Skip to main content


Showing posts from September, 2016

ANGEL RONAN(TM) and ANGEL RONEN(TM) are trade names belonging to Warren Augustine Lyon.

Paypal Credit Card Payment-Card info stays with Paypal.


Angel Ronan SPQL LEx Scripta Service. Call today.

Angel Ronan(TM) Lex Scripta Service: Call Warren Today at 647-701-9478

Angel Ronan(TM)  Lex Scripta Service: Call Warren Today at 647-701-9478
Solving Problems with Quality and Respect.

Contact: Mailing address:1 Yonge Street, Ste. 1801 To., Ont. email:


Email *

Message *

Did you know Diplock once said "..It is written; thou shalt not break any rules of professional practice or any rules of administrative law or any rules concerning due process as a lawyer in relating to or communicating to another lawyer in any forum, court or tribunal. It would be the unraveling of Judaic law for which everyone has fought and died several times in the 20th Century"?

Is there a duty of care?

1. Is there a Duty of care?
2. Is there a Breach of that duty?
3.Is there harm suffered as a result of that breach?
4. Is there an existing line of cases to be applied in the fact scenario such as Dorset Yacht?
5. If yes, then apply the jurisprudence for that particular scenario and tortious injury?
6. If there are no line of cases, then ask whether there is sufficient proximity between the alleged             victim and alleged tort feasor to apply a duty of care.  Ask using an objective test, whether the             reasonable man should have had the alleged victim in his contemplation.  
7. If the alleged tort feasor should have had the alleged victim in his contemplation according to the reasonable man test,  there is sufficient proximity.
8. With sufficient proximity, then you can say there is a duty of care and then apply base principles to  the facts as to whether the duty was breached and harm was suffered.
9. Finally, consider whether there are any policy gr…

So, you could bring a motion on the basis that there is no case to answer.

So, you could bring a motion on the basis that there is no case to answer in a personal injury case where the facts, according to the pleadings, do not disclose a scenario for which any defendant can be called to answer as a tort feasor.  The plaintiff is entirely responsible for breaking laws that created the scenario that exposed and also led to her injury contrary to the law. She is not a tortious victim.
With exerpts from the Internet Law Book. Re-Direct Examinations ______________________________________
Re-examination will not take place if a motion for non-suit is brought by the defendant's counsel following cross-examination and the motion is allowed. The motion will brought by the Defendant usually if the Prosecutor failed to identify the accused during Examination in Chief as required.   The judge will always allow the motion if the Prosecutor has failed to deny the accused in court. Any attempts to proceed with re-examination to try and identify the accused during re-examination after the court was made aware of the motion is a nullity and an abuse of process.  The Defence has already brought his motion and does not consent to any re-examination if it is only to attempt to flout or cure with new information what is the subject of the motion as if it is a pac man game and you cannot accept the game is over. The court has rules like a computer game and also procedures where …