The city is asking the court to strike several allegations made in a class action lawsuit over Prince George’s fluoridated water if not dismiss the case entirely.
In a notice of application filed Thursday, the city argues allegations of negligence, assault, nuisance, battery and breach of various statutes made by plaintiff Kevin Millership in his notice of civil claim disclose no reasonable claim.
The city also continues to argue the action in general should be dismissed because it is without merit.
It’s the second notice of application the city has filed in July. In the first application, the city contended that because Millership is proceeding without legal representation, in contravention of the Legal Professions Act, the action should be dismissed.
Only a person acting solely on his or her own behalf can pursue a legal action without a lawyer, according to the Act.
“Our courts recognize that few, if any, lay persons can adequately and capably represent the interests of a proposed class in a class proceeding,” the city’s lawyer, James Yardley goes on to say in the filing.
Reached Friday, Millership said he has a case, arguing the city breached its duty of care by failing to reduce the amount of fluoride in its water once fluoridated toothpaste was introduced in the market in the late 1960s.
Millership also repeated that he will ask the court to appoint a lawyer to argue his case when the matter is taken to a hearing on Aug. 11 at the courthouse. Both of the city’s applications will be considered at that time.
In March, Millership, a landscaper who lives in Slocan in the Kootenay region, filed a lawsuit alleging the city’s fluoridated water is the cause of the degenerative tooth disease, fluorosis.
The city is asking the court to strike several allegations made in a class action lawsuit over Prince George’s fluoridated water if not dismiss the case entirely.
In a notice of application filed Thursday, the city argues allegations of negligence, assault, nuisance, battery and breach of various statutes made by plaintiff Kevin Millership in his notice of civil claim disclose no reasonable claim.
The city also continues to argue the action in general should be dismissed because it is without merit.
It’s the second notice of application the city has filed in July. In the first application, the city contended that because Millership is proceeding without legal representation, in contravention of the Legal Professions Act, the action should be dismissed.
Only a person acting solely on his or her own behalf can pursue a legal action without a lawyer, according to the Act.
“Our courts recognize that few, if any, lay persons can adequately and capably represent the interests of a proposed class in a class proceeding,” the city’s lawyer, James Yardley goes on to say in the filing.
Reached Friday, Millership said he has a case, arguing the city breached its duty of care by failing to reduce the amount of fluoride in its water once fluoridated toothpaste was introduced in the market in the late 1960s.
Millership also repeated that he will ask the court to appoint a lawyer to argue his case when the matter is taken to a hearing on Aug. 11 at the courthouse. Both of the city’s applications will be considered at that time.
In March, Millership, a landscaper who lives in Slocan in the Kootenay region, filed a lawsuit alleging the city’s fluoridated water is the cause of the degenerative tooth disease, fluorosis.
– See more at: http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local/city-adds-to-arguments-against-fluoride-lawsuit-1.1273441#sthash.CmonSpgx.dpuf
The city is asking the court to strike several allegations made in a class action lawsuit over Prince George’s fluoridated water if not dismiss the case entirely.
In a notice of application filed Thursday, the city argues allegations of negligence, assault, nuisance, battery and breach of various statutes made by plaintiff Kevin Millership in his notice of civil claim disclose no reasonable claim.
The city also continues to argue the action in general should be dismissed because it is without merit.
It’s the second notice of application the city has filed in July. In the first application, the city contended that because Millership is proceeding without legal representation, in contravention of the Legal Professions Act, the action should be dismissed.
Only a person acting solely on his or her own behalf can pursue a legal action without a lawyer, according to the Act.
“Our courts recognize that few, if any, lay persons can adequately and capably represent the interests of a proposed class in a class proceeding,” the city’s lawyer, James Yardley goes on to say in the filing.
Reached Friday, Millership said he has a case, arguing the city breached its duty of care by failing to reduce the amount of fluoride in its water once fluoridated toothpaste was introduced in the market in the late 1960s.
Millership also repeated that he will ask the court to appoint a lawyer to argue his case when the matter is taken to a hearing on Aug. 11 at the courthouse. Both of the city’s applications will be considered at that time.
In March, Millership, a landscaper who lives in Slocan in the Kootenay region, filed a lawsuit alleging the city’s fluoridated water is the cause of the degenerative tooth disease, fluorosis.
– See more at: http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local/city-adds-to-arguments-against-fluoride-lawsuit-1.1273441#sthash.CmonSpgx.dpuf
Print 
PDF