Small claims Court questions?

[wazup]

I'm taking a business to small claims court and he's bringing 5 witnesses and I plan to put them on the stand, a few questions?

1. Can I ask that the owner be removed while I am questioning the others so he cannot hear their answers?

2. 2 of his witnesses are not relevant to the case, he thinks there is power in numbers. WHAT if I can prove they had no reason to be there?

3. I have a feeling he intimidated them into being witnesses, is there laws against that if I can prove it or have I been watching too much matlock.

4. I have no contract but I have a couple taped conversations, are they ever allowed as evidence if I file a motion for them?

 

[explorerzip]

Do yourself a favor and seek professional legal advice and pay for it. Free advice is often bad advice especially since we will never know even 0.0001% of what happened between you and the other party.

 

[Gibby]

I have some info for #4. In Canada we have what is called one party consent. This means you can give permission to yourself to record another person you are chatting with using a hidden device. Perfectly legal.
If you put a device to record a telephone conversation between two people and you are not one of those people, then this is illegal.
If you put a device in a office and start recording and you are not in that office when recording, this is also illegal.
How was your recording made?

 

[wazup]

I know taped convos are legal but I don't think it is admissible in court. And for those that say to seek legal advice, gee thanks, never thought of that, sarcasm, if anyone wants to answer, feel free, if not, feel free.

Recording was me recording our conversation on my home phone, 2 people.

 

[dirkd101]

OK...no legal representation is going to cost you on this little excursion of yours and you could be picking up the whole tab for this as well...


Now...more advice about your 4 questions;

#1...NO

He has a right to be there, as does his legal representative, while you question these witnesses.

#2...If you think you can prove this...go right ahead.

But your quest to prove witnesses don't belong may not help your case, especially if you fail in this attempt.

Best to stick to the relevancy of your case and not worry about his witnesses. If your case is strong, the bearing of his witnesses will prove themselves out.

#3...Ummm..Ok...And yes, too much Matlock.

Once again, the relevancy of his witnesses will come out in court. Whether they lie or not, or if the were coerced or not needs to be proven with evidence, not because "you feel" it.

#4...Yes

Taped conversations may be allowed, but don't count on this alone to win your case.

Remember, small claims court isn't like criminal court.

Here's a good lesson from http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=evidence.small_claims_court_law_ontario;


"Evidence" is the raw material which an judge or adjudicator uses to reach "findings of fact". The findings of fact that the evidence generates are - for all their flaws - "what happened" for all intents and purposes of the legal proceeding. If you do not agree with the fact-finding that has been made (or even if you KNOW it to be wrong), recognize that the rules of evidence are the best rules courts know of to reach the necessary goal of fact-finding.

Remember as well that the "standard of proof" for fact-finding in civil legal proceedings - as opposed to criminal proceedings - is "balance of probabilities". So if the court hears directly contradictory evidence from two different witnesses, it will look to surrounding circumstances, other evidence of the witnesses, demeanour, documents - whatever is available - to see if there is some reason to prefer the evidence of one witness over the other. The evidence that they believe MORE - even if it is only slightly more - will be the evidence they hold as true - or to be a "fact".

This same standard of proof, sometimes referred to as "more likely that not" is also what the court will apply in deciding the outcome of the entire case. Recognize that is not a standard of certainty - it is just the best practical standard that can be applied and still resolve civil disputes. Another way of saying this is that all other systems are worse than this one.

When assessing a case you should try to distinguish between 'facts' and 'law', as lawyers commonly do. "Facts" are the raw material that are then inserted into legal rules to determine an outcome. If it helps, think of the relationship between facts and law as a bit like algebra, with facts being the variables and law the "if, then" equations that the facts are fed into.

 

[colt]

Re #1. A witness exclusion order is standard. So the witnesses will not be allowed to be in the Court until they have testified. Dirkd101 is right that the defendant will not be ordered out of the courtroom. However, the deputy judge will expect the owner to give his evidence first, without the witnesses present. Then the witnesses will come in and give their evidence, without knowing what the owner said. Once the owner's evidence is in he will not be allowed to take the stand again and adjust his evidence to support the evidence of the witnesses. Technically a defendant has the right to present their case in the order they choose but the deputy judge should caution them that if they do not put their own evidence in first the deputy judge may well choose to give it no weight on the basis it was influenced by previous testimony. Most judges/deputy judges make it very clear that they expect the parties to put their evidence in first so there is no suggestion that a witness' evidence is being tailored to fit what has already gone into evidence.

 

[buttercup]

Does anyone here know the answer to this:

When you're giving your evidence, of course you're not allowed to read it. If you had a lawyer, the lawyer (having prepared his questions beforehand) would take you through your evidence, referring to his notes, making sure he and you have covered everything. If you had to present your evidence in the best possible light, without assistance, must be much more difficult if you have to remember all the points you want to make.

When you represent yourself, still you cannot read your evidence. But now you're on your own. Nobody to take you through your story logically. Nobody to make sure you cover everything. This puts the self-representer at a disadvantage.

In SC court, could you prepare your (non-leading) points-you-wanna-make questions beforehand, and then e.g get a friend to read them to you? What if you don't have any friends? Could you hand your list of questions to the judge, and get him to read them to you?

If not, how do self-representers manage to remember everything they need to put into their evidence?

 

[TeasePlease]

The main purpose of small claims court is access to justice. The parties are not expected to abide strictly by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge will give the parties much leeway to ask questions. Do what you feel is necessary and appropriate. The judge will tell you if you're offside. Just be careful to pay close attention to his/her instructions and don't keep making the same mistakes.

A trial is also not a memory test. You're allow to have aide memoires. You can have notes, but keep in mind that 1. you risk sounding over-rehearsed and therefore false, and 2. your notes may be examined by the opposing party.

 

[dirkd101]

Is it over this matter wazup?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?567481-Small-claims-court-question&highlight=truck+rental

 

[wazup]

Is it over this matter wazup?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?567481-Small-claims-court-question&highlight=truck+rental

Yes.

 

[buttercup]

The main purpose of small claims court is access to justice. The parties are not expected to abide strictly by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge will give the parties much leeway to ask questions. Do what you feel is necessary and appropriate. The judge will tell you if you're offside. Just be careful to pay close attention to his/her instructions and don't keep making the same mistakes.
A trial is also not a memory test. You're allow to have aide memoires. You can have notes, but keep in mind that 1. you risk sounding over-rehearsed and therefore false, and 2. your notes may be examined by the opposing party.

But witnesses are not allowed to look at their prepared notes in the regular senior courts. Do you know what is the legally-approved way for a self-representer to present his own evidence, as a witness, in senior court?

 

[TeasePlease]

But witnesses are not allowed to look at their prepared notes in the regular senior courts. Do you know what is the legally-approved way for a self-representer to present his own evidence, as a witness, in senior court?

Actually, that's not entirely true. Expert witnesses are permitted to testify with their written reports as aide memoires.

While I'm not aware of instances of fact witnesses testifying from prepared notes, documentary evidence is fair game and can be used to the same effect. e.g., testifying with reference to emails or contracts.

Also, if a party is self-represented, there would be nothing wrong with bringing a list of well-crafted questions that provide a framework for the intended evidence.

Lastly, if a party is self represented, the line between evidence and argument is easily blurred. I've seen trained lawyers do it. With all the latitude given in small claims court, you can get away with a lot of shit.