What I experienced in "court" (and I use that term lightly) was in my opinion, nothing short of a "Kangaroo Court" with the "deputy judge", in my opinion, having made her decision before hearing and/or allowing a single argument and/or a single question!
It was clear that the "deputy judge" felt I had "wasted" the court's time by daring to force this to trial (because I had wanted a public record of the issues and/or critical precedents to be set) rather than settling out of court and that "compensation" (i.e., money) was all that mattered - not public safety and certainly not "justice" or the making of the issues known and/or documented in a public forum. It was my definite opinion that this was the case where no one wanted to testify, and where no one other than the plaintiffs wanted a public legal record of the issues as they sought a precedent for so many others who would be facing the same issues - a precedent the court clearly blatantly refused to allow in any way!
Indeed, on the very day I summonsed former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Rick Bartolucci and a municipal employee from the building services department, defendants (designer and truss manufacturer sales rep) went from small law firm in Sudbury to GLOBAL law firm in Toronto - one of the biggest in Canada representing the insurance industry... because after all... in my opinion, the matter was not one of preventing insurance fraud (i.e., in the form of over-valued policies, homes, etc.) but rather one of preventing insurance loss... and there is a BIG difference between the two. Clearly, insurance companies faced massive losses if this was made public... and... in my opinion... given "the many players"... other "fallout" from allowing a precedent would also clearly be HUGE... and so... in my opinion... public safety took a back seat to big bucks and big interest groups!
I was so disgusted by the complete injustice I had experienced "at trial" that I sent a complaint to the court which I entitled "Cassidy's Calamity"... which in retrospect, in my opinion, would have better been called "Cassidy's Kangaroo Court Calamity" because the high powered engineer in our case had all claims against him dismissed [3 DAYS AFTER THE TRIAL WAS OVER] while the non-engineer who did not seal our truss drawings was held liable. In my opinion, this made a total joke of the "Elliot Lake public inquiry" and of the public database maintained by the Professional Engineers of Ontario pertaining to whether or not there were any judgments made in court against specific engineers. If the arguments were not heard and the trial not allowed to proceed, how could the engineer have been held accountable... and how could all claims against him in a negligence trial be "dismissed" 3 days AFTER the trial. Instead... there would be no record of "any issues" pertaining to this high powered engineer... an engineer who was not only the Chief Engineer at Alpine Systems but also an engineer who was a "technical person" for the Truss Plate Institute of Canada... where they help "set the standards for the industry"... and perhaps... for our enforcement bodies... my having been given the wrong truss by a person who helps set national standards for the industry may have proved "a little too embarassing"... with all that this would have implied!!