General

[Frink]

Common sense would be executing him for wasting the taxpayers money. I'm sure that would deter others from filing such ridiculous lawsuits.

But maybe that's just my view

[John Satclaire]

Originally Posted by Mar

We refer to it here as the "thin skull rule" and it states that you take your person/victim as you find them. We apply it here (to my understanding) in Criminal proceedings as well, as a local Crown Attorney was discussing it in a one-punch murder case here in Ottawa.

John - I like what you are saying from a "he can make it work" point of view: The original trial judge awarded the damages, they were subsequently overturned on appeal, and upheld at the SCC. So somewhere, someone (wiser than I) saw it the way you described it; that much is for certain.

I'm actually saying it somewhat tongue in cheek, hence my request for Drum's take: this is basically what I said would happen were MySpace Mom to get sued in tort. No damages because an appellate court said the trial judge/jury were wrong on the law when they tried to expand liability.

I'm with Frink: Rule 11 sanctions should embrace summary execution.

[Mar]

Originally Posted by John Satclaire

I'm actually saying it somewhat tongue in cheek.

LOL - Sorry, sometimes I cannot tell - I sat accross from a lawyer arguing over a case in the cafeteria after being sent to 'discuss' it by the judge: I slid a photo of the sawed off newel post and ballusters that her client had sawed off in a rage after being evicted on an order from the housing tribunal, she looked at the photo and said: 'Regular wear and tear' She also said the 14 photos I provided of broken windows was also 'regular wear and tear' lol....

At that point I gave up....

And yes to execution: if you lose a case 9-0 in the SCC, off with your head!