ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION OF THIS JUDGMENT

2
1. The rare and exceptional circumstances which I request your reconsideration of
allowing me to take leave to appeal have been outlined in my affidavit.
2. This argument is to elaborate further on rationale documented in my Affidavit:
i. It is exceedingly rare that the court would either
with or without intent, misrepresent the facts and
the damages incurred of this case in their
summary judgment, without appreciation of the
injurious impact this would have on the Applicant
and the 4 infant children she represents, having
put this out to the public domain. See Applicants
Argument attached.
Exhibit 1 attached: Summary of the decision by
the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) justices
named, which was posted on the SCC website and
other websites.
3. Although I recognize it is not this courts policy to put all the facts and damages in a
summary judgment, the damages so sparsely stated and in such as the manner as
stated, did make it appear to the public domain that the Applicant did have a
frivolous claim whereby this claim was anything but frivolous.
4. To file a claim against the government for an adoption which transpired in 1972
seems frivolous when the alleged damages are not stated.
5. The damages for part 2 did not arise from my daughters inability to care for her
children. If this was fact then who is responsible for her not being able to care for
them.
6. The Applicant claims that she is not responsible nor are any of these defendants nor
is my daughter, being high-risk, mentally ill and addicted.
7. Therefore stating this is moot when the central issue is whether the actions of these
defendants are culpable with respect to their roles in ensuring safety and protection
for the infant children named.


ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER THE
APPLICANTS MOTION TO TAKE LEAVE TO APPEAL ..
3

8. I am requesting another review of my application To Take Leave to Appeal based on
the summary judgment posted on the Supreme Court of Canadas website which is
in now in the public domain and serves only to further discredit the validity of my
amended claim.
9. To uphold the judgment of the Saskatchewan Queens Bench judge and the appellate
judges decision without seriously weighing the merits and gravity of even counsels
and this judiciarys actions is very troubling to me.
10. The actions of certain of these defendants in all 3 parts is scandalous and should be
embarrassing if they have any healthy shame.
11. Nevertheless their actions are culpable.
12. This judgment summary posted on the website at Exhibit 1 states:
This amended claim included four infants as proposed plaintiffs,
added the Government of Canada and another individual as
proposed defendants and named five different federal and
provincial cabinet ministers as representatives of federal
and provincial governments.
13. In the bolded text above it is notable that the Saskatchewan Courts were aware that
counsel for the Saskatchewan Government took it upon himself to advise the
Applicant as a self-litigant, to remove all government defendants named in my
original claim, convincing me that I should do this as they all had immunity and that
I could only litigate the government itself.
14. Having convinced me that this was the case, when it not have been, I agreed that Mr.
Brown, counsel for the Saskatchewan Government could go ahead and file with the
Registrar a Consent Order to have them removed.
15. On the Style of Cause my amended claim I removed those public servants who were
added.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION OF THIS JUDGMENT

4
16. Instead I added the governments alone, putting the departments and the ministers
that would be deemed responsible at that time for these damages, instead of the
public servants.
17. It is worthy for the court to note that subsequent documents that were filed with the
courts clearly demonstrated that the ministers were not being sued as both the
department names and ministers as heads of those departments were removed.
18. This imperfection on the amended Style of Cause of my Statement of Claim
(Amended-Fresh Copy) is made much of when it should not be mentioned.
19. The above is inconsequential when one takes into account that the government
lawyer for the Saskatchewan Government was advising the Applicant and taking
advantage of his position and did a criminal act to advance his case and protect his
client.
20. Whether the court deems my organizing the original claim into 3 parts as 3 different
claims is also inconsequential.
21. Justice F. Kovach ordered that I could amend my claim as per the draft outline, into
3 parts.
22. I do believe that Justice F. Kovach grasped the claim for continuous injury,
recognizing this when Lyle, 10 months old, came into our care, and I discovered he
too had been abused when in the care of the department, whereby Dr. S. Leibel
attempted to implicate my husband as to the male perpetrator of this heinous crime
as documented in her medical reports on him.
23. The judgment summary states that: The hearing proceeded on March 7, 2006.is
short-sighted in the absence of the five members of counsel not filing a new
application to strike her amended claim.
24. The Applicants Memorandum and affidavit to supports her position.


ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER THE
APPLICANTS MOTION TO TAKE LEAVE TO APPEAL ..
5

25. The Registrar of the Court of Queens Bench had arranged a teleconference on
January 16, 2006 in an attempt to reword and replace the Order I had filed on
December 23, 2005.
26. I was unable to file a motion noting counsel in default as already the
communications between the Registrar Mr. Dauncey and myself had deteriorated on
the noon hour of January 16, 2006.
27. I attended the Registrars office as a follow-up to the Registrar, Mr. Daunceys
telephone call to me later that morning in which he told me that if I would not agree
to the Order that Mr. Brown had to replace mine then he would need to arrange a
teleconference between counsel and myself.
28. This is noted in my Memorandum but what is not documented is what this man said
to me which I will quote now to demonstrate the hostility that the Applicant
experienced from him.
29. I had a sheet of paper that was addressed to Justice Kovach asking him about the
legality of such a teleconference and other related questions which I would like
addressed before the teleconference proceeded.
30. I was polite and cordial and explained the above but he pushed the paper back to me
and said he would not deliver them.
31. I was more insistent explaining the importance of his doing this for me to proceed in
a teleconference whereby he became irate and yelled at me stating:
Look here Arlene, you dont call the shots around here!
To which I replied:
No I dont, you do, because youre the government and Im suing you
to which he unconvincingly replied, Were not impartial.



ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION OF THIS JUDGMENT

6

32. But he was impartial and proved this over and over again, even changing the filing date
of over 30 pages (a legal document) by defacing it, changing the stamped date from
March 12
th
, 2008 to the 6
th
.
33. These illegalities to defeat the course of justice was unnerving and stressful for the
Applicant as a lot was at stake going forward with such a claim as she did.
34. Yet, the Applicant believed then and still believes that it was necessary.
35. Protection Services promised my daughter that they would fight me in court to get all of
her children back and hopefully they have abandoned that idea for good.
36. If justice is not served for the applicant or the 4 infant children she wonders what she will
do next.
37. To date there is no closure but only more disappointment.
38. I refused initially to perfect my appeal because of such gross irregularities and illegalities
believing I would never receive fair and equitable justice and to date I have not.
39. The 3 medical reports on the 2 older infant children being submitted to this court are
important to consider as it demonstrates what they knew and the time-line in which it
took to get the children in to the Sexual Abuse Clinic and the missing or non-existent
photographs as evidence which were referred to in these reports.
40. I have taken the liberty to take this courts judgment summary and revise it with the true
facts as to how the amended claim should have been represented.
41. In my case judicial officials and judges to be in control of their own processes
misrepresented or ignored the facts which hopefully is an exceedingly rare circumstance.
42. I plead with this court on behalf of the 4 infant children named here as plaintiffs
proposed, and myself, to reconsider your judgment with all the facts and the arguments.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER THE
APPLICANTS MOTION TO TAKE LEAVE TO APPEAL ..
7

43. This case is too important to just set aside and then make me pay for all the costs.
44. To undermine it by claiming it is frivolous is not acceptable to me.
45. If the public domain becomes aware of it I believe they will agree with me.
46. The damages in Part 2 did not arise from my adopted daughter being unable to care for
her children, they arose as stated in the revised and more accurate summary of this
judgment, which is attached with my affidavit at Exhibit 2.
47. There are countless babies and children who are counting on the judicial system to act
fairly and responsibility when it comes to all of these tough issues.
48. It takes more than academia skills but more importantly it comes down to personal and
professional integrity.
49. During the first 2 years that this lawsuit was in progress my daughter lost 2 babies
while either directly in the care of or under the supposed watchful eye.
50. The Saskatchewan Government denied Coroners inquests on both of her babies to
save them embarrassment.
51. Recently the Saskatchewan Government (Protection Services) were found guilty of
homicide by a jury for not protecting a 3 year old child. The law needs to change so
the public servants who do not do what they are trained and equipped to do are
litigated and even go to jail, or a government official who wants to take the fall for
the Crown
52. Without a significant successful lawsuit theyll never do better but continue to give
their political promises and babies and children will continue to die.
53. I only attempted to add the Government of Canada and Joyce LaPrise and the oldest
infant child, Charlene Dobson, now 18 years of age because the Supreme Court of
Canada registry officer advised me to.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION OF THIS JUDGMENT

8
54. I attempted to convince her that doing this was not necessary as my argument
(Memorandum) deemed that all parties would no longer be proposed but now be added
as the Saskatchewan Government for Ms. Joyce LaPrise and counsel for the
Government of Canada had not filed new or amended an application to strike her
amended claim and had no Statement of Defence or any substantive materials to
support there not being added.
55. The original fiat on December 01, 2005 of Justice F. Kovach and the Order as per the
Order of December 23, 2005 was what was valid.
56. Regardless, my position was that all parties would be deemed added as counsel on
behalf of their clients were clearly in default on March 07, 2006.
57. I did file motions to add them ONLY on the advise of the registry officer.
58. The registry officer I spoke with last week did his best to deter me from applying for
reconsideration of this decision as in the 10 years that he has worked there he only saw
one time where the Registrar allowed a review of the judgment and he believes that
this was not even successful.
59. Furthermore, he told me that rarely have even the lawyers submitted this application.
60. He quoted to me the subrule (1).
61. He did everything in his power to advise me of the bleak outcome and assured me the
Registrar would not allow it, but I am submitting it anyway.
62. Even if my case for you to reconsider this most important lawsuit is ground breaking,
I humbly request that without fear and trepidation that you rule justly.
63. The statements made in this argument are true and are a part of my sworn affidavit.
______original signed_________________
Arlene Lowery, Applicant