plaintiff brought
his NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia there was
gang action. For requesting the court administration to file the
appeal, was repressive as if the Canadian security operatives have
disclosed the appeal to the court and the Counsels for the Defendants
before he arrived there;
d. the conduct of the court administration showed some suspicion
especially that the Counsels felt being taken off guard and upon
submitting the Notice of Appeal to the Registrar of the Court of
Appeal, the Registrar started carrying the NOTICE OF APPEAL up and
down in the law courts. For over 35 minutes, they were still moving
the appeal documentation from office to office. Finally, with fear to
confront the Appellant/Plaintiff with off rules on the outcome of this
long rat race in the law court offices, a more dreadful female was
assigned to say one thing without reason "we are not filing your
appeal" and impolitely threw the NOTICE OF APPEAL on the Plaintiff and
unleashed threat, "leave the court or call police on you". Plaintiff
disagrees with all who resolve inter-human discourse by virtue of war;
e. On April 7, 2005 to frustrate further steps in the appeal process,
the provider of telephone, fax and Internet (ALIANT/MTT – 100% white)
and ruthless racist service providers in Canada were called in to
disconnect the Plaintiff's communication services without notice. In
the Canadian (and) legal practice it is impossible to work without
Telephone, Fax and Internet.
f. After over 24 hours of the rejection of the appeal by the law
court administration, the Counsels for the Defendants rushed in the
APPLICATION TO DISMISS THE ENTIRE CASE FOR FAILURE TO POST SECURITY
FOR COSTS OF $40,000.00 and with the assistance of the Court
Administration, the application was back dated to April 5, 2005 and
April 6, 2005 with
6/10
date of April 19, 2005 for hearing in the Chambers. The Plaintiff was
served on April 8, 2005 at about 6.45 p.m. by courier service without
service documentation for the Plaintiff to sign as mark of receipt.
g. When the Court Administration found that their "big brothers and
sisters" have succeeded in paving way for the Defendants to file an
Interlocutory Application to dismiss the Action of the
Appellant/Plaintiff, on April 14. 2005 they contacted the
Appellant/Plaintiff to come to the law courts to have his Notice of
Appeal (CA No. 244714) stamped.
7. Further analysis of fact reference to paragraphs 1 to 6
above::
a. The Order of the Honourable Justice Nathanson on January 20, 2005
can not be appealed because it was issued with further directions in
the matter such as,
" Any party may apply to this Court with supporting affidavit evidence
to vary the amount of security for costs ordered herein."
b. Parties are left with choice, to either appeal the entire Order or
follow the above-cited direction. The Appellant/Plaintiff preferred
this direction and before March 10, 2005 within timeline filed
Application returnable on March 10, 2005 before the Honourable Justice
Pickup in Chambers.
c. The Decision of the Honourable Justice Pickup in Chambers dated
March 29, 2005 which the Appellant/Plaintiff received on April 5, 2005
dismissed the Appellant/Plaintiff's application.
d. The dismissal by the Honourable Justice Pickup in Chambers on March
10, 2005 produced a cause, which the Appellant/Plaintiff could appeal,
and the appeal was made on April 7, 2005 within statutory deadline.
8. THAT the same Presiding Honourable Justice Nathanson
in Chambers on April 19, 2005 erred by not scrutinizing the weight of
the two Applications of the Respondents/Defendants, Application for
Security for Costs and Application to Dismiss the Originating Notice
(Action) and Statement of Claim dated November 25, 1999 in the Supreme
Court of Nova Scotia docket S.H. No. 160145 on the following weak
grounds:
a. Application for Security for Costs,
i. the Presiding Honourable Justice Nathanson in Chambers on April
19, 2005 advised the Counsels for the Defendants that demanded for
voluminous costs of $500.00 for the action and the Learned Judge said,
"…even if I award less or more, the Plaintiff will not be able to pay
anything…";
7/10
ii. the weak and one way ground of the Respondents/Defendants'
application was, C.P.R. 42 and they subjected their entire argument on
vexatious, frivolous, hate and related allegation without submitting
any material affidavit evidence in support of this application to the
court on January 20, 2005;
iii. the Respondent failed to notaries or submit any exhibit on oath.
The entire submission was based on speculation;
iv. the Appellant/Plaintiff deposed affidavit evidence with detailed
information including the particulars of his Case Worker with the
Department of Community Service and issued consent to the law courts,
and Counsels for the Defendants to go to any length to inquire about
everything concerning his income. The Department of Community Services
is the only source to get information on the income of the
Appellant/Plaintiff;
v. the Department of Community Services ignored all the petitions and
letters requesting for this important document to help the government
and its agencies succeed in imposing security for costs ($40,000.00)
against the Appellant/Plaintiff in order to stop the case from
proceeding to trial.
vi. Under further conspiracy, the case was heard on January 20, 2005
and the Order of security for costs ($40,000.00) against the
Appellant/Plaintiff was issued immediately by the Counsels for the
Defendants instead of the Judge less than two hours after the hearing
on January 20, 2005. Surprisingly, the Department of Community
Services released the document on January 21, when it was no longer
useful in support of the Appellant/ Plaintiff's response challenging
or contesting the Application of the Respondents/Defendants slated for
January 20, 2005.
b. Application to Dismiss the Action for not paying Security for Costs
of $40,000.00 –
i. A non-white could not submit such worthless applications to the
Canadian law courts to earn positive result. The applications were
afflicted with errors, improper process, conspiracies, hasty work,
falsified date such as "October 28, 2005" in paragraph 2 of the
Affidavit of Hugh Wright dated April 5, 2005;
ii. the reason for the application on April 19, 2005 is that the
Appellant/Plaintiff did not file Appeal whereas the
Appellant/Plaintiff filed the Appeal within statutory timeline on
April 7, 2005 and he got law courts stamps on April 14, 2005 also
within the approved deadline.
9. THAT the Presiding Honourable Justices Pickup and
Nathanson erred by holding that the Appellant/Plaintiff and other
Welfare or Social Assistance recipients or poor peoples in Nova Scotia
and Canada in general are like the Prime Minister of Canada, Premiers,
Judges, Ministers, well employed/paid lawyers, and other well to do
people with credit and related financial or income information that
may have bank, credit,
8/10
business transaction and other salaries and profit earning sources
that may be rich in vast documentation to submit under this condition.
AND THAT the Appellants/Defendants will request that the
Order appealed from be dismissed, and in its place an Order/Decision
be made allowing the Appellant/Plaintiff to file Notice of Trial
immediately for reason that justice delayed is a major opium of
justice denied.
AND THAT the Appellant/Plaintiff will request that the
Decision appealed from be dismissed because nowhere in democratic
world poverty has been obstacle in the efforts to secure human right,
justice and the rule of law but if Canada desires to legalize poverty
as blockade to the justice system or to prevent the poor peoples in
Canada from having access to the right to the Canadian law courts, the
determination of this Appeal would give law researchers and
investigators good information base to uncovered covered secret on
Canadian human rights record.
FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant/Plaintiff will
apply to a Judge of the Court of Appeal on Thursday, the 28th day of
April, 2005, at 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as
the Appellant/Plaintiff may be heard for an Order/Decision setting the
matter down for hearing and giving directions as to what appeal books
and factums, if any, shall be filed.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant/Plaintiff
will apply to a Judge of the Court of Appeal on Thursday, the 28th
day of April, 2005, at 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon
thereafter as the Appellant/Plaintiff may be heard for an interim
Order staying the execution of the entire Decision appealed in the
nature of payment of $40,000.00 security for costs and other cost to
the law courts of Nova Scotia or the Defendants pending the
determination of the appeal.
DATED at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 20th day of April, 2005.
Signed and filed on April 21, 2005
___________________
Phillip Ofume, Ph.D. – Representative for the Plaintiff
8 Edwin Ford Court (Bedford)
P. O. Box 25153
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3M 4H4
Phone: (902) 832-3559
Fax: (902) 832-3558
Cell: (902) 452-5617
E-mail: phil_ofume311@hotmail.com,ngomzem313@hotmail.com
9/10
Copies to:
Mr. Hugh Wright
Counsel for Radio Shack InterTAN Canada Limited
Summit Place
1601 Lower Water Street
Post Office Box 730
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 2V1
The President and CEO
Radio Shack InterTAN Canada Limited
279 Bayview Drive, Barrie
Ontario, L4M 4W5
Mr. Stephen T. McGrath
Counsel for Worldwide Furniture
Boyne Clarke
Suite 700
Belmont House
33 Alderney Drive
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
P. O. Box 876
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada B2Y 3Z5
N. Kent Clarke
Counsel for Nordon
Blois, Nickerson & Bryson
1568 Hollis Street
P. O. Box 2147
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 3B7
Stewart Mckelvey Stirling Scales,
Counsel for Associates
Suite 900
Purdy's Wharf Tower One
1959 Upper Water Street
P. O. Box 997
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 2X2
The Presiding Honourable Justice
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
(Trial Division)
The Law Courts
1815 Upper Water Street
10/10
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 1S7
The Prothonotary/Registrar
The Law Courts
1815 Upper Water Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 1S7
________________________________________
_________________________________
1/7
1999 NOTICE OF APPEAL C.A. No.
IN THE NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
PHILLIP OFUME
PLAINTIFF
- AND -
RADIO SHACK InterTAN CANADA LIMITED and ASSOCIATES
FINANCIAL SERVICE OF CDA and NOR-DON COLLECTION
NETWORK INC. and WORLD WIDE FURNITURE LIMITED, a
body corporate
DEFENDANTS
________________________________________
____________________________
BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE APPEALED FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ARTHUR W.D.
PICKUP IN THE NOVA SCOTIA SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS S.H. No. 160145 ON
MARCH 10, 2005
HEARD BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ARTHUR W.D. PICKUP
PLACE HEARD: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE HEARD: March 10, 2005
DATE OF DECISION: March 29, 2005
DATE DECISION WAS RECEIVED: April 5. 2005
COUNSEL:
Dr. Phillip Ofume: Plaintiff
Mr. Hugh Wright Radio Shack InterTAN Canada
Limited
Mr. Stephen T. McGrath: Worldwide Furniture
2/7
N. Kent Clarke: Nordon
Stewart Mckelvey Stirling Scales : Associates
________________________________________
__________________________
TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant/Plaintiff Dr.
Phillip Ofume apply for leave to appeal and, if granted, will appeal
from the Decison of the Honourable Arthur W.D. Pickup in Chambers of
the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia 1815 Upper Water Street Halifax, Nova
Scotia Canada B3J 1S7, that being Decision dated the 29th day of
March, 2005 against the Application of the Appellant/Plaintiff without
income including personal social assistance or income assistance thus,
seeking that the Court strike out the imposed security for voluminous
and baseless costs of forty thousand ($40,000.00) and other order
permitting the Appellant/Plaintiff to file Notice of Trial and give
other direction as to the date of trial in the Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia docket S.H. No. 160145.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds of appeal are:
1. THAT the Presiding Honourable Justice erred by
holding that the Appellant/Plaintiff and other Welfare or Social
Assistance recipients or poor peoples in Nova Scotia and Canada in
general are like the Prime Minister of Canada, Premiers, Judges,
Ministers, well employed/paid lawyers, and other well to do people
with credit and related financial or income information that may have
bank, credit, business transaction and other salaries and profit
earning sources that may be rich in vast documentation to submit under
this condition.
2. In addition to ignoring the submission by the
Department of Community Services and Appellant/Plaintiff's Affidavit
and Application to the court on the analysis of the income of the
Appellant/Plaintiff, extensively the Presiding Honourable Justices
Nathanson and Pickup in Chambers erred by not reviewing the Social
Assistance Act CHAPTER 432 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 amended
1994-95, c. 7, ss. 105-106,150; 2000, c. 27, s. 22 and the Employment
Support and Income Assistance Act CHAPTER 27 OF THE ACTS OF 2000 to
know how these Acts affect the Appellant/Plaintiff and other clients
of this regime, particularly at issue whether the Appellant/Plaintiff
is supposed to have any other income documentation outside the
submission by the Department of Community Services and his
Affidavit/Application to the court before the Presiding Honourable
Justices Nathanson and Pickup in Chambers.
3. The Presiding Honourable Justices Nathanson and Pickup in
Chambers erred by ignoring the weight and relevance of the
Appellant/Plaintiff's Originating Notice (Action) and Statement of
Claim dated November 25, 1999; several list of documents and answers
to interrogatories; and two applications before Presiding Honourable
Justices Nathanson and Pickup all of which adequately disclosed the
length of the impecuniosities, which has downsized the
Appellant/Plaintiff beyond repair.
3/7
4. The Presiding Honourable Justices Nathanson and Pickup in
Chambers erred by comparing this case with other cases which came into
law courts without similar fact and without building adjudicative
self-esteem and self-determination to discard the personal opinions of
other Judges who maybe troubled by personal interests or standing on
the platform of different case pattern.
5. The Presiding Honourable Justices Nathanson and Pickup in
Chambers erred by failing to accept the submission of the
Appellant/Plaintiff and Department of Community Services and prefer to
accept the lies told by the Defendants. The lies told by the
Defendants are several and spreading here and there across the cause
of the action, which triggered the Appellant/Plaintiff's Originating
Notice (Action), and Statement of Claim dated November 25, 1999.
Additionally, in all the Affidavit/Application of the Appellant/
Plaintiff there were clear disclosures on the insolvent conditions
which were stated and restated from paragraph to paragraph and would
resurface in the Appellant/Plaintiff's Appeal Book in support of this
Appeal.
6. The Presiding Honourable Justices Nathanson and Pickup in
Chambers erred by failing to admit the fact that Canadian government
has assented to and ratified various domestic and international
legislative bodies including the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms; Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10, 1948)
and related legislation protecting the right of the poor people to the
law courts or justice system of Canada.
7. The Presiding Honourable Justices Nathanson and Pickup in
Chambers erred by failing to review the submissions of the
Appellant/Plaintiff particularly the submission which disclosed the
incident that after the unlawful seizure of the Appellant/Plaintiff's
home, properties, goods, cash (including the investment on the seized
properties), etc on December 17, 2003 the Canadian government stopped
the Appellant/Plaintiff's personal social/income assistance and dumped
him and his wife on condition of zero income and starvation.
8. The Presiding Honourable Justices Nathanson and Pickup in
Chambers erred by failing to understand that based on the zero income
condition or extreme poverty which the Defendants imposed on the
Appellant/Plaintiff it is therefore noteworthy that , if the
Appellant/Plaintiff gets nothing monthly then the hardship of the
Plaintiff and his wife that also suffer zero income would lead to
death and other terrible conditions very insolvent to $1.00 security
for costs, because across Canada others that get personal welfare or
social assistance of $173.00/month have,
i. "begged or shoplifted;
ii. Some people would try to be arrested so that they could go to
prison where one or two meals/day are assured;
iii. others sold drugs;
4/7
iv. other young people engaged in prostitution, or accepted unwanted
sexual advances… to buy food;
iv. some young people formed a group and went through garbage to find
something to eat;
v. others paid $10 a month to restaurant owners in exchange for
permission to eat leftovers on people's plates;
vi. no change of clothes;
vii. others suffered - no haircut, no soap, etc. …was a problem when
they tried to apply for jobs"
cited from the cases of Gosselin v. Quebec; Phillip Ofume v.
Radioshack et al and Rodriguez v. British Columbia
9. From paragraph to paragraph of the Decision of the Presiding
Honourable Justice Pickup the Appellant/Plaintiff object and oppose
the following:
a. Para 10
The fact of the case is that,
i. the action of the Defendants rendered the Plaintiff insolvent in
all facet of life stemming from destruction of his credit which of
course disrupted his credit, power to do business or engage in
self-employment and imposition of $40,000.00 is a vicious plot by the
court and the Defendant to forcibly stop this case from proceeding to
trial where this cruelty would unearthed;
ii. the Appellant/Plaintiff's Affidavit and application have
variously unfolded several evidence of the meaning of welfare or
starvation wages and the latter-day zero income which he suffers and
under the conditions of the Plaintiff which is far worst than the
recipients of Canadian welfare inside and outside Nova Scotia
particularly, effect mentioned in paragraph 8 above. The
Appellant/Plaintiff's Applications and Affidavits before Justices
Nathanson and Pickup will be attached to the Appeal Book in support of
this Appeal.
b. Para 11
i. The Presiding Honourable Justice erred by holding that the
Plaintiff who has been rendered insolvent as result of the cruel
action of the Defendants particularly under durable welfare or social
assistance and/or without employment and self-employment and without
personal social assistance would operate bank account and other
financial and expected to credit, bank and income information. This
reason why Albert Einstein said,
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but
because of those who look on and do nothing..."
5/7
ii. The Presiding Honourable Justice erred by holding that the
Plaintiff maybe matched on conditions based on the insolvency of the
clients of Welfare or Social Assistance with the case of Rankin v.
Schooner (Supreme Court of Nova Scotia) without information to
disclose whether the determination in Rankin v. Schooner is zero
income type like the condition of the Appellant or Welfare or Social
Assistance base;
iii. The Learned Judge in Chambers erred by holding that the
Plaintiff who attested to sworn Affidavit that he has no income could
manufacture and submit financial document beyond what he has in his
possession;
iv. The Learned Judge in Chambers erred by maintaining ignorance
about the cruelty and racist conduct of the Canadian credit bureau as
if the person under welfare or social assistance including the
insolvent credit created by the Defendants could enjoy credit
facilities and/or as if the person on social assistance could maintain
or operate bank account or float business organization which would
yield financial document and information. The up keeping of the
apartment room for the Appellant/Plaintiff is paid directly to the
property proprietors or landlord.
v. The Presiding Honourable Justice erred by holding and believing
that client of social assistance or welfare would pass the lengthy
condition of obtaining bank and other loan. The lengthy list of
documents, which the Appellant/Plaintiff filed in the Supreme Court of
Canada, shows the rejection by the Canadian credit company to grant
credit to the Appellant/Plaintiff.
c. Para 16
The Presiding Honourable Justice erred by holding and believing that
the impecuniosities of the Appellant/Plaintiff could be matched with
the weight of the Originating Notice (Action) and Statement of Claim
as if the Learned Judge in Chambers has the power and legal facilities
in trial court to determine the fortitude or credibility of the action
which seeks $2.5billion.
d. Para 21
The Presiding Honourable Justice erred by holding and believing that
to unsuccessfully challenge human rights violation in law courts where
government control the judiciary and judicial mechanism could be
valued as frivolous and vexatious action.
AND THAT the Appellants/Defendants will request that the
Decision appealed from be dismissed, and in its place an
Order/Decision be made allowing the Appellant/Plaintiff to file Notice
of Trial immediately for reason that justice delayed is a major opium
of justice denied.
AND THAT the Appellant/Plaintiff will request that the
Decision appealed from be dismissed because nowhere in democratic
world poverty has been obstacle in the
6/7
efforts to secure human right, justice and the rule of law but if
Canada desires to legalize poverty as blockade to the justice system
or to prevent the poor peoples in Canada from getting access to the
right to the Canadian law courts, the determination of this Appeal
would give law researchers and investigators good information base to
uncovered covered secret on Canadian human rights record.
FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant/Plaintiff will
apply to a Judge of the Court of Appeal on Thursday, the 14th day of
April, 2005, at 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as
the Appellant/Plaintiff may be heard for an Order/Decision setting the
matter down for hearing and giving directions as to what appeal books
and factums, if any, shall be filed.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant/Plaintiff
will apply to a Judge of the Court of Appeal on Thursday, the 14th
day of April, 2005, at 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon
thereafter as the Appellant/Plaintiff may be heard for an interim
Order staying the execution of the entire Decision appealed in the
nature of payment of $40,000.00 security for costs to the law courts
of Nova Scotia.
DATED at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 7th day of April, 2005.
Signed and presented to the Law Courts on April 7, 2005
and they declined to file it to enable the Defendants file motion
on April 8, 2005 to dismiss the entire action (in law courts
Chambers without legal backing to do so). Forced by petition
to file the Appeal on April 14, 2005.
___________________
Phillip Ofume, Ph.D. – Representative for the Plaintiff
8 Edwin Ford Court (Bedford)
P. O. Box 25153
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3M 4H4
Phone: (902) 832-3559
Fax: (902) 832-3558
Cell: (902) 452-5617
E-mail: phil_ofume311@hotmail.com,ngomzem313@hotmail.com
Copies to:
Mr. Hugh Wright
Counsel for Radio Shack InterTAN Canada Limited
Summit Place
1601 Lower Water Street
Post Office Box 730
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 2V1
7/7
The President and CEO
Radio Shack InterTAN Canada Limited
279 Bayview Drive, Barrie
Ontario, L4M 4W5
Mr. Stephen T. McGrath
Counsel for Worldwide Furniture
Boyne Clarke
Suite 700
Belmont House
33 Alderney Drive
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
P. O. Box 876
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada B2Y 3Z5
N. Kent Clarke
Counsel for Nordon
Blois, Nickerson & Bryson
1568 Hollis Street
P. O. Box 2147
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 3B7
Stewart Mckelvey Stirling Scales,
Counsel for Associates
Suite 900
Purdy's Wharf Tower One
1959 Upper Water Street
P. O. Box 997
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 2X2
The Presiding Honourable Justice
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
(Trial Division)
The Law Courts
1815 Upper Water Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 1S7
The Prothonotary/Registrar
The Law Courts
1815 Upper Water Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 1S7
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|
