The University of Manitoba and the Government of Manitoba, Canada
went to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench and asked the judge
to prevent a trial from taking place in the case of:
Henya Olfman vs University of Manitoba and Province of Manitoba.
The judge in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench then ordered
that NO trial should take place in Henya's case, and that the
University and the Province of Manitoba should NEVER have to
present even one word of evidence, but that they should simply
Henya appealed the judge's decision to the Court of Appeal.
Because Henya sued the University and the Government of Manitoba
she is called the Plaintiff and they are each called a Defendant.
Because Henya filed the appeal she is also called the Appellant.
The University of Manitoba and the Province of Manitoba are also
each called the Respondent. Therefore, in the documents the terms
Plaintiff or Appellant both refer to Henya and the terms Defendant
or Respondent both refer to the University of Manitoba and to the
Government of the Province of Manitoba.
The Appellant's main document is called the Appellant's Factum, in it
her lawyer, following the format set out by the Court of Appeal, sets out
a brief introduction, a brief summary of the facts, a brief summary of the
issues and a brief summary of the arguments.
For the Factum, the Court of Appeal allows only thirty pages of double
spaced size 14 font for all of those things; therefore they are very brief.
At the appeal hearing Henya's lawyer would have greatly elaborated.
However, reading the Factum will give you all of the main points on
why I believe that the Court of Queen's Bench judge was very wrong.