Thursday, April 8, 2010

Juicy! Salacious! A sign of things to come!

The Courts of Nova Scotia Decision Database publishes every decision brought out by the Courts here in Nova Scotia every day. And today, there is a particularly delectable tidbit there - one decision made on behalf of one Francesca Rogier (Claimant), and Bob Ottenbrite (Defendant) from a small claims court Decision rendered on March 24, 2010.

What can one say about it except to say that perhaps it is a sign of things to come. Once the "Brindi" case is settled for Ms. Rogier - I'd say we can expect more of these types of cases to be rolling through the court system here in Nova Scotia.

A lot of these types of "she or he done me wrong" cases - "defamed" me cases - because part of this small claims court case involved that - this judge threw that part out for Ms. Rogier, unfortunately for her, as I'm sure any more of her litigious attempts - will go in the future.

You can find the court document online in all it'w glory at - that is what the Brindi story has deteriorated to.


  1. So basically she won that one in gettng the refund on the classes. Interesting that in three months she didn't take her dog to the classes. Is that a reflection of where her priorities lie ? Perhaps the installation of a fence rather than home renovations might have spared her and Brindi this whole ordeal ?

    Odd priorities.

  2. I find it a 'FRUSTRATING EVENT' that the adjudicator ruled in the favor of the Claimant and that this case was is compared to WWII disruptions. I cannot fathom how having 'construction' work being done precludes that she could not attend classes. Was this when the chicken fencing was being erected?
    (13) is troubling in its wording " ...she had no way of anticipating that her dog would be siezed". Hmmm let's see did she comply with the muzzle order? Was Brindi again running at large?
    As pointed out she had ample time to go to classes and I think this has set a terrible prescendence - totally disagree with this ruling and not just because it is FR VS

  3. You bitches can't even rest when a court rules, can you? She sued for a refund. The court found in her favor. There is nothing "juicy" or "salacious" about it. Bob is an idiot. Now he has a judgment against him and his business. He could have just refunded the money.