Form 1
| |
|(Disponible en français) |
| |
|hrto.ca |
| |
|How to Apply to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario |
| |
|Before you start: |
|Read the questions and answers below to find out if the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the Tribunal) has the ability to deal with your Application. |
|Download and read the Applicant’s Guide from the Tribunal's website hrto.ca. If you need a paper copy or accessible format, contact us: |
|Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Phone: 416-326-1312 Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322 |
|655 Bay Street, 14th floor Fax: 416-326-2199 Toll-free: 1-866-355-6099 |
|Toronto, Ontario TTY: 416-326-2027 Toll-free: 1-866-607-1240 |
|M7A 2A3 Email: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca |
|Website: hrto.ca |
| |
|The Tribunal has other guides and practice directions to help all parties to an application understand the process. Download copies from the Tribunal’s |
|website at hrto.ca or contact us. |
| |
|Complete each section of this Application form. As you fill out each section, refer to the instructions in the Applicant's Guide. |
|Getting help with your Application |
|For free legal assistance with the application process, contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. Website: hrlsc.on.ca. Mail: 180 Dundas Street West,|
|8th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M7A 0A1. Phone: 416-597-4900. Toll-free: 1-866-625-5179. Fax: 416-597-4901; Toll-free fax: 1-866-625-5180. TTY: 416-597-4903. |
|Toll-free TTY: 1-866-612-8627. |
| |
|Questions About Filing an Application with the Tribunal |
| |
|The following questions and answers are provided for general information. They should not be taken as legal advice or a determination of how the Tribunal will |
|decide any particular application. For legal advice and assistance, contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. |
| |
|Who can file an Application with the Tribunal? |
|You can file an application if you believe you experienced discrimination or harassment in one of the five areas covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code (the |
|Code). The Code lists a number of grounds for claiming discrimination and harassment. To find out if you have grounds for your complaint under the Code, read |
|the Applicant's Guide. |
| |
|What is the time limit for filing an Application? |
|You can file an application up to one year after you experienced discrimination or harassment. If there was a series of events, you can file up to one year |
|after the last event. In some cases, the Tribunal may extend this time. |
| |
|The discrimination happened outside Ontario. Can I still apply? |
|In most cases, no. To find out about exceptions, contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. |
| |
| |
|My complaint is against a federal government department, agency, or a federally regulated business or service. Should I apply to the Tribunal? |
|No. Contact the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Website: chrc-ccdp.ca. Mail: 344 Slater Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1. Phone: (613) |
|995-1151. Toll-free: 1-888-214-1090. TTY: 1-888-643-3304. Fax: (613) 996-9661. |
| |
|Should I use this form if I am applying because a previous human rights settlement has been breached? |
|No. If you settled a previous human rights application and the respondent did not comply with the settlement agreement, use the special application called |
|Application for Contravention of Settlement, Form 18. For a paper copy, contact the Tribunal. |
| |
|Can I file this Application if I am dealing with or have dealt with these facts or issues in another proceeding? |
|The Code has special rules depending on what the other proceeding is and at what stage the other proceeding is at. Read the Applicant's Guide and get legal |
|advice, if: |
|You are currently involved in, or were previously involved in a civil court action based on the same facts and asked for a human rights remedy; or |
|You have ever filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same subject matter; or |
|You are currently involved in, or were previously involved in another proceeding (for example, union grievance) based on the same facts. |
| |
|How do I file an application on behalf of another person? |
|To file an application on behalf of another person, you must complete and file this Application (Form 1) as well one other form: |
|Form 4A if you are filing on behalf of a minor; |
|Form 4B if you are filing on behalf of a mentally incompetent person; or |
|Form 27 for all other situations where you are filing on behalf of someone else. |
| |
|When completing this Application, you must check the box in Question 1 that indicates you are filing an Application on Behalf of Another Person (. You must |
|provide your name and contact information in Question 1. |
| |
|The completed Form 4A, Form 4B or Form 27 can be attached to your Application or sent to the Tribunal separately by mail, fax or email. If sent separately, it |
|must be sent within five (5) days following the filing of your Application. |
| |
|For more information on applications on behalf of another person, please see the following Practice Directions: |
|Practice Direction on filing application on behalf of another person under section 34(5) of the Code |
|Practice Direction on Litigation Guardians before Social Justice Tribunals Ontario |
| |
|Note: If you are a lawyer or other legal representative providing representation to the applicant, do not use the Form 4A, Form 4B or Form 27. Your details |
|should be provided in section 3, “Representative Contact Information,” of this Application (Form 1). |
| |
|Learn more |
|To find out more about human rights in Ontario, visit ohrc.on.ca or phone 1-800-387-9080. |
|Instructions: Complete all parts of this form, using the Applicant’s Guide for help. If your form is not complete, the Tribunal may return it to you. This will|
|slow down the application process. If you are filling this out on paper, please print and ensure that the information you include is legible. At the end of |
|this form, you will be required to read and agree to a declaration that the information in your Application is complete and accurate (if you are a lawyer or |
|legal representative assisting an applicant with this Form 1, please see the Practice Direction On Electronic Filing of Applications and Responses By Licensed |
|Representatives). |
|Contact Information for the Applicant |
| |
|1. Personal Contact Information | |
| Check here if you are filing an Application on Behalf of Another Person. Note: you must also complete a Form 4A, Form 4B or Form 27, whichever is applicable,|
|see Instructions above. |
|Please give us your personal contact information. This information will be shared with the respondent(s) and all correspondence from the Tribunal and the |
|respondent(s) will go here. If you do not want the Tribunal to share this contact information, you should complete section 2, below, but you must still provide|
|your personal contact information for the Tribunal’s records. |
| | | |
|First (or Given) Name |Middle Name |Last (or Family) Name |
|Wayne | |Ferron |
| | | |
|Street # |Street Name |Apt/Suite |
|525 |BLOOR ST - HOMELESS VAGABOND |BED# 3 - HOMELESS SHELTER |
| | | | |
|City/Town |Province |Postal Code |Email |
|TORONTO |ONTARIO |NA |leegalpoet@ |
| | | | |
|Daytime Phone |Cell Phone |Fax |TTY |
|NA |NA |NA |NA |
| | |
|What is the best way to send information to you? |Mail Email Fax |
|(if you check email, you are consenting to the delivery of documents by email) | |
| |
|2. Alternative Contact Information | |
| |
|If you want the Tribunal and respondent(s) to contact you through another person, you must provide contact information for that person below. You should fill |
|this section out if it will be difficult for the Tribunal to reach you at the address above or if you want the Tribunal to keep your contact information |
|private. If you complete this section, all of your correspondence will be sent to you in care of your Alternative Contact. |
|First (or Given) Name |Middle Name |Last (or Family) Name |
| | | |
|Street # |Street Name |Apt/Suite |
| | | |
|City/Town |Province |Postal Code |Email |
| | | | |
|Daytime Phone |Cell Phone |Fax |TTY |
| | | | |
| | |
|What is the best way to send information to you at your alternative contact? |Mail Email Fax |
|(if you check email, you are consenting to the delivery of documents by email) | |
| |
|3. Representative Contact Information | |
|Complete this Section only if you are authorizing a lawyer or other Representative to act for you. |
|I authorize the organization and/or person named below to represent me. |
|My representative is: |
|Lawyer |
|LSUC# |
| |
| |
|Paralegal |
|LSUC# |
| |
| |
|Legal Support Centre |
| |
| |
|Other- please specify the Nature of Exemption from licensing requirements in the text below: |
| |
|Nature of Exemption (e.g. family member, unpaid friend) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|First (or Given) Name |Last (or Family) Name |
|Wayne |Ferron |
| |
|Organization (if applicable): |
|NA |
|Street # |Street Name |Apt/Suite |
|NA |HOMELESS |NA |
|City/Town |Province |Postal Code |Email |
|TORONTO |ONTARIO | |leegalpoet@ |
|Daytime Phone |Cell Phone |Fax |TTY |
|na |na |NA | |
|LSUC No. (if applicable): | |
| | |
|What is the best way to send information to your representative? |Mail Email Fax |
|(if you check email, you are consenting to the delivery of documents by email) | |
| |
|4. Respondent Contact Information |
| |
|Provide the name and contact information for any respondent against which you are filing this Application. If there is more than one respondent and you are |
|filling this out on paper, please attach a separate sheet of paper with the information for each respondent. Number each page. |
| |
|a) Organization Respondent |
| |
|Name the organization you believe discriminated against you. You should also indicate the contact person from the organization to whom correspondence can be |
|addressed. |
|Full Name of Organization |THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEUR -and- |
| |THE HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSEN -and- |
| |TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD -and- |
| |MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL -and- |
| |BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP -and- |
| |PEEL POLICE SERVICE BOARD -and- |
| |KATHERINE KIRKPATRICK -and- |
| |POLICE CHIEFT BILL BLAIR -and- |
| |DEBORAH KRICK |
|Name of Contact Person from the Organization |
|First (or Given) Name |Last (or Family) Name |Title |
|Madeleine |Meilleur |Attorney General of Ontario |
|Street # |Street Name |Apt/Suite |
| | | |
|City/Town |Province |Postal Code |Email |
| | | | |
|Daytime Phone |Cell Phone |Fax |TTY |
| | | | |
| |
|b) Individual Respondent |
|If you believe that an individual should be a respondent, provide their name and contact information below. Prior to naming individuals, you should consult the|
|Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Naming Respondents available on our website at hrto.ca. |
|First (or Given) Name |Middle |Last (or Family Name) |
| | | |
|Street # |Street Name |Apt/Suite |
| | | |
|City/Town |Province |Postal Code |Email |
| | | | |
|Daytime Phone |Cell Phone |Fax |TTY |
| | | | |
|Grounds of Discrimination |
| |
|5. Grounds Claimed | |
|The Ontario Human Rights Code lists the following grounds of discrimination or harassment. Put an "X" in the box beside each ground that you believe applies to|
|your Application. You can check more than one box. |
|Race |
|Colour |
|Ancestry |
|Place of Origin |
|Citizenship |
|Ethnic Origin |
|Disability |
|Creed |
|Sex, Including Sexual Harassment and Pregnancy |
|Sexual Solicitation or Advances |
|Gender Identity |
|Gender Expression |
|Sexual Orientation |
|Family Status |
|Marital Status |
|Age |
|Receipt of public assistance (Note: This ground applies only to claims about Housing) |
|Record of offences (Note: This ground applies only to claims about Employment) |
|Association with a Person Identified by a Ground Listed Above |
|Reprisal or Threat of Reprisal |
|Areas of Discrimination under the Code |
| |
|6. Area of Alleged Discrimination | |
|The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in five areas. Put an "X" in the box beside the area where you believe you have experienced |
|discrimination (choose one). See Applicant’s Guide for more information on each area. |
|Employment (Complete and attach Form 1-A) |
|Housing (Complete and attach Form 1-B) |
|Goods, Services, and Facilities (Complete and attach Form 1-C) |
|Contracts (Complete and attached Form 1-D) |
|Membership in a Vocational Association (Complete and attach Form 1-E) |
|Does your Application involve discrimination in any other areas? | Yes No |
|Put an "X" in the box beside any other areas where you believe you experienced discrimination: |
|Employment Housing Goods, Services, and Facilities Contracts Membership in a Vocational Association |
| |
|Facts that Support Your Application |
| |
|7. Location and Date (See Applicant’s Guide) | |
|Please answer the following questions. |
|a) Did these events happen in Ontario? | Yes No |
|b) In what city/town? |TORONTO |
|c) What was the date of the last event? (dd/mm/yyyy) |August 4th, 2015, BUT THE MATTER IS ON GOING, just today at about 7:00 am had |
| |to deal with inhaling second hand smoke while waiting to use a drop in centere |
| |service. Somoking within 9 meteters of building entrence door and besider |
| |cunsumer gas regulatorr and pipe work. |
|d) If you are applying more than one year from the last event, please explain why: |
| |
| |
|8. What Happened | |
| |
|In the space below, describe each event you believe was discriminatory. Add more pages if you need to. Number each page. |
| |
|For each event, be sure to say: |
|· What happened |
|· Who was involved |
|· When it happened (day, month, year) |
|· Where it happened |
| |
|Be as complete and accurate as possible. Be sure to give details of every incident of discrimination you want to raise in the hearing. |
|SUMMARY OF FACTS: |
|[1] On July 10th, 2015 at or about 7:00 am had to suffer with inhaling second hand smoke while waiting to use a drop in centere services. That is somoking |
|within 9 meters of building entrence door, and besider cunsumer gas regulator and pipe work which is contary to city bylaw, which state as fellows; |
|Chapter 9 of the Toronto Municipal Code |
|Human |
|§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions. |
|A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building. |
|§ 709-6. Offences. |
|Any person who contravenes any provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence.6 |
| |
|[2] On July 10th, 2015 at or about 7:00 pm, the Applicant was discharged from ST SIMON’S HOMELESS SHELTER and placed in another HOMELESS SHELTER without the |
|Applicant’s knowledge or due permission. The Applicant has informed the Courts, and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION that he will be using the following |
|address: |
| |
|HOMELESS SHELTER |
|ST. SIMON’S SHELTER |
|BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East, |
|Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1 |
| |
|[3] TAKE NOTICE: Pursuant to the Honorable Vice Chair David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO|
|1462 infers or demonstrates in a practical way, that HRTO has jurisdiction over both HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I, and HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I. |
| |
| |
|[4] The Applicant have notifying THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL and the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION of the following to no avail; |
| |
|“Dear Honourable Madeleine Meillerur; |
|With an open and righteous mind I disclose some problems rotting away and festering within your Ministry. |
| |
|TAKE NOTICE: THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER BEFORE USE IS FAIRNESS, EQUITY, LEGAL BULLYING, HUMAN RIGHTS, LEGAL RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE. |
| |
|The State has breached its confidence in its relationship of trust with my person, a member of the collective byway of the tortious actions of its relevant |
|institutions, relevant policies the said institutions, unspoken political agendas, agents and subcontractors. |
| |
|This has not only damaged me and my children's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness; but also the delicate fabric of our beloved democratic |
|society. This actionable wrong destroys the bonds of trust which is an essential element in the building of a successful society. |
| |
|Moreover, these tortious actions unravels the threads of trust which binds and holds the collective together and ensure its overall well being and social |
|health. Herein is the sinful actionable wrong against my person and the Canadian community. |
| |
|With all of this collateral argument going on, let me remind the the honourable Madeleine Meilleur, that the essence of why we are all here in this country and|
|this province of Ontario; and in so doing, recall the society we are suppose to be living in. |
| |
|• The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the|
|human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions; |
|• |
|• Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law; |
|• |
|• And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall |
|reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada: |
| |
|The Province of Quebec Preamble R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms asserts; |
| |
|“WHEREAS every human being possesses intrinsic rights and freedoms designed to ensure his protection and development; |
| |
|Whereas all human beings are equal in worth and dignity, and are entitled to equal protection of the law; |
| |
|Whereas respect for the dignity of human beings, equality of women and men, and recognition of their rights and freedoms constitute the foundation of justice, |
|liberty and peace; |
| |
|Whereas the rights and freedoms of the human person are inseparable from the rights and freedoms of others and from the common well-being; |
| |
|Whereas it is expedient to solemnly declare the fundamental human rights and freedoms in a Charter, so that they may be guaranteed by the collective will and |
|better protected against any violation;” |
|(R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of human rights and freedoms, Preamble.) {…}” |
| |
| |
|[5] The Applicant has notifyed THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL and the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION of the following to no avail; |
|“ATTENTION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, |
|MR. JOHN GERRETSEN: |
|“Do you know the way we all feel when we are in a relation of trust, and confidence(spouse, lover, mate, etc.); when our partner in a fiduciary relationship |
|violate the trust which binds the members of the same trust relationship( ex. Taking another lover). |
|Are your familiar with the deep heart wrenching feeling of how your intestines, and organs feel like they have been tied up in a knock, and being squeeze in |
|the palm of a hand. |
|This is how I feel when I realized my beloved Government's inability to protect my family from the improper effort of it's agents to profile me as a crack |
|addict, as violent, as a drunkard, as mentally diseased, and as a Criminal WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING, WITHOUT CONVINCING EVIDENCE |
|BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE MY CASE AND GIVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL BEFORE MY FREEDOM RIGHTS |
|ARE TAKEN AWAY OR STOLEN. Malicious prosecution based on criminal actions will never be accepted in civilized democratic systems of governance. |
| |
|You have no idea of the up-evil the above has caused in my life. But what pains most is the damage to my beloved four baby girls (my lovely ladies); their full|
|potential stolen, their opportunity burgled, and their innocent expectation snuffed out before the maximum illumination of their magnificence could be reached.|
|As an example, my first born beloved child needed to have her braces removed or fixed; because it was in-bedding itself in her gums. The “civil death” affected|
|upon my person totally destroyed my ability to obtain funds byway of work to take care of my responsibility(take care of my babies). It took me awhile to find |
|a kind enough dentist to remove the said braces. Dentist as a rule are aversive to touching another dentist work. |
| |
|I regretfully inform you that I am unable to serve you the motion record for the constitutional application. I do not have the money to produce extra copies; |
|in any event, the presiding Justice has stated on more than one occasion that you will not be participating in the matter before us on more than one occasion. |
|“HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SAME HONOURABLE JUDGE WAS INFORMED OF YOUR INTENSION IN REGARDS TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN CR-12-70000061, BUT I WAS NOT FORMALLY |
|INFORMED OF YOUR INTENSIONS. HOW? |
| |
|You cannot use my poverty as a legal weapon to defeat my claim, or bring to pass your desired outcome. The beloved Canadian people would like to hear the |
|answers to my questions in the proper platform or in a court of competent jurisdiction. Please adjourned the matter and give me enough time to serve you your |
|documents in accordance with PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, if you desire time, and seek to know truth. |
| |
|...Furthermore, it is an indication of the depth of humanity, intelligence, and quality of ones civilization and civilize practice of law when ones have the |
|common human decency or ethics to properly respond to the deep convictions of ones beloved subjects or a fellow member of the Canadian collective, whom are |
|concern about the state of our society and its continual evolution to the betterment of all in the collective. The social fabric should not be purposefully |
|burned by those who act for we the people. |
| |
|The so called label of entity, does-not excuse the same entity from possessing integrity, human decency, or having concerns, and care for the well being of |
|members of society, and society at large; on a large enough scale to invoke an intelligent response to proceed to restitution, resolution, or adversarial |
|contentious argument of humane parties at trial, for the determination of a plea of a just cause. We all know that none response is looked upon as an admission|
|of guilt by the law of this land and by the courts of civilize nations. |
|Moreover, the State's Public Institutions and their corresponding policies in addition to Tribunals, all respond to none response as a silent statement or |
|admission of guilt. It is a guilty mind(men rea)! Section 15 of our beloved Charter insures equity in law and fairness in the application of law. |
|{…} |
|“A person’s words carries their bonds |
|and the precious treasures of intentions |
|they display proudly around their neck. |
|The quality and integrity of a person |
|depends on one fulfilling ones promises. |
|Ones honour is encapsulated by his words. |
| |
|A person in high public office |
|carries the reputation of the said office. |
|The said public office builds and binds public confidence |
|in the integrity and equity of the implementation of the Criminal Code." |
|By Wayne Ferron...ALL RIGHTS RESERVED |
| |
|The state has repetitively refused to provide me with a lawyer to prove my innocence; however, the State has been vigorously defending vicariously Public |
|Agents whom has committed fraud, assault, and perjury. The unmentioned individuals seem to be above the RULE OF LAW, and the State has no problem defending |
|them vigorously. Since the Provincial and Federal Government has shielded the individuals in my private prosecution allegation; I respectfully request the |
|HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO, and HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA, to please insure that it's employee do what is right, |
|what is honourable, and show some integrity in the prompt return of all the property stolen from my person. The following are my property which needs to be |
|returned: |
| |
|To Ms. Joanne Stuart or the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE please return forthwith, my FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST Ms. Joanne Stuart stole and never return to my |
|person. I am exercising my colour of right over the said legal instrument. |
| |
|To the SALVATION ARMY |
|and |
|To the REGION OF PEEL or REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER |
|please return forthwith my $5 0r $10 check made out to the Minister of Finance and my $10(11 466 978 57 ) money ORDER issued by CANADA POST to the SALVATION |
|ARMY for the SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO WORKS. |
|CANADA POST MONEY ORDER INFORMATION: |
|SERIAL NO.: 11 466 978 57 |
|SECURITY CODE: 679 965 794 |
|OFFICE NO.: 102 205 |
| |
|To PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton, |
|ON, L6V 3W6 |
|(905) 453-3311 |
|RE: I respectfully request byway of COLOUR OF RIGHT, the prompt return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated or whatever the case my be, by your |
|subordinate Officer Pekeski(2261) whom disclosed to my person the false identity of Officer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing |
|his identity as Officer Perkins(2261). |
| |
|TAKE NOTICE: OFFICER #2261 Pekeski, M. (12B), having seized my personal belongings and exerting carriage and control over the same seized property to which I |
|had colour of right, in addition to the same Officer continuing to effect his authority, care, guardianship or jurisdiction over my property, became in essence|
|the BAILIFF of my seized personal property, for example “the finder of mislaid property becomes a bailee thereof. Please, return forthwith my property which |
|has been stolen!! For we are all equally subjected to the fair application and enforcement of the law. We AUGHT TO respect the RULE OF LAW. |
| |
|To the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL EAST REGION)-REGISTRAR and Your Worship Justice Maklif, please return promptly the evidence(AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON |
|C51190) I disclosed to Your Worship Justice Malik for my filed information against Geoffery Farday; I have exercised my colour of right in requesting the same |
|Affidavit evidence to no avail. |
| |
|To the duty counsel(Rene Rupert) of ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL EAST REGION)Renee Rupert; thank you for the return of my court material, which you |
|promised to return to my person which I sent you via express mail to participate on my behalf in my matter(CR-126 et al); Even though it took you about one |
|year to return my legal documents after asserting that DUTY COUNSELS are bared from assisting in SUPERIOR COURT matters. |
| |
|“Contrary to popular belief I am a father who can be |
|no less than a beloved mother. I have four |
|beloved girl children.” |
|By Wayne Ferron...ALL RIGHTS RESERVED |
| |
|[6] I have notified the courts and HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL of the following; |
| |
|MS. KRICK PREJUDICING PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS: |
|On the 13th day of August 2013 Ms. Krick for the Crown attempted on at least one occasion to defeat the proper course of justice with the fraudulently procured|
|“VEXATIOUS LITTIGAN” court order; the aforementioned court order was released on July 8, 2013 by the honourable Justice I. Andre J. after being mislead by Ms. |
|Kathryn Kirkpatrick (BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP) whom is counsel for CROWN AGENTS (YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES ET AL). Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (BLG File |
|No.:016995.000102) mislead the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE and a Judicial Officer acting in the Capacity of a Judge, in order to pervert the course of justice |
|with the intent of perverting the course of justice. |
| |
|[7] The Applicant has notified HRTO, and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE/ SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL since January to no avail the following; |
| |
|“URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION |
|I came to Toronto to attend an Hospital to obtain necessary medication for health according to doctors best medical practice, only to discover that I don't |
|qualify for a drug card from social services without the proper identification. |
| |
|Recall that Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my Identification and fail to return it after I exercised my colour of right on more than one occasions. |
|The courts has refused to enforce the RULE OF LAW, at the minimum-directing Officer Pekeski(2261) to returned my belongings and have signed off on receiving |
|all out standing pending personal belongings. |
|BUT i AM NOT A HUMAN BEING, deserving of equal services even if it means damaging my health or possible killing(social murder) me by withholding services from |
|a Afro Canadian. |
|I require at the minimum an interim order for a drug card or the IMMEDIATE return of my identification from PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. |
| |
|please EMAIL ME TO PICK WITH THE ORDER OR HAVE ME PICK IT UP AT YOUR OFFICE. i AM IN TORONTO, STAY AT OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS! I CAME FOR NECESSARY REQUIRED |
|MEDICAL SERVICES |
| |
|FACT-PURMUTATION: |
|1. Justice Andrea’ COURT ORDER banning me(Wayne Ferron) from all courts in ONTARIO and taking my legal rights and the ability to defend my civil and political |
|rights. If I cannot defend my rights, then I have no rights including human rights! |
|2. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL endorsement or order to suspend HRTO 2012-12585-I(2013 HRTO 1544).No resolution or restitution for this matter has damaged my life and|
|my children life, in addition to crippling me in moving closure to normal living. |
|3. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Nov 26, 2014 decision to denied me employment insurance benefits for the false PREMISE OF “left your employment without just cause”. I|
|have call EI(1800 206 7218) to offer more information, answer any question, but they always replied in the negative. I have called E. Hoffman (1 866 950 7227) |
|at least four time to no avail at EI commission. |
|4. I was sent to SOCIAL SERVICES BY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE for help, when there was no help pursuant to there policy. |
|5. ONTARIO-WORKS policy which denies social benefits on the bases of not having proper identification. I WAS DENIED A DRUG CARD in accordance with policy. |
|6. John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]), choosing no to enforce the CRIMINAL of CANADAN , with respect to Officer Pekeski (2261) |
|theft of my personal proper(HEALTH CARD etc.) is the cause of action for this matter. |
|The aforesaid permutation create the perfect conditions for the denial of SOCIAL SERVICES and creating an impediment to my health and well being. |
|Furthermore, this may cause my death or fatal injury. I leave my life (weather I live or die in the hands of HRCTO and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (E. Hoffman – 1 866|
|– 950 -722 ext 5684) |
|HEALTH RISK: |
|1. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my first blood pressure reading was 203/118. |
|2. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my second blood pressure reading was 196/183. |
|3. On January 8, 2015, I was experiencing headaches in the back of my head, in addition to headaches at the side of my head. |
|4. A few days before January 9, 2015, I was experiencing headaches. |
|5. I have provided a copy of the prescription I cannot afford, but desperately need |
| |
|REASON FOR APPEAL: |
|1. Employment Insurance decision puts my life at risk and help to block me from accessing social services freely. |
|2. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, premise that I left my employment for no just case is a false premise, for my premise given on page 2 and 3 in the MOTION RECORD. |
|Unless, unlawfully using HWY 10 dangerously and unsafely which may result in my death in a reasonable thing to do in accordance with EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
|DECISION. |
|3. I HAVE -$100.00 IN THE BANK, I SLEEP IN out of the cold shelters (HOMELESS SHELTERS) in my futile effort to access medical care and social services to take |
|care of my health and secure employment..” |
| |
| |
|[8] AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, the Applicant PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF his LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION |
|DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING, which was the CROSS he had to carry as a direct result of the DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585-I, WITHOUT A NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER |
|(2012-12585-I) it would seem, while the RESPONDENTS were actively misleading the HRTO-TRIBUNAL. The Applicant’s and his children suffered unnecessarily for the|
|aforesaid social punishment. The following is what the Applicant wrote; |
| |
|“TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE|
|INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE SEND|
|ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY REGULAR|
|MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAYTIME, I MOSTLY |
|ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.” |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|WHY IS THE APPLICANT BARED OR IMPEDED |
|FROM PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES? |
|[9] On or about March 28, 2015, I (Wayne Ferron) asked Janet W. Clark, a CITY OF TORONTO employee at THE homeless facility(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & |
|REFERRAL CENTRE) at 129 Peter St for the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY form to request personal information collected by homeless shelter and drop in centers. Ms. |
|Clark stated that she didn't have one, nor did she know where there was located to be disclosed. |
| |
|[10] On or about March 28, 2015, I (Wayne Ferron) asked Janet W. Clark, a CITY OF TORONTO employee at THE homeless facility(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & |
|REFERRAL CENTRE) at 129 Peter St to speak to the Manager of the HOMELESS FACILITY; she directed my person to Mark Nilson, the Assistant Manager. |
| |
|[11] On or about March 28, 2015, I (Wayne Ferron) asked Mark Nilson, a CITY OF TORONTO managing employee at THE homeless facility(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT &|
|REFERRAL CENTRE) at 129 Peter St for the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY form to request personal information collected by homeless shelter and drop in centers. Mark |
|Nilson stated that he didn't have one, nor did he know where there was any located to be disclosed. |
| |
|[12] Mark Nilson said to come in on the following Monday, and speak to the manager (Anthong Singh) about the disclosing of a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUISITION|
|FORM. He disclosed to me the following contact information for his superior; |
| |
|“STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL CENTRE |
|Shelter Support & Housing Administration |
|Anthong Sigh-Manager |
|Tel: 416 392 0090 |
|Fax: 416 338 4760 |
|129 Peter Street |
|toronto, Ontario, M5V 2H3” |
| |
|[13] On or about March 30, 2015, I (Wayne Ferron) asked Anthong Sigh, the manager of the CITY OF TORONTO homeless facility(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & |
|REFERRAL CENTRE) at 129 Peter St for the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY Form to request personal information collected by homeless shelter and drop in centers. |
|Mr. Anthong Sigh disclosed the said Form to my person. |
| |
|[14] On or about April 13, 2015, I (Wayne Ferron) was refused goods and services (FREE DENTAL CARE FOR THE HOMELESS, at STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL |
|CENTRE), VIA STREET TO HOME Mobile Dental Clinic (MDC). |
| |
|[15] Since I was a regular client accessing goods and service for the HOMELESS, I was directed by someone I reasonable believe to be Mr. Singh, to the STREET |
|TO HOME , FREE DENTAL CARE FOR THE HOMELESS; administered on Mondays at 129 Peter Street 9:30 am to 1:00 from April to June at no cost to the HOMELESS (STREET |
|TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL CENTRE). The flyer posted on the entrance door of 129 Peter Street, Toronto, Ontario, reads with the CITY OF TORONTO’S logo on |
|the same flyer; |
|“STREET TO HOMES |
|Free Dental Care at 129 Peter Street |
|Monday from 9:30am - 1pm, April to June 2015 |
|Toby Druce 416 397 4399 |
|tdruce@toronto.ca” |
| |
|[16] I approached an attendant for the MOBILE DENTAL CLINIC, and to also be sign up for the said dental care service for the HOMELESS, which I was in |
|desperate need of because I have not been to the dentist for many many years. |
| |
|[17] The attendant who was a he, asked me if I was receiving WELFARE or ODSP. I responded in the negative and the same attendant informed my person that I |
|did not qualify because I was not receiving social security benefits, even though I am HOMELESS and without income. The CITY OF TORONTO website for free |
|dental care for the HOMELESS asserts the following; |
|“Dental Services - free dental care - Mobile Dental Clinic - City of Toronto Dental Clinics |
|{...} |
|Free dental care |
|Free dental care is available to eligible children and youth (0-17), adults enrolled in selcted Toronto Public Health programs and seniors (65 years and |
|older). |
| |
|Adults aged 18-64 on a government sponsored dental plan (Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program or Non-Insured Health Benefits for First Nations and|
|Inuit) can seek the free dental care/treatment that is covered under their dental plan at five Healthy Smiles dental clinics. These are the Stonegate Community|
|Health Centre, Unison Health and Community Services, Parkdale Community Health Centre, Anishnawbe Health Toronto and 80 Bond Street. |
| |
|For further information on free dental care, visit the City of Toronto website. |
|{...} |
|Mobile Dental Clinic (MDC) |
|News release - November 5, 2012: Toronto mobile dental clinic launch |
|Toronto Public Health has a new fully-equipped mobile dental clinic( MDC) . |
|The mobile dental clinic will travel to select partnering community agency sites, across the city to provide free dental care for eligible clients who have |
|difficulty accessing dental services in the customary manner. |
|Eligibility Criteria: |
|To be eligible clients must meet all eligibility criteria listed below |
|• Live in Toronto |
|• Meet TPH financial eligibility criteria |
|• Must not have dental insurance |
|• Meet the following age criteria: children and youth (0-17 years), adults enrolled in selected Toronto Public Health programs, seniors (65 years and older) |
|• Adults 18 years of age and older who are on a government dental sponsored dental plan such as Ontario Works (OW), Ontario Disability Support Program(ODSP), |
|Non-insured Health Benefits (NIHB) are eligible…” |
| |
|[18] TAKE NOTE: that the person called Marie Lu, prefers to hide behind a veil because of guilt or for whatever reasons, instead of disclosing her full name |
|and accept responsibility for her actions. But Janet W. Clark, seem to know her very well, for she was advising her more than normal during the following |
|incident. |
| |
|[19] On May 23, 2015, at or about 10:00, I (Wayne Ferron) was refused goods and services (access to showers at 129 Peter Street, STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & |
|REFERRAL CENTRE), by Marie Lu an employee of the CITY OF TORONTO. |
| |
|[20] On May 23, 2015, after I went to 129 Peter Street for goods and services, I read out loudly from a legal document(Pursuant to Blair McCreadie speaking |
|for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION), for the staff the following; |
|“ 6. ...The Applicant was not asked to leave the Shelter on the basis of any prohibited ground under the Code; in fact, the Applicant was discharged from the |
|Shelter after The Salvation Army was advised that it would not receive funding from Ontario Works in Peel for the Applicant’s continued stay. This funding was |
|not available because the Applicant had refused to disclose the required financial information necessary for him to establish for such funding.” |
| |
|[21] Even though on or about July 13th, 2011 the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL, made an INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER (1106-04904) in the following manner; |
|“...The Tribunal directs that the Administrator, Social Services Dept Region |
|of Peel, pay interim assistance to the above noted appellant effective |
|June 01, 2011 to November 30, 2011...” |
| |
|[22] In addition to the above, on or about August 2nd, 2011 Ontario-Works (Region of Peel), again redundantly terminated financial assistance to which the |
|Applicant was not in receipt of, and in contravention of SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER(1106-04904), and Section 127(1), 22.1 or 22.2 of the |
|CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while the same order was in full force byway of Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA . Jane Anderspn-Renton(Manager), |
|articulated the aforesaid in the following manner; |
| |
|“Your current financial assistance has been suspended because: you |
|cannot receive financial assistance if you reside in an institution that provide |
|for your basic needs and shelter. Your financial assistance will stop |
|as of August 2nd, 2011 because you are living in an institution.” |
| |
|[23] On May 23, 2015, the Staff of the homeless facility(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL CENTRE) at 129 Peter St, Toronto was asserting and explaining |
|to my person that one does not need to be on SOCIAL SERVICE FINANCIAL(ONTARIO WORKS/ODESP) BENEFITS to be able to access the homeless shelters. The funding |
|comes from a separate part of the Government. I tried to no avail to explain, show , and read to the CITY OF TORONTO staff that according to the lawyers of the|
|GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION I cannot access HOMELESS SHELTERS BECAUSE IDO NOT QUALIFY. I showed the CITY OF TORONTO STAFF the legal document, but they |
|still didn't believe me. The court will have to determine the truth in this contraction. |
| |
|[24] I am PRESENTLY AT THE FELLOWING HOMELESS SHELTER WITHOUT SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS, OR ONTARIO WORKS FINANCIAL HELP; |
|Wayne FERRON |
|HOMELESS VAGABOND |
| |
|HOMELESS SHELTER |
|ST. SIMON’S SHELTER |
|BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East, |
|Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1 |
|leegalpoet@ |
| |
| |
|[25] On May 23, 2015, after I went to 129 Peter Street for homeless goods and services, I and the Customer service staff had come to an agreement of the use |
|of the bath room, showers and receiving a snack. After eating the Snack and using the bathroom, and was now ready to use the showers to maintain good hygiene. |
|All over Asia people like to wash after using the bathroom as oppose to using toilet paper. I use both methods. I correlate using the toilet with taking a |
|shower after. |
| |
|[26] But on this particular evening, Marie Lu decided to discriminate against me with distinction, after using the bathroom to relieve myself of fecal matter,|
|and denied me the use of the showers without my person being under any restrictions or barred from the same government facility providing homeless goods and |
|service for the HOMELESS. |
| |
|[27] I made sure to ask if I was restricted from the same facility, for which the answer was negative. So she prevented me from using a service I was not |
|barred or restricted from using. |
| |
|[28] Other HOMELESS individuals were allowed to use the showers, in addition to the showers not being broken nor disables for maintenance or repairs. |
| |
|[29] On May 24, 2015 the next day, I went to 129 Peter Street homeless facility(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL CENTRE), and was allowed to take a |
|showers because I was not restricted from the homeless goods and service to homeless facility. |
| |
|[30] On May 22, 2015 I went with a friend (Fiona Sander) whom had returned for about three times to 674 Dundas St. West WOMEN'S HOMELESS SHELTER, to obtain |
|her Doctor prescribed medications which the same HOMELESS SHELTER seemed to be holding hostage without lawful cause. |
| |
|[31] After Madame Fiona Sanders was forcibly evicted without reasonable notice from the same women homeless shelter, the same shelter continued to retain |
|authority over her Doctor prescribed medication even though she was forced not to live in the same homeless shelter. |
| |
|[32] Madam Fiona Sanders whom has many health problems, some of which are still unknown because she is still under going many test to make such a |
|determination. Since knowing her she has collapsed about 3 time and had to be brought to emergency hospitals. |
| |
|[33] About a week ago, Madam Fiona Sanders was discharged from 674 Dundas St. West WOMEN'S HOMELESS SHELTER (WOMEN’S RESIDENCE) without her knowledge. She was|
|asked to leave while for some strange reason, the same women shelter retain carriage and control of her Doctor prescribe medication. If she get sick, injured |
|or dies from denial of access to her Doctor prescribed medication, who is liable? |
| |
|[34] On May 22, 2015 I went with her to pick up her Doctor’s prescribe medication(3 try for her and promised to be ready by staff), as directed by the WOMEN’S|
|RESIDENCE staff to do. However, when she got there she was again refused access to her medications. |
| |
|[35] On May 22, 2015 she came out of the same SHELTER mentally traumatized, crying her eyes out over the denial of her personal property, not to mention the |
|blatant theft of some of her belongings. |
| |
|[36] On May 22, 2015 I instructed Fiona Sanders to call the Police immediately, for in my opinion, it was ridiculous to hold someone medication hostage, not |
|to mention putting there life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy. |
| |
|[37] She called the Police at least two times and I also called the same Police about two times to informed them of the urgency of the matter. |
| |
|[38] The Police Officer I spoke to, seem to recognize with some familiarity, my name on the phone, advise my person to call 911 if there is a change in |
|situation to medical emergency. |
| |
|[39] So hypothetically speaking, a medically emergency induce by the unlawful denial of access to one's own prescription has a solution of calling 911 |
|instead of a proactive legal resolution of returning what was taken after the owner(Fiona Sanders) exercised her colour of right on 4 or more occasions and |
|exercised her authority over her prescription medicine (her property). |
| |
|[40] I for one would not take the chance on someone’s life like that. A person's prescription medicine, is between her and her doctor in accordance with the |
|same Doctors Best medical advice. |
| |
|[41] No POLICE car came! Even though about 8 drove by, as we waited outside in the cold for a long time exposed to the elements. After I started shivering |
|for long period of time, we left for fear of the onset of hypothermia. It should be noted that when a homeless shelter or business calls the Police concerning |
|homeless people trespassing, the Police take about 5 to 15 mins to arrive. |
| |
|[42] TAKE NOTICE: That while Madame Fiona sanders was in the homeless shelter, which is holding her medication hostage; the staff was asserting to her “there |
|is a black guy out there, does he know you” . |
| |
|[43] In many of the OUT OF THE COLD SHELTER, I am called or referred to as “black monkey” and continually referred to as black monkey by homeless native |
|Canadians; but not by the out of the cold staff who are very kind have a genuine concern for the state of homeless crisis in our city. |
| |
|[44] I was informed on May 26, 2015 that a particular Caucasian male who carries 3 bags and a basket with sleeping items made the statement that he does not |
|want to put his belongs down because; “...the niggers will steal it!”. But I have heard similar derogatory language by a couple Caucasians I pass of as |
|mentally ill. But the aforesaid is still learned somewhere? |
| |
|[45] There is one particular fellow who is always drunk and speaks derogatively of visible minority whom got violent with a Somali male; and yet a tall |
|Caucasian fellow with a large mustache whom claim to be of German descent and is always uttering racial ramblings continuously about mostly “jews” and |
|“niggers” and the unlawful thing he is going to do to them. Many of these people are mentally ill, yet again, where does this atmosphere or aura comes from. |
| |
|[46] I also remember that a bylaw(POLICE PROTOCOL DIRECTIVE 4-34), prevent Police from entering any HOMELESS SHELTER without an invitation from the HOMELESS |
|SHELTER. This is the reason that, drug addicts can consume drugs in shelter bathrooms without fear of being arrested, some of them believe it is sort of like a|
|Drug safe haven unknowingly provided by HARM. |
| |
|[47] It is now May 25, 2015, and Fiona Sanders has still not received her prescription medicine being held hostage by the homeless shelter nor has she |
|received a call back from the Toronto Police Services. |
| |
|[48] It is now May 27, 2015, and Fiona Sanders has still not received her prescription medicine being held hostage by the homeless shelter nor has she |
|received a call back from the Toronto Police Services. The following is the contact information for the women’s shelter; Women's |
|Residence |
|Women's Residence |
| |
|674 Dundas Street West |
|Toronto M5T 1H9 |
|416-392-5500 |
|Tracy Campbell, |
|Manager at 416-392-8747 |
|e-mail tcampbe0@toronto.ca. |
| |
|Women's Residence is a place for homeless, single women in downtown Toronto. The shelter offers many services to help homeless women from all backgrounds. |
|Residence staff can speak more than 15 different languages. Women's Residence has 34 bedrooms with two to five beds. Women share the washrooms and laundry |
|facilities on each floor. There is a large, main-floor dining room where everyone eats their meals. |
| |
|Women's Residence works with local social agencies and hospitals such as: |
|• the Sherbourne Health Centre, |
|• University Health Network (Toronto Western Hospital), |
|• the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, |
|• Women's Own Withdrawal Management Centre, |
|• St. Clare's Multifaith Housing Society, |
|• the Hostel Outreach Program and |
|• St. Michael's Hospital |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|NO ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE OF LAW OR HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION FOR THE APPLICANT, IT IS OPEN SEASON ON HIM: |
|[49] On August 4th, 2014 Officer Green(10235) angrily rendered his prejudgement without a proper police investigation, reasonable review of evidence before |
|him, without a trial, and with out having jurisdiction to do what was done DISPITE HIS OBLIGATION stated in the POLICE SERVICE ACT for HRTO 2014-19377-I; |
|“Police Service Act: |
|Declaration of principles |
|Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles: |
| |
|1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario. |
|2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code... |
|“ |
|[50] The following was asserted in the NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19377-I); |
|“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Services Division and Officer Green |
| |
|Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss |
| |
|The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19377-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on November 17, 2014. |
| |
|The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because: |
| |
|• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination |
|within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents. |
| |
|• you allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to any of the |
|following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of |
|another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32 (CanLII); Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273 |
|(CanLII). |
| |
|You must provide written submissions responding to the issues identified above. You must file your written submissions on or before March 9, 2015. |
|{...} |
|The HRTO will consider your submissions and may decide whether to dismiss your Application, may decide to continue processing the Application or may provide |
|further directions to the parties regarding this proceeding. If you do not file written submissions by the required time the HRTO will make its decision based |
|only on the information in your Application or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of your Application and dismiss the Application for that |
|reason. |
|You may file your written submissions with the HRTO by email, fax or mail. Please clearly write your name and the HRTO file number, 2014-19377-I, on all |
|correspondence and any other documents you file with the HRTO.” |
| |
|[51] The following was on the title page of the RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19377-I), but the same document was not referred to or mentioned |
|in the reasons for judgement. Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL DOCUMENT; |
| |
|“RESPONSE |
|TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION, |
|without response from RESPONDENTS, |
|NOTICE to dismiss matters with |
|HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I, |
|and without any resolution of my stolen property being returned to my person to enable full access to public medical services, public goods and public services|
|or RESTITUTION of DIGNITY |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED” |
|PLEASE STOP PUNISHING MY CHILDREN with denial of PUBLIC goods and service AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT(S. 12); for the unlawful crime of acting within the |
|capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (s. 507 C.C.) and endeavoring to enforce our beloved CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA” |
| |
|[52] The following was asserted in the RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19377-I), but was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for |
|judgement. |
|Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL that carried the above on the title page of the same document; |
|Obstructing justice: 139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding, (2) |
|Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of|
|an indictable offence… |
| |
|[53] Pursuant to David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462; |
| |
|“[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 11, 2011. |
|[2] On January 17, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the corporate respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be|
|filed with the Tribunal not later than February 21, 2012. |
|[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the corporate respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. [4] |
|An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary |
|compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or |
|participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The corporate respondent's |
|attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows: |
| |
|5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may: |
|a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application; |
|b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent; |
|c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding; |
|d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal. |
| |
|[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate|
|respondent by regular mail and fax. |
| |
|[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim|
|Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the |
|Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5. |
| |
|Other Matters |
|[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. Due to an administrative error these individuals |
|have not been delivered copies of this Application and have not had an opportunity respond. A copy of the Application and a copy of the Tribunal’s file will be|
|delivered to the individual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s |
|Rules. |
|[8] I am not seized of this matter. |
| |
|Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012. |
|“Signed by” |
|__________________________________ |
|David Muir |
|Vice-chair “ |
| |
|(Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462, File Number: 2011-08103-I , Adjudicator: David Muir ) |
| |
|TAKE NOTE: There has been no response from the respondents, which implies that they except all my allegations as the unchallenged truth or the unchallenged |
|factual evidence for HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and 2014-19377-I. I am willing to and would life to testify under oath to|
|assist the court in its finding of facts of all the above matters to render a fair and just decisions. |
| |
|“...The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.” |
| |
|[54] Pursuant to the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK; |
|11 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CROWN COUNSEL AND THE POLICEFootnote 1 |
|11.1 Introduction |
|Law enforcement is a continuum. At one end, the police investigate criminal offences and arrange for suspected offenders to appear in court. At the other, the |
|Attorney General, through Crown counsel, is responsible for neutrally and fairly presenting the Crown's case in court. Their roles are interdependent. While |
|both have separate responsibilities in the criminal justice system, they must inevitably work in partnership to enforce criminal laws effectively… |
| |
|11.2 Role of the Police: Authority to Investigate and Lay Charges |
|11.2.1 The Common Law Principle |
|Maintaining the independence of the police from direct political control is fundamental to our system of law enforcement. Under the common law, the police |
|could not be directed by the Executive or by Parliament to start an investigation, much less lay charges. As one former Attorney General said, |
|“No one can tell an officer to take an oath which violates his conscience and no one can tell an officer to refrain from taking an oath which he is satisfied |
|reflects a true state of facts” |
|.Footnote 2 In R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn,Footnote 3 Lord Denning described the principle in this way: |
|I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his |
|men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be |
|prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. |
|No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or |
|that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone. |
|11.2.2 The Special Situation of the RCMP |
|Section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act provides that the Commissioner of the RCMP has the control and management of the Force, subject to the |
|“direction” of the Solicitor General. The relationship between the Commissioner and the Solicitor General has been described in the following terms by the |
|Supreme Court of Canada: |
|While for certain purposes the Commissioner of the RCMP reports to the Solicitor General, the Commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the |
|government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The Commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly |
|engaged, he is answerable to the law and, no doubt, to his conscienceFootnote 4. |
|It has been held, as well, that the right of an RCMP member to lay an information is subject to the orders of the Commissioner or a superior officer.Footnote 5|
|The issue of control of police functions becomes even more complex because in eight provinces the RCMP provides police services under contract with the |
|province. These agreements do not deal with the right to commence an investigation, but they do address related matters like the setting of operational |
|priorities and resource allocation. They also describe the role of the RCMP vis-à-vis the provincial Attorney General. |
|11.2.3 Other Statutory Exceptions |
|Some Criminal Code offences -- for instance, war crimes,Footnote 6 bribery of judicial officers,Footnote 7 offences on territorial seasFootnote 8 -- require |
|the consent of the Attorney General or a Minister of the Crown before an information can be laid. So do some offences under other federal laws, such as the |
|Canada Labour Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.Footnote 9 |
|11.3 Role of Crown Counsel Before and After Charges Are Laid |
|11.3.1 Introduction |
|Crown counsel and investigative agencies play complementary roles in the criminal process. Both have roles to play before and after charges are laid. |
|While the involvement of Crown counsel is not generally required as a matter of law at this stage, it has become increasingly apparent that it is |
|desirable.Footnote 10 Co-operation and effective consultation between the police and Crown counsel are essential to the proper administration of justice, as |
|investigators are expected to gather evidence that is admissible and relevant to the charge. Later, when deciding whether to prosecute, consultation will often|
|be helpful in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence and the public interest criteria.Footnote 11 |
|Accordingly, Crown counsel should be available for consultation during an investigation and before the laying of charges. This will encourage investigators to |
|ask their advice. In complex cases, Crown counsel may need to work closely with the police in identifying and acquiring relevant and cogent evidence. This does|
|not mean, however, that Crown counsel should assume responsibility for work that properly should be done by investigators. At the end of an investigation, |
|counsel’s role is to provide the investigators with a fair and objective assessment of the strength of the case and the appropriateness of proceeding. In |
|performing this assessment, counsel must be guard against the possibility that he or she has been afflicted by “tunnel vision”, i.e., has lost the ability to |
|conduct an objective assessment of the case through contact with the investigating agencyFootnote 12. |
|(The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook) |
| |
|[55] Pursuant to the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK; |
|CROWN POLICY MANUAL |
|March 21, 2005 |
|14. POLICE: RELATIONSHIP WITH CROWN COUNSEL |
|PRINCIPLES |
|Crown counsel and police agencies have separate responsibilities in the criminal justice system. They are required to work in partnership to enforce criminal |
|laws effectively. The working relationship between police and crown counsel should reflect mutual respect and professionalism. These are fostered by |
|appropriate recognition of the boundaries between the investigative and prosecutorial functions. |
|Police have the sole responsibility for charging decisions except where the consent of the Attorney General is required by statute. Crown counsel are solely |
|responsible for determining whether a charge is to proceed once it has been laid. |
|(CROWN POLICY MANUAL) |
| |
|[56] Pursuant to the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK; |
|INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN DECISION MAKING |
|8.1 Introduction |
|The principle of the independence of the Attorney General is firmly entrenched in our legal system, widely respected, and carefully safeguarded. The theory |
|underlying the principle and the leading statements concerning it are dealt with in detail elsewhereFootnote 1. Perhaps less well understood is the operation |
|of the independence principle in the day-to-day decision-making of individual Crown counsel. Crown counsel exercise their independence as the representative of|
|the Attorney General. As such, the “independence” of Crown counsel is a delegated independence. Crown counsel are obliged to make decisions in accordance with |
|the policies of the Attorney General in this deskbook, and they act under the direction of FPS Directors, Regional and Senior Regional Directors, who are in |
|turn responsible to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law). Crown counsel retain a significant degree of discretion in individual casesFootnote |
|2. |
|Crown counsel, like the Attorney General, are accountable for their decisions. Since the Attorney General is accountable to Parliament and the publicFootnote 3|
|for decisions made in his or her name, this may mean that the Attorney General (either personally, or through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal |
|Law)), may provide Crown counsel with instructions in a particular case, though such situations would be relatively rare.Footnote 4 |
|The independence principle also does not mean that Crown counsel need not consult. Quite to the contrary, responsible prosecutorial decision-making often |
|requires consultation with colleagues, superiors or investigators. Indeed prosecutorial discretion is not exercised in a vacuum. The principle of independence |
|means that the Attorney General does not take instructions as to how to exercise discretion. Similarly, Crown counsel do not take instructions as to how to |
|proceed, except from those in the line of authority leading to the Attorney General, namely, the FPS Director, the Regional and Senior Regional Director, the |
|Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law) and the Deputy Attorney General. |
|The interaction of the principles of independence, accountability and consultation mean that what is protected is a system of prosecutorial decision-making in |
|which the prosecutor is an integral component. A large measure of independence is conferred on Crown counsel, but absolute discretion is not. |
|8.2 Statement of the Policy |
|Crown counsel are obliged to exercise independent judgment in making decisions. Because their decision-making powers are delegated to them by the Attorney |
|General, Crown counsel are subject to the same constraints faced by the Attorney General personally: they are accountable for their decisions, and they must |
|consult where required. Prosecutorial independence is not a license to do as one wishes, but to act as the Attorney General personally should act. |
|8.3 Accountability |
|The Attorney General of Canada is accountable to Parliament for decisions taken in his or her name. This form of public accountability is crucial to a system |
|of open justice, and counsel for the Attorney General must be cognizant of this fact. This explains the need to ensure that the Attorney General is |
|well-briefed to provide answers to questions that may be posed in Parliament. The principle of public accountability is most clear in situations where |
|Parliament has required that some prosecutorial decisions be made by the Attorney General (or Deputy Attorney General) personally; an example is the decision |
|to lay war crimes/crimes against humanity charges under s. 9(3) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes ActFootnote 5. |
|An equally important form of accountability is internal accountability. All counsel for the Attorney General, whether employees within the Department of |
|Justice, or standing or ad hoc agents, are accountable to their superiors for decisions taken.Footnote 6 The Department of Justice is organized to foster |
|principled, competent and responsible decision makingFootnote 7. One of the goals of the Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook is to assist counsel in making |
|the numerous difficult decisions which arise in criminal litigation. In so doing, it sets objective standards against which prosecutorial conduct may be |
|measured. |
|Individual prosecutors are also subject to a form of public accountability through their membership in provincial law societiesFootnote 8. Another form of |
|public accountability occurs through judicial review of a prosecutor’s actions, for example through the abuse of process doctrineFootnote 9, or judicial |
|control of actions which may prejudice fair trial interests, such as inflammatory jury addressesFootnote 10. Accountability is also enhanced because of the |
|availability to the public of the Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook, since the public is able to assess the actions of Crown counsel against the standards |
|set out in the policies. Finally, recognition of the importance of public accountability imposes a duty on Crown counsel in certain circumstances to |
|communicate the reasons for certain decisions to the public through the media.Footnote 11 |
|(The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook) |
| |
|[57] TAKE NOTICE: That Officer David Green(10235) and DIVISION 13 was served the Applicant’s VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT 2014-19377-I and refused or failed to |
|respond to the denial of police services allegations. |
|[58] Pursuant to David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462; |
| |
|“[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 11, 2011. |
|[2] On January 17, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the corporate respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be|
|filed with the Tribunal not later than February 21, 2012. |
|[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the corporate respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. [4] |
|An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary |
|compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or |
|participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The corporate respondent's |
|attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows: |
|5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may: |
|a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application; |
|b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent; |
|c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding; |
|d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal. |
| |
|[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate|
|respondent by regular mail and fax. |
| |
|[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim|
|Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the |
|Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5. |
| |
|Other Matters |
|[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. Due to an administrative error these individuals |
|have not been delivered copies of this Application and have not had an opportunity respond. A copy of the Application and a copy of the Tribunal’s file will be|
|delivered to the individual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s |
|Rules. |
|[8] I am not seized of this matter. |
| |
|Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012. |
|“Signed by” |
|__________________________________ |
|David Muir |
|Vice-chair “ |
| |
|[59] Similarly, Officer David Green(10235) and DIVISION 13 was served the Applicant’s RECONSIDERATION 2014-19377-I and refused or failed to respond to the |
|denial of police services allegations. An unknown FEAMALE OFFICER WHO DID NOT DISCLOSE HER BADGE NUMBER AND NAME, RECEIVED THE LEGAL SERVICE WHILE SHE WAS |
|INFERING, ADVISING, AND MISLEADING ME, THAT THERE WAS NO OFFICER GREEN AT 13 DIVISION(DID NOT HAVE BADGE NUMBER ON PACKAGE), I INTERN INFORMED HER THAT 13 |
|DIVISION IS WHERE i MET HIM AND MUST SERVE THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HRTO RULES FOR RECONSIDERATION-FORM 20. |
| |
|[60] CONTRASTLY, OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790) FINISHED RECEIVING THE LAWFUL SERVICE FOR FORM 20-RECONSIDERATION 2014-19377-I, AND WAS QUITE PLEASANT AND HELPFUL. |
| |
|[61] Pursuant to Madam Kathleen Wynne; |
|“Dear Minister Meilleur: |
|{...} |
|As Chief Law Officer of the Crown, you have a unique role in providing independent legal advice to Cabinet, with a special responsibility as the guardian of |
|the rule of law. {..} |
|Your ministry’s specific priorities include: |
|Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice |
|Continuing to focus on the delivery of legislative and systemic initiatives that promote fairness and access to our justice system for Ontarians. |
|( Kathleen Wynne Premier Updated: September 25, 2014 ,2014 Mandate letter: Attorney General Premier's instructions to the Minister on priorities for the year |
|2014) |
| |
|[62] According to employees of the Federal Human Rights Commission and according to Mr Richard Hennessy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, they both do |
|not have jurisdiction for the two matters which Mr. Richard Hennessy is endeavouring to dismiss: AGAIN, PLEASE TRANSFEREE ALL MATTER’S Mr. Richard Hennessy has|
|given notice to dismissed to the proper jurisdiction, if my CHILDREN and I as Canadians has the right to the rights given in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE! Does the |
|following rights stated below apply to my children and I? |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment … |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation... |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569 |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Is an act of reprisal in response to an unfounded human rights complaint grounds for an award of damages under the Ontario Human Rights Code? According to a |
|recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII), the answer is yes.{...} |
|The Duty to Address and Respond |
|In reaching the decision that Mr. Morgan had been discriminated against, Adjudicator Debané made reference to the 2005 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of|
|Ontario in Laskowskav. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, which discusses the obligation of an employer to adequately address and respond to allegations |
|of Code-related discrimination and harassment in the workplace. |
|Adjudicator Debané then went on to hold that an applicant need not prove that discrimination has occurred to benefit from the protection of section 8 of the |
|Human Rights Code; the applicant must only have a genuinely held the belief that the respondents were infringing his Code rights. (See paragraph 87.) |
|Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that: |
|Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act{...} |
|Based on that rule of law, Adjudicator Debané found that the decision to terminate Mr. Morgan’s employment was made as a reprisal because he had claimed his |
|Code rights by raising issues of harassment and discrimination in his workplace. Adjudicator Debané also found that the employer failed to adequately address, |
|or take any steps in response to, Mr. Morgan’s, albeit unfounded, allegations of discrimination and harassment. On this second point Adjudicator Debané wrote |
|that: |
|Instead of dealing with the applicant’s allegations in an appropriate manner, the company chose to terminate the applicant’s employment.{...} Although reprisal|
|need only be one factor in the decision to terminate the applicant in order to find that the applicant was terminated contrary to his right to be free from |
|reprisal under the Code, in my view the reasons in the respondent’s termination letter were otherwise pre-textual. (Para. 108)” (Par Sean Bawden — Labour |
|Pains)” |
|HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities |
|without discrimination that is contrary to law…” |
| |
|[63] Pursuant to ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE; |
|“…the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear in numerous cases that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plenary trial remains the mode for the |
|resolution of disputes and Rule 20 does not represent court reform, or the reform of the adversary system, in disguise{...} |
|A motion judge ought not lose sight of her or his narrow role in determining whether a genuine factual issue exist, and must be careful not to assume the role |
|of a trial judge by adjudicating any genuine factual issues which do exist. The motions judge ought never assess credibility, weight the evidence, or find the |
|facts, all of which are functions reserved to the trial judge. However, an issue of fact must relate to material fact; otherwise it cannot give rise to a |
|“genuine issue for trial.” Moreover, merely raising an issue of credibility will not be an answer to a motion for summary judgment; the issue of credibility |
|must be material and genuine:...“ |
|(page 543, ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE 2009, THOMSON CARSWELL) |
|{...} |
| |
|[64] According to COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 20114-19377-I |
|Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) (form1,21-question 6) |
|When you chooses goods and services as your area of complaint and fill out FORM 1, it directs you to fill our FORM 1-C, where you choose POLICE SERVICES as the|
|area in GOODS AND SERVICES that you are complaining about. |
|Police services (FORM 1-C, C1) |
|{...} |
|COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 20114-19377-I |
| |
|[65] Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) (form1,21-question 6) |
|When you chooses goods and services as your area of complaint and fill out FORM 1, it directs you to fill our FORM 1-C, where you choose POLICE SERVICES as the|
|area in GOODS AND SERVICES that you are complaining about. |
|Police services (FORM 1-C, C1) |
| |
| |
|[66] Is the aforesaid and the following in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE, which states as follows; |
|“...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that |
|is contrary to law…” |
| |
| |
|[67] Some legal FACTS: |
|• Officer Pekeski(2261) stole my Wallet, ID, etc. |
|• Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart refuse to return my belongings after I exercised my colour of right. |
|• PEEL REGIONAL POLICE refuse to return my belongs after exercising my colour of right. |
|• Mr. John Gerretsen (former Attorney General ), refuse to have my property returned after exercising my colour of right. |
|• As a direct result of Officer Pekeski(2261) theft, I am barred from fully accessing social services byway of there policies. |
|• As a direct result of all the above, I don’t have full access to the medical services. |
|PUBLIC POLICY - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for |
|equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…” |
|SOME RIGHTS UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE: Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment … |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation... |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|POLICE SERVICE ACT |
|Records or things removed |
|26.8 (1) In removing a record or other thing while acting under subsection 26.6 (2) or under an order issued under subsection 26.6 (6) or 26.7 (1), an |
|investigator shall give a receipt to the person from whom the record or thing is removed. 2007, c. 5, s. 8. |
|Detention of record or thing |
|(2) A record or other thing removed by an investigator acting under subsection 26.6 (2) or under an order issued under subsection 26.6 (6) may be detained by |
|him or her. 2007, c. 5, s. 8. |
|Same |
|(3) The investigator shall return within a reasonable time a record or other thing detained by him or her under subsection (2) to the person from whom the |
|record or thing was removed if the investigator is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to detain the record or thing for the purposes of the investigation|
|or any proceeding under this Act arising from the investigation. 2007, c. 5, s. 8. |
|[68] I thought I could die any day; I did not expect to make it past the spring season. |
| |
|[69] I thought I could have an heart attack any day; I did not expect to make it past the spring season. |
| |
|[70] I have no legal rights to protect my HUMAN RIGHTS. |
|I have no access to public goods and services. |
|[71] I have no income, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I. I am a homeless vagabond, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: |
|2012-1258-I. |
| |
|[72] I do not have full access to drugs and medical services, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I. |
| |
|[73] My daughter is being cruelly punished, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I. |
| |
|[74] I am denied full access to medical services while HARM support equipment for unlawful drug use, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I. |
|In addition to HARM clients receiving social assistance or financial assistance. |
| |
|[75] I am exposed to second-hand smoke daily while lining up to access homeless shelters, soup kitchens, or drop in centres, which is related to the delay of|
|HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I. |
|Chapter 9 of the Toronto Municipal Code |
|Human |
|§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions. |
|A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building. |
|§ 709-6. Offences. |
|Any person who contravenes any provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence.6 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|PLEASE STOP KILLING ME PLEASE!! |
|[76] September 2012 - Was when I was denied access to Peel Housing and Peel Homeless Shelter, to expose my person to the environment on the streets, homeless |
|diseases, second hand smoke, and crack cocaine smoke in the hopes of killing me slowly? |
|Human |
|§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions. |
|A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building. |
| |
|[77] In 2013 - Was when I was mercilessly left in a black mold environment, faulty electrical system, regular flooding, second hand smoke, and second hand |
|crack cocaine smoke while being denied safe housing for my beloved daughter, and I in the hopes of killing me slowly? |
|Human |
|§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions. |
|A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building |
|[78] In 2014 - Was when I was denied Police Services with the threat of my public evidence being thrown into the garbage by Officer Green (BADGE#10235 ), whom |
|seem to be above the law, immune to the law, and operate outside the RULE OF LAW and the POLICE SERVICE ACT. |
| |
|[79] Because of my almost fatal bicycle collision with Mr. Sanchez Truck(851 3YY ) whom seem to be above the law, immune to the law, and operate outside the |
|RULE OF LAW; which I reasonable believe to be an accident, was not really an accident, but a failed assassination attempt on my life; since Mr. Sanchez |
|Truck(851 3YY ), and Officer David Green(10235) are above the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA or immune to the RULE OF LAW/HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, and protected by … The |
|Police Services refuse to deal with it, and threaten to unlawfully discard of the evidence or throw it in the garbage. |
| |
|[80] Now HRTO is refusing to deal with the matter of denial of Police Services, even though this is a indicated area of complain on the HRTO Form 1. complaint |
|form. Was Mr. Sanchez attempting to kill and murder me? |
|Application – Goods, Services, or Facilities (Form 1 and 1C) |
|page-6 of 21: Reprisal or Threat of Reprisal |
| |
|Areas of Discrimination under the Code |
|6. Area of Alleged Discrimination |
|Housing (Complete and attach Form 1-B) |
|Goods, Services, and Facilities (Complete and attach Form 1-C) |
|page-15 of 21:21. Area of Discrimination from Question 6 |
|Housing (Form 1-B) |
| |
|Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) |
|22. Other Documents, from Question 12 to 15 |
|A copy of a statement of claim (from Question 12) |
| |
|Application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Area of Discrimination: Goods, Services, or Facilities (Form 1-C) |
|PART 1 |
|Questions About the Service, Good or Facility |
|Police Services |
|Government |
|Medical/health services |
| |
|page-1 of 5: |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Reprisal |
|page-4 of 5 |
| |
| |
|[81] 2015 - Was I denied EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits, access to MEDICINE and MEDICAL SERVICES, access to SOCIAL SERVICES byway of policy, access to housing,|
|exposed to the elements, expose to homelessness, expose to homeless diseases, and expose to second hand smoke and drug’s smoke in the hopes of killing me |
|slowly? |
|Human |
|§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions. |
|A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building |
|Ontario Works Policy Directives |
|1.1 Overview of Ontario Works |
|Legislative Authority |
| |
|The Ontario Works Act, 1997 ("the Act") and related regulations provide the legislative framework for the provision of employment assistance and financial |
|assistance to help people in temporary financial need. |
|“Program Verification Standards |
|Delivery agents are responsible for adhering to the program verification standards identified in the policies. These standards set out the documentation that |
|is acceptable for verifying the personal and financial circumstances of applicants and participants. Delivery agents are responsible for confirming visual |
|verification in the relevant technology and/or placing a copy of the documentation on file as required. The program verification standards help to maintain |
|program integrity by guiding workers in the consistent application of legislation and policy to support fair and accurate decisions.” |
| |
| |
|[82] 2015 - “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Am I being denied Justice in the hopes that I will die from a heart attack, there by killing me? |
| |
|[83] On January 16, 2015 I SPOKE TO the FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, to confirm that my employment insurance was received. I was told that an appeal takes|
|6 weeks to process, and I will be contacted then to confirm the receipt of my application. Urgency would be ineffective here despite me labelling the matter as|
|URGENT. |
| |
|[84] So, it would seem that all the responsibility for saving my life and restoring my life back to normal with normal access to social services without |
|reprisals is the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, and it alone caries the aforesaid burden. |
| |
| |
|[85] I tried getting some Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA) to thin my blood and reduce the chances of a stroke or heart attack, but dispensing this type|
|of over the counter drug is not proper. I have no money because of the restriction of my person to access public goods and services; negative $300.00 is what I|
|have in my Bank account. |
| |
| |
|[86] But, HARM (GOVERNMENT program for dispensing drugs to drug addicts by diminishing the role or dependency on drug dealers. The Government is in essence the|
|new drug dealer), HARM-shops dispense drugs every day to make drug addicts high or feel nice while curving there appetite for Crack Cocaine or other drugs. I |
|learned this fact from drug addicts themselves, one of whom had a $1400.00 habit per month for which Doctors were supply him with all the drugs he needed, but |
|he wanted more so he was complaining. I investigate, no matter where I am forced to live. |
| |
| |
|[87] Contrastly, I cannot get an Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA) TO thin my blood and save my life or prevent a stroke or organ damage. Not to mention,|
|to fill a $60.00 proscription to save my life and maintain my health and be a healthy an productive TAX PAYING human being. |
| |
|[88] Am not a human being, how far we have fallen? Pursuant to the CHARTER OF RIGHTS; |
|12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. |
| |
| |
|Equality Rights |
|15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, |
|in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. |
| |
| |
| |
|[89] With respect to my present position, are my beloved daughters and I being given what is promised in the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE? |
|“Human Rights Code |
|R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19 |
|Last amendment: 2012, c. 7. |
|Preamble |
|Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and |
|peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations; |
|And Whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without |
|discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each |
|person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province; |
|And Whereas these principles have been confirmed in Ontario by a number of enactments of the Legislature and it is desirable to revise and extend the |
|protection of human rights in Ontario; |
|Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:” |
| |
|Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC) |
|Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569 |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination” |
| |
|[90] There is no question in my mind that my Section 1. right in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE is continually infringed daily as a direct result of the combination of |
|Justice Andrea’ order, Officer Pekeski(2261) being allowed to retain my stolen property, SOCIAL SERVICES PROTOCOL, EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefit entitlement |
|decision, and the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I in contravention of the following; |
| |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of |
|origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or |
|disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1. |
| |
|[91] The following section from the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, should be protecting my HUMAN RIGHTS; |
| |
|Infringement prohibited |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
| |
|[92] The following section from the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE should be protecting MY FAMILY AND I from unjust punishment; |
| |
|Reprisals |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to|
|infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 8. |
| |
| |
|[93] THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, asked for a dismissal of HRTO APPLICATION( file No.: 2012-12585-I) if possible, else a stay for the same matter until |
|the completion of CV – 12-0716 for which they have not filed a |
|motion for summary dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, for which there notice of defence is based on. This has caused unreasonable pain and |
|suffering, a contravening of Chartered rights, put my beloved daughter's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy in addition to mine. |
| |
| |
| |
|[94] All my legal right/human rights was stolen in all of ONTARIO by BLG(Kathrine Kirkpatrick) via fraudulent means and based on a fallacy in her |
|arguments(JUSTICE ANDRE'S ORDERS), to take all of my legal rights away in all of ONTARIO byway of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legislation and |
|PRIVATE PROSECUTION of people in high public office who believe they are above the law, immune to the law, and does not have to answer to the CRIMINAL CODE OF |
|CANADA for allege criminal offenses. In short the serves them, but they are not subject to it. Because of my just private prosecutions (Section 507.1 and 504),|
|the following has happen to my person; |
|1. the CROWN being allowed to UNLAWFULLY remove PRIVATE PROSECUTION PUBLIC EVIDENCE (C 58716-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN) from the COA-RECORDS while affecting an |
|unwritten restriction of the PUBLIC HAVING ACCESS TO THE SAME PUBLIC FILE without reasonable cause. THERE IN NO EQUALITY IN THE LAW! |
|2. missing and lost private prosecution public evidence; |
|3. impeded or restricted access to private prosecution public evidence; |
|4. harassment while filing required court documents for private prosecutions; |
|5. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file private prosecution information; |
|6. conviction without notice or fare hearing; |
|7. and finally stopping me from exercising my legal rights by banning me from all courts in Ontario, taking away all my legal rights in Ontario by fraudulent |
|means, and in addition to impeding or restricting my HUMAN RIGHTS; |
|8. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO refuse to deal with the matter; |
|9. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA refuse to deal with the matter; |
|10. now my EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits are impeded, I have no social services rights, and access to goods, services (Health services, Police Services etc. |
|are impeded), which are enjoyed by other CANADIANS have vanished. All I have access to now is HOMELESS SHELTERS, OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS, and SOUP KITCHENS. |
|[95] URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION: |
|I came to Toronto to attend an Hospital to obtain necessary medication for my health according to doctors best medical practice, only to discover that I don't |
|qualify for a drug card from social services without the proper identification. |
|Recall that Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my Identification and fail to return it after I exercised my colour of right on more than one occasions. |
|The courts has refused to enforce the RULE OF LAW, at the minimum-directing Officer Pekeski(2261) to returned my belongings and have me signed off on receiving|
|all out standing pending personal belongings. |
| |
|[96] It seems that I AM NOT A HUMAN BEING, deserving of equal services even if it means damaging my health or possible killing(social murder) me by |
|withholding services from a Afro Canadian. |
| |
|[97] I require at the minimum an interim order for a drug card or the IMMEDIATE return of my identification from PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. Please EMAIL |
|ME TO PICK WITH THE ORDER OR HAVE ME PICK IT UP AT YOUR OFFICE. i AM IN TORONTO, STAY AT OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS! I CAME FOR NECESSARY REQUIRED MEDICAL |
|SERVICES |
| |
|[98] FACT-PERMUTATION: |
|1. Justice Andrea’ COURT ORDER banning me(Wayne Ferron) from all courts in ONTARIO and taking my legal rights and the ability to defend my civil and political |
|rights. If I cannot defend my rights, then I have no rights including human rights! |
|2. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL endorsement or order to suspend HRTO 2012-12585-I(2013 HRTO 1544).No resolution or restitution for this matter has damaged my life and|
|my children life, in addition to crippling me in moving closure to normal living. |
|3. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Nov 26, 2014 decision to denied me employment insurance benefits for the false PREMISE OF “left your employment without just cause”. I|
|have call EI(1800 206 7218) to offer more information, answer any question, but they always replied in the negative. I have called E. Hoffman (1 866 950 7227) |
|at least four time to no avail at EI commission. |
|4. I was sent to SOCIAL SERVICES BY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE for help, when there was no help pursuant to there policy. |
|5. ONTARIO-WORKS policy which denies social benefits on the bases of not having proper identification. I WAS DENIED A DRUG CARD in accordance with policy. |
|6. John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]), choosing no to enforce the CRIMINAL of CANADAN , with respect to Officer Pekeski (2261) |
|theft of my personal proper(HEALTH CARD etc.) is the cause of action for this matter. |
| |
|[99] The aforesaid permutation create the perfect conditions for the denial of SOCIAL SERVICES and creating an impediment to my health and well being. |
| |
|[100] Furthermore, this may cause my death or fatal injury. I leave my life (weather I live or die in the hands of HRTO and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (E. Hoffman –|
|1 866 – 950 -722 ext 5684) |
| |
|HEALTH RISK: |
|[101] |
|1. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my first blood pressure reading was 203/118. |
|2. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my second blood pressure reading was 196/183. |
|3. On January 8, 2015, I was experiencing headaches in the back of my head, in addition to headaches at the side of my head. |
|4. A few days before January 9, 2015, I was experiencing headaches. |
|5. I have provided a copy of the prescription I cannot afford, but desperately need. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINANT |
|(The PRIVATE PROSECUTOR): |
|[102] I want to work! |
|[103] I want to pay taxes! |
|[104] Your inability to affect the principles of the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE is preventing me from returning back to society as a normal productive human being. |
|You are helping my opponents to murder me slowly. |
|[105] I love the law! |
|[106] I love the CRIMINAL CODE. |
|[107] But I am most in love with the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|SINS IN THE COURT HOUSES TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, TO NULLYFY HUMAN RIGHTS: |
| |
|[108] Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ; |
| |
|“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Services Division) John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desiree Viceral |
|Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss |
| |
|The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19681-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on December 19, 2014. |
|The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because: |
| |
|• while your response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination you experienced occurred on or about April 30, 2014, a|
|review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident |
|described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. See for example Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles |
|Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241 (CanLII); Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495 (CanLII); and Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955.. |
| |
|[109] Is “good faith” a question of fact or law to be determined by a judicial officer in a court of competent jurisdiction, or is the REGISTRAR determining a |
|question of law? |
|Is the HRTO-REGISTRAR a court of competent jurisdiction for a question of law? |
|[110] not seem to need discrimination to be heard or rule on the matter before the court; |
|PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A |
|Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC) |
|Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569 |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination” |
| |
|[111] The above statement by Richard Hennessy is false or misleading, for the simple reason that you have dared to change my original premise. This is the |
|greatest sin in unbiasly evaluating someone's argument that one can commit. Because you are in essence stating your own premise, then judging it, then falsely |
|assigning it to the applicant like it was his own. The above stated premise is yours not mine. |
| |
|[112] My PREMISE is the following: |
| |
|My HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT(2014-19681-I) lays on the foundation of the Respondents having violated Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE by way of denial of |
|COURT SERVICE and denial of equal COURT SERVICES, byway of denial of equal and fair REPRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE to perfect appeal(C56817, etc) and to complete |
|REQUESITIONS(C56817 etc) or at least respond to REQUISITIONS in contravention of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, contravention of the COURT Rules, and in |
|violation of the POLICY OF THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT, to give equal services in COURT SERVICE for every and all parties involved in a judicial matter. EQUAL |
|UNBIASED SERVICES IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE COURT SERVICE WORKERS!, For which I being a Canadian is entitled to, but the said service was unequal, inferior, and |
|some of the requested REQUISITIONS ARE STILL PENDING(TRANSCRIPT C56817, etc), INFACT MOST! In addition, this is a violation of SECTION 15 of the CHARTER and |
|the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT of CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS to which the ONTARIO GOVERNMENT has committed itself and has signed in the capacity of a STATE PARTY. |
| |
|Human Rights Code |
|R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19 |
|PART I |
|FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of |
|origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or |
|disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1. |
| |
|Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ; |
| |
|•you allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondent s’ behaviour was related to any of the |
|following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of |
|another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32 (CanLII); Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273 |
|(CanLII). |
| |
|[113] The REPRISAL reprisal is the LEGALLY BULLYING for my beliefs in a fair and equal enforcement of the CRIMINAL CODE and for my PRIVATE PROSECUTION |
|against those who believe themselves to be above the law. |
| |
|Human Rights Code |
|R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19 |
|PART I |
|FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION |
|Reprisals |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to|
|infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 8. |
| |
|Infringement prohibited |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|Constructive discrimination |
|11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground |
|but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the |
|person is a member, except where, |
|(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or |
|(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, |
|s. 11 (1). |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|[114] Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ; |
|• the/a respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The HRTO has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals |
|based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO |
|2208 (CanLII); Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180 (CanLII); Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (CanLII). |
|• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination |
|within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents. |
| |
|[115] Please describe the JUDICIAL DUTIES OR ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES COURT SERVICE WORKER Gail Hugh; she is a CLERK at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, and she |
|describe her professional self as a clerk in her sworn affidavit(filed in the courts as evidence record), which is also filed in other courts. As a COURT |
|SERVICE WORKER, she has no adjudicative immunity because she was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was her function a JUDICIAL function |
|within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I. |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities |
|without discrimination that is contrary to law…” |
| |
|Act binds Crown |
|47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (1). |
|Act has primacy over other Acts |
|(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless|
|the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (2). |
| |
|[116] If it is the case that the above matters are not in the correct jurisdiction, I respectfully request that the same matters be transferred to the correct |
|jurisdiction to affect DUE PROCESS OF LAW for the just determination of a judicial matters HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and|
|2014-19377-I. Note that I have filed some of the same matters to the Federal Human Rights is which they have responded as having no jurisdiction for the |
|matters. |
| |
|[117] According to employees of the Federal Human Rights Commission and according to Mr Richard Hennessy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, they both do|
|not have jurisdiction for the two matters which Mr. Richard Hennessy is endeavouring to dismiss: AGAIN, PLEASE TRANSFEREE ALL MATTER’S Mr. Richard Hennessy has|
|given notice to dismissed to the proper jurisdiction, if my CHILDREN and I as Canadians has the right to the rights given in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE! Does the |
|following rights stated below apply to my children and I? |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment … |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation... |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|[118] Please describe the ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES COURT SERVICE WORKER Desiree Viceral; she is a CLERK at the COURT OF APPEAL- RECORDS and she describe her |
|professional self as a clerk in her CERTIFICATION of a document (filed in the courts as evidence record), I have disclosed to you many many time same document,|
|which is filed in the courts. As a COURT SERVICE WORKER, she has no adjudicative immunity because she was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor |
|was her function a JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I. |
|HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities |
|without discrimination that is contrary to law…” |
| |
|Act binds Crown |
|47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (1). |
|Act has primacy over other Acts |
|(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless|
|the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (2). |
| |
|[119] If it is the case that the above matters are not in the correct jurisdiction, I respectfully request that the same matters be transferred to the correct |
|jurisdiction to affect DUE PROCESS OF LAW for the just determination of a judicial matters HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and|
|2014-19377-I. Note that I have filed some of the same matters to the Federal Human Rights is which they have responded as having no jurisdiction for the |
|matters. |
| |
|[120] According to employees of the Federal Human Rights Commission and according to Mr Richard Hennessy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, they both do|
|not have jurisdiction for two of the matters which Mr. Richard Hennessy is endeavouring to dismiss: AGAIN, PLEASE TRANSFEREE ALL MATTER’S Mr. Richard Hennessy |
|has given notice to dismissed to the proper jurisdiction, if my CHILDREN and I as Canadians has the right to the rights given in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE! Does |
|the following rights stated below apply to my children and I? |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment … |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation... |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|[121] Please describe the ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES of COURT SERVICE WORKER Sandra Theroulde; she is a CLERK , the Deputy Clerk but still a clerk, that is not a |
|member of the Bench or has a licence to even practice law as a Lawyer, who works at the COURT OF APPEAL- Registrar as the managing clerk for all the other |
|clerks who come under the COURT SERVICE WORKERS Department under the authority of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. FURTHERMORE, she never describe her |
|professional self as anything other than a clerk. |
| |
|[122] As a COURT SERVICE WORKER, she has no adjudicative immunity because she was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was her function a |
|JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I. |
|HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities |
|without discrimination that is contrary to law…” |
| |
|Act binds Crown |
|47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (1). |
|Act has primacy over other Acts |
|(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless|
|the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (2). |
| |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment … |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation... |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|[123] Please describe the ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES of former ATTORNEY GENERAL John Gerretsen; he was the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO , and as such must remain |
|independent of adjudication, and is not a member of the Bench but has a licence to practice law, he was the “head lawyer.” The Crown’s Lawyer for Ontario who |
|refuse to do his job, and respond to the Crown’s legal business. The very nature of his job forces him to be independent of the Police and Bench. In short, |
|it a an area of conflict with his former position. He has no adjudicative role within the meaning of adjudicative immunity because he was not acting in the |
|capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was his function a JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I (He was a lawyer and |
|should have been acting in the capacity of a lawyer). ATTORNEY GENERAL John Gerretsen is powerful, does have a limited sort of sub judicial role with partial |
|immunity, but he is not immune is accordance with SUPREME COURT DECISIONS and even JUSTICE PRICE decision at the Brampton SUPERIOR COURT OF jUSTICE. |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities |
|without discrimination that is contrary to law…” |
| |
|Act binds Crown |
|47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (1). |
|Act has primacy over other Acts |
|(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless|
|the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (2). |
| |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment … |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation... |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|[124] TAKE NOTICE: If it is the case that “ the/a respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. “ as you are asserting while acting in the capacity of the|
|respondent's unofficial Lawyer, because I have not received a response nor any disclosure within the meaning of NATURAL JUSTICE nor PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, that I|
|may know my case and make informed decisions for the same; the same Judicial Officer need to file a short response officially asserting such a claim and |
|requesting for the claim against the same Judicial Officer to be dismissed on the Basis of judicial Immunity. Just remember that not one single one of my |
|complaint is about any judicial decision, I know where to go for that. I am only interested in full access to public goods and services as a CANADIAN HUMAN |
|BEING! |
| |
|[125] Pursuant to civil procedure; |
| |
|43. The clerk may also sign the minute of any judgment rendered upon a motion granted by consent. 1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 43; 1992, c. 57, s. 420. |
| |
|44. The assistant clerk may exercise the powers conferred on the clerk concurrently with the judge, if he has been chosen for that purpose by the clerk with |
|the consent of the Minister of Justice or of a person designated by him. |
| |
|The assistant clerk who is a special clerk may exercise such powers ex officio. |
| |
|For carrying out his duties at the trial, taking down the depositions of witnesses, issuing copies of documents in his custody, and generally for all acts |
|which do not require the exercise of judicial or discretionary power, the clerk may be replaced by such members of his staff as he designates. |
| |
|1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 44; 1977, c. 73, s. 3; 1992, c. 57, s. 420. |
| |
|44.1. The special clerk rules, in particular: |
| |
|(1) on any motion, contested or not, for joinder of actions, security, summons of a witness under article 282, communication, filing or dismissal of exhibits, |
|medical examination, particulars, amendment, modification of an agreement under article 151.2 |
|, substitution of attorney, appointment of a practitioner or relief from default, or to cease representing, and |
|(2) on any other interlocutory or incidental proceeding, contested or not but, if contested, with the consent of the parties. |
| |
|The special clerk may, in the case of applications relating to child custody or obligations of support, homologate any agreement effecting a complete |
|settlement of the matter. Once homologated, such agreements have the same effect and binding force as a judgment of the Superior Court. |
| |
|In all cases, the decision may be revised by the judge in accordance with the formalities provided in article 42. |
| |
|1975, c. 83, s. 5; 1976, c. 9, s. 54; 1977, c. 73, s. 4; 1992, c. 57, s. 420; 1994, c. 28, s. 1; 1997, c. 42, s. 2; 2002, c. 7, s. 6. |
| |
|45. The clerk or the assistant clerk may refer to the judge or to the court any matter submitted to him, if he considers that the interests of justice so |
|require. |
| |
|In the case of an application referred to in the second paragraph of article 44.1, the special clerk may refer the application to the judge or the court if he |
|considers that the agreement between the parties does not provide sufficient protection for the interests of the children or that a party's consent was |
|obtained under duress. He may, to evaluate the agreement or the consent of the parties, summon and hear the parties, even separately, in the presence of their |
|attorneys, if any. |
| |
|1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 45; 1975, c. 83, s. 6; 1992, c. 57, s. 420; 1997, c. 42, s. 3. |
| |
|[126] Please see the following below, a denial of service with reprisal does not seem to need discrimination to hear or rule on the matter before the court; |
|PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A |
|Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC) |
|Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569 |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination” |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|MY ACCOUNT OF THE OCCURRENCE: |
| |
|The following is THE CONTENTS THE AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON; |
| |
|I, Wayne FERRON of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY: |
|[127] On the 17th of September 2013 a COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARION-RECORD'S CLERK who goes by the name Desiree Viceral, tried to covertly give me |
|corroborative evidence that was not only placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower court; but also, proved conclusively that agents|
|of the Crown not acting in the capacity of a lawful deputy of Her Majesty the Queen, manufactured evidence or misrepresented evidence in addition to swearing a|
|false affidavit in support of the same improper evidence. |
|[128] On the 17th of September 2013 the court documents which Desire Viceral try to covertly give to my person under the guise of deception, 5 copies of the|
|January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559) which had the following origin: |
|1. One copy of the Crown's personal copy of the uncertified copy of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559) which Ms. Joanne Stuart was |
|ordered to disclosed to my person after she was taking more than 5 months for her investigation and to fulfill the honorable Justice Gillese January 27, 2010 |
|for R.V. FERRON(M38387/C51190) court order. |
|2. My personal uncertified copy of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT (07-02500/07-02559), the Crown served on my person for COURT OF APPEAL MATTER C51190 |
|under the guise of being certified when it was not the case. Parts of it are hi-lighted in yellow and orange hi-liter. |
|3. 3 certified copies of the 3 uncertified copies of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT (07-02500/07-02559), the Crown filed with the COURT OF APPEAL for |
|MATTER C51190 under the guise of being certified real evidence for a court process in which a panel of judges was reviewing C51190, when it was not the case. |
|In short certified copies of the uncertified copies of real evidence used by the COURT OF APPEAL panel of 3 to review C51190 and form the bases for it's |
|reasons for judgment for dismissing my CRIMINAL APPEAL FOR LEAVE FOR APPEAL HEARING. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[129] On or about the 19th of November 2013, I went to the Court Reporters Office, on the third floor of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Toronto Region), at |
|361 University Ave to check on the status of the transcripts I ordered for C55532, and C56817. |
| |
|[130] On or about the 19th of November 2013, October 9, 2012 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies of the October 9, |
|2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 |
|copies for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges? I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards |
|of the RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[131] On or about the 19th of November 2013, June 4, 2012 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies of the June 4, 2013 |
|TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 copies |
|for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges. I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards of the |
|RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness. |
| |
|[132] On or about the 19th of November 2013, January 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies for January 4, 2013 |
|TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 copies |
|for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges? I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards of the |
|RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[133] On or about the 19th of November 2013, June 4, 2012 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies June 4, 2012 |
|TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 copies |
|for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges? I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards of the |
|RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[134] On or about the 19th of November 2013, the necessary and most important March 11, 2013 HEARING TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete and it's |
|status unknown despite the disclosing of Justice Feldman's order for the production of March 11, 2013, and April 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPTS two weeks before. I had |
|order 7 certified copies of the March 11, 2013 HEARING TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) in addition to leaving a cash deposit of $20.00 in addition to personally checking|
|on the status of it's production on many occasions. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[135] On or about the 19th of November 2013, I forcefully offered to leave $180.00 deposit for the necessary and most important March 11, 2013 HEARING |
|TRANSCCRIPT(C56817); but the Clerk of the COURT REPORTER'S OFFICE refuse to take the deposit asper the court reporter's instructions, and pursuant to the |
|Court Reporter's Clerk's assertion. Why my deposit or monies for services to be rendered is refuse while there is a demand for a deposit on other clients and |
|the same policy seems to be enforced rigorously. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[136] On the 17th of June 2013, I ordered the following TRANSCRIPTS (C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C56817: |
|1. FEBURARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Alane Trumpy in accordance with Section 1. of|
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|2. FEBURARY 11, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of |
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|3. MARCH 11, 2013 HEARING TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Joy Webster in accordance with Section |
|1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|4. APRIL 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Neville Sioban in accordance with Section 1. of|
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|5. JUNE 4, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Orbe Santiago in accordance with Section 1. of |
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|6. JUNE 18, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Marc Lacroix in accordance with Section 1. of |
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|7. JULY 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of the |
|HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|8. OCTOBER 9, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Orbe Santiago in accordance with Section 1. of|
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[137] On the 15th of July 2013, I ordered the following PRE-ENQETTE TRANSCRIPT (C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C56817 after I discovered |
|that a critical piece of real evidence had went missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817: |
|MARCH 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Arlene Gorewicz in accordance with Section 1. of the |
|HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[138] On the 21st of August 2013, I ordered the following PRE-ENQETTE TRANSCRIPT (C55532) for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C55532 after I |
|discovered that a critical piece of real evidence had went missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; attached to the COURT REPORTER'S ORDER FORM was a copy of |
|the official title of the legal proceeding in question along with it's file number used at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO: |
|MARCH 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C55532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Arlene Gorewicz in accordance with Section 1. of the |
|HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|[139] Given that it seem as though there were errors in the TRANSCRIPTS (C56817); on the 28th of August 2013, I reordered the following TRANSCRIPTS (C56817)|
|I paid for and received for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C56817; attached to the COURTER REPORTER'S ORDER FORM was a copy of the official title of |
|the legal proceeding in question along with it's file number used at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO: |
|1. FEBURARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Alane Trumpy in accordance with Section 1. of|
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|2. FEBURARY 11, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of |
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|3. JULY 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of the |
|HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[140] On the 28th of August 2013, I ordered the following TRANSCRIPTS (C55532) for COURT OF APPEAL leave matter C55532; attached to the COURT REPORTER'S |
|ORDER FORM was a copy of the official title of the legal proceeding in question along with it's file number used at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO: |
|1. FEBRUARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C55532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Alane Trumpy in accordance with Section 1. of|
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|2. MARCH 11, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C55532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Joy Webster in accordance with Section 1. of |
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
|3. APRIL 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C5532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Neville Sioban in accordance with Section 1. of |
|the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[141] On the 7th of November 2013, I formally requested to view in the following week(next week after 7 nov 2013)) COURT OF APPEAL file C42322in preparing |
|for my COURT OF APPEAL matters. I expected to see the documents and exhibit in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|[142] On the 7th of November 2013, I formally requested to view in the following week(next week after 7 nov 2013)) COURT OF APPEAL file C51190 in preparing|
|for my COURT OF APPEAL matters. I expected to see the documents and exhibit in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|[143] On Thursday November 14, 2013 the security Officers at the entrance to the Osgood Hall Court House said I could not enter with the skipping rope |
|handles I have entered courthouses with for the past two years. The said items are used purely for exercise. I carried a lot more Item to court houses when I |
|was homeless and had to attend court on numerous occasions after walking all night to reach the same court on time. |
| |
|[144] She said she felt uncomfortable because I could throw the said items. I countered and said you can throw any items, shoes, court documents, bags, etc. |
|The officer did not articulate what she meant any further of the danger the item in question poses. I requested of the Officer to articulate which other items |
|in my bag poses a security risk or she did not want me to bring to the courthouse; she offered no further explanation or articulation on the matter. |
| |
|[145] Her college, another Officer also offered no explanation why the aforementioned discretion was being used against my person, but only falsely asserted|
|in the form of questions why I cannot leave the item in question in my car, at the gym, or at home. I said that I don't own a car, I did not want to be late |
|for work and they did not know if I was even homeless or not. |
| |
|[146] In any event, I left my entire bag outside the Courthouse since there was a problem in determining which items in my bag posed a problem; so I left |
|all items and bag. I did not want to be delayed in discussing undefined objects of interest to the officers, when they did not seem to know which item in my |
|bag posed a security risk. |
| |
|[147] I took the Officers name and badge number and informed them that I will be filing a complaint. The male Officer tried to give me advice on filing my |
|complaint in an incorrect place, I asserted that I know where to file a complaint. |
| |
|[148] On the 14th of November 2013, I asked to view my COURT OF APPEAL file C51190 in preparing for my COURT OF APPEAL matters. I expected to see the |
|documents and exhibit in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|[149] On the 14th of November 2013, upon viewing file C51190 I notice that there were extra documents placed in the said files long after the closing of |
|C51190. |
| |
|[150] On the 14th of November 2013, upon viewing file C51190 I Wayne Ferron, the Private Prosecutor found the following documents not belonging to C51190 |
|were found in C51190 by my person and eye witnessed by the attending COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S Clerk who gave file C51190 to me for viewing and took the order |
|for the certified reproduction of the said misfiled documents: |
|1. A copy of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) used by the panel of judges for C51190; which was before the Honourable Justice|
|I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT,|
|containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual. The said document had a certificate |
|for the certified reproduction of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), that was signed and commissioned on the 4th of February 2013 by |
|Erica Ramrarinesingh stapled to the front cover of the copied TRANSCRIPT in question. |
|2. A copy of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) used by the panel of judges for C51190; which was before the Honourable Justice|
|I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT,|
|containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual. The said document had a certificate |
|for the certified reproduction of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), that was signed and commissioned on the 4th of February 2013 by |
|Erica Ramrarinesingh stapled to the front cover of the copied TRANSCRIPT in question. |
|3. A copy of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) used by the panel of judges for C51190; which was before the Honourable Justice|
|I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT,|
|containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual. The said document had a certificate |
|for the certified reproduction of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), that was signed and commissioned on the 4th of February 2013 by |
|Erica Ramrarinesingh stapled to the front cover of the copied TRANSCRIPT in question. |
|4. One copy with a plastic cover with the word “copy” written on it by the Crown which was served on my person by the Crown. The said copy was a copy of |
|the CROWN'S COPY which was ordered to be disclosed to my person in accordance with the the Honourable Justice Watt August 27th, 2010 court order after Ms. |
|Joanne Stuart made a false assertion before him in court. JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500); the said document was before the |
|Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is|
|a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual. |
|5. One uncertified copy of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) which was served upon my under the guise of being certified and filed |
|with the COURT OF APPEAL under the guise of being certified; the said document in addition to having yellow and orange hi-lights throughout was before the |
|Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer as corroborative evidence which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's |
|RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed |
|evidence is factual. |
|6. A copy of 3 other commissioned certificate by Desiree Viceral which covered four of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) in |
|question and secured with an elastic holding the bundle of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) together. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[151] Again, on the 14th of November 2013 I found the missing 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559), which proves conclusively |
|that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, in addition to at least one to the |
|exhibits in the same RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61) the crown was relying on in the hearing was fraudulent, or manufactured evidence, or maliciously instituted |
|as evidence. |
| |
|[152] 3 of the 5 copies were CERTIFIED reproduction by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, one copy was served on my person by the Crown and the last copy was a |
|copy of the CROWN'S COPY which was ordered to be disclosed to the my person by the Honourable Justice Watt. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[153] On the 14th of November 2013 I formally requested to view the documents and exhibits for M42322, which I had arrange from the 7th of November 2013. After|
|a 15 min search by the COURT OF APPPEAL-RECORD'S Clerk(Wayne), I was informed that M42322 cannot be found. Some Clerks say M42322 is closed, and some Clerks |
|say the file M42322 is still open waiting to be closed. M42322 was Appealed to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA which demand a final order I have no access to; it |
|implied that all the avenues of appeal was not exhausted at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. |
| |
|[154] On the 14th of November 2013 I was denied access to M42322 in my view, since I followed court(C.O.A) protocol and prearrange my requisition to view |
|M42322. |
| |
|[155] On the 14th of November 2013 I went upstairs to the COURT OF APPEAL- RGISTRAR and requested to view M42322. After about 30 min I was give a sleeve with |
|the NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL and a copy typed copy of Justice Watt September 13th, Order. There was none of the volumes of documents and exhibits I|
|personally filed as supporting documents for M42322, not even the FACTUM(42322); I was denied access to M42322 in my view, since I followed protocol and |
|prearrange my requisition to view M42322. Besides, I was only trying to affect what I believe the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA was directing me to do. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[156] On the 14th of November 2013 I requested from the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RGISTRAR to view C55532 to check for the integrity of the documents and |
|exhibits for the said file. Since on October 24, 2013 Justice Feldman, illustrated that the only documents before her was the original NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR |
|LEAVE TO APPEAL. The NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION which was supposes to be before her, because the MOTION FOR DIRECTION (M42332) before the honorable |
|Justice Feldman was to set a date for the CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION. Documents I filed in court was missing from the file. |
| |
|[157] On the 14th of November 2013, after about a 30 min search by the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RGISTRAR to locate C55532, the Clerk informed me that she |
|could not find the file. I requested of her to ask the last person who was involve with the said file, whom was sitting two wickets over to the east of her who|
|processed my filing of many TRANSCRIPTS (C55532) in my effort to perfect C55532. Imagine, professional working at a high court such as the COURT OF APPEAL |
|which makes daily determination on the good of the public, important decisions which affect all our lives could not locate file C55532, and the document and |
|exhibits for M42322. |
| |
|[158] On the 14th of November 2013 I left a hand written requisition to view the documents and exhibits for C55532. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[159] There seems to be an willful effort to hold my COURT OF APPEAL files hostage or impede my Private Prosecutions and willfully obstruct justice in |
|addition to attempting to defeat DUE PROCESS OF LAW; to steal my legal rights, overcome the GOOD OF THE PUBLIC, steal my beloved children's Section 7 rights, |
|and usurp the authority of the ADMINISTRATION of JUSTICE in rendering judgment in a personally constructed preliminary court. I will not stand idly by in |
|negligence, and neglect my responsibility to the Canadian Public, and my beloved children in filing charges and notifying the proper authorities of the |
|aforementioned. |
| |
|[160] THE MATERIALS TRANSFER EXHIBITS LIST(MO-7-061-12/C56817) which the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S Clerk refuse to certify on more than one |
|occasion has the following discrepancies: |
|1. I appealed CR-70000061-12 from the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO at the beginning of April 2013. I was not late in |
|appealing the matter. |
|2. The SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICRE release the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on a undocumented date. |
|3. The MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 was released by Guiyab Sam on an undocumented date, in addition to Sam Guiyab neglecting to endorse MATERIAL |
|EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 for release to a lawful receiving authority or otherwise. |
|4. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO received the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on May 3rd, 2013. |
|5. The MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 was confirmed by Azra Parvok on the 17th of July 2013 and filed under C56817. |
|• |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[161] Tampering with material evidence and actively changing the court file to skew the context of the evidence it contains or whatever the case maybe, is |
|unlawful, fraudulent, and a blatantly attempt to defeated the course of justice or at the minimum, to obstruct it or preempt the proper administration of |
|justice and render judgment in one’s own preliminary court; vigilante action devoid of legal authority given by the Canadian people. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[162] After filing appeal C56817, I was prevented from accessing the exhibits t from the lower court for COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, blocked or impeded from |
|properly prepare for my COURT OF APPEAL matters |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[163] The Crown had improperly taken the COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 EXHIBITS without a formal request or reasonable notification of it's intension to the |
|Private Prosecutor. Even the simple task of requesting or reproducing court documents and exhibits or even viewing the COURT OF APPEAL file(C56817) to prepare|
|and construct my arguments for matter C55532, C56817, and M42322 became a unnecessary burden of denial of access to my own APPEAL file(Public exhibits and |
|evidence). |
| |
|• AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW COURT RULE, PROPER PROTOCOL, AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND NATRUAL JUSTICE WAS FOLLOWED. |
|[164] After filing the appeal for C56817, I tried on more than one occasion to see COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, but I was turned away and informed that I |
|could not view the same file because the “Crown has it” or file C56817 is in the possession and control of the RESPONDENT Crown Attorney. |
|[165] I pleaded with the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS for information concerning the date of availability for viewing COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 in addition to |
|informing the same COURT OF APPEA-RECORDs that I am in desperate need of file C56817 to prepare for my Prosecution matters. I was blatantly refused the |
|aforesaid requested information. |
| |
|[166] In light of what was happing and the aforementioned unreasonableness, I served on the COUR T OF APPEAL-RECORDS a requisition for certified copies of |
|documents/exhibits in C56817 which I needed for constructing my arguments for my matters. The manager of the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS refused to confirm my |
|request in the said requisition in-addition to failing to complete a formal order form or repeat the requisition out loud for confirmation of understanding of |
|what was needed. |
| |
|[167] She(COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S manager), was quite forceful and blatant in her denial of giving me equal service(Section. 1 of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT) in |
|accessing public COURT documents/EXHIBITS under her carriage and control. |
| |
|[168] Contrastingly and in the context of Section 482 of the C.C., the Crown took the COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 improperly from the same COURT OF |
|APPEAL-RECORDS without proper court documentation or a judge’s order or reasonable notice to the Private Prosecutor, and without the common decency of placing |
|contended matter before an independent judge in the format of a fair hearing; but byway of a simple personal email (asserted by record’s Clerk) which I the |
|Informant who is acting in the capacity of a Prosecutor was trying to affect the RULE OF LAW, does-not have access to. This is what I was told by the Records |
|Clerk and I believe her within the context of trust and confidence forming the fiduciary relation between me and the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. |
| |
|[169] Matter C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, has been prejudice my person and the public by Deborah Kirck (for the RESPONDENT), whom improperly |
|removed public evidence (C56817) from the COURT OF APPEAL’S RECORD without a court order, without the Applicant permission, without reasonable notice to the |
|Informant/Private Prosecutor, without any court documentation to track, and insure the integrity of the original papers and EXHIBITS. |
| |
|[170] In short, the public, and the Private Prosecutor has been denied access to public evidence by Madame Deborah Krick, a Professional colleague of the |
|alleged accused both of whom work in the same Institution within the same jurisdiction, Professional colleagues. |
| |
|[171] FURTHERMORE, a critical piece of evidence(Pre-Enquette Transcript(M61) bound in red covers) is missing, lost or disappeared from COURT OF APPEAL file |
|C56817, in addition to other critical evidence placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower courts, which show’s Gail Hugh’s affidavit|
|the crown was relying on in it’s RESPONDENT FACTUM(M61) is a false affidavit pointing to false evidence. |
| |
|[172] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck whom has carriage and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having |
|possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so. She has had sufficient time to review |
|file C56817 and cannot justify asserting any false statements she aught to know is false in contravention of the section 4 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF |
|CONDUCT. |
| |
|[173] But, MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers, which was filed by my person, is still missing from COURT OF APPEAL file |
|C56817. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[174] I starved myself to obtain the money to pay for the said missing transcription of evidence, and now it has disappeared from COA file C56817 while the |
|same file may have been under Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck carriage and control. The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart) in the Private Prosecution |
|works out of the same Office as Ms. Deborah Kirck, and is at least a Professional colleague in representing the Attorney General of Ontario within the same |
|public institution; so there is a public appearance of the aforementioned action being improper regardless of whether this is or is-not the case. I just want |
|the improper sanitized public evidence back where it belongs, and before the review panel. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 UNDER TAB 22 AND JUSTICE PEPALL AUGUST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
|[175] On the 17th of September 2013 a COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARION-RECORD'S CLERK who goes by the name Desire Viceral, tried to covertly give me I reasonable|
|believe and do believe to be corroborative evidence that was not only placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower court; but also, |
|proved conclusively that agents of the Crown not acting in the capacity of a lawful deputy of Her Majesty the Queen manufactured evidence or misrepresented |
|evidence in addition to swearing a false affidavit in support of the same improper evidence. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[176] On the 17th of September 2013 the court documents which Desire Viceral try to covertly give to me under the guise of deception are 5 copies of the |
|January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559) which had the following origin: |
|1. One copy of the Crown's personal copy of the uncertified copy of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559) which Ms. Joanne Stuart was ordered to |
|disclosed to my person after she was taking more than 5 months for her investigation and to fulfill the honorable Justice Gillese January 27, 2010 for R.V. |
|FERRON(M38387/C51190) court order. |
|2. My personal uncertified copy of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT (07-02500/07-02559), the Crown served on my person for COURT OF APPEAL MATTER C51190 under the|
|guise of being certified when it was not the case. Parts of it are hilighted in yellow and orange hiliter. |
|3. 3 certified copies of the 3 uncertified copies of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT (07-02500/07-02559), the Crown filed with the COURT OF APPEAL for MATTER |
|C51190 under the guise of being certified real evidence for a court process in which a panel of judges was reviewing C51190, when it was not the case. In |
|short certified copies of the uncertified copies of real evidence used by the a COURT OF ALPPEAL panel of 3 to review C51190 and form the bases for it's |
|reasons for judgment for dismissing my CRIMINAL APPEAL LEAVE FOR APPEAL HEARING. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|[177] After the 13th of September 2013, when the Honourable Justice Watt whom was presiding over motion M42322 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, may have |
|made a final decision on the aforementioned matter; many more EXHIBITS(C56817) went missing, even though I personally confirmed on more than one occasion their|
|existence in COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; I informed the honourable Justice in the HEARING that proof of the false evidence the Crown filed and was relying on |
|was in the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS for all to check and confirm the truth of my assertions. I not allowed giving oral evidence, calling witnesses or be cross |
|examined by the Crown to vet my allegations for truthfulness; it is just accepted and goes unchallenged. |
| |
|[178] I say “may have” because I am unable to get any reliable answer concerning the closing of M42322 and even been denied access to view the same file |
|after requesting to view it. |
| |
|[179] Upon checking C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-Records it was discovered that MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red |
|covers was missing from COA file C56817. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|[180] The Private Prosecutor made an official requisition to the SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO (TORONTO) to forward the aforementioned TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE |
|(M61) to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORDS. The said TRANSCRIPT (M61) used as evidence at the appeal hearing at the lower courts is still missing or |
|sanitized from court file C56817. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|[181] I the Private Prosecutor, was denied on more than two occasions after personally requested orally for a certified copy of the MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST |
|(MO-7-061-12/C56817) without written articulated reason. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|[182] I was denied or refused a certified copy of the MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S after many oral requests. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|[183] I was denied or refused a certified copy of the MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S after serving on it a |
|requisition for a certified copy of MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) without written articulated reasons on more than one occassions. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A56817 AND AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|[184] THE MATERIALS TRANSFER EXHIBITS LIST(MO-7-061-12/C56817) which the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S Clerk refuse to certify on many occasion has |
|the following discrepancies: |
|1. The Informant appealed CR-70000061-12 from the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO at the beginning of April 2013. He was not|
|late in appealing the matter. |
|2. The SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICRE release the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on a undocumented date. |
|3. The MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 was released by Guiyab Sam on an undocumented date, in addition to Sam Guiyab neglecting to endorse MATERIAL |
|EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 for release to a lawful receiving authority or otherwise. |
|4. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO received the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on May 3rd, 2013. |
|5. The MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 was confirmed by Azra Parvok on the 17th of July 2013 and filed under C56817. |
|• |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|[185] In short, the public, and I the Informant/Private Prosecutor was denied access to public evidence by Madame Deborah Krick, a Professional colleague of |
|the alleged accuse. FURTHERMORE, a critical piece of evidence (Transcript(M61) bound in red covers) is missing, lost or disappeared from COURT OF APPEAL file |
|C56817. |
| |
|[186] If it is the case that I am not in error, I reasonable believe and do believe that the SOME COURT CLERKS-Registrar has been giving me false information |
|articulated as being policy and procedure; that runs contrary to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT: |
|[187] Pursuant to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; |
|RULE 4.08 – Requisition |
|REQUISITION |
|4.08 Where a party is entitled to require the registrar to carry out a duty under these rules, the party may do so by filing a requisition (Form 4E) and |
|paying the prescribed fee, if any. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.08. |
|[188] Pursuant to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; |
|RULE 4:03 - Certified copies of court documents; |
|CERTIFIED COPIES OF COURT DOCUMENTS |
|4.03 On the requisition of a person entitled to see a document in the court file under section 137 of the Courts of Justice Act and on payment of the |
|prescribed fee the registrar shall issue a certified copy of the document. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.03 |
|[189] Pursuant to the following SECTIONS of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT; |
|SECTION 137.(1) - DOCUMENT PUBLIC |
|Documents public |
|137.(1)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any document filed in a civil proceeding in a court, unless an Act or an order of the |
|court provides otherwise. |
|[190] Pursuant to the following SECTIONS of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT; |
|SECTION 137.(3) - COURT LIST PUBLIC |
|Court lists public |
|(3)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered. |
|[191] Pursuant to the following SECTIONS of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT; |
|SECTION 137.(4) - COPIES |
|Copies |
|(4)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any document the person is entitled to see. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137. |
| |
|[192] The following material evidence or EXHIBITS for CR-70000061/62, which were before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer on March 11, 2013 at the |
|SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE are missing , has been lost, or has been sanitized from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817: |
|1.) *EXHIBIT A155532 – SANITIZED FROM FILE C.O.A C56817 |
|CERTIFIED COPY OF JUSTICE CROLL’S ORDER (M61) UNDER TAB 03 |
|2.) *EXHIBIT A255532 |
|CERTIFIED COPY OF JUSTICE NORDHEIMER'S ORDER TO MICHAEL MACLEAN(MANIGAR OF S.C.J. REGISTRAR (M61) UNDER TAB 03 |
|3.) *EXHIBIT M55532 |
|UNCERTIFIED/ COURT FILED |
|PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (M61) SENT VIA MAIL |
|1. received by CROWN on June 28th, 2012 |
|2. mailed on the 26th of July 2012 |
|3. received on Wednesday August 1st, 2012 |
|4. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTARAR on the 24th of July 2012 |
|5. TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE is blank |
|6. TRANSCRIPT completion DATE is blank |
|7. TRANSCRIPT completion notification DATE is blank |
|8. no certification |
|9. signiture by Arlene Gorewicz FORM 2 is not present |
|4.) *EXHIBIT O55532 – SANITIZED FROM FILE C.O.A C56817 |
|1. NOT CERTIFIED IN FORM 2/ COURT FILED |
|2. PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(M61) SENT VIA MAIL |
|3. received by CROWN on June 28th, 2012 |
|4. mailed on or about 9th of August 2012 |
|5. received on or about August 15th, 2012 |
|6. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTRAR on the 24th of July 2012 |
|7. TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE is blank |
|8. TRANSCRIPT completion DATE is blank |
|9. TRANSCRIPT completion notification DATE is blank |
|10. undated signature of Arlene Gorewicz is present |
|11. FORM 2 is not pressent, |
|12. nor is it certified in FORM 2 |
|5.) *EXHIBIT S55532-sanitized from C56817 E-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (M61/M62) |
|1. bound in red covers, |
|2. served on all parties, |
|3. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTRAR on the on Jan 24th, 2013 |
|6.) 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on |
|in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the |
|Crown's evidence is factual. |
| |
|[193] 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559), which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the |
|Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, in addition to at least one to the exhibits in the same RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61) the crown |
|was relying on in the hearing was fraudulent, or manufactured evidence, or maliciously instituted as evidence. |
| |
|[194] 3 of the 5 copies were CERTIFIED reproduction by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, one copy was served on my person by the Crown and the last copy was a |
|copy of the CROWN'S COPY which was ordered to be disclosed to the Informant by the Honourable Justice Watt. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 under TAB 10 and EXHIBIT F55532 under TAB 09 |
|[195] All 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, is a FALSE |
|AFFIDAVIT has been sanitized from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, they just went missing! |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST ( MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
| |
|[196] Desiree Viceral, a CLERK at the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD whom I reasonable believe to have acted under the directions of her manager(I over hear the |
|manager giving her instruction to place documents in question another file), tried to covertly return the same evidence which was before the Honourable |
|Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer, to my person byway of her manager's instructions, and with the message that I had “already pay for” the said legal |
|documents(missing exhibits C56817). For what purpose was I being deceived? |
| |
|[197] As soon as I realized that the court documentations was the evidence placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer, I boldly refuse all 5 |
|copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), which is supposed to go before a reviewing court panel. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST ( MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
| |
|[198] Deborah Kirck (for the RESPONDENT), whom improperly removed public evidence (C56817) from the COURT OF APPEAL’S RECORD without a court order, without |
|Informant’s express permission, without reasonable notice to the Informant/Private Prosecutor, without any court documentation to track, and insure the |
|integrity of the original papers and EXHIBITS. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST ( MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10 |
|[199] The public, and I the Private Prosecutor was denied access to public evidence by Madame Deborah Krick, a Professional colleague of the alleged accused.|
|FURTHERMORE, a critical piece of evidence(Transcript(M61) bound in red covers) is missing, lost or disappeared from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, in addition |
|to critical evidence placed before Justice Ian Nordheimer at the lower courts which show’s Gail Hugh’s affidavit the crown was relying on in it’s RESPONDENT |
|FACTUM(M61) is a false affidavit pointing to false evidence. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 under TAB 10 and EXHIBIT BC55532 under TAB31 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|INFORMANT ELECTED TO APPEAL BYWAY OF MANDAMUS |
|[200] On the 4th of February 2013 the Private Prosecutor informed the court that CR-12-70000062 was incorrectly listed as an “EXTRA REMEDY – CERTIRIORI” on |
|the Court’s Docket list. |
|• PLEASE SEE page 3 and page 4 in the FEBRUARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPTION(C56817), before the Honourable Madame Justice Benotto |
|• PLEASE SEE the Honourable Justice Nordheimer'S REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT |
| |
|[201] Furthermore, the Informant spent almost a year trying to correct this misleading false distinction of his matter (M61). |
| |
|[202] The Applicant have put this faulty error before Learned Superior Court Judges, the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE- REGISTRAR, and the SHEDULING OFFICE to no|
|avail. |
| |
|[203] The Appellant have filed amendments, and informed all parties with TAKE NOTICE, that the appeal is a MANDAMUS APPEAL. |
| |
|[204] Yet, the false hoods, and misleading information of a Certiorari (requiring proof of Jurisdictional error) Appeal persist for the purpose of stealing |
|his legal rights in addition to attempt to colour the presiding Justice or the legal process against the Private Prosecutor. Which is what happened at the |
|SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (TORONTO REGION)! |
|• PLEASE SEE Section. 784(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA,and page 1530, CERTERIORI, 2009 MARTIN'S Annual Criminal Code) |
|“Certiorari alone lies to review order made by a Justice on a Preliminary hearing only where the grounds relate to the justice's jurisdiction...” |
|(page 1530, MANDAMUS, 2009 MARTIN'S Annual Criminal Code) |
|“Mandamus / Availability generally - … but where the inferior court makes an error in law which leads it away from exercising lawful jurisdiction this remedy |
|may be invoked: R. v. Mann(1971), 4C.C.C. (2D) 319 {…} |
|This extraordinary remedy, available to require an inferior court to accept it's jurisdiction and discharge it's duty ... ” |
|(page 1533, MANDAMUS, 2009 MARTIN'S Annual Criminal Code) |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE SECTION. 774 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE |
|[205] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck falsely asserted on more than one occasion before the Honourable Justice Pepall |
|whom was presiding over motion M42322 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that CR-12-70000062 was a Certiorari Appeal at the lower courts. |
| |
|[206] On the 13th of September 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck falsely asserted on more than one occasion before the Honourable Justice Watt whom|
|was presiding over motion M42322 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that CR-12-70000062 was a Certiorari Appeal at the lower courts. |
| |
|[207] On the 24th of October 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck falsely asserted on at least one occasion before the Honourable Justice Feldman |
|whom was presiding motion M42921 for direction at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that CR-12-70000062 was a Certiorari/Mandamus Appeal at the lower courts. |
|The fallacy with respect to the Private Prosecutor's elected mode of appeal(MANDAMUS ONLY) from the lower court continues and still persist even at the COURT |
|OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. |
| |
|[208] Pursuant to the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, RULE 4.01 states as follows on page 53 and 54; |
|“Relationship to the Administration of Justice |
|4.01 The Lawyer as Advocate |
|(2) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall |
|(e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon|
|a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct, |
|(f) knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statue or like authority, |
|(g) knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal,|
|(h) deliberately refrain from informing the tribunal of any binding authority that at the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been |
|mentioned by an opponent, |
|(I) dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent, |
|(j) knowingly permit a witness or party to be presented in a false or misleading way or to impersonate another, |
|(K) needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness,...” |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
| |
|[209] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck served on the Private Prosecutor in court the Crown's unsigned RESPONDENT'S |
|APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) which contains under Appendix A in the same document what seem to be a the Honorable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER, which came to |
|the Private Prosecutor's attention on August 20, 2013 at about 6:00 a.m. Without reasonable notice or the opportunity to defend against the said order, before |
|his legal rights was taken away in a fair and impartial hearing. |
| |
|[210] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER which came to the Applicant's attention on August 20th, 2013 at about 6 a.m.. VIA the Crown's unsigned |
|RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), and states as follows at para[2]; |
|“THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indirectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any |
|court in Ontario, except until such time as he obtain leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and as provided for in this order.” |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|INFORMANT IMPEDED FROM ACCESSING REAL EVIDENCE |
|[211] The Crown received uncertified, and unsigned TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000061) on June 28th, 2012, and then proceeded to fraudulent file the same TRANSCRIPT |
|on the 24th of July 2012 under false pretense that the said TRANSCRIPT was certified, and had been served on the Informant, which was not the case in |
|contravention of the RULE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, NATURAL JUSTICE, and the EVIDENCE ACT. The above is in contravention of RULE 5 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL |
|PROCEDURE. |
| |
|[212] The same TRANSCRIPT was not certified in FORM 2, inaddition to the Private Prosecutor being serve on Wednesday the 1st of August 2012 at about 3:00 P.M. |
|asper the Post Office Clerk whom received the said days mail; this is long after uncertified, and unsigned TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000061) was already filed at the|
|SUPERIOR COURT (Toronto Region) – REGISTRAR in COURT DOCKET with file no.: CR-12-70000062 on the 24th of June 2012. |
| |
|[213] The Registrar would never receive a court document from an applicant or member of the public, without the precondition of proper service to all parties |
|being first fulfilled, and proven; Asper Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice. |
| |
|[214] Furthermore, on the 4th of June 2012 it was agreed upon in open court for the CROWN to ORDER AND FILE PRE-ENQUETE TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061/62) for the |
|sake of efficiency; the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer Endorsed the following on the 30th of July 2012; |
|“Mr. Ferron has not received the transcript of the pre-enquete hearing. Matter is adjourned so that the Crown can ...” |
| |
|[215] Moreover, the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer directed the Crown to ensure that the Private Prosecutor was given the TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) |
|before he leaves the Courthouse on July 30th, 2012; the Crown concur, but failed to fulfill it's promise. |
| |
|[216] The Crown asked the Informant if he wanted a photo copy of the Court document in question; but the Private Prosecutor asserted that it was a criminal |
|offence(copyright) to photocopy the TRANSCRIPT in question, and it must be a certified TRANSCRIPT served upon his person. |
|• PLEASE SEE page , of JULY 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(M61) |
| |
|[217] THE CANADA POST STAMP or representation of a CANADA POST STAMP, indicates that the CROWN mailed the PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) to Wayne |
|Ferron(the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR) on the 26th of July 2012. |
|PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT K55532 UNDER TAB 14 |
| |
|[218] ELI ZITELLA's letter which accompanies PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000061) is dated July 25, 2012, and articulates as follows; |
|“...Dear Mr. Ferron: |
|Re: -File No: M61/12 |
|Please find enclosed the Proceedings At Pre-Enquette Transcript dated March 6, 2012 which is being sent to you via Canada Post.” |
|Signed by Eli Zitella(Legal Administritive Assistant) |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT L55532 UNDER TAB 15. |
| |
|[219] The above served TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) was not certified in FORM 2, unsigned, and fraudulently filed on July 24th, 2012 at the COURT'S REGISTRAR, |
|in contravention of RULE 5, RULE 4.08, RULE 6.05 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and Section 5(2) of the EVIDENCE ACT. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT M55532 UNDER TAB 16 |
|[220] The Crown fraudulently filed another uncertified TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) absent of a FORM 2 with an undated signature in blue ink on the 24th of July |
|2012; the same TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) was served on Wayne Ferron(the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR) about the 15th of August 2012 in contravention of RULE 5, RULE |
|4.08, RULE 6.05 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and Section 5(2) of the EVIDENCE ACT. |
| |
|PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT N55532 UNDER TAB 17 AND EXHIBIT O55532 UNDER TAB 18 |
|[221] The last page of the said TRANSCRIPT had the signature of Arlene Gorewicz in blue ink; however, there was no date indicated for the same signature. There|
|is also an assertion that TRANSCRIPTION RECORDING OF Ms. A. Collins verbatum reporter, but not in FORM 2. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT O55532 UNDER TAB 18 |
|[222] The Crown filed the Private Prosecutor's AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE for PRIVATE INFORMATION (CR-12-70000061) on the 1st of August 2012. |
| |
|[223] On the 2nd of October 2010, the Private Prosecutor went to the College Park ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, to order proper certified transcribed |
|Transcription evidence of the Pre- Enquette Hearing. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT R55532 UNDER TAB 21, page 2 and page 3 |
| |
|[224] The attending Court Reporter taking the order was in agreement with all his complaints of irregularities of proper transcript production except for |
|one. Mainly the Transcript in question certification was done by an old outdated method which has been replace by a new procedure which the Informant have |
|only been exposed to, pursuant to the same court reporter. |
| |
|[225] On the 2nd of October 2010, I was able to leave $40.00 deposit instead of the usual $50.00 deposit, and the following requisition on the back of the |
|order form; |
|“Things lacking or need in Transcription: |
|• certifying Court Reporter's Signiture in blue ink and date of endorsing Signiture. |
|• Transcript Original Order Date … |
|• Transcript Original Completion Date … |
|• Transcript Original Notification date of Completion … |
|• Date Reprinted Transcript Order … |
|• Date Reprinted “ |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT R55532 UNDER TAB 21 |
|[226] On the 18th of October 2010, I went to the College Park ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, to pick the transcribed Transcription (M61) of the Pre- Enquette |
|Hearing. The Crown's filed TRANSCRIPT was deficient, and were not remedied or corrected. So I left a second Requisition for the Court Reporter (Ms. Gorewicz). |
|“Information 12-77000 487, 12-77000 488 |
|S.C.J CR-12-70000061 |
|Wayne Ferron v. Regina |
|Accused: Matthew Asma |
|Accused: Joanne Stuart |
|Ms. Gorewicz |
|• Original Order Date of Transcript |
|• Original Completion Date of Transcript |
|• Original Notification Date of Transcript |
|• Order Date of Reprinted Transcript |
|• completion Date of Reprinted Transcript |
|• Notification Date of Reprinted Transcript “ |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT R55532 UNDER TAB 21 |
| |
|[227] On the 18th of October 2010, I went to pick up the same order Transcript, I did not have the rest of the money owed on its incomplete production. |
| |
|[228] On the 9th of January 2013, I went to pick up the same order Transcript, and pay the outstanding balance. The said TRANSCRIPT was incomplete and still |
|missing information. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT S55532 UNDER TAB 22 |
|[229] In addition to no official COURT REPORTER'S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION to all parties in contravention RULE 4.08 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. |
| |
|[230] There is still no COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION (Toronto Region) filed with the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-REGISTRAR in contravention |
|RULE 4.08 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. |
| |
|[231] The Private prosecutor wanted TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE certified with relevant information, signed, and dated in blue ink in FORM 2 and in accordance |
|with Subsection 5(2) of the EVIDENCE ACT, and RULE 4.08 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: |
|Transcript of Evidence |
|6.05 (6) A party who intends to refer to a transcript of evidence at the hearing of an application shall file a copy of the transcript as provided by rule |
|4.08. |
| |
|[232] Upon checking C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-Records it was discovered that MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red |
|covers was missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817. The Private Prosecutor made an official requisition to the SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO(TORONTO) to forward |
|the aforementioned TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE(M61) to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORDS. The said TRANSCRIPT (M61) used as evidence at the appeal hearing|
|at the lower courts is still missing or sanitized from court file C56817. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT S55532 UNDER TAB 22 |
| |
|[233] On the 28th of August 2013, the Informant was unable to view COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, because the Crown had removed all exhibits from the COURT OF |
|APPEAL RECORDS, without reasonable notice to the Private Prosecutor, without a Judges court order, without official court documentations giving the Crown |
|authority to do so, without court documentation accounting for what was unofficially or improperly being removed, oppose to securing the integrity of COURT OF|
|APPEAL file C56817 and it's EXHIBITS. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 UNDER TAB 22 AND JUSTICE PEPALL AUGST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT |
|[234] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck whom has carriage and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having |
|possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so. |
| |
|[235] But, MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers, which was filed by the Private Prosecutor, is still missing from COURT OF |
|APPEAL file C56817. |
| |
|[236] The Informant starved himself to obtain the money to pay for the said missing transcription of evidence, and now it has disappeared from COA file C56817|
|while the same file may have been under Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck carriage and control. The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart) in the Private |
|Prosecution works out of the same Office as Ms. Deborah Kirck, and is at least a Professional colleague in representing the Attorney General of Ontario within |
|the same public institution; so there is a public appearance of the aforementioned action being improper regardless of wheatear this is or is-not the case. The|
|Private Prosecutor just wants the improper sanitized public evidence back where it belongs, and before the review panel. |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 UNDER TAB 22 AND JUSTICE PEPALL AUGUST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160 |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160 |
| |
|[237] On the 5th of April 2012 at 11:57 am, the Informant tried to file an appeal (12-70000061/12-70000062) against Ms. Joanne Stuart whom is allege to have |
|committed criminal acts against the public; the Informant was arrested(Offense Number: 8271152B ), and blatantly denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW with no notice of |
|trial, no disclosure of Crown's Brief, no opportunity to give full answer, and no opportunity to effect a defense in accordance with the consciousness of the |
|court, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. |
| |
|• Please see EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK. |
|[238] Similarly, on August 26, 2011, I The Private Prosecutor tried to place before a Justice of the Piece at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and |
|WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE), crimes (12-1912/12-4395) committed in the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario; I was arrested, my legal rights were|
|taken away, and I was unlawfully imprisoned for 13 days without access to a lawyer or an impartial trial for the just determination of his imprisonment, for |
|trying follow the direction of Section 504 of the Criminal Code of Canada. |
| |
|• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK. |
|[239] The Crown has failed to disclose pending requested disclosure of public evidence and pending requested further disclosure for the purposes of |
|enforcement of the RULE OF LAW. Please see EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law |
|Division). |
| |
|[240] I have been denied my HUMAN RIGHTS, and HUMAN DIGNITY on many occasions at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE in contravention of their own |
|policy which used to be on most of the walls in the same Court house; asper the ONTARION HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, there is supposed to be; |
|“Freedom from harassment and discrimination in employment and services, and fair and equitable access to all services...” |
|• Please see EXHIBIT TOU3. |
| |
|[241] I tried to file an appeal (12-70000061/12-70000062) against those who have committed criminal acts against the public and consider themselves above |
|the law, and I was arrested(Offence Number: 8271152B ) , and denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW with no notice of trial, no disclosure, no opportunity to give full |
|answer, and no opportunity to effect a defence in accordance with the consciousness of the court, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. |
|• Please see EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK. |
| |
|[242] I tried to prepare to give FULL ANSWER (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B ) in accordance with parliamentary legislation for a trial/conviction void of |
|notice, and the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE was directed to escort me out of the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE without the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, |
|and in contravention of Section 7 of THE SUPREME LAW OF CANADA, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. This seems to be the state of excepted |
|civilized practice of Canadian Law in the Province of Ontario. |
|• Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK. |
| |
|[243] On May 14, 2013, at or about 3:40 p.m., in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS |
|COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full answer for allege crimes(Offence Number: 8271152B ) I am|
|charge within the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I was discriminated against with systemic prejudice, called |
|“CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge of me, in addition |
|to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front of the |
|administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKED OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by distinction without reasonable cause, but also |
|conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my person even though they are required not to |
|do so(OPEN COURT POLICY). |
|• Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK. |
|EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MS. JOANNE STUART CRIMES |
| |
|[244] The evidence refused at the PRE-ENQUETE, is evidence to the contrary of Ms. Stuart assertion on more than one occasions without investigation before |
|the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that TRANSCRIPTS(07-0559) for MATTER C 51190 would take at least 2 years to produce. Ms. Joanne Stuart states in her May 14, |
|2010 letter on page 4 at the second last paragraph, four months after Justice Gillese issued her Court Order; |
|“As you may recall, my initial concern with these transcripts from the summary Conviction Appeal Court was whether there would even be recordings made of these|
|appearances from which transcripts could be produce...” |
| |
|[245] The afore said took place a couple of days after Justice Lanskin refused to hear the MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE (C 51190/ M38706), even though I had |
|already orally given Ms. Joanne Stuart my agreement to an adjournment on consignment asper her request, BYWAY of the REGISTRAR, because she need more time to |
|review the matter. |
|• Please see EXHIBIT PQ1 , JUSTICE LANSKIN ENDORSE, EXHIBIT PQ2. |
| |
|[246] Ms. Joanne Stuart stole or confiscated my FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST without my express permission, in addition to failing to forward the same |
|request to the proper owner (“HEAD” of the MINISTERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL). The following is a copy of the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, stamped receives|
|on June 9, 2010 by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. |
|• Please see EXHIBIT PS6. |
| |
|[247] Ms. Joanne Stuart at a later date returned the five dollar check which accompanied the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST after improperly procuring |
|Justice Watt's Court Order, minus the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST after FALSELY asserting to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, that she had returned the |
|same $5.00 check address to the Minister of Finance |
| |
|[248] In addiction to misleading the same court which Justice Watt presided over, Ms. Stuart improperly obtain a court order against my person for contested |
|issues. Ms. Joanne Stuart asserts in her August 31, 2010 letter; |
|“My apologies for the delay in returning it to you and for indicating to the Court that it had been returned to you already.” |
| |
|[249] After my credibility was called into question by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, and integrity was willfully diminished while being forced to file a |
|replacement FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request with additional funds, moreover the Crown already receive a COURT ORDER from Justice Watt in their favor at my |
|expense of my legal rights and integrity. |
| |
|• Please see EXHIBIT PS2, and EXHIBIT justice watt endorsement. |
|[250] Pursuant to Ms. Tanya Pineapple, the MINISTERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL denied ever receiving the aforesaid FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, in addition to |
|counter requesting that I must file a new FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST with another new $5.00 check. Ms. Tanya Pineapple, states as follows in her letter, |
|last paragraph; |
|“I have contacted the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COORDINATOR for the MINISTRY about your appeal. The Ministry has advise that, as of August 5, 2010, it does not |
|any record of your freedom of information request...” |
|• Please see EXHIBIT PS3. |
| |
|[251] After the willful diminishing of my credibility, and integrity; I filed a replacement FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request as requested by the MINISTRY OF |
|ATTORNEY GENERAL and supported by the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION which was stamped received on August 24, 2010 by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY |
|GENERAL. |
| |
|• Please see EXHIBIT PS2, PS3, PS4, and PS5. |
|[252] I personally served on the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL a new FREEDOM OF INFORMATION for pending disclosure of right from the lower courts and request |
|for further disclosure; which was stamped received by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 8, 2010. |
| |
|• Please see EXHIBIT PS7. |
|[253] Ms. Joanne Stuart refused to disclosed to my person, pending disclosure of right from 2007 and onward. The crown asserts in EXHIBIT R2 on page 168 at |
|the end of the last paragraph; |
|“In my view of this, it is the Crown's position that there in nothing further to disclose.” |
| |
|• Please see EXHIBIT R2. |
|[254] Ms. Janet Roland, and Analyst of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, disclosed much of the material Ms. Joanne Stuart asserted did not exist or refused |
|to disclose byway of a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST/APPEAL against the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES at the retirement of the old Chief and the installment |
|of a new Chief of Police. |
|• Please see EXHIBIT NB1. |
| |
|[255] Ms. Janet Roland, and Analyst of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, fresh evidence disclosure showed that the Information(07-02500) was sworn under a |
|false name on two different dates, and the replacement Information (07-02559) was sworn after RECONIZEANCE (07-02500) was entered into, in addition to AUDIO CD|
|EVIDENCE being receded by the Crown without reasonable notification to the accuse of matter 07-02500. |
|• Please see EXHIBIT NB1, NB2, PPL, PPQ EXHIBIT C4. |
| |
|[256] Pursuant to A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, internal policy; |
|“RESPECT |
|FAIR TREATMENT |
|COURTESY DIGNITY |
|As employees of the Court Services Division, we have a responsibility to provide a courteous and respectful working environment to all clients entering our |
|court facility. We proudly perform our duties on behalf of citizen and the government of Ontario with Honesty and integrity. |
|Accordingly, Courts Administration, Brampton, is committed to the following principles: |
|• Foster and maintain working relationships based on mutual respect, dignity and cooperation. |
|• Respect, dignity and cooperation |
|• Respect the civil, legal, and human rights of all by maintaining an environment, which is fair, equitable and free of perceived or actual |
|discrimination and harassment. |
|• Avoid any comments or conduct that would be considered disrespectful, impolite or demeaning. |
|As members of the public, in order to ensure a safe and respectful court environment please ensure your conduct reflects the above mentioned principles...” |
| |
|• Please see EXHIBIT TOU3. |
| |
|[257] The aforesaid policy has been fragrantly and blatantly violated in relation to or within the context of my PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, Appeals, and |
|CIVIL MATTERS. My adversarial legal opponents seek to ban me from exercising my LEGAL RIGHTS, my CIVIL RIGHTS, and my CHARTER RIGHTS, at A GRENVILLE and |
|WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, since my claims and allegations cannot be disproved nor is there any evidence to the contrary. In short, |
|denying my person my LEGAL RIGHT which all other CANADIANS enjoy is the only way to defeat my just claims and allegation and prevent a lawfully just resolution|
|to the matters before the court. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|ACCESS TO JUSTICE: |
|The following IS THE CONTENTS OF ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR |
| |
|I, Wayne FERRON (Private Prosecutor/Informant) of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY : |
|[258] The CROWN(Ms. Krick) has removed the public evidence in file C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, to the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE without lawful|
|cause nor lawful permission nor a court order from a Judge of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO with a wanton disregard for DUE PROCESS of fair criminal |
|proceedings. |
| |
|[259] The CRITICAL PUBLIC EVIDENCE in file C56817 has been sanitized from the same file while C56817 has been under the carriage and control of the |
|CROWN(ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO). |
| |
|[260] The CRITICAL PUBLIC EVIDENCE in file C56817 has been removed by COURT SERVICE WORKERS from the same file, while C56817 has been under the carriage and|
|control of the CROWN(ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO) and hidden in another file without lawful cause or the order of a Judge of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. |
| |
|[261] Madam Deputy Registrar has not responded to any of my requisitions for copies of documents needed to produce my APPEAL BOOK(C56817) in addition to |
|perfecting the appeal. |
| |
|[262] COURT REPORTER'S has failed to complete my TRANSCRIPT(C56817) ORDERS to perfect appeal C56817. |
| |
|[263] I have been denied the ability to affect a MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) byway of a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN ORDER” to place before a court of competent |
|jurisdiction the problems of missing court EXHIBITS(C56817), pending TRANSCRIPTS(C56817), and the CROWN'S(Ms. Krick) unlawful removal of C56817 from the COURT|
|OF APPEAL-RECORDS. |
| |
|[264] MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) was already placed before a court, but I was denied the fair and just application of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS to have the |
|issues of law resolved. |
| |
|[265] My time and resources are being stolen away or redirected from matters at the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA(SCC matters are being prejudice against my |
|person), by forcing me to attend HEARINGS(C55532-STATUS COURT) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO in contravention of the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT ORDER” and the |
|CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, to be presided over by the honourable Justice Watt. |
| |
|[266] I was not given Proper service or disclosure of the honourable Healey's August 10th, 2012 wherein she determined(RULE 34.02) my person, and private |
|prosecution to be vexatious, frivolous, has no prospect of success, and an abuse of process which waste court resources without any presentation of evidence or|
|fulfillment of court orders against the Crown(Mr. Frank Giordano). The honorable Justice Healey DISPOSITION for CROWN'S MOTION(CR 12-1264 ET AL) states as |
|follows; |
|“...12-01262, 12-01264, 12-01265, and 12 – 999 999, This court endorse that each of these applications shall be dismissed as being friviolous and vexatious, as|
|none has a reasonable prospect of success and are, additionally, an abuse of process and waste of the court's limited resources...” |
| |
|[267] Motion M42322 was requisition for LEAVE TO APPEAL the honourable Justice Healey August 10, 2012 ruling which was not served on my person. I found out |
|about it when the CROWN (Mr. Jason Gorda, an agent of John Gerretsen the Attorney General for Ontario) tried to determine my person to be a “VEXATIVE LITIGANT”|
|in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (TORONTO REGION), while about the business of a private prosecution (M61) against Ms. Joanne Stuart. |
| |
|[268] On March 26, 2014 the Crown requested of the honourable Justice Watt that leave be given to my person even though I never requested leave from the |
|honourable court nor did I give the Crown authority to act on my behalf nor as my legal counsel. |
| |
|[269] The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO has never given me leave, but asserts on many occasions that leave carries a high requirement. |
| |
|[270] I was never giving leave for C51190, to file new evidence denied me in MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE C51190(M38706) BY THE CROWN(Ms. Joanne Stuart) |
|after being unlawfully imprisoned by PEEL REGIONAL POLICE and ; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM after they prevented me from perfecting appeal C51190. |
| |
|[271] Furthermore, I was denied NATURAL JUSTICE for M38706 which is still pending and has never been heard by the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO; in addition to |
|the DUPUTY REGISTRAR changing the original file numbers at a later date to fraudulently skew the history of the MOTIONS for C51190 without official notice or |
|an initialized note of the reasons for the changes accompanying the covert changes in the record of the motions for C51190. |
| |
|[272] I was never giving leave for M42812 for the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER”, even though Ms. Kirkpatrick fraudulently procured Justice .I. Andre J. |
|“VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” release on July 8, 2013 in addition to failing to show up for a motion adjourned in her favor while she was absent in court and|
|she promised Justice Feldman(seized with M42812) she would attend the March 5, 2013 hearing. |
| |
|[273] On the 13th of August 2013 while before the Honorable Justice Pepall, Ms. Krick for the Crown filed the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order |
|release on July 8th, 2013, in court to defeat Private Prosecution matter M42322. |
|[274] M42322 was adjourned to September 13, 2013 since Ms. Krick had improperly removed C56817 which the Applicant was relying on for the same matter at the |
|COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, without a court order or judicially sanctioned permission. |
| |
|[275] On the 13th of September 2013, the Honorable Justice Watt decline to exercise his Jurisdiction or fulfill his obligation to insure a fair hearing in |
|accordance with PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, in accordance with my request for the assistance of Duty Council, and in accordance with the authority of the COURT OF |
|APPEAL’S established case law (Pal Vasarhelyi ONCA 397-C50698) which the applicant placed before the same Honourable Justice. |
| |
|[276] Furthermore, I begged, and I plead for about twenty times or more to speak to DUTY COUNCIL, in addition to describing the materials the informant |
|wished to discuss with duty council, and I even invited the Honourable Justice Watt to review the same materials. |
| |
|[277] The Honourable Justice Watt, never informed, nor invited, nor offered my person access to DUTY COUNCIL for legal assistance in accordance with R. V. |
|Littlejohn & Tirabasso, R. v. Rowbotham, R. v. McGibbon, and the same Judges inherent jurisdiction to insure fairness in his court; whom is both a learned |
|COURT OF APPEAL Judge in addition to Justice Watt having many Case Law to his name (some of which I have used and is using). |
| |
|[278] On the 13th of September 2013, the Honorable Justice Watt dismissed my Private Prosecution matter M42322 while I was requesting to speak to DUTY COUNSEL |
|and never requested an adjournment. |
| |
|[279] The Honorable Justice Watt never gave me leave and dismissed my Private Prosecution matter M42322 even though I filed all required material for an |
|application, while the CROWN(Ms. Krick) filed no materials except for the RESPONDENT MOTION (M42322) containing a copy of the “VEXATIVE LITIGAN ORDER” the |
|CROWN was attempting to use to defeat my PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS(CR – 12-01264 ET AL). |
| |
|[280] On the 13th of December 2013, the Honorable Justice La Forme adjourned motion for direction C56817 (M42921) concerning many missing exhibits (C56817), |
|outstanding TRANSCRIPTS (C56817), the Crown improperly removing C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS without lawful permission, to December 18, 2013. |
| |
|[281] On the 18th of December 2013, the Honorable Justice Jurianz excepted my late filing of FACTUM C56817(M42921) concerning many missing exhibits(C56817), |
|outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C56817), and the Crown(Ms. Krick) improperly removing C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS without lawful permission. |
| |
|[282] I was not given Proper service or disclosure of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013. |
| |
|[283] Pursuant to the COURT OF APPEAL- REGISTRAR's copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013; the COURT OF |
|APPEAL-REGISTRAR received their copy of the said “VEXATIVE ORDER” on October 15, 2013. |
| |
|[284] Furthermore the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013, directs for a copy of the same order to be sent to all SUPERIOR |
|COURTS, ALL DIVISIONAL COURT, and the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO; but oddly, Justice I. Andre J. did not direct for the same court order to be sent to Wayne |
|Ferron, whom the same order is against or affects the most in removing all my legal rights in all courts in all of Ontario. |
| |
|[285] Justice I. Andre J. orders that a copy of the same order be forthwith delivered to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, and every region of the SUPERIOR COURT |
|OF JUSTICE, and DIVISIONAL COURT; the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” which came to the Applicant's attention on August 20, 2013 at about 6 a.m.. |
|VIA the Crown's(Ms. Krick) unsigned RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), on August 13, 2012. |
| |
|[286] The copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order which was located in the Crown's(Ms. Krick) unsigned RESPONDENT'S MOTION |
|RECORD(M42322), was missing significant information, mainly; Parties to Proceeding, Title of Proceeding, and name of originating COURT(AUTHORITY) for the same|
|court order. |
| |
|[287] On January 15th, 2014 I requested from the COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR a certified copy of ,the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on |
|July 8th; the Registrar refused to certified the same copied order in their file(M42812) which was not properly disclosed to my person. |
| |
|[288] On January 15th, 2014 I discovered that the honourable Justice I. Andre J. written court order release on July 8th, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. |
|typed court order, and the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASON FOR JUDGEMENT release on July 17th were all placed in COURT OF APPEAL file (M42812) without |
|lawful service to my person nor proof of service. |
| |
|[289] Furthermore, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. written court order release on July 8th, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order, and the |
|honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASON FOR JUDGEMENT release on July 17th had been in the possession of the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR’S possession since October|
|15, 2013. |
| |
|[290] Pursuant to the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106; |
|Reasons |
|393. The Court may deliver reasons for judgment |
|(a) orally from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing of a proceeding; or |
|(b) after having reserved judgment at the conclusion of a hearing, by depositing in the Registry written reasons, signed by the judge or prothonotary who |
|delivered them. |
|Drafting of order |
|394. (1) Where the Court gives reasons, it may direct one of the parties to prepare for endorsement a draft order to implement the Court's conclusion, approved|
|as to form and content by the other parties or, where the parties cannot agree on the form and content of the order, to bring a motion for judgment in |
|accordance with rule 369. |
|Pronouncement of judgment |
|(2) On the return of a motion under subsection (1), the Court shall settle the terms of and pronounce the judgment, which shall be endorsed in writing and |
|signed by the presiding judge or prothonotary. |
|Copies to be sent |
|395. (1) Subject to subsection 36(3), the Administrator shall send without delay a copy of every order made and of any reasons given other than in open court |
|to all parties |
|(a) by registered mail; |
|(b) by electronic means, including facsimile and electronic mail; or |
|(c) by any other means, as directed by the Chief Justice, likely to bring the order and any reasons to the attention of the party. |
|Proof of receipt |
|(2) If an order and any reasons are transmitted by electronic means, the Administrator shall confirm receipt by the party and place proof of that receipt on |
|the Court file. |
|SOR/2010-177, s. 6. |
| |
|[291] The aforementioned requirements of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 has not been fulfilled. |
| |
|[292] Pursuant to THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACT |
|(C.C.S.M. c. C280) ; |
|WHEN PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HEARD |
|In absence of opposite party |
|3.03(2) No motion, reference, examination, assessment of costs or other matter, except a motion made without notice, shall proceed before a judge, master |
|or other officer in the absence of the opposite party until 15 minutes after the time fixed for it. |
| |
|[293] Pursuant to Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals in the Court of Appeal (filed with the Secretary of the Civil Rules Committee on October 7, |
|2003); |
|5.3 Confirmation of Motion |
|1. A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall : |
|(a) confer or attempt to confer with the other party; |
|(b) not later than 2 p.m. two days before the hearing date, give the Registrar a confirmation of motion (Form 37B, below, or as set out in the Rules of Civil |
|Procedure) by sending it by fax, (416-327-5032), by e-mail (COA.E-file), or by leaving it at the court office; and |
|(c) send a copy of the confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail.2. If no confirmation is given, the motion shall not be heard, except by |
|order of the court.3.A party who has given a confirmation of motion and later determines that the confirmation is no longer correct shall immediately give the |
|Registrar a corrected confirmation of motion (Form 37B) and send a copy of the corrected confirmation of motion to the other party. |
| |
|[294] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July |
|8th, 2013 by formal written REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION, and I have been refused a certified copy by the same REGISTRAR on more|
|than one occasions. |
| |
|[295] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court |
|order release on July 8th, 2013 by formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION, |
| |
|[296] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the proof of receipt for the Honourable |
|Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION. |
| |
|[297] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the confirmation of motion (CV 13-1060) |
|before the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. by formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION. |
| |
|[298] Pursuant to RULE 59.02 of RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE; |
|ENDORSEMENT BY JUDGE OR OFFICER |
|59.02 (1) An endorsement of every order shall be made on the appeal book and compendium, record, notice of motion or notice of application by the court, |
|judge or officer making it, unless the circumstances make it impractical to do so. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (1); O. Reg. 19/03, s. 10. |
|(2) Where written reasons are delivered, |
|(a) in an appellate court, an endorsement is not required; |
|(b) in any other court, the endorsement may consist of a reference to the reasons, |
|and a copy of the reasons shall be filed in the court file. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (2). |
| |
|[299] Pursuant to RULE 59.03 of the RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE; |
|PREPARATION AND FORM OF ORDER |
|Preparation of Draft Formal Order |
|59.03 (1) Any party affected by an order may prepare a draft of the formal order and send it to all other parties represented at the hearing for approval of |
|its form. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.03 (1); |
| |
|[300] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, a copy of the confirmation for the motion (CV 13-1060) before the Honourable Justice I. Andre J..|
| |
|[301] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, a copy of the proof of evidence use to convince the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. that I have or|
|may have had legal proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT in ONTARIO. |
| |
|[302] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, to cross examine AFFIDAVIT OF BRADBURY FERRON V. R.; court file No. 07-22259(S.C.J.) Ms. |
|Kathryn E Kirkpatrick filed with the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-REGISTRA, and which she used as proof or evidence to persuade the |
|Honourable Justice I. Andre J. that I am a VEXATIVE LITIGANT by formal REQUESTION; Ms. Kirkpatrick failed to attend the March 5, 2014 Hearing even though she |
|promised Justice Feldman on January 29, 2014 that she would be attending. |
| |
|[303] Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick who is counsel for YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES et al failed to attend motion M42812 before the honourable Justice Felman on|
|January 29th, 2014. |
| |
|[304] Similarly, Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick who is counsel for YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES et al failed to attend HEARING M42812 on March 5th, 2014 after |
|promising the honourable Justice Felman on January 29th, 2014 that she would do so, after being called by a CLERK of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO over the |
|speakerphone on January 29th, 2014, Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick was offered an adjournment despite her nonattendance on January 29th, 2014 while the honourable |
|Justice Feldman was seized with the same legal matter(M42812). |
| |
|[305] The honourable Justice Horigan confirmed on March 5, 2014 the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by asserting from |
|the bench in open court that; |
|“Justice I. Andre J. was absolutely right” |
|Without the presentation of real evidence or the TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDING (CV 13-1060), for which I was denied an adjournment to obtain for the purpose of |
|assisting the court. |
| |
|[306] The honourable Justice Feldman confirmed on January 30, 2014 the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by asserting |
|from the bench in open court that; |
|“...you are a vexation litigant! I am staying the matter...” |
|While matter M43059 was before her to be heard or she was seized by the same matter, and the Crown had failed to file a RESPONDENT FACTUM(M43059) or any |
|material to assist the court. |
| |
|[307] Matter M43059 is concerning a PRIVATE PROSECUTION appeal from the honourable JUSTICE WATT dismissed of M42322. |
| |
|[308] Furthermore, the honourable Justice K. Feldman directs the following in her January 30, 2014 endorsement; |
|“Mr. Ferron is seeking an extension of time to appeal a decesion of Justice Healey of the New Market Superior Court. However, Mr. Ferron is not entitled to |
|bring any proceedings without the authorization of the Regional Senior Justice because of the vexatious litigant order of Andre' J. of June 2013. |
|Mr. Ferron is seeking to appeal that order. Until the appeal is resolved, that order is in effect and must be adhere to. Therefore this matter is adjourned |
|sine die to be brough back on only if and when the vexatious litigant order is set aside or with the authorization or the REGIONAL Senor Justice as per the |
|order of Justice Andre'.” |
| |
| |
|[309] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 under the title APPENDIX “A”; |
|“[1] THIS COURT DECLARES that Wayne Ferron has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted proceedings in a |
|vexatious manner in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, and the Ontario Court of Appeal, within the meaning of sections 140(1)(a ) |
|and (b) of the Court Of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. C.43” |
|[2] THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indirectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any |
|court in Ontario, except until such time as he obtain leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and as provided for in this order. |
|[3] THIS COURT DIRECTS that any such application for leave will be in writing and sent by fax or registered mail to the Regional Senior Justice of Central |
|West Region (the “RSJ”) ex parte, which shall be accompanied by an affidavit that outlines the merits of the proposed proceeding or step, and a copy of this |
|ORDER. The application and affidavit shall not exceed 10 pages in length. The application and affidavit shall not exceed 10 pages in length. The the |
|application for leave will be determined by the RSJ or her designee, who will |
|(i) give direction as to the service of the application, which shall include service on the Attorney General, and the procedure for the determination of the |
|application, or |
|(ii) dismiss the application. |
|[4] THIS COURT ORDERS that any service on the Attorney General that directed by RSJ or her designee referred to in paragraph 3 of this Order shall only be |
|given by registered mail addressed and sent as follows: |
|Attorney General of Ontario |
|c/o Legal Director of the Crown Law Office-Civil |
|8th Floor, 720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario, M7A 2S9 |
|[5] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that should Wayne Ferron file materials seeking to commence or continue a proceeding or any appeal in any court in Ontario |
|without first filing and an entered Order Permitting him to do so; the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this Order in |
|such court. |
|[6] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that no further proceedings will be accepted from Wayne Ferron for filing or scheduling by any court in Ontario without the |
|approval of the RSJ or her designate. |
|[7] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a copy of this Order be forthwith delivered to the Ontario Court of Appeal and every region of the Superior Court of Justice|
|and Divisional Court. |
|[8] Cost in the amount of $3, 000 inclusive to go in favour of the applicant.” |
| |
|[310] The honourable Justice Watt's March 26, 2014 directions(C55532-STATUS COURT) seems to be inconsistent with the application of Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE |
|ORDER”, Justice Feldman's January 30, 2014 Judgment(M43059), and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(Section 482(1), Section 127, Section 22.1); the same direction is|
|requesting I file Appeal Book(C55532) even though proper CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPTS(55532) which adhere to the rule of evidence has not been completed or affected |
|by court reporter Joy Webster. |
| |
|[311] On March 26th, 2014, I filed Justice .I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” in court while before the honorable Justice Watt, and I informed the same court that |
|it was a contravention of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(S. 127, S. 22.1) to bring the Applicant to court to participate in a legal proceeding or force the |
|Applicant to participate in a legal proceeding in addition to the same Applicant having no legal rights in ONTARIO. |
| |
|[312] Furthermore, I informed the honourable Justice Watt that the matter concerning Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER” has been sent or is being sent to the |
|SUPREME COURT OF CANADA since the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR has rejected or returned the Application MOTION BEFORE A PANEL while acting in the capacity of a |
|Judge. |
| |
|[313] Furthermore, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR failed or refuse to schedule MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) to remedy missing exhibits from file C56817, |
|determine status of incomplete TRANSCRIPS(C56817), and remedy MS. Krick improper removal of court file C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without a court |
|order. |
| |
| |
|[314] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Krick whom has carriage, and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having |
|possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so. She has had sufficient time to review |
|file C56817 and cannot justify asserting any false statements she aught to know is false in contravention of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT. |
| |
|[315] Pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106; |
|Inspection of files |
|26. (1) Where the necessary facilities are available, any person may, with supervision and without interfering with the business of the Court, inspect a Court |
|file or annex |
|Removal of documents from file |
|(2) Nothing shall be removed from a Court file or annex except |
|(a) under an order of the Court; |
|(b) by an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties; or |
|(c) in accordance with rule 26.1. |
|Removal of files |
|(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no Court file or annex to a Court file shall be removed from the Registry by any person other than |
|(a) a judge, prothonotary or referee; or |
|(b) an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties. |
|SOR/2002-417, s. 3. |
|Definition |
|26.1 (1) In this rule, “appeal” includes an appeal of an order of a prothonotary, an application for leave to appeal and an appeal to the Supreme Court of |
|Canada. |
|Removal of exhibits from file |
|(2) Subject to subsection (4), exhibits put into evidence shall remain in the Court file either |
|(a) until the time for an appeal has expired, if no appeal has been taken, or |
|(b) until the appeal is disposed of, if an appeal has been taken. |
|Return of exhibits |
|(3) On the expiry of the time for appeal or on the disposition of the appeal, the Administrator shall return the exhibits to the respective solicitors or the |
|parties who put the exhibits in evidence. |
|Return on consent |
|(4) At any time following judgment, on requisition by the solicitor or party who put an exhibit in evidence or the person who produced it and on the filing of |
|the consent of all parties, the Administrator shall return the exhibit to the person making the requisition. |
|SOR/2002-417, s. 4. |
|[316] Justice Watt's February 26th, 2014 directions(C55532) seems to be inconsistent with Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER”, Justice Feldman's January 30, 2014 |
|Judgment(M43059), and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(Section 482(1), Section 127, Section 22.1). |
| |
|[317] On February 26th, 2014 I informed court while before Justice Watt in open court that I have been determined to be a “VEXATIVE LITIGANT.” |
| |
|[318] On or about February 25th, 2014, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR made an unwritten judgment that the Applicant was a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN”, and there after |
|stop receiving or filing court materials from the APPLICANT in a normal fashion. If court documents are accepted, they seem to be set aside in addition there |
|seem to be no entering of motions or scheduling of motions for directions; yet the honourable Justice Watt expects me to engage in proceedings and perfect |
|appeals. |
| |
|[319] The honourable Justice Hourigan on March 5, 2014 Judgment(M42812) seems to be inconsistent with the application of Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER,” |
|since the same order directs that there is no appeal against the order. |
| |
|[320] On March 5th , 2014 the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR made an unwritten judgment, and determined that I was a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN”, and returned my supporting|
|court materials(NOTICE OF MOTION BEFORE A PANEL, FACTUM, MOTION RECORD) for a motion before the panel returnable on February 25, 2014 in addition to failing |
|to file MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817); pursuant to Justice Feldman January 30, 2014 ENDOURSEMENT and Justice .I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” determine me to be a |
|“VEXATIVE LITIGAN”. |
| |
|[321] A copy of Justice Feldman Endorsement, and Justice .I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” was given to the Applicant with Para [2] and Para[6] highlighted in |
|bright pink highlight for emphasis in addition to a handwritten note stating the following on bright yellow sticky note paper; |
|“GIVE TO MR. FERRON.” |
| |
|[322] The honurabe Justice Feldman January 30, 2014 Judgment(M43059) seems to be inconsistent with case law, and PARAMOUNTCY; since she indefinitely |
|adjourned matter M43509 which is a Private Prosecution, and is linked to the honourable Justice Watt. |
| |
|[323] The honorable Justice Feldman's January 29, 2014 Judgment (M42812) seems to be inconsistent with case law and PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS. |
| |
|[324] Why am I being forced to contravene Section 3.1, Section 127(1), and Section 22.1 of our beloved CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, which respectively states |
|as follows; |
|Effect of judicial acts |
|3.1 Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, justice or judge is effective from the moment it is done, whether or not it is reduced to |
|writing. |
|2002, c. 13, s. 2. |
|Disobeying order of court |
|127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to |
|make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty |
|of |
|(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or |
|(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. |
|22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offense and that other person is afterwards a party to that offense, the person who |
|counseled is a party to that offense, notwithstanding that the offense was committed in a way different from that which was counseled. |
|Idem |
|(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offense is a party to every offense that the other commits in consequence of the counseling that |
|the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling. |
|Definition of “counsel” |
|(3) For the purposes of this Act, “counsel” includes procure, solicit or incite. |
|R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22; |
|R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7. |
| |
|[325] Why am I being counseled to violate Parliamentary legislation, when I want to act lawfully in accordance with the will of Parliament? |
|[68] Why am I being forced or pushed into breaking the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA? |
| |
|[326] I REQUIRE A WRITTEN COURT ORDER TO BE FREE FROM THE CONSTRAINTS OF Justice Feldman's Judgment on January 30, 2014, and Justice Andre July 8, |
|Judgment, to be able to lawfully participate in legal proceedings in any court in ONTARIO. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|MS. KRICK PREJUDICING PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS: |
|[327] On the 13th day of August 2013 Ms. Krick for the Crown attempted on at least one occasion to defeat the proper course of justice with the fraudulently |
|procured “VEXATIOUS LITTIGAN” court order; the aforementioned court order was released on July 8, 2013 by the honourable Justice I. Andre J. after being |
|mislead by Ms. Kirkpatrick whom is counsel for CROWN AGENTS(YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES ET AL). |
| |
|[328] On the 30th day of January 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown asserted on at least one occasion in open court while before the honourable Justice Feldman who |
|was seized by M43059 and adjourned the same Private Prosecution(M43059) indefinitely; that participation of Wayne Ferron in the February 26, 2014 status court |
|HEARING(C55532) would not be in violation of Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 or contravention of the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT” order |
|which removed all of Wayne Ferron's legal rights in Ontario. |
| |
|[329] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 under the tittle APPENDIX “A”; |
|“[1] THIS COURT DECLARES that Wayne Ferron has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted proceedings in a |
|vexatious manner in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, and the Ontario Court of Appeal, within the meaning of sections 140(1)(a ) |
|and (b) of the Court Of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. C.43” |
|[2] THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indirectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any |
|court in Ontario, except until such time as he obtain leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and as provided for in this order. |
|{...} |
|[5] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that should Wayne Ferron file materials seeking to commence or continue a proceeding or any appeal in any court in Ontario |
|without first filing and an entered Order Permitting him to do so; the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this Order in |
|such court. |
|[6] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that no further proceedings will be accepted from Wayne Ferron for filing or scheduling by any court in Ontario without the |
|approval of the RSJ or her designate. |
|[7] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a copy of this Order be forthwith delivered to the Ontario Court of Appeal and every region of the Superior Court of Justice|
|and Divisional Court. |
|[8] Cost in the amount of $3, 000 inclusive to go in favour of the applicant.” |
|” |
| |
|[330] On the 30th day of January 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown whiled before Justice Feldman, promised the honourable court that all outstanding |
|TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) for PRIVATE PROSECUTION(C55532) would be completed for the STATUS COURT HEARING(55532) on February 26, 2014; which was not the case for the|
|aforementioned. |
| |
|[331] Furthermore, on the 26th day of February 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown failed to attend the STATUS COURT HEARING(55532) in addition to proper certified |
|copies of all outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) not being completed in accordance with MS. Krick promised to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 30th day of|
|January 2014 while she was before Justice Feldman. |
| |
|[332] On the 26th day of February 2014 the CROWN who was not being represented by Ms. Krick requested of the STATUS COURT for Wayne Ferron to file APPEAL |
|BOOK(C55532), even-though the CROWN should know or ought to have known that APPEAL BOOK(C55532) is dependent on outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) that the CROWN|
|promised the court would be completed, but was not completed. |
| |
|[333] Even though the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO failed to provide DUTY COUNSEL after being requested to do so on the 26th day of February 2014, in addition |
|to the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR promising my person (Wayne Ferron) access to DUTY COUNSEL to assist the court, the honourable Justice Watt made a date of |
|March 26, 2014 for the filing of APPEAL BOOK (C55532) with a openly stated comment of “moving the matter along.” |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|INSEARCH OF A CERTIFIED/OFFICIAL COPY OF “VEXATIVE ORDER”: |
|[334] After being refused a CERTIFIED OR OFFICIAL COPY of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, by the SUPERIOR COURT |
|OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR and the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR, after official re questions were made; I was finally able to obtain a |
|certified copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR on |
|March 13, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. for a fee with Receipt Number 51088562. |
| |
|[335] The original copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, and being fully enforced by all courts in Ontario, at |
|the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR seems to be written with 3 different and distant pens, mainly; |
|1. an extra fine tipped black ink pen; |
|2. a dark blue ink pen; |
|3. and a light blue ink pen. |
| |
|[336] I note that PARA[8] of “APENDEX A” the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 is the only addition or modification |
|initialized by Justice I. Andre. |
| |
|[337] Pursuant to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, “is not|
|a court order,” but an endorsement which still “stands”. Furthermore, the said endorsement has not went through the process of becoming a court order, mainly;|
|being typed up by the requesting party, and the court's official seal being added to the said document. |
| |
|[338] On March 13, 2014 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR, I purchased(Receipt Number 51088562) copies of the following court |
|documents for CV 13-1060 for $58.00; |
|1. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 in addition to the typed version of the same “COURT ORDER”, consisting of two |
|pages with the title “APPENDIX A”. The said order is one page and written with 3 different and distant pens ; |
|2. the NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages and does not have a crimped COURT SEAL, but however is stamped by the Local |
|Registrar(Samantha Moellar); |
|3. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on March 27, 2013 ; |
|4. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT released on July 17, 2013 , consisting of 16 pages. |
| |
|[339] On March 19, 2014 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR, I purchased(Receipt Number 51093069) copies of the following court |
|documents for CV 13-1060 for $40.00; |
|1. the NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages and does not have a crimped COURT SEAL, but however is stamped as issued by the Local |
|Registrar(Samantha Moellar); |
|2. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on March 27, 2013 for ALTERNATIVE SERVICE; |
|3. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT released on July 17, 2013 , consisting of 16 pages. |
| |
|[400] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. ENDORSEMENT(CV 13-1060) released on July 08, 2013 , at line 4 to line 7 despite being already served 2 |
|NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV 12-716) ; |
|“...The Applicant served Mr. Ferron with the Application and supporting materials on June 17, 2013 at his address and by email...” |
| |
|[401] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT(CV 13-1060) released on July 17, 2013 , on page 2, at line 7 to line 9 despite |
|being already served 2 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV 12-716) ; |
|“...The respondent did not attend the hearing despite having been served with the Application and related materials...” |
| |
|[402] NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages and has no crimped COURT SEAL, but is stamped as issued by the Local Registrar(Samantha |
|Moellar); filed on March 11, 2013 and address to Wayne Ferron at the following address on page 2 of the same APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) despite being already |
|served a NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV 12-716); |
|“To WAYNE FERRON |
|322 Derry Rd. #3 |
|Mississauga, Ontario |
|L5N 8G5 |
|Email: ferronwayne@” |
| |
|[403] FACTUM(CV 13-1060) consist of 30 pages. Filed on March 14, 2013. |
| |
|[404] BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(CV 13-1060) consist of at least 300 pages. Filed on March 14, 2013. How are the integrity of material insured in email service |
|maintained, that requires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of hundreds of pages? |
| |
|[405] MOTION RECORD(CV 13-1060) is four VOLUMES(3 inch binding or greater), consisting of more than 1, 500 pages. Filed on March 14, 2013. How are the |
|integrity of material insured in email service that requires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of hundreds of pages? |
| |
|[406] Kinkos charges $00.20 per/min for computer use and $00.19 per/printed page in addition to the cost of binding materials with tabs. How are the integrity|
|of material insured in email service that requires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of hundreds of pages? |
| |
|[407] On the 16th of January 2014 at 11:14 a.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), |
|the following documents: |
|1. a copy of AMENDED AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812); |
|2. MOTION FOR DIRECTION; |
|3. a copy of AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL, BRAMPTON COURT; |
|4. a copy of STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR CV-11-4493; |
|5. a copy of MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; |
|6. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL; |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 6 documents with an Appeal Clerk(whom refused to give name, said it is his right), an employee at the |
|MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who accepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location; |
|Crown Counsel: Deborah Krick |
|The Attorney General of Ontario |
|CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH |
|6th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|fax: 416 326 4015 |
| |
|[408] On the 16th of January 2014 at 10:31 a.m., I served upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), the following|
|documents: |
|1. a copy of AMENDED AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812); |
|2. MOTION FOR DIRECTION; |
|3. a copy of AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL, BRAMPTON COURT; |
|4. a copy of STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR CV-11-4493; |
|5. a copy of MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; |
|6. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL; |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 6 documents with Kim Parsons, an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who accepts legal service |
|on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the following location; |
|Borden Ladner Gervais LLP |
|Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W |
|Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 |
|T 416.367.6000 |
|F 416.367.6749 |
| |
|Counsel for Defendants; |
|REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK; |
|YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 ) |
|T 416.367.6092 |
|F 416.361.2769 |
|cfotopoulos@ |
|[409] On the 16th of January 2014 at 10:30 a.m., I served upon PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL(as represented by BLENY |
|MCMURTRY LLP), the following documents: |
|1. a copy of AMENDED AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812); |
|2. MOTION FOR DIRECTION; |
|3. a copy of AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL, BRAMPTON COURT; |
|4. a copy of STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR CV-11-4493; |
|5. a copy of MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; |
|6. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL; |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 6 documents with Rafal Szymanski, who is employed by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and who also receives legal |
|service the Lawyer for the said defendants, at the following location; |
|Counsel: Rafal Szymanski |
|BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP |
|2 Queen Street, East |
|Suite 31500 |
|Toronto, Ontario |
|tel: 416 593 1221 |
|fax: 416 593 5437 |
|COUNSEL FOR: |
|OFFICER PEKESKI (2261) |
|REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL |
|PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|[410] The requirements of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 has not been fulfilled. |
| |
|[411] On the 15th of January 2014 at about 3:20 p.m., the served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of |
|Ontario), the following documents: |
|1. a copy of AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812); |
|2. a copy of FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812); |
|3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 3 documents with a young Caucasian male, an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY |
|GENERAL(Provincial), who accepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location; |
|Crown Counsel: Deborah Krick |
|The Attorney General of Ontario |
|CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH |
|6th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|fax: 416 326 4015 |
| |
|[412] On the 15th of January 2014 at 2:26 p.m., I served upon the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK (as represented by |
|BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), the following documents: |
|1. a copy of AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812); |
|2. a copy of FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812); |
|3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 3 documents with Kim Parsons an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who accepts legal service |
|on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the following location; |
|Borden Ladner Gervais LLP |
|Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W |
|Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 |
|T 416.367.6000 |
|F 416.367.6749 |
| |
|Counsel for Defendants; |
|REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK; |
|YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 ) |
|T 416.367.6092 |
|F 416.361.2769 |
|cfotopoulos@ |
|[413] On the 15th of January 2014 at 1:53 p.m., I served upon PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL(as represented by BLENY |
|MCMURTRY LLP), the following documents: |
|1. a copy of AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812); |
|2. a copy of FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812); |
|3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 3 documents with Melissa Sapinoso who is employed by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and who also receives legal |
|service on behalf of BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and Rafal Szymanski (a Lawyer for the said defendants), at the following location; |
|Counsel: Rafal Szymanski |
|BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP |
|2 Queen Street, East |
|Suite 31500 |
|Toronto, Ontario |
|tel: 416 593 1221 |
|fax: 416 593 5437 |
|COUNSEL FOR: |
|OFFICER PEKESKI (2261) |
|REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL |
|PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
| |
|[414] On the 21st of December 2012 at 4:25 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), |
|a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Asha Patrick an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who |
|accepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location; |
|Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439S |
|THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO |
|Civil Law Branch |
|8th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|Tel: 416 314 2059 |
|Fax: 416 326 4181 |
|[415] On the 21st of December 2012 at 3:55 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Canada), a |
|NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Ariyana Botejue(Ministry# 5007) an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY |
|GENERAL(Federal), who accepts service on behalf of the Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (William F. Pentney) at the following location; |
|Counsel: Jacqueline Wilson(2-597605) |
|THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
|Civil Law Branch |
|Suite 3400, Exchange Tower |
|Box 36, First Canadian Place |
|Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 |
|fax: 416 973 3004 |
| |
|[416] On the 21st of December 2012 at 3:26 p.m., I served upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), a NOTICE OF |
|CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Ciara Gilbert an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal service on |
|behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the following location; |
|Borden Ladner Gervais LLP |
|Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W |
|Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 |
|T 416.367.6000 |
|F 416.367.6749 |
| |
|Counsel for Defendants; |
|REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK; |
|YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 ) |
|T 416.367.6092 |
|F 416.361.2769 |
|cfotopoulos@ |
|[417] The aforementioned document stated as follows on page 6 of the same served document; |
|“ |
|RE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK et. al. Ats Ferron |
|ourt File No.: CV-12-0716-00 |
|BLG File No.: 016995.000102 |
|TAKE NOTICE: That I, Wayne Ferron(Private Prosecutor) new address i |
|Wayne FERRON |
|HOMELESS VAGABOND |
|ON THE STREETS OF TORONTO |
|Tel: 416 420 1353, |
|Email: wayneferron@" |
| |
|[418] Which also stated as follows in the footer of the same served document; |
|“Please make your Motions returnable after the month of March 2013 with 8 hours set aside. CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSERTION, I HAVE MORE THAN A THOUSAND PAGES OF |
|EVIDENCE IN ABOUT 4 VOLUMES AND REQUIRE AT LEAST 8 HOURS TO PRESENT MY EVIDENCE. Are you calling me a liar! It is improper for you to assert or advise a self |
|represented litigant which you are in adverserial contention with on how much time or hours he needs to argue is plea. Very improper and misdirection to my |
|person, are maybe you are afraid of real factual evidence as oppose to a metaphysical argument. The hearing will prove my point! |
|“ |
| |
|[419] On the 4th of June 2013 at 1:20 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Canada), a |
|NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Carla Lyon an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Federal), who excepts |
|service on behalf of the Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (William F. Pentney) at the following location; |
|Counsel: Jacqueline Wilson(2-597605) |
|THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
|Civil Law Branch |
|Suite 3400, Exchange Tower |
|Box 36, First Canadian Place |
|Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 |
|fax: 416 973 3004 |
|[420] On the 11th of June 2013 at 4:50 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), a |
|NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Wahab Khan an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who |
|excepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location; |
|Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439S |
|THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO |
|Civil Law Branch |
|8th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|Tel: 416 314 2059 |
|Fax: 416 326 4181 |
|[421] On the 11th of June 2013 at 1:54 p.m., I served upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), a NOTICE OF |
|CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Brenda Jacome a Legal Receptionist at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal |
|service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the folowing location; |
|Borden Ladner Gervais LLP |
|Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W |
|Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 |
|T 416.367.6000 |
|F 416.367.6749 |
| |
|Counsel for Defendants; |
|REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK; |
|YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 ) |
|T 416.367.6092 |
|F 416.361.2769 |
|cfotopoulos@ |
|[422] On the 11th of June 2013 at 5:57 p.m., I served upon PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY|
|LLP), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with the Legal Receptionist who refuse to disclose her name because she could |
|not contact the defendant's lawyer Rafal Szymanski, at BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, who excepts legal service on behalf of BLENY MCMURTRY LLP and Rafal Szymanski (a |
|Lawyer for the said defendants), at the following location; |
|Counsel: Rafal Szymanski |
|BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP |
|2 Queen Street, East |
|Suite 31500 |
|Toronto, Ontario |
|tel: 416 593 1221 |
|fax: 416 593 5437 |
|COUNSEL FOR: |
|OFFICER PEKESKI (2261) |
|REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL |
|PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|[423] The aforementioned document states as follows on page 7 of the same served document; |
|“ |
|TAKE NOTICE: Please serve me at the address below while |
|taking the given constraints into consideration; if the |
|documents in question are to reach their proper destination |
|or intended recipient. |
|Wayne FERRON |
|1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto, |
|ON, Postal Code M6E 4A6 |
|Tel: 416 420 1353, |
|Email: wayneferron@ |
|TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE |
|STREETS OF TORONTO WHILE LIVING AS A |
|VAGABOND, EVEN THOUGH I STILL SLEEP ON THE |
|FLOOR AND WALK THE CITY FOR FOOD!! SO, PLEASE |
|SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED |
|MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO |
|ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE |
|ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY |
|PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS |
|BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT |
|HOME IN THE DAY TIME; I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE |
|ABOVE ADDRESS.“ |
|[424] The aforesaid document, also stated as follows on many pages in the footer of the same served document; |
|“ |
|PLEASE DO NOT SERVE ME BY EMAIL, I DO NOT HAVE AN ISP ACCOUNT IN ADDITION TO BEING RELIANT ON THE LIBRARY FOR INTERNET ACCESS. WE HAVE NO EMAIL SERVICE |
|AGREEMENT, AND YOU HAVE NOT SENT ME MONIES TO COVER THE ADDITION COST FOR PROCESSING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. MY RELIANCE ON THE |
|FOODBANK CANNOT PAY FOR THIS ADDITIONAL COST.“ |
| |
|[425] In addition the afore said, a letter was sent to the Chief of Police, to affect the Private Prosecutor's COLOUR OF RIGHT. It articulated as follows; |
|“Chief of Police Mike Metcalf |
|PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
|7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton, |
|ON, L6V 3W6 |
|(905) 453-3311 |
|RE: I respectfully request byway of COLOUR OF RIGHT, the |
|prompt return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated or |
|whatever the case my be, by your subordinate Officer Peke- |
|ski(2261) whom disclosed to my person the false identity of |
|Officer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE |
|disclosing his identity as Officer Perkins(2261).” |
| |
|[426] On the 11th of June 2013 at 3:08 p.m., I served upon WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM and MRS HAMILTON, a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by |
|leaving a signed copy with the Sandra Persoud a Legal Receptionist at HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA, who excepts legal service on behalf of |
|HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA and Gordon Slemko (LSUC 37320K), at the following location; |
|Counsel: Gordon Slemko (LSUC 37320K) |
|HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA |
|4711 Yonge Street, |
|Suite 1600 |
|Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6K8 |
|tel: 416 730 3088 |
|fax: 416 7332058 |
|COUNSEL FOR DEFENDENTS: |
|WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM |
|MRS HAMILTON |
| |
|[427] On the 11th of June 2013 at 3:08 p.m., I served upon SALVATION ARMY and HARRY BOOM, a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed |
|copy with the Rob Jokinen who goes by the title of COURIER OPERATIONS TEAM LEADER at DENTONS CANADA LLP(former name is FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP(FCP)), who |
|excepts legal service on behalf of DENTONS CANADA LLP and Marina E. Sampson (LSUC 37320K), at the following location; |
|Counsel: Marina E. Sampson (LSUC 37320K) |
|DENTONS CANADA LLP |
|77 King Street West, |
|Suite 400 |
|TORONTO DOMINION CENTRE |
|Toronto, Ontario, M5K 0A1 |
|tel: 416 863 4511 |
|fax: 416 863 4592 |
|COUNSEL FOR DEFENDENTS: |
|SALVATION ARMY; |
|MR HARRY BOOM |
| |
|[428] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER, the following documents: |
|1. a copy of NOTICE OF ACTION(CV-12-0716-00); |
|2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-12-0716-00); |
|3. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00)for homelessness; |
|4. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00); |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 4 documents with Gina Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a PUBLIC RELATION employee, |
|in addition to receiving egal service on behalf of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while acting in the capacity of her employeer's |
|public relation's personael at the following location; |
|CARILLION SERVICES |
|HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES |
|FLOOR: SLL |
|OFFICE: SLL 242 |
|DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER |
|Brampton Civic Hospital |
|2100 Bovaird Drive |
|Brampton, Ontario |
|L6R 3J7 |
|(905) 494-2120, ext 58333 |
| |
|[429] Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office located at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, N145 to receive |
|legal service because of the complication of finding her office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, pursuant to a conversation on the phone with her from CARILLION |
|SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES) located in OFFICE: SLL 242. |
| |
|[430] I had served DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER in conjunction with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I was informed at a later date |
|in conjunction with the service of a statement of defense that DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER is not an employee, and must be serve separately. |
|[431] The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot reasonable |
|interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the front staff |
|designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for the purpose of |
|accessing the same doctor; codefendant WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to help in resolving this |
|legal issue nor did they offer an alternate address and person to receive the said legal service. The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to perform |
|personal legal service. There has been no response from these two attempt at personal service. |
| |
|[432] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691), the following documents: |
|1. a copy of NOTICE OF ACTION(CV-12-0716-00); |
|2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-12-0716-00); |
|3. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00)for homelessness; |
|4. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00); |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 4 documents with Gina Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a PUBLIC RELATION |
|employee, in addition to receiving legal service on behalf of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while acting in the capacity of her |
|employer’s public relation's personal at the following location; |
|CARILLION SERVICES |
|HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES |
|FLOOR: SLL |
|OFFICE: SLL 242 |
|DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691) |
|Brampton Civic Hospital |
|2100 Bovaird Drive |
|Brampton, Ontario |
|L6R 3J7 |
|(905) 494-2120, ext 58333 |
| |
|[433] Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office located at B WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL N145 to receive |
|legal service because of the complication of finding her office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL pursuant to a conversation on the phone with her from CARILLION |
|SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES) located in OFFICE: SLL 242. |
| |
|[434] I had served DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691) |
|in conjunction with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I was informed at a later date in conjunction with the service of a |
|statement of defense that DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI (257691) is not an employee, and must be serve separately. |
| |
|[435] The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot reasonable |
|interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the front staff |
|designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for the purpose of accessing |
|the same doctor; codefendant WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to help in resolving this legal issue |
|nor did they offer an alternate address and person to receive the said legal service . The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to perform personal legal |
|service. There has been no response from these two attempt at personal service. |
| |
|[436] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. R. HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH, the following documents: |
|1. a copy of NOTICE OF ACTION(CV-12-0716-00); |
|2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-12-0716-00); |
|3. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00)for homelessness; |
|4. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00); |
|by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 4 documents with Gina Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a PUBLIC RELATION |
|employee, in addition to receiving legal service on behalf of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while acting in the capacity of her |
|employer’s public relation's personal at the following location; |
|CARILLION SERVICES |
|HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES |
|FLOOR: SLL |
|OFFICE: SLL 242 |
|DR. R. HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH, |
|Brampton Civic Hospital |
|2100 Bovaird Drive |
|Brampton, Ontario |
|L6R 3J7 |
|(905) 494-2120, ext 58333 |
| |
|Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office located at B WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL N145 to receive legal service|
|because of the complication of finding her office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL pursuant to a conversation on the phone with her from CARILLION SERVICES (HOSPITAL|
|SUPPORT SERVICES) located in OFFICE: SLL 242. I had served all the Doctors in conjunction with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I|
|was informed at a later date in conjunction with the service of a statement of defense that the Doctors are not employees, and must be serve separately. The |
|problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot reasonable interrupt the|
|treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the front staff designated for such |
|material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for the purpose of accessing the same doctor; |
|codefendant WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to help in resolving this legal issue nor did they offer |
|an alternate address and person to receive the said legal service. The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to perform personal legal service. There has |
|been no response from these two attempt at personal service. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS: |
| |
|[437] According to R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55, on page 10, PAR[46] AND para[45]; |
|“[41] In R. v. Brown (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 398 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) August P.C.J. reviewed the case law and concluded at p. 406: |
|“The following cases as I interpret them, say that it is mandatory for the Justice of the Peace to actually hear the allegations of the informant and if he |
|thinks that it is necessary, his witnesses before he decides if a case has been made out: Murfina v. Sauve et al. (1901), 6 C.C.C. 275, 19 Que. S.C. 51 (Que. |
|Sup. Ct.); Re Parke (1899), 3 C.C.C. 122, 30 O.R. 498 (Ont. H.C.J.); R. v. Smith (1909), 16 C.C.C. 425 (N.S.S.C.); Marsil v. Lanctot (1914), 25 C.C.C. 223, 28 |
|D.L.R. 380, 20 Rev. Leg. 237 (Que. Sup. Ct.); White v. Dunning (1915), 24 C.C.C. 85, 21 D.L.R. 528, 8 Sask. L.R. 76 (Sask. S.C.). |
|{...} |
|[45] In R. v. Ingwer (1955), 113 C.C.C. 361 (Ont. H.C.), Chief Justice McRuer found that neither the laying of an information nor the issuing of |
|process has the formalities of a trial for the potential accused. The justice has no right to decide not to issue a warrant or summons or take an information |
|unless he has heard the witnesses that the informant desires to bring forward: Ingwer p. 366.” |
| |
|[438] There has been an infringement of Section 2(e) of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, which guards my “right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of |
|FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE for the determination of his rights and obligations.” According to Dowson v. R., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 144, on page 148&149, PAR[22] to para[25];|
|“Montgomery J. concluded that “All criminal proceedings are commenced by the laying of an information. Once proceedings are commenced, the Attorney General may|
|intervene and conduct or stay proceedings.” He relied on The Department of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 116, The Crown Attorneys Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 101, the |
|historical origins of the expression “finding an indictment” in 1886, R.S.C. 1886, c. 174, s. 2, paras. (c.) and (d.), and, amongst others, R. v. Leonard, ex |
|parte Graham (1962), 133 C.C.C. 262, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, and the fact that the Attorney General was the “chief law officer for the |
|Crown and the duly constituted public authority charged with the responsibility for the administration of justice in the province.” |
| |
| |
|[439] Pursuant to David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462; |
| |
|“[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 11, 2011. |
|[2] On January 17, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the corporate respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be|
|filed with the Tribunal not later than February 21, 2012. |
|[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the corporate respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. [4] |
|An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary |
|compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or |
|participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The corporate respondent's |
|attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows: |
|5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may: |
|a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application; |
|b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent; |
|c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding; |
|d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal. |
| |
|[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate|
|respondent by regular mail and fax. |
| |
|[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim|
|Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the |
|Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5. |
| |
|Other Matters |
|[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. Due to an administrative error these individuals |
|have not been delivered copies of this Application and have not had an opportunity respond. A copy of the Application and a copy of the Tribunal’s file will be|
|delivered to the individual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s |
|Rules. |
|[8] I am not seized of this matter. |
| |
|Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012. |
|“Signed by” |
|__________________________________ |
|David Muir |
|Vice-chair “ |
| |
| |
|[440] Pursuant to Madam Kathleen Wynne; |
|“Dear Minister Meilleur: |
| |
|I am honoured to welcome you back to your role as Attorney General. We have a strong Cabinet in place, and I am confident that together we will build Ontario |
|up, create new opportunities and champion a secure future for people across our province. The people of Ontario have entrusted their government to be a force |
|for good, and we will reward that trust by working every day in the best interests of every person in this province. |
|{...} |
|As Chief Law Officer of the Crown, you have a unique role in providing independent legal advice to Cabinet, with a special responsibility as the guardian of |
|the rule of law. You are responsible for ensuring Cabinet is properly advised on the constitutionality and legal risks of all government initiatives. You and |
|your ministry staff will also continue to provide legal advice to all ministries, and to review the conduct of litigation on behalf of the government. |
| |
|Your ministry’s specific priorities include: |
|Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice |
|Continuing to focus on the delivery of legislative and systemic initiatives that promote fairness and access to our justice system for Ontarians. |
| |
|Engaging in discussions within the legal profession about improving access to justice. You will develop a strategy to expand Legal Aid support for the most |
|vulnerable within our society by working to raise the income eligibility threshold to qualify for Legal Aid. Your goal is to ensure that more Ontarians in need|
|are represented by a lawyer through Legal Aid — or have access to the legal supports they may need. |
| |
|Pursuing the re-introduction of legislation to protect the public from lawsuits intended to discourage public participation. |
|Supporting the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in reviewing the scope and effectiveness of the Ontario Municipal Board and in recommending possible |
|reforms to improve its role within the broader land use planning system. |
| |
|As the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs, continuing to work to ensure ongoing improvement in the availability of French-language services within |
|the justice system, including court services.” |
|( Kathleen Wynne Premier Updated: September 25, 2014 ,2014 Mandate letter: Attorney General Premier's instructions to the Minister on priorities for the year |
|2014) |
| |
| |
|[441] Pursuant to Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry; |
|“Access to justice |
|It is clear that we must remain vigilant to ensure our system of civil justice is accessible to the broad spectrum of society and not just the wealthy or those|
|whose costs of litigation are insured. The cost of conducting litigation has increased significantly over recent years. In 1996, a review of the civil justice |
|system headed by Justice Robert Blair and former Assistant Deputy Minister Sandra Lang made many important recommendations that addressed concerns about the |
|increased complexity and the increased costs of litigation. Most of those important recommendations have now been implemented. |
|However, I am convinced that the need to ensure the accessibility of our civil justice system is an issue of such importance that we should continuously |
|monitor our performance in this area. In this regard, we must recognize the growing phenomenon of the unrepresented litigant. Although this situation is most |
|predominant at the trial level, we are also seeing a rise of unrepresented parties in the Court of Appeal. |
|Because of the concerns about access to justice, I have initiated discussions with others involved in the administration of justice with a view to establishing|
|a project that would develop recommendations for approaches that will assist in ensuring greater accessibility to the civil justice system in the future.” |
|(Report of the Chief Justice of Ontario Upon the Opening of the Courts of Ontario for 2003 Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry Welcome and introduction, |
| ) |
| |
| |
|FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP |
|[442] There is a relationship of trust which exist between the individual, the State and its institutions. A fiduciary relationship! |
|“2. Process Preoccupation |
| |
|We have moved from being a society governed by the rule of law to being a society governed by the law of rules. We have become so completely seduced by the |
|notion, borrowed from criminal law, that process ensures justice, that we have come to believe that process is justice. Yet to members of the public who find |
|themselves mired for years in the civil justice system's process, process may be the obstacle to justice. It may be time - again - to rethink how civil |
|disputes are resolved. For a start, we need to sever the philosophies of dispute resolution in the civil and criminal justice systems. The dispute in criminal |
|law is between an individual and the state. Process protects that individual's presumption of innocence from the overwhelming power of the state, and |
|necessarily so. But civil justice is usually a dispute between two private parties. Can we honestly say that the fair resolution of such a dispute requires |
|several years and resort to hundreds of rules? It would be worth asking a client who has just lost a lengthy trial how good he or she feels about having had |
|the benefit of an elaborate procedural journey. Would it really surprise anyone if we learned from such a client that the result was of more interest than the |
|process, and that all he or she wanted was a fair chance to be heard? People want their day in court, not their years. |
| |
|Even alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, hailed at first as the expeditious alternatives to cumbersome court procedures, are themselves turning into |
|procedural mimics of the court system. Arbitrations all too often end up being almost as lengthy, complex, or expensive as a court case. |
|In 1906, the then Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, made a speech to the American Bar Association entitled |
| |
|"The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice." |
| |
|And what was the main cause of dissatisfaction in 1906 according to Pound? Uncertainty, delay and expense ... [are] direct results of the ... backwardness of |
|our procedure. The effect of our exaggerated contentious procedure is not only to irritate parties, witnesses and jurors in particular cases, but to give to |
|the whole community a false notion of the purpose and end of law. Let's put Pound's almost 100-year old observation in historical context. The horse and buggy |
|of 1906 have been replaced by cars and planes; morphine for medical surgery has been replaced by anaesthetics, and the surgical knife by the laser; caveat |
|emptor has been replaced by consumer law; child labour has been replaced, period; a whole network of social services and systems is in place to replace the |
|luck of the draw that used to characterize employment relationships; the phonograph has been replaced by the compact disc player; the hegemony of the majority |
|has been replaced by the assertive diversity of minorities; and adoring wives have been replaced by exhausted ones. And yet, with all these profound changes in|
|how we travel, live, govern, and think, none of which would have been possible without fundamental experimentation and reform, we still conduct civil trials |
|almost exactly the same way as we did in 1906. Any good litigator from 1906 could, with a few hours of coaching, feel perfectly at home in today's courtrooms. |
|Could a doctor from 1906 feel the same way in an operating room? If the medical profession has not been afraid over the century to experiment with life in |
|order to find better ways to save it, can the legal profession in conscience resist experimenting with old systems of justice in order to find better ways to |
|deliver it? |
|How many lawyers could themselves afford the cost of litigating a civil claim from start to finish? |
| |
|We cannot keep telling the public that this increasingly incomprehensible, complicated process is in their interests and for their benefit, because they are |
|not buying it any more. If our defensive arguments make no sense to the public, how much sense can they be said to make, period. The public does not believe it|
|should take years to decide where their children should live, whether their employer should have fired them, or whether their accident was compensable. Maybe |
|for a constitutional case, but decidedly not for the resolution of a dispute between two private parties. |
| |
|We cannot talk seriously about access to justice without getting serious about how inaccessible the result, not the system, is for most people. The public |
|knows we are the only group who can change the process. |
| |
|They are very interested in, but less understanding of, our explanations as to why we resist streamlining the system from the inside. When we say, "It can't be|
|done," and the public asks, "Why not," they want a better reason than "Because we've always done it this way." |
| |
|Our monopoly puts us in a fiduciary relationship with the public. We are the gatekeepers and groundskeepers of the fields of the law. As such, we should be on |
|the front line for reform, taking on outmoded systems, and being seen to be putting the public before our pockets or our prestige. Process is the map, lawyers |
|are the drivers, law is the highway, and justice is the destination. Lawyers are supposed to be experienced about the best, safest, and fastest way to get |
|there. If, much of the time, they are unable to get there because the maps are too complicated, then, as Gertrude Stein said, "There's no there, there." And if|
|there's no "there, there," there's no point in having a whole system to get to where almost no one can afford to go. |
| |
|I know this has been a difficult time for the legal profession. Through it all, most lawyers carry on with pride and professionalism, and with more than a |
|touch of frustration at their seeming inability to synchronize their professional reputations with fluctuating public expectations. There remains, however, one|
|public expectation that does not fluctuate. It is the expectation that the profession will always, no matter the times or their permutations, behave |
|professionally. It is an expectation to which the profession has always expressed a deep commitment, and it is an expectation to which most lawyers remain |
|deeply committed. |
|The legal system represents the ideals of the public, and because as lawyers we are the interpreters and translators of those ideals, it is therefore a system |
|that deserves our idealism, courageously and optimistically. |
| |
|Having set the cluttered stage, what can be done to reinstate a commitment to professionalism as the lawyer's - and the public's perception of the lawyer's - |
|transcendent vision? And, more particularly, what can be done by the Law Society? |
| |
|The Law Society has two constituencies: lawyers and the public. These are utterly compatible and indispensably linked. The Law Society should be seen to be the|
|profession's best professional voice and the public's best ear. Unfortunately, it is not seen at all, or, when it is seen, it is seen by lawyers when it |
|announces a restrictive or expensive measure, and it is seen by the public when it announces the consequences of professional misconduct. These sightings may |
|be unavoidable and, at times, even salutary, but they are not happy messages. Not that the Law Society needs to keep everyone happy. It can't. But if these |
|anxiety-producing pronouncements are all we see, can we be faulted for wondering if there isn't a more positive message the Law Society could be seen to feel |
|responsible for. |
| |
|According to the Earnscliffe Report, the Law Society's Nielsen ratings ranged from "never watch" through "hardly watch" to "hate to watch." In other words, |
|somewhere between irrelevant and obstructive. |
| |
|This is troubling to someone like me who sees the Law Society theoretically as crucially relevant as the guardians both of our independence and of the public's|
|confidence in our right to be independent. I see the report, therefore, as a wake-up call and a wonderful millennial opportunity for the Law Society to |
|reformulate its relationship to its professional and general publics, and to redefine its functions accordingly. |
| |
|It will undoubtedly be a difficult task, but as Isaiah Berlin observed, there's no pearl without some irritation to the oyster. “ |
| |
|(Rosalie Silberman Abella Justice, Court of Appeal for Ontario, The Law Society of Upper Canada Professionalism Revisited, Opening Address Benchers', |
|Retreat) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE |
|[443] |
|“In their reflection of these principles, the courts have also indicated frequently that they are more concerned with the appearance of bias than with the |
|actual existence of bias. Two justifications are generally advanced for this posture. First, the courts recognize the difficulty of determining in any |
|satisfactory manner whether a person is actually biased in the sense of being unable to put any potentially illegitimate interests out of her or his conscious |
|or subconscious mind. Second, the aphorism that it is as equally important that justice be seen to be done as that justice actually be done has been adopted |
|specifically as a governing policy in is domain. The reputation of the justice system for integrity and impartiality is diminished in a way that is contrary to|
|the public interest if the participants and the public generally have grounds for believing that an adjudicator may be subject to illegitimate influences or |
|predisposition .” |
| |
|(ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; David J. Mullan. David Mullan, 2001, page 322, para 1) |
| |
|[444] |
|“...it is not enough that justice be done, |
|it must appear to be done. It is also a well established principle that audi alteram partem is a rule of natural justice so firmly adopted by the common law |
|that it applies to all those who fulfill judicial functions and it is not excluded by inference. See: L’Alliance des Professeurs Catholiques de Montréal v. |
|Labour Relations Board [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, per Rinfret C.J. at p. 154: |
| |
|[TRANSLATION] The rule that no one should be convicted or |
|deprived of his rights without a hearing, and especially without even |
|being informed that his rights would be in question, is a universal rule |
|of equity, and the silence of a statute should not be relied on as a basis |
|for ignoring it. In my opinion, there would have to be nothing less |
|than an express statement by the legislator for this rule to be |
|superseded: it applies to all courts and to all bodies required to make |
|a decision that might have the effect of destroying a right enjoyed by |
|an individual. “ |
| |
|(Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; page 67) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|[445] Pursuant to Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board; |
| |
|“[1] Section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), gives this Tribunal the authority to dismiss all or part of an |
|application where the substance of the application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In this Interim Decision, we re-examine this |
|Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation and application of s. 45.1 when an applicant previously filed a public complaint about the conduct of a police |
|officer under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended (the “PSA”). |
| |
|[2] In Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, the Supreme Court held in an analogous situation, applying the common law doctrine of |
|issue estoppel, that it would be unfair to preclude a public complainant from pursuing a subsequent civil claim because of the findings in the Ontario police |
|officer discipline process. In our view, the appropriate interpretation of s. 45.1 does not permit the dismissal of a human rights application when this would |
|lead to unfairness, given the nature of the other process and the difference in the issues at stake in that process. In light of the guidance of the Court |
|about the unfairness that would result from dismissing a human rights application based on previous police disciplinary proceedings, these Applications must |
|proceed.” |
|(PARA[1] TO [2], Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board 2013hrto1298-1) |
| |
|[446] The following are RULES from CIVIL PROCEDURE of how, and the assumptions that must be made to properly defeat a claim in a vacuum or by way of a summary |
|dismissal; |
| |
|PROPERTIES of MOTION TO STRIKE IN A VACCUME |
|1) ASSUMPTION FOR STRIKING: |
|(i) STATEMENT OF CLAIM is true |
|(ii) RULE 19.02 - defendant is deemed to admit allegations in STATEMENT OF CLAIM. |
| |
|2) CONSTRAINTS or SCOPE FOR STRIKING: |
|(i) RULE 21.02(1) - ...on a question of Law Raised by Pleading |
|(ii) RULE 21.02(2)(a)&(b) - ...no evidence is admissible on motion |
|(iii) RULE 21.02(1) - ...motion to strike shall be made promptly |
| |
| |
| |
|[447] Pursuant to Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., the following scope or set of binding constraints are established by case law, some of which are the following; |
|“The complexity or novelty of the question that the plaintiff |
|wishes to bring to trial should not act as a bar to that trial taking |
|place. |
| |
|(ii) Supreme Court of Canada |
| |
|While this Court has had a somewhat limited opportunity to |
|consider how the rules regarding the striking out of a statement |
|of claim are to be applied, it has nonetheless consistently upheld |
|the "plain and obvious" test. Justice Estey, speaking for the |
|Court in Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, |
|[1980] 2 S.C.R. 735, stated at p. 740: |
| |
|As I have said, all the facts pleaded in the statement of |
|claim must be deemed to have been proven. {...} |
| |
|The law then would appear to be clear. The facts pleaded are |
|to be taken as proved. " |
|(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 page 23) |
| |
| |
|[448] Pursuant to Kassian v. The Attorney General of Canada; |
| |
| |
|“Burden of Proof |
|[46] All parties confirm that the test outlined in Connerty v. Coles, 2012 ONSC 5218, at para. 9, regarding the burden of proof on a summary judgment motion, |
|has not been altered by the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak. The test outlined in Connerty confirms that the burden of proof on a summary |
|judgment motion must be considered in two steps: |
|1. First, the party who seeks summary dismissal must “move with supporting affidavit material or other evidence.” The moving party bears the evidentiary burden|
|with respect to proof of showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. |
| |
|2. It is only after the moving party has discharged its evidentiary burden of proving that there is no genuine issue which requires a trial for its resolution,|
|that the burden shifts to the responding party to prove that its claim has a real chance of success based upon other evidence or specific facts showing that |
|there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.” |
| |
|(PARA[46], Kassian v. The Attorney General of Canada, 2014 ONSC 844) |
| |
| |
|[450] Pursuant to Frederick E. Gibson in Toledo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); |
| |
|“[5] The issue of the impact of an incomplete transcript on the interests of an Applicant has often been before this Court in immigration judicial reviews in |
|recent years. [1] Typical of the reasoning of my colleagues in the cited authorities are the following comments of Justice Layden-Stevenson in the Randhawa |
|matter, to the following effect: |
| |
|Despite the capable and articulate arguments and submissions of counsel for the respondent, the applicant has persuaded me that the board's credibility |
|findings with respect to the witnesses in question were fundamental to the decision. I am mindful of the comments of Evans J., as then was, in Hassan v. Canada|
|... that given the nature of a vacation hearing, an individual is entitled to the clearest assurance that the board has given full and fair consideration to |
|the evidence. |
| |
|[citations omitted] |
| |
|[6] Although the hearing that is here under review was not a "vacation hearing", I am satisfied that the implications of the Convention refugee hearing here |
|before the Court equally |
|entitle an individual such as the Applicant to the clearest assurance that the RPD has given full and fair consideration to his evidence. |
|{…} |
|[8] Unfortunately, the "entire ruling" is not on the record. I am satisfied that, in the absence of the "entire ruling", this Court is substantially |
|disadvantaged in ensuring a full and fair hearing, not only in the interests of the Applicant, but also in the interests of the presiding member himself.” |
| |
|(Frederick E. Gibson in Toledo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1572) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|[451] Pursuant to ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE; |
|“…the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear in numerous cases that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plenary trial remains the mode for the |
|resolution of disputes and Rule 20 does not represent court reform, or the reform of the adversary system, in disguise{...} |
|A motion judge ought not lose sight of her or his narrow role in determining whether a genuine factual issue exist, and must be careful not to assume the role |
|of a trial judge by adjudicating any genuine factual issues which do exist. The motions judge ought never assess credibility, weight the evidence, or find the |
|facts, all of which are functions reserved to the trial judge. However, an issue of fact must relate to material fact; otherwise it cannot give rise to a |
|“genuine issue for trial.” Moreover, merely raising an issue of credibility will not be an answer to a motion for summary judgment; the issue of credibility |
|must be material and genuine:...“ |
|(page 543, ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE 2009, THOMSON CARSWELL) |
| |
|[452] Pursuant to Le Dain J. for the Supreme Court of Canada in Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution; |
|“Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton's observations in Dyson, supra, at pp. 418-19, are particularly instructive: |
|Now it is unquestionable that, both under the inherent power of the Court and also under a specific rule to that effect made under the Judicature Act, the |
|Court has a right to stop an action at this stage if it is wantonly brought without the shadow of an excuse, so that to permit the action to go through its |
|ordinary stages up to trial would be to allow the defendant to be vexed under the form of legal process when there could not at any stage be any doubt that the|
|action was baseless. But from this to the summary dismissal of actions because the judge in chambers does not think they will be successful in the end lies a |
|wide region, and the Courts have properly considered that this power of arresting an action and deciding it without trial is one to be very sparingly used, and|
|rarely, if ever, excepting in cases where the action is an abuse of legal procedure. They have laid down again and again that this process is not intended to |
|take the place of the old demurrer by which the defendant challenged the validity of the plaintiff's claim as a matter of law. Differences of law, just as |
|differences of fact, are normally to be decided by trial after hearing in Court, and not to be refused a hearing in Court by an order of the judge in chambers.|
|Nothing more clearly indicates this to be the intention of the rule than the fact that the plaintiff has no appeal as of right from the decision of the judge |
|at chambers in the case of such an order as this. So far as the rules are concerned an action may be stopped by this procedure without the question of its |
|justifiability ever being brought before a Court. To my mind it is evident that our judicial system would never permit a plaintiff to be "driven from the |
|judgment seat" in this way without any Court having considered his right to be heard, excepting in cases where the cause of action was obviously and almost |
|incontestably bad. [Emphasis added.]” |
|(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 page 16&17) |
| |
|[453] Pursuant to Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc.; |
|“[15] In this case, there is no question that the applicant failed to file a request to reactivate the Application within the time limit specified in |
|Rule 14.4. Accordingly, the issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal ought to exercise its discretion under the Rules to extend the applicable time |
|limit or to waive the strict application of the Rule, so as to allow the applicant to request reactivation of the Application in March 2014. |
| |
|[16] In deciding whether it would be fair, just and expeditious to extend the time limit in this case, I must consider both the time limit in Rule 14.4 |
|in the context of the overall scheme of the Code and Rules, as well as the reasons for the applicant’s request to extend it. The 60-day limit represents an |
|attempt by the Tribunal to incorporate the values of fairness, justice and expeditiousness into this step of the proceedings and to balance those factors by |
|acknowledging that parties will need a reasonable, but finite, amount of time to make a decision about reactivation. A request to extend the timeline must, |
|therefore, be supported by some explanation. See Hudson v. Kingston (City), 2013 HRTO 2006 (CanLII). |
| |
|[17] In my view, the applicant has provided some explanation for her delay. She was obtaining medical treatment from September 2013 to March 2014. She |
|was hospitalized during the 60-day period following the Divisional Court decision on September 18, 2013, from October 28 to November 5, 2013. It was not until |
|the Tribunal’s request for a status report on February 11, 2014 that the respondents requested a dismissal of the Application on February 19, 2014 for the |
|applicant’s failure to request reactivation within the 60-day time period. In these circumstances, I exercise my discretion to waive strict compliance with the|
|60-day time period and reactivate the Application. |
| |
|order |
|[18] The Application is reactivated. |
|[19] The respondents are directed to advise the Tribunal whether they are willing to proceed to mediation by April 25, 2014. |
|Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of April, 2014.” |
|(FAIRNESS-RULE A3.1: Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., 2014 HRTO 528) |
| |
|[454] Pursuant to Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board; |
|“[1] Section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), gives this Tribunal the authority to dismiss all or part of an |
|application where the substance of the application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In this Interim Decision, we re-examine this |
|Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation and application of s. 45.1 when an applicant previously filed a public complaint about the conduct of a police |
|officer under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended (the “PSA”). |
| |
|[2] In Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, the Supreme Court held in an analogous situation, applying the common law doctrine of |
|issue estoppel, that it would be unfair to preclude a public complainant from pursuing a subsequent civil claim because of the findings in the Ontario police |
|officer discipline process. In our view, the appropriate interpretation of s. 45.1 does not permit the dismissal of a human rights application when this would |
|lead to unfairness, given the nature of the other process and the difference in the issues at stake in that process. In light of the guidance of the Court |
|about the unfairness that would result from dismissing a human rights application based on previous police disciplinary proceedings, these Applications must |
|proceed.” |
|(PARA[1] TO [2], Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board 2013hrto1298-1) |
| |
|[455] Pursuant to Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board; |
|“[191] The fact that there has been no disciplinary hearing in these cases also raises an aspect of fairness at issue in this case that was not at issue in |
|Penner. Because in these cases there has been no disciplinary hearing, the effect of a dismissal by this Tribunal at this stage would be that applications |
|alleging a breach of the Code would get no hearing at all. A dismissal without a hearing by this Tribunal on the basis solely of a decision made pursuant to a |
|“gatekeeping” function (see Wall v. Independent Police Review Director, 2013 ONSC 3312, at para. 8) would be manifestly at odds with the intentions of the |
|Legislature in creating the “direct access” system under the Code, as well as obviously unfair. |
| |
|[192] I agree with my colleagues that s. 45.1 cannot and should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where do to so would result in an affront to basic|
|principles of fairness. In addition, it appears to me that the use of the term “appropriately” in s. 45.1 of the Code calls for an assessment of the conclusion|
|(result and remedy) in the other proceeding against the applicable provisions of the Code, and in light of the legislative intent behind the Code. In the |
|circumstances of these cases, the substance of the Applications cannot be found to have been “appropriately dealt with”. |
| |
|DISPOSITION |
|[193] In respect of all three Applications before us, I would exercise my discretion under s. 45.1 of the Code, for all of the reasons noted above, to refuse |
|the respondents’ Requests to Dismiss these Applications, and to allow them to proceed in the Tribunal’s process. I agree with the terms of the Order as set out|
|in the Decision of my colleagues. |
|(PARA[191] TO [193], Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board 2013hrto1298-1) |
| |
| |
|DUE PROCESS OF LAW: |
|[456] Pursuant to the BILL OF RIGHTS, one's rights cannot be taken away without a fair hearing to plea ones cause or defend against the said action; |
|2. ...be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or |
|freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to |
| |
|(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and |
|obligations; |
| |
| |
|[457] Pursuant to Madam Kathleen Wynne; |
|“Dear Minister Meilleur: |
| |
|I am honoured to welcome you back to your role as Attorney General. We have a strong Cabinet in place, and I am confident that together we will build Ontario |
|up, create new opportunities and champion a secure future for people across our province. The people of Ontario have entrusted their government to be a force |
|for good, and we will reward that trust by working every day in the best interests of every person in this province. |
|{...} |
|As Chief Law Officer of the Crown, you have a unique role in providing independent legal advice to Cabinet, with a special responsibility as the guardian of |
|the rule of law. You are responsible for ensuring Cabinet is properly advised on the constitutionality and legal risks of all government initiatives. You and |
|your ministry staff will also continue to provide legal advice to all ministries, and to review the conduct of litigation on behalf of the government. |
| |
|Your ministry’s specific priorities include: |
|Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice |
|λ Continuing to focus on the delivery of legislative and systemic initiatives that promote fairness and access to our justice system for Ontarians. |
|λ Engaging in discussions within the legal profession about improving access to justice. You will develop a strategy to expand Legal Aid support for the most|
|vulnerable within our society by working to raise the income eligibility threshold to qualify for Legal Aid. Your goal is to ensure that more Ontarians in need|
|are represented by a lawyer through Legal Aid — or have access to the legal supports they may need. |
|λ Pursuing the re-introduction of legislation to protect the public from lawsuits intended to discourage public participation. |
|λ Supporting the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in reviewing the scope and effectiveness of the Ontario Municipal Board and in recommending |
|possible reforms to improve its role within the broader land use planning system. |
|λ As the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs, continuing to work to ensure ongoing improvement in the availability of French-language services |
|within the justice system, including court services.” |
|( Kathleen Wynne Premier Updated: September 25, 2014 ,2014 Mandate letter: Attorney General Premier's instructions to the Minister on priorities for the year |
|2014) |
| |
| |
|[458] The State has breached its confidence in its relationship of trust with my person, a member of the collective byway of the tortious actions of its |
|relevant institutions, relevant policies the said institutions, unspoken political agendas, agents and subcontractors. |
| |
|This has not only damaged me and my children's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness; but also the delicate fabric of our beloved democratic |
|society. This actionable wrong destroys the bonds of trust which is an essential element in the building of a successful society. |
| |
|Moreover, these tortious actions unravels the threads of trust which binds and holds the collective together and ensure its overall well being and social |
|health. Herein is the sinful actionable wrong against my person and the Canadian community. |
| |
|With all of this collateral argument going on, let me remind the the honourable Madeleine Meilleur, that the essence of why we are all here in this country and|
|this province of Ontario; and in so doing, recall the society we are suppose to be living in. |
| |
|• The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the|
|human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions; |
|• |
|• Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law; |
|• |
|• And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall |
|reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada: |
| |
| |
|The Province of Quebec Preamble R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms asserts; |
| |
|“WHEREAS every human being possesses intrinsic rights and freedoms designed to ensure his protection and development; |
| |
|Whereas all human beings are equal in worth and dignity, and are entitled to equal protection of the law; |
| |
|Whereas respect for the dignity of human beings, equality of women and men, and recognition of their rights and freedoms constitute the foundation of justice, |
|liberty and peace; |
| |
|Whereas the rights and freedoms of the human person are inseparable from the rights and freedoms of others and from the common well-being; |
| |
|Whereas it is expedient to solemnly declare the fundamental human rights and freedoms in a Charter, so that they may be guaranteed by the collective will and |
|better protected against any violation;” |
|(R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of human rights and freedoms, Preamble.) |
| |
|Para 1 and 2 establishes and affirms the right and freedom of a human being in a general way. Para 3 is saying that without a common respect for human dignity,|
|it is not possible for society as we know it, are for our collective to exist in its present form. |
| |
|Para 4 concede that there is a link between the Rights and Freedom of the person and the effective functionality of the collective. There is a relationship |
|between the health and well being of the collective and the Rights and Freedom of the individual. |
| |
|Rights and Freedom are generally thought of as being a means of protection and a check and balance against the insurmountable power of the collective. But, |
|here its saying that if you harm the individual you are harming the collective and this intern has a dramatic affect on the health and well being of the |
|totality of our society. |
| |
|This is why I am in love with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Preamble. It make the extra step, and it is beautiful for this reason. |
| |
|THIS IS WHAT I for one BELIEVE IN, THIS IS THE SOCIETY I HOPE FOR, THIS IS THE HUMANITY I VOTE FOR and THIS IS THE WAY OF LIFE I CHOOSE TO FIGHT FOR!!!! |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|All of which is respectfully submitted. |
|July 15, 2015 |
| |
|_____________________________ |
|Wayne FERRON(Informant/APPLICANT) |
|VAGOBOND |
|leegalpoet@ |
| |
|AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING IS|
|THE CROSS I HAD TO CARRY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585-I, WITHOUT A NOTICE TO DEFER (2012-12585-I) ; |
| |
|TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE |
|INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE SEND|
|ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY REGULAR|
|MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAYTIME, I MOSTLY |
|ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|TO |
|HRTO – Registrar |
|Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario |
|655 Bay Street, 14th floor |
|Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 |
|Phone: 416-326-1519 |
|Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322 |
|Fax: 416-326-2199 |
|Email: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEUR |
|The Attorney General of Ontario |
|CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH |
|6th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|fax: 416 326 4015 |
| |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|THE HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSEN |
|The Attorney General of Ontario |
|CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH |
|6th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|fax: 416 326 4015 |
| |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD |
|Toronto Police Service |
|40 College Street |
|Toronto, ON M5G 2J3 |
|Canada |
|Telephone (+1) 416-808-2222 |
| |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|The Attorney General of Ontario |
|CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH |
|6th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|fax: 416 326 4015 |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP |
|Scotia Plaza Tower, 40 King St W, |
|Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4 |
|Phone:(416) 367-6000 |
| |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|PEEL POLICE SERVICE BOARD |
|Peel Regional Police |
|7750 Hurontario Street, |
|Brampton, ON, L6V 3W6 |
|(905) 453-3311 |
| |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|KATHERINE KIRKPATRICK |
|BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP |
|Scotia Plaza Tower, 40 King St W, |
|Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4 |
|Phone:(416) 367-6000 |
| |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|POLICE CHIEFT BILL BLAIR |
|TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD |
|Toronto Police Service |
|40 College Street |
|Toronto, ON M5G 2J3 |
|Canada |
|Telephone (+1) 416-808-2222 |
| |
| |
|AND TO: |
| |
|DEBORAH KRICK |
|The Attorney General of Ontario |
|CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH |
|6th floor |
|720 Bay Street |
|Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 |
|fax: 416 326 4015 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|All of which is respectfully submitted. |
|July 15, 2015 |
| |
|_____________________________ |
|Wayne FERRON(Informant/APPLICANT) |
|HOMELESS VAGABOND |
| |
|HOMELESS SHELTER |
|ST. SIMON’S SHELTER |
|BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East, |
|Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1 |
|leegalpoet@ |
| |
|AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING IS|
|THE CROSS I HAD TO CARRY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585-I, WITHOUT A NOTICE TO DEFER (2012-12585-I) ; |
| |
|TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE |
|INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE SEND|
|ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY REGULAR|
|MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAYTIME, I MOSTLY |
|ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. |
| |
| |
| |
|TO |
|HRTO – Registrar |
|Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario |
|655 Bay Street, 14th floor |
|Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 |
|Phone: 416-326-1519 |
|Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322 |
|Fax: 416-326-2199 |
|Email: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca |
| |
|AND TO: |
|TORONTO POLICE SERVICES/Officer Green(10235) |
|13 Division |
|E-mail 13 Division |
|1435 Eglinton Av. W., |
|Toronto, ON, M6C 3Z4 |
|Phone: 416-808-1300 |
|Fax: 416-808-1302 |
|Email: david.green@torontopolice.on.ca |
| |
|Unit Commander: Superintendent Scott Baptist |
|2nd in Charge: Inspector Anil Anand |
|Community Response Unit Manager: |
|Staff Sergeant Courtney Chambers, 416-808-1386 |
|Community Relations Officer: |
|Constable Simon Knott, 416-808-1308 |
|Crime Prevention Officer: |
|Constable Dwarkh Ramprashad, 416-808-1387 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|APPENDIX A |
| |
| |
|Paramountcy (Canada) |
|From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
|See also: pith and substance, double aspect and interjurisdictional immunity |
|In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal |
|law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is|
|concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised. |
|Contents |
|• 1 Nature of the doctrine |
|• 2 History |
|• 3 See also |
|• 4 References |
|• 5 Significant cases |
|• 6 Further reading |
|Nature of the doctrine |
|Paramountcy is relevant where there is conflicting federal and provincial legislation. As Major J explained in Rothmans: |
|“ 11. The doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy dictates that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and |
|federal legislation, the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency....[1] |
|” |
|Claims in paramountcy may arise from two different forms of conflict:[2] |
|• Operational conflict between federal and provincial laws, such that dual compliance is impossible. |
|• Where dual compliance is possible, but the provincial law is incompatible with the purpose of federal legislation, thus frustrating a federal purpose. To |
|determine whether the impugned legislation frustrates a federal purpose, it is necessary to consider the regulatory framework that governs the matter in |
|question. The party seeking to invoke the doctrine of federal paramountcy bears the burden of proof. |
|History |
|The doctrine was first expressed in the Local Prohibition Case, and was subsequently described by Lord Dunedin in Grand Trunk v. Attorney General of Canada |
|thus:[3] |
|First, ... there can be a domain in which provincial and Dominion legislation may overlap, in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires, if the field |
|is clear; and, secondly, ... if the field is not clear, and in such a domain the two legislations meet, then the Dominion must prevail.[4] |
|Historically, the doctrine was interpreted very strictly. When there was any overlap between federal or provincial laws the federal law would always render the|
|provincial law inoperative even where there was no conflict. It was over time that courts and academics began to interpret the power as only applying where |
|conformity to one law would necessarily violate the other. The Supreme Court of Canada adopted the latter interpretation in the decision of Smith v. The Queen.|
|The Court held that there must be an "operational incompatibility" between the laws in order to invoke paramountcy. |
|The modern use of the paramountcy doctrine was articulated in Multiple Access v. McCutcheon. In that case, both the provincial and federal governments had |
|enacted virtually identical insider trading legislation. The Court found that statutory duplication does not invoke paramountcy as the court had the discretion|
|to prevent double penalties. Instead, paramountcy can only be invoked when then compliance with one means the breach of the other. |
|A later example of this doctrine was in the decision of Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, where the Court found an operational conflict between the |
|provincial Law Society Act prohibiting non-lawyers from appearing in front of a judge and the federal Immigration Act which allowed non-lawyers to appear |
|before the immigation tribunal. |
|See also |
|• Federal preemption and the Supremacy clause for the US context |
|• Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia |
|References |
|1. Rothmans, par. 11 |
|2. COPA, par. 64 |
|3. Colvin 1979, p. 88 |
|4. Grand Trunk, at p. 68 |
|Significant cases |
|• The Attorney General for Ontario v The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada, and the Distillers and Brewers’ Association of Ontario [1896] UKPC 20, |
|[1896] AC 348 (9 May 1896), P.C. (on appeal from Canada) |
|• The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada [1906] UKPC 72, [1907] AC 65 (5 November 1906) (on appeal from |
|Canada) |
|• Smith v. The Queen 1960 CanLII 12, [1960] SCR 776 (4 October 1960) |
|• O'Grady v. Sparling 1960 CanLII 70, [1960] S.C.R. 804 (4 October 1960) |
|• Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon 1982 CanLII 1705, [1982] 2 SCR 161 (9 August 1982) |
|• Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat 2001 SCC 67, [2001] 3 SCR 113 (18 October 2001) |
|• Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan 2005 SCC 13, [2005] 1 SCR 188 (18 March 2005) |
|• Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association 2010 SCC 39, [2010] 2 SCR 536 (15 October 2010) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|APPENDIX: B |
| |
|Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569 |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Is an act of reprisal in response to an unfounded human rights complaint grounds for an award of damages under the Ontario Human Rights Code? According to a |
|recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII), the answer is yes. |
|The case is interesting because it stands in stark contrast to decisions taken by the Ontario Labour Relations Board with respect to claims of reprisal |
|following unsuccessful claims of workplace harassment. On this latter point I would encourage readers to review my post Workplace Harassment Complaints and |
|Bill 168. |
|The Morgan Decision |
|The Morgan case concerned an application brought before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by employee Aldeen Morgan. Mr. Morgan had taken the position that |
|he was discriminated against by his employer, Herman Miller Canada Inc. on account of the fact that he was black man. Specifically, Mr. Morgan had claimed that|
|he was made to perform tasks outside his job description, which he found demeaning, and that he was put on probation solely because he was a black man. |
|In her reasons for decision Human Rights Tribunal Adjudicator Geneviève Debané found that the Mr. Morgan had not established that the events complained of were|
|evidence of any discriminatory or racist conduct on the part of the employer. Adjudicator Debané therefore dismissed those aspects of his claim. |
|However, although Adjudicator Debané made findings that the incidents complained of were not motivated by racism, the Tribunal still found that the company’s |
|failure to appropriately respond to Mr. Morgan’s complaints was sufficient to result in an award of damages. |
|The Duty to Address and Respond |
|In reaching the decision that Mr. Morgan had been discriminated against, Adjudicator Debané made reference to the 2005 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of|
|Ontario in Laskowskav. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, which discusses the obligation of an employer to adequately address and respond to allegations |
|of Code-related discrimination and harassment in the workplace. |
|Adjudicator Debané then went on to hold that an applicant need not prove that discrimination has occurred to benefit from the protection of section 8 of the |
|Human Rights Code; the applicant must only have a genuinely held the belief that the respondents were infringing his Code rights. (See paragraph 87.) |
|Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that: |
|Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to |
|infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. |
|Based on that rule of law, Adjudicator Debané found that the decision to terminate Mr. Morgan’s employment was made as a reprisal because he had claimed his |
|Code rights by raising issues of harassment and discrimination in his workplace. Adjudicator Debané also found that the employer failed to adequately address, |
|or take any steps in response to, Mr. Morgan’s, albeit unfounded, allegations of discrimination and harassment. On this second point Adjudicator Debané wrote |
|that: |
|Instead of dealing with the applicant’s allegations in an appropriate manner, the company chose to terminate the applicant’s employment. I note that the |
|termination letter itself relies on the fact that the applicant was “profoundly unhappy”. I find that this unhappiness was a direct result of the fact that he |
|perceived that he was being treated in a discriminatory manner because of his colour. Although reprisal need only be one factor in the decision to terminate |
|the applicant in order to find that the applicant was terminated contrary to his right to be free from reprisal under the Code, in my view the reasons in the |
|respondent’s termination letter were otherwise pre-textual. (Para. 108)” (Par Sean Bawden — Labour Pains) |
| |
| |
| |
|Kotevski v. 1217993 Ontario Wimpy’s Diner, 2011 HRTO 705 |
|(Gender, sexual harassment) |
|Chuvalo v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2037 |
|(Gender and race) |
|Couchie v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing), 2011 HRTO 689 |
|(Ancestry) |
|Lauzon v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2011 HRTO 1404 |
|(Disability) |
|Tearne v. City of Windsor 2011 HRTO 2294 |
|(Age) |
|Knibbs v. Brant Artillery Gunners Club, 2011 HRTO 1032 |
|(Gender, disability, association and reprisal) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Statutory Powers Procedure Act |
|R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22 |
|Disposition without hearing |
|4.1If the parties consent, a proceeding may be disposed of by a decision of the tribunal given without a hearing, unless another Act or a regulation that |
|applies to the proceeding provides otherwise. 1997, c. 23, s. 13 (2). |
| |
|Dismissal of proceeding without hearing |
|4.6(1)Subject to subsections (5) and (6), a tribunal may dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if, |
|(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith; |
|(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal; or |
|(c) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the proceeding has not been met. |
| |
|Notice |
|(2)Before dismissing a proceeding under this section, a tribunal shall give notice of its intention to dismiss the proceeding to, |
|(a) all parties to the proceeding if the proceeding is being dismissed for reasons referred to in clause (1) (b); or |
|(b) the party who commences the proceeding if the proceeding is being dismissed for any other reason. |
| |
|Same |
|(3)The notice of intention to dismiss a proceeding shall set out the reasons for the dismissal and inform the parties of their right to make written |
|submissions to the tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in the notice. |
| |
|Right to make submissions |
|(4)A party who receives a notice under subsection (2) may make written submissions to the tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in |
|the notice. |
| |
|Dismissal |
|(5)A tribunal shall not dismiss a proceeding under this section until it has given notice under subsection (2) and considered any submissions made under |
|subsection (4). |
| |
|Rules |
|(6)A tribunal shall not dismiss a proceeding under this section unless it has made rules under section 25.1 respecting the early dismissal of proceedings and |
|those rules shall include, |
|(a) any of the grounds referred to in subsection (1) upon which a proceeding may be dismissed; |
|(b) the right of the parties who are entitled to receive notice under subsection (2) to make submissions with respect to the dismissal; and |
|(c) the time within which the submissions must be made. |
| |
|Continuance of provisions in other statutes |
|(7)Despite section 32, nothing in this section shall prevent a tribunal from dismissing a proceeding on grounds other than those referred to in subsection (1) |
|or without complying with subsections (2) to (6) if the tribunal dismisses the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of an Act that are in force on the |
|day this section comes into force. 1999, c. 12, Sched. B, s. 16 (3). |
| |
|Right to representation |
|10. A party to a proceeding may be represented by a representative. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (3). |
| |
|Examination of witnesses |
|10.1A party to a proceeding may, at an oral or electronic hearing, |
|(a) call and examine witnesses and present evidence and submissions; and |
|(b) conduct cross-examinations of witnesses at the hearing reasonably required for a full and fair disclosure of all matters relevant to the issues in the |
|proceeding. 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (20). |
| |
|Rights of witnesses to representation |
|11. (1) A witness at an oral or electronic hearing is entitled to be advised by a representative as to his or her rights, but such representative may take no|
|other part in the hearing without leave of the tribunal. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (4). |
| |
|Idem |
|(2) Where an oral hearing is closed to the public, the witness’s representative is not entitled to be present except when that witness is giving evidence. |
|R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 11 (2); 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (22); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (5). |
| |
|Summonses |
|12. (1) A tribunal may require any person, including a party, by summons, |
|(a) to give evidence on oath or affirmation at an oral or electronic hearing; and |
|(b) to produce in evidence at an oral or electronic hearing documents and things specified by the tribunal, |
|relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding and admissible at a hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 12 (1); 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (23). |
| |
|Form and service of summons |
|(2) A summons issued under subsection (1) shall be in the prescribed form (in English or French) and, |
|(a) where the tribunal consists of one person, shall be signed by him or her; |
|(b) where the tribunal consists of more than one person, shall be signed by the chair of the tribunal or in such other manner as documents on behalf of the |
|tribunal may be signed under the statute constituting the tribunal. 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (24). |
| |
|Human Rights Code |
|R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19 |
|PART I |
|FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of |
|origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or |
|disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1. |
| |
|Accommodation |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of|
|origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability |
|or the receipt of public assistance. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 2 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (2); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (2); 2012, c. 7, s. 2 |
|(1). |
| |
|Reprisals |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to|
|infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 8. |
| |
|Infringement prohibited |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|Constructive discrimination |
|11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground |
|but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the |
|person is a member, except where, |
|(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or |
|(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, |
|s. 11 (1). |
| |
|Idem |
|(2) The Tribunal or a court shall not find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied|
|that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those |
|needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (2); 1994, c. 27, s. |
|65 (1); 2002, c. 18, Sched. C, s. 2 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 35 (1). |
| |
|Idem |
|(3) The Tribunal or a court shall consider any standards prescribed by the regulations for assessing what is undue hardship. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (3); |
|1994, c. 27, s. 65 (2); 2002, c. 18, Sched. C, s. 2 (2); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 35 (2). |
| |
|Discrimination because of association |
|12. A right under Part I is infringed where the discrimination is because of relationship, association or dealings with a person or persons identified by a |
|prohibited ground of discrimination. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 12. |
| |
|Announced intention to discriminate |
|13. (1) A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of |
|any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is |
|intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (1). |
| |
|Opinion |
|(2) Subsection (1) shall not interfere with freedom of expression of opinion. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (2). |
| |
|Disposition of applications |
|40. The Tribunal shall dispose of applications made under this Part by adopting the procedures and practices provided for in its rules or otherwise available |
|to the Tribunal which, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the applications. 2006, c. 30, |
|s. 5. |
| |
|Interpretation of Part and rules |
|41. This Part and the Tribunal rules shall be liberally construed to permit the Tribunal to adopt practices and procedures, including alternatives to |
|traditional adjudicative or adversarial procedures that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, will facilitate fair, just and expeditious resolutions of the merits |
|of the matters before it. 2006, c. 30, s. 5. |
| |
|Statutory Powers Procedure Act |
|42. (1) The provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act apply to a proceeding before the Tribunal unless they conflict with a provision of this Act, the|
|regulations or the Tribunal rules. 2006, c. 30, s. 5. |
| |
|Conflict |
|(2) Despite section 32 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, this Act, the regulations and the Tribunal rules prevail over the provisions of that Act with |
|which they conflict. 2006, c. 30, s. 5. |
| |
|Tribunal rules |
|43. (1) The Tribunal may make rules governing the practice and procedure before it. 2006, c. 30, s. 5. |
| |
|Required practices and procedures |
|(2) The rules shall ensure that the following requirements are met with respect to any proceeding before the Tribunal: |
|1. An application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral |
|submissions in accordance with the rules. |
|2. An application may not be finally disposed of without written reasons. 2006, c. 30, s. |
| |
|Penalty |
|46.2 (1) Every person who contravenes section 9 or subsection 31 (14), 31.1 (8) or 44 (13) or an order of the Tribunal is guilty of an offence and on |
|conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000. 2006, c. 30, s. 8. |
|Consent to prosecution |
|(2) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except with the consent in writing of the Attorney General. 2006, c. 30, s. 8. |
| |
|Act binds Crown |
|47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (1). |
|Act has primacy over other Acts |
|(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless|
|the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (2). |
| |
|Complaints before Commission on effective date |
|53. (1) This section applies to a complaint filed with the Commission under subsection 32 (1) of the old Part IV or initiated by the Commission under |
|subsection 32 (2) of the old Part IV before the effective date. 2006, c. 30, s. 10. |
|Commission powers continued for six months |
|(2) Subject to subsection (3) and despite the repeal of the old Part IV, during the six-month period that begins on the effective date, the Commission shall |
|continue to deal with complaints referred to in subsection (1) in accordance with subsection 32 (3) and sections 33, 34, 36, 37 and 43 of the old Part IV and, |
|for that purpose, |
|(a) the Commission has all the powers described in subsection 32 (3) and sections 33, 34, 36, 37 and 43 of the old Part IV; and |
|(b) the provisions referred to in clause (a) continue to apply with respect to the complaints, with necessary modifications. 2006, c. 30, s. 10. |
| |
|Applications to Tribunal during six-month period |
|(3) Subject to subsection (4), at any time during the six-month period referred to in subsection (2), the person who made a complaint that is continued under |
|that subsection may, in accordance with the Tribunal rules, elect to abandon the complaint and make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the |
|subject-matter of the complaint. 2006, c. 30, s. 10. |
| |
|Expedited process |
|(4) The Tribunal shall make rules with respect to the practices and procedures that apply to an application under subsection (3) in order to ensure that the |
|applications are dealt with in an expeditious manner. 2006, c. 30, s. 10. |
| |
|Applications to Tribunal after six-month period |
|(5) If, after the end of the six-month period referred to in subsection (2), the Commission has failed to deal with the merits of a complaint continued under |
|that subsection and the complaint has not been withdrawn or settled, the complainant may make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the subject-matter|
|of the complaint within a further six-month period after the end of the earlier six-month period. 2006, c. 30, s. 10. |
| |
|New Part IV applies |
|(6) The new Part IV applies to an application made under subsections (3) and (5). 2006, c. 30, s. 10. |
| |
|Disclosure of information |
|(7) Despite anything in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, at the request of a party to an application under subsection (3) or (5), the|
|Commission may disclose to the party any information obtained by the Commission in the course of an investigation. 2006, c. 30, s. 10. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO |
| |
|WAYNE FERRON |
|-versus- |
|OFFICER GREEN(BADGE#10235 )ET. AL. |
| |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL |
|PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT |
|Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario |
|655 Bay Street, 14th floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 |
|Phone: 416-326-1519 |
|___________________________ |
|NO HUMAN RIGHTS! |
|NO LEGAL RIGHTS!! |
|NO CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS!!! |
|“WHY IS WAYNE FERRON THE ONLY ONE WHO IS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY DISTINCTION OR NOT PROTECTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ?” |
|____________________________________________ |
|Wayne FERRON |
|VAGABOND |
|leegalpoet@ |
| |
|AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING; |
|TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE |
|INHUMANLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO- WORKS. PLEASE SEND|
|ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADRESS BY REGULAR |
|MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY |
|ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS . |
| |
|The Effect On You |
| |
|9. How the Events You Described Affected You | |
|Tell us how the events you described affected you (e.g. were there financial, social, emotional or mental health, or other effects)? Add more pages if you need|
|to. Number each page. |
|OVERVIEW: |
|HRTO COMPLAINT: |
|1. The Applicant is a repetitive victim of LEGAL BULLYING; |
|2. The Applicant’s Rights, the Crowns promise, and the Government’s obligations to it’s citizen(Applicant is legally one of these said citizens) in the |
|INTERNATIONAL COVINENT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, have been continuously violated. |
|3. Denial of legal service or equal legal services for truth finding, resolution, JUST LEGAL PUNISHMENT, and restitution; |
|4. Denial of lawful enforcement of the RULE OF LAW, denial of lawful enforcement of Parliamentary Legislation, denial of lawful enforcement of Government |
|Policies, and lawful access to public goods/services; |
|5. Reprisal of LEGAL BULLYING for being concerned with the PUBLIC GOOD, and the CONCIOUSNESS OF THE COURT; |
| |
|6. Denial of goods and services (Section 1. HUMAN RIGHTS CODE), BYWAY OF denial of POLICE SERVICES, denial of equal COURT SERVICES, denial of equal COURT |
|RECORDS SERVICES, and denial of equal COURT REPORTERS SERVICES by distinction(DISCRIMINATION), and the threat to DESTROY PUBLIC EVIDEN (REPRISALS), associated |
|with the same matter of complaint without lawful cause. IT IS BY DISTINCTION, because THE Applicant didn't witness any other law enforcement clients being |
|denied POLICE SERVICES or turned away from 13 DIVISION while waiting for five hours or more for POLICE SERVICES TO BE AFFECTED in accordance with the CHARTER |
|or CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA or THE POLICE SERVICE ACT or the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT or the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS; |
| |
|7. Denial of Life, Liberty, Security, pursuit of happiness, and the following; |
|“WHEREAS every human being possesses intrinsic rights and freedoms designed to ensure his protection and development; |
| |
|Whereas all human beings are equal in worth and dignity, and are entitled to equal protection of the law; |
|Whereas respect for the dignity of human beings, equality of women and men, and recognition of their rights and freedoms constitute the foundation of justice, |
|liberty and peace; |
| |
|Whereas the rights and freedoms of the human person are inseparable from the rights and freedoms of others and from the common well-being; |
| |
|Whereas it is expedient to solemnly declare the fundamental human rights and freedoms in a Charter, so that they may be guaranteed by the collective will and |
|better protected against any violation;” |
|(R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of human rights and freedoms, |
| |
| |
|The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: |
| |
|Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in |
|accordance with Article 49 |
| |
| |
|Preamble |
|The States Parties to the present Covenant, |
| |
|Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in |
|the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent |
|dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all |
|members of the human family is the foundation of |
|freedom, justice and peace in the world, |
| |
|Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent |
|dignity of the human person, |
| |
|Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom|
|from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social |
|and cultural rights, |
| |
|Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of |
|the United Nations to promote universal respect for, |
|and observance of, human rights and freedoms, |
| |
|Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals |
|and to the community to which he belongs, is under a |
|responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance |
|of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, |
| |
|Agree upon the following articles: |
| |
| |
|Article 2 |
|1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the |
|rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind… |
| |
|2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, |
|in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to |
|give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. |
| |
|3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: |
| |
|(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has|
|been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; |
| |
|(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, |
|or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; |
| |
|(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. |
| |
| |
|Article 3 |
|The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in|
|the present Covenant. |
| |
|Article 10 |
|1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. |
| |
| |
|Article 14 |
|1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a |
|suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law… |
| |
| |
|Article 26 |
|All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit |
|any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, |
|religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. |
| |
| |
|Article 50 |
|The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions. |
| |
|Article 51 |
|{…} |
| |
|3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the |
|provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have accepted. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS CODE: |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of |
|origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or |
|disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1. |
| |
|Reprisals |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to|
|infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 8. |
| |
|Infringement prohibited |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|Act binds Crown |
|47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (1). |
|Act has primacy over other Acts |
|(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless|
|the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (2). |
| |
|Human Rights Code |
|R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19 |
|Constructive discrimination |
|11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground |
|but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the |
|person is a member, except where, |
|(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or |
|(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, |
|s. 11 (1). |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Discrimination because of association |
|12. A right under Part I is infringed where the discrimination is because of relationship, association or dealings with a person or persons identified by a |
|prohibited ground of discrimination. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 12. |
| |
| |
|Police Service Act: |
| |
|Declaration of principles |
|Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles: |
| |
|1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario. |
|2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|THE FOLLOWING IS THE YARDSTICH FOR DISCRIMINAATION: |
| |
|Right to life. |
|1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. |
| |
|Safeguard of dignity. |
|4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation. 1975, c. 6, s. 4. |
| |
|Respect for private life. |
|5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life. |
|1975, c. 6, s. 5. |
| |
| |
|R.S.Q., chapter C-12 |
|Charter of human rights and freedoms |
| |
|Exercise of rights and freedoms. |
|9.1. In exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being |
|of the citizens of Québec. |
| |
| |
| |
|Discrimination forbidden. |
|10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on|
|race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national |
|origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap. |
| |
|Discrimination defined. |
|Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right. 1975, c. 6, s. 10; 1977, c. 6, s.|
|1; 1978, c. 7, s. 112; 1980, c. 11, s. 34; 1982, c. 61, s. 3. |
| |
| |
|CHAPTER I.1 |
|RIGHT TO EQUAL RECOGNITION AND EXERCISE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS |
| |
|Discrimination forbidden. |
| |
|10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on|
|race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national |
|origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap. |
| |
|Discrimination defined. |
|Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right. |
|1975, c. 6, s. 10; 1977, c. 6, s. 1; 1978, c. 7, s. 112; 1980, c. 11, s. 34; 1982, c. 61, s. 3. |
| |
|Harassment. |
|10.1. No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10. |
|1982, c. 61, s. 4. |
| |
|Discriminatory notice forbidden. |
|11. No one may distribute, publish or publicly exhibit a notice, symbol or sign involving discrimination, or authorize anyone to do so. |
|1975, c. 6, s. 11. |
| |
|Discrimination in juridical acts. |
|12. No one may, through discrimination, refuse to make a juridical act concerning goods or services ordinarily offered to the public. |
|1975, c. 6, s. 12. |
| |
|Clause forbidden. |
|13. No one may in a juridical act stipulate a clause involving discrimination. |
|(R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of human rights and freedoms) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Pursuant to Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada; |
|“In Andrews, supra, a case which challenged the citizenship requirement for entry into the legal profession in British Columbia, this Court had occasion to |
|address the meaning of the term "discrimination" as employed in s. 15(1). McIntyre J. (dissenting, but on this issue stating the opinion of the Court) stated,|
|at pp. 174-75, |
|that: |
| |
|. . . discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual |
|or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or |
|limits access to opportunities. . . |
| |
|Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of |
|discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capacities will rarely be so classed. “ |
|(Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22 , page 24 and 25) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|DISTINCTION: |
|GOODS AND SERVICES DISTINCTION |
|a. PERMISSIBLE THEFT - Officer Pekeski(2261), Ms. Joanne Stuart, and PEEL REGION/SALVATION ARMY are allowed to steal my property, and continue to keep the |
|same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one |
|in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting, Ms. Joanne Stuart, Officer |
|Pekeski(2261), Stribbill, Burd, Monk, Krick, from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission. |
|b. DENIED FULL ACCESS TO JUSTICE, FULL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND SECURITY/PROTECTION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, THE LAW DOES NOT PROTECT ME - Officer |
|Pekeski(2261), Ms. Joanne Stuart, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL/SALVATION ARMY are allowed to steal the Applicant property and continue to keep the same stolen|
|property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one in Ontario |
|that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261)|
|from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission. |
|c. PARAMOUNTCY DOES NOT APPLY for the proper administration of justice within the Applicant’s context - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed|
|to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being |
|applied against there crimes. Furthermore, when the Applicant tried to prosecute them, a provincial legislation was used to declare him as a vexative litigant;|
|and defeat my prosecutions, take away all my legal rights, and take away my Human Rights. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the |
|aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF |
|LAW byway of an act of omission. |
| |
|d. DENIED FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES - Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep my |
|stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the |
|aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF |
|LAW byway of an act of omission. |
|e. DENIED FULL ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES -Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep my |
|stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the |
|aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF |
|LAW byway of an act of omission… |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|DISCRIMINATION BY the DISTINCTION |
|of SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION: |
| |
|LINKAGE FACTORS |
|TAKE NOTICE: An unknown FEAMALE OFFICER WHO DID NOT DISCLOSE HER BADGE NUMBER AND NAME, RECEIVED THE LEGAL SERVICE WHILE SHE WAS INFERING, ADVISING, AND |
|MISLEADING ME, THAT THERE WAS NO OFFICER GREEN AT 13 DIVISION(DID NOT HAVE BADGE NUMBER ON PACKAGE), I INTERN INFORMED HER THAT 13 DIVISION IS WHERE i MET |
|OFFICER DAVID GREEN, AND MUST SERVE THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HRTO RULES FOR RECONSIDERATION-FORM 20. |
| |
|CONTRASTLY, OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790) FINISHED RECEIVING THE LAWFUL SERVICE FOR FORM 20-RECONSIDERATION 2014-19377-I, AND WAS QUITE PLEASANT AND HELPFUL. |
|1. OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790) |
|2. Officer David Green(10235) |
|3. Deborah Krick - unlawfully removed court file WHILE DEFENDING Ms. Joanne Stuart |
|4. John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]) |
|5. Jason Gordan – filed manufactured evidence, and false affidavit while defending Ms. Joanne Stuart |
|6. Police Chief Bill Blair |
|7. Mr. Callaghan-mislead byway of false hearsay evidence, and lied to the court while defending Ms. Joanne Stuart |
|8. Joanne Stuart- stole the Applicants FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, SUPRESS EVIDENCE, committed fraud, AND MISLEAD THE COURT. |
|9. Gloria Gingrich – False positive oath, perjury, and unlawful procurement of legal instruments, laid before a Justice of the Peace Justice P. H. Wilkie, |
|Information 09-14407. The Crown took over the prosecution of Gloria Gingrich from the APPLICANT. |
|1. ANGELA PASQUALE– Assault, unlawful procurement of legal instruments, manufacturing evidence, and malicious prosecution to have Wayne Ferron the Applicant |
|placed in jail for 15 days. The Crown took over the prosecution of Angela Pasquale from the APPLICANT. |
|2. The Honourable Madeleine Meilleur(Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services [2006 – 2013]) –was Gloria Gingrich and Angela Pasquale’s superior |
|Officer. The Crown took over the prosecution of Gloria Gingrich and Angela Pasquale from the APPLICANT. |
|1. DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER – Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument. The Crown or the Court took over the prosecution of |
|Dr. Jeffry D. Handler from the APPLICANT. |
|2. DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI (257691) – Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument. |
|3. DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument. |
|4. Officer Pekeski M.(2261) disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence, Slander, file false report, unlawful detainment, and unlawful |
|procurement of a legal instrument. The Crown or the Court took over the prosecution of Dr. Jeffry D. Handler from the APPLICANT. |
|5. Officer Bachoo S.(3180)-filed false report, and disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence. |
|6. Police Chief H. M. Metcalf – resigned or retired |
|1. Officer Serville D.(3547),-arrest Applicant for filing appeal for private prosecution, and disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving |
|evidence. |
|2. Officer Halfyard T.(3484), disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence. |
|3. William Hird(6058) – filed a false information 07-02500 under false name, with a false positive oath, and perjury. |
|4. Stribbellʼs Gregoryʼs(#529))- false return on police investigation(07-02500 & 07-02559), fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice. |
|5. Chief of Police Armand P. La Barge – resigned or retire |
|6. SLANDEROUS MEDICAL PROFILING |
|7. SLANDEROUS MEDICAL PROFILING BY PROBATION OFFICER AFTER PROBATION period WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT |
|8. SLANDEROUS DOCTORS PROFILING WITHOUT MEDICAL EXAMINATION(BASED ON SECRET POLICE REPORT DOCTORS AND POLICE SERVICES REFUSE TO DISCLOSED) |
|9. RACIAL PROFILING-POLICE SERVICES SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION-POLICE SERVICES |
|10. YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE |
|11. Subjective drug testing(no scientific instruction, but only and unqualified hired third party person’s opinion after a half of a session of interrogation) |
|by MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES |
|12. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, denied service of or a response to 3 freedom of information request or even respond to the same personal |
|information request which was in a state of “deem refuse”, after making a promise to disclose the same. |
|13. PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE |
|14. TORONTO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILES (THERE are two occurrences of trying to deny the Applicant Police Services-TAKE NOTICE: “I was almost run |
|over by someone whom was in the process of contravening the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT, and all that I seem to being told is that my life is worthless, I have no |
|human rights, I have no legal rights and HRTO has no jurisdiction to return my dignity to my person - that Division 13 of the TORONTO POLICE SERVICES was |
|served first with the initial filing of the COMPLAINT against Officer David Green(10235) whom is protecting Mr. Adrian Sanchez possible failed attempt on my |
|life, byway of denial of police services which is contrary to the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, POLICE SERVICE ACT, CRIMINAL CODE, and CHARTER. tHERE STILL HAS BEEN NO |
|RESPONSE FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE OR OFFICER DAVID GREEN(10235), NO INVESTIGATION, NO DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATION BY HRTO (I have requested disclosure, |
|no response) The RESPONDENTS has had my material since Nov 2013, and has still not responded.)) |
|15. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES(Probation Officer assaulted me, then along with her college and maliciously procured legal documents to charge|
|Applicant, summon for fingerprinting, attempted to imprison me for 15 days byway of manufactured evidence after the probation period granting the MINISTRY OF |
|COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, authority over me was expired) - FILE or FILES |
|16. BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL(PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION)- DOCTOR JEFFREY HANDLER SLANDER ET AL. “[214] The Police Officers (Public Servants) Brutalize |
|me, lied to me, deceived me, scared the crap out of me, and traumatize me; it is on this basis, on this foundation and within this atmosphere I have been |
|profiled as a violent psychotic mentally disease person, a danger to society, a danger to myself and threatening the health and wellbeing of others. |
| |
|[215] So the law enforcement proceed vicariously through Doctors and Brampton Form 1. to give you a psychiatric assessment to manufacture our mental profile or|
|Brand you as mentally Incompetent, thereby erasing all your Rights and freedom within this society. The ones in position of public authority should know or |
|aught to have known that the aforementioned apparent actions is more inline with the actions of a Police State and a crime against society at large.” |
| |
| |
|17. INTERPOL (information is shared with international members to facilitate crime fighting beyond a NATION state borders) |
|18. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT( according to Officer in charge, information in ALPHA FILE is sent to Federal Government for statists) |
|19. MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ontario - possible from numerous files from some of its many sub departments like MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL |
|SERVICES etc. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|MORE LINKAGE |
|OR APPLICANT PROFILE IN ALPHA FILE |
|1. DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
|2. DENIAL OF DIGNITY AND WORTH OF A HUMAN BEING |
|3. DENIAL OF LEGAL RIGHTS |
|4. DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES |
|5. DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS ENTITLEMENTS |
|6. DENIAL OF FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES |
|7. DIMINISHING OF MY CHILDREN RIGHT TO A FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION |
|8. DENIAL OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND HAPPINESS |
|9. LEGAL BULLYING |
|10. John Gerretsen (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]), choosing not to enforce the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA , with respect |
|to Officer Pekeski (2261) theft of my personal proper(HEALTH CARD etc.) or the prosecution of Ms. Joanne Stuart his agent and representative for her criminal |
|actions ). |
|11. Ms. Joanne Stuart(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), who stole the Applicant’s FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST in addition to committing legal fraud, and misleading the |
|court at least one Justice and a COURT OF APPEAL judge; |
| |
|12. MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL – (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the rules of the court, refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and insure the RULE |
|OF LAW; |
|13. THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEUR– (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the rules of the court, refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the |
|RULE OF LAW; |
| |
|14. THE HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSEN– (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the rules of the court, refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and insure the RULE |
|OF LAW; |
| |
|15. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES – refuse to respect the expiration date of the probation order 07-02550 and tried to prosecute Applicant on |
|manufactured evidence in addition to medically profiling Applicant |
|16. PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the Applicant’s COLOUR OF RIGHT, respect the CRIMINAL CODE, and enforce the RULE OF |
|LAW, in the the prompt return of all his belongings stolen or confiscated or whatever the case may be, by their agent subordinate Officer Pekeski(2261) whom |
|disclosed to the Applicant the false identity of Officer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing his identity as Officer |
|Perkins(2261), when his legal name is Officer Pekeski(2261). |
|17. YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE OF LAW; |
|18. TORONTO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE OF LAW; |
|19. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL EAST REGION)-REGISTRAR and the failure to return promptly the evidence(AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON C51190) I disclosed to |
|Your Worship Justice Malik for the Applicant’s filed information against Geoffery Farday; The Applicant have exercised his colour of right in requesting the |
|same Affidavit evidence to no avail. |
| |
|20. Intoxication on Alcohol above the allowable limit while driving (slander/false fact) |
|21. Drug Addict/consumed drugs with an inference of crack cocaine (slander / false fact) |
|22. Crack Cocaine Addict - slander |
|23. Violent (slander/false fact) |
|24. Assaultive (slander/false fact) |
|25. Mentally Diseases (slander/false fact) |
|26. Criminal Convic (brought into existence byway of a NOT LEGALLY EXISTING AFFIANT B. HIRD: False positive oath, perjury, and misleading a judicial officer to|
|defeat the course of justice. Information 07-02500 filed by Police Officer B. Hird who does not lawfully exist) |
|27. Vexatious (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: Private Prosecutor of those with self immunity above the law. All the Applicant’s right/human rights was |
|stolen in all of ONTARIO by BLG(Katherine Kirkpatrick), via fraudulent means and based on a fallacy in her arguments. JUSTICE ANDRE'S ORDERS take all of the |
|Applicant’s legal rights (HUMANITY) away in all of ONTARIO, by way of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legislation(PARAMOUNTCY), and PRIVATE |
|PROSECUTION of people in high public office who believe they are above the law, immune to the law, and does not have to answer to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA |
|for alleged criminal offenses. In short they serves THE LAW, but they are not subject to THE LAW. Because of my just private prosecutions (Section 507.1 and |
|504).) |
|28. Frivolous (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: Private Prosecutor of those with self immunity above the- The JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the |
|ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full |
|answer for alleged crimes(Offence Number: 8271152B ) I was charge within the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I|
|was discriminated against with systemic prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE |
|KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON |
|(Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKE OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by |
|distinction without lawful cause, but also conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my |
|person even though they are required not to do so(OPEN COURT POLICY).) |
|29. PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION:arrested, assault, slandered, called names, falsely imprisoned, VICTIM OF THEFT, convicted without |
|notice or trial, and being punished with reprisals for trying to prosecute those whom I witness contravening the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA in the territorial |
|jurisdiction of Ontario and in accordance with section 507 of the Criminal Code and Supreme Court case law case law and section 15 of the Charter). |
|30. FATHER (A FATHER THAT'S A MOTHER: with full custody of one of my child-Forced to be separated from child and not being able to provide for them, while |
|being requested by ONTARIO WORKS to sue the mother of my other three children) |
| |
|31. Blackman (VISIBLE MINORITY WHO HAVE JUST ACCEPTED RACISM AS A PART OF NORMAL EVERYDAY LIFE: who has been pulled over many times and then Officers asserting|
|they smell alcohol when I don’t EVEN DRINK, or asking me for drug dealers when I DON’T CONSUME DRUGS. Or a group of young white males driving by in a ford |
|pickup truck and calling me “nigger” for who knows what. This has been my experience since I was small.) |
| |
|32. INFERIOR EDUCATION- (SYSTEMIC RACIAL TARGETING by the ONTARIO GOVERNMENT to be plucked out of ELEMENTARY SCHOOL at a tender age (grade 5) and sent to a |
|inferior highschool (W.J. FENTON S. S.) to learn how to cook, clean, weld, and operator machines; but I did self study at the library by myself. Though myself|
|math, physics, philosophy, and the unteachable thin of thinking, just to find out that I was smarter or as smart as the other children in my same elementary |
|school. BILL DAVIS signed the certificate for ONTARIO SCHOLAR and signed the CERTIFICATE FOR THE GOLD MEDAL IN ALL ONTARIO BOXING. Now the BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE |
|which is named after him abuse me by way of court service workers, JUSTICE CALL ME NAMES(‘CRAZY GUY’), ASSAULT ME, choke me, arrest me, leave me in steel |
|handcuffs for about 7 hours which caused temporary nerve damage falsely imprison me, threaten to call the police to throw me out of the courtroom and |
|courthouse for HAVE TOO MUCH EVIDENCE and just exercising my rights to PRIVATELY PROSECUTE CRIMES to which I have personal knowledge and is the main witness.) |
|33. VICTIM OF LEGAL BULLYING (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and |
|WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full answer for alleged crimes(Offence Number: |
|8271152B ) I am charged with in the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I was discriminated against with systemic |
|prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge |
|of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front|
|of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKE OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by distinction without reasonable cause, but also |
|conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my person even though they are required not to |
|do so(OPEN COURT POLICY). AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION |
|DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING; |
|TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE |
|INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE SEND|
|ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY REGULAR|
|MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAYTIME, I MOSTLY |
|ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.)” |
| |
|34. Some of the people which the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting or treating them as though they are above the law: Mr. Callaghan, Mr. B. Hird, Ms. |
|Gloria Gingrich, Ms. ANGELA PASQUALE, Dr. JEFFRY D. HANDLER, Mr. William Hird(6058), Mr. Stribbell Gregory(#529), Mr. Adrian Sanchez, Mr. DAVID GREEN(10235), |
|BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Joy Webster, |
|Orbe Santiago, Arlene Gorewicz, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, and Desiree Viceral, and Ms. Joanne Stuart, who has prophesy that I would come up “against a |
|wall,” which has proven to be true. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|REPRISALS: (PUNISHMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS, CIVIL ACTIONS, OR PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS), The following are some REPRISALS against my person for being a |
|private prosecutor ; |
|1. the CROWN(Ms.. Krick) being allowed to UNLAWFULLY remove PRIVATE PROSECUTION PUBLIC EVIDENCE (C 58716-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN) from the COA-RECORDS while |
|affection a unwritten restriction of the PUBLIC HAVING ACCESS TO THE SAME PUBLIC FILE without reasonable cause. THERE IS NO EQUALITY IN THE LAW! |
|2. missing and lost private prosecution public evidence; |
|3. impeded or restricted access to PRIVATE PROSECUTION public evidence; |
|4. harassment while filing required court documents for PRIVATE PROSECUTION; |
|5. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file PRIVATE PROSECUTION information; |
|6. conviction without notice or fair hearing; |
|7. BARRED FROM DEFENSE OR OBTAINING JUSTICE: and finally stopping me from exercising my legal rights by banning me from all courts in Ontario, taking away all |
|my legal rights in Ontario by fraudulent means, and in addition to impeding or restricting my HUMAN RIGHTS; |
|8. The EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits are impeded, I have no social services rights, and access to goods, services (Health services, Police Services etc. are |
|impeded), which are enjoyed by other CANADIANS have vanished. All I have access to now is SECOND HAND SMOKE, DISEASE AFFLICTING THE HOMELESS, OUT OF THE COLD |
|SHELTERS, and SOUP KITCHENS. |
| |
|The Remedy |
| |
|10. The Remedy You are Asking for (See Applicant’s Guide) | |
| |
|Put an "X" in the box beside each type of remedy you are asking that the Tribunal order. Explain why you want it in the space below. |
| |
|Monetary Compensation Enter the Total Amount $WHATEVER THE COURTS JUSTLY REASON AND THAT IS GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC WITH HONOUR, DIGNITY, AND HONESTY FOR A |
|BETTER SOCIETY THAT TRULY HONOURS FREEDOM AND DEMOCRICY |
| |
|Explain below how you calculated this amount: |
|SEVERE HARME TO MY DIGNITY AND MY CHILDRE'S LIFE AND SECURITY, BECAUSE OF SYSTEMIC RACISM AND PUNISHMENT FOR TRYING TO ENFORCE THE RULE OF LAW: |
|BIKE WAS DAMAGED, PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR 1 MONTH BECAUSE OF DAMAGED LEFT HAND, AND DENIAL OF PROTECTION OF THE LAW, SECURITY, AND POLICE SERVICES. |
| |
| |
|ASSUMPTIONS: |
|1. THE APPLICANT IS A CANADIAN CITIZEN AND LIVE IN THE PROVENCE OF ONTARIO; |
|2. THE APPLICANT IS A HUMAN BEING; |
|3. THE APPLICANT IS A FATHER OF FOUR CHILDREN AND HAS FULL CUSTODY OF ONE CHILD; |
|4. THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF HIS HUMANITY, EQUAL PROTECTION OF HIS/CHILDRENS INHERENT DIGNITY AND EQUAL HUMAN WORTH THAT IS AFFORDED TO |
|OTHER HUMAN BEINGS; |
|5. THE CROWN IS IN A FUDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE APPLICANT; |
|6. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS IN A FUDICIARY RELATION WITH THE APPLICANT/CHILDREN; |
|7. GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO POLICY IS, “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and |
|opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”(HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE); |
|8. THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO is a signature of THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS; |
|9. ONE OF THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL POLICY IS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ALL CANADIANS WHO LIVE IN ONTARIO; |
|10. ONE OF THE POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ALL CANADIANS WHO LIVE IN ONTARIO; |
|11. LAW ENFORCERS HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION OR DUTY WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE; “Police Service Act: |
| |
|Declaration of principles |
|Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles: |
| |
|1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario. |
|2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code. |
|“ |
|12. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ITS AGENTS HAS A DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT; ” Constitutional Foundation for the Role of the Crown |
|…The Attorney General is accountable to the Legislature for the entire process through which justice is administered in the province…” |
|(page 2, Role of the Crown Preamble to the Crown Policy Manual) |
| |
|“As the Attorney General, you are responsible for the administration of justice and ensuring a fair and accessible justice system. Equally important is that |
|access to our system of justice must be guaranteed to everyone in our criminal, civil and family courts-and our adjudicative tribunals. |
| |
|As Chief Law Officer of the Crown, you have a unique role in providing independent legal advice to Cabinet, with a special responsibility as the guardian of |
|the rule of law…” |
|(page 2, Premier Kathleen Wynne’s September 25, 2014 letter to The Honourable Madeleine Milleur) |
| |
|13. PARAMOUNTCY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND STILL IN FULL FORCE; |
|Information, Summons and Warrant |
|Marginal note:In what cases justice may receive information |
|504. Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a |
|justice, and the justice shall receive the information, where it is alleged |
|• (a) that the person has committed, anywhere, an indictable offence that may be tried in the province in which the justice resides, and that the person |
|o (i) is or is believed to be, or |
|o (ii) resides or is believed to reside, |
|within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; |
|• (b) that the person, wherever he may be, has committed an indictable offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; |
|• (c) that the person has, anywhere, unlawfully received property that was unlawfully obtained within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; or |
|• (d) that the person has in his possession stolen property within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice. |
|• R.S., c. C-34, s. 455; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5. |
| |
|Paramountcy (Canada) |
|From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
|See also: pith and substance, double aspect and interjurisdictional immunity |
|In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal |
|law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is|
|concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised. |
| |
|Non-monetary Remedy – Explain below: |
|safe roads for the public, enforcement of the rule of law, and the protection of human life, human rights, and human dignity |
| |
|Remedy for Future Compliance (Public Interest Remedy) – Explain below: |
|for the ontarion government and law enforcement to take their commitment to the international covenant of civil and political rights seriously, in addition to |
|fulfilling there commitment to there public policy on HUMAN RIGHTS, articulated in the HUMANRIGHTS PREAMBLE and bound by the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL |
|AND POLITICAL RIGHTS |
| |
|Mediation |
| |
|11. Choosing Mediation to Resolve your Application | |
| |
|Mediation is one of the ways the Tribunal tries to resolve disputes. It is a less formal process than a hearing. Mediation can only happen if both parties |
|agree to it. A Tribunal Member will be assigned to mediate your Application. The Member will meet with you to talk about your Application. The Member will also|
|meet with the respondent(s) and will try to work out a solution that both sides can accept. If mediation does not settle all the issues, a hearing will still |
|take place and a different Member will be assigned to hear the case. Mediation is confidential. |
|Do you agree to try mediation? | Yes |
| |
|Other Legal Proceedings |
| |
|12. Civil Court Action (see Applicant’s Guide) | |
| |
|Note: If you answer "Yes" to any of these questions, you must send a copy of the statement of claim that started the court action. |
|a) Has there been a court action based on the same facts as this Application? | Yes (Answer 12b) No (Go to 13) |
|b) Did you ask the court for a remedy based on the discrimination? | Yes (Answer 12c) No (Answer 12g) |
|c) Is the court action still going on? | Yes (Answer 13) No (Answer 12d) |
|d) Was the court action settled? | Yes (Answer 13) No (Answer 12e) |
|e) Has the court action been decided? | Yes (Answer 13) No (Answer 12f) |
|f) Was the court action withdrawn? | Yes (Answer 13) No (Answer 12g) |
|g) If the court action does not ask for a remedy based on the discrimination, are you asking | Yes No |
|the Tribunal to defer (postpone) your Application until the court action is completed? | |
| |
|13. Complaint Filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (see Applicant’s Guide) | |
|Note: If you answer "Yes", you must attach a copy of the complaint. |
|Have you ever filed a complaint with the Commission based on the same facts as this Application? | Yes No |
| |
|14. Other Proceeding - in Progress (see Applicant's Guide) | |
| |
|Note: If you answer "Yes" to Question "14a", you must attach a copy of the document that started the other proceeding. |
|a) Are the facts of this Application part of another proceeding that is still in progress? | Yes (Answer 14b) No (Go to 15) |
|b) Describe the other proceeding: |
| A union grievance |Name of union: | |
| A claim before another board, tribunal or |Name of board, tribunal, or | |
|agency |agency: | |
| Other |Explain what the other proceeding | |
| |is: | |
|c) Are you asking the Tribunal to defer (postpone) your Application until the other proceeding is | Yes No |
|completed? | |
| |
|15. Other Proceeding - Completed (see Applicant's Guide) | |
|Note: If you answer "Yes" to Question "15a", you must attach a copy of the document that started the other proceeding and a copy of the decision from the other|
|proceeding. |
|a) Were the facts of this Application part of some other proceeding that is now completed? | Yes (Answer 15b) No (Go to 16) |
|b) Describe the other proceeding: |
| A union grievance |Name of union: | |
| A claim before another board, tribunal or |Name of board, tribunal, or | |
|agency |agency: | |
| Other |Explain what the other proceeding | |
| |is: | |
|c) Explain why you believe the other proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of this Application. |
| |
| |
|Documents that Support this Application |
| |
|16. Important Documents You Have | |
| |
|If you have documents that are important to your Application, list them here. List only the most important. Indicate whether the document is privileged. See |
|the Applicant's Guide. |
|Note: You are not required to send copies of these documents at this time. However, if you decide to attach copies of the documents you list below to your |
|Application they will be sent to the other parties to the Application along with your Application. |
| |
|Document Name |Why It Is Important To My Application |
|POLICE REPORT |ANY OR ALL DOCUMENTATION OF FACTS ARE IMPORTANT IN ASSISTINNG THE COURT |
|RESULT OF INVESTIGATION |ANY OR ALL INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER ARE IMPORTANT FOR ASSISTING THE COURT |
|HOSPITAL REPORT |SHOWS MINOR INJURY/EFFECT WORK AND TRANPORTATION TO WORK/PAIN AND SUFFERING/ |
|OCCURRENCE (1 433 449) under the TORONTO |SHOWS HISTORY OF TRYING TO DENY POLICE SERVICES |
|POLICE SERVICES care and control | |
|SPECIAL COUNSTABLE(BADGE# 90479) |PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS |
|OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790) |OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790) FINISHED RECEIVING THE LAWFUL SERVICE FOR FORM 20-RECONSIDERATION 2014-19377-I, AND WAS |
| |QUITE PLEASANT AND HELPFUL. |
|UNKNOWN FEMALE OFFICER WHO TRY TO MISLEAD |An unknown FEAMALE OFFICER WHO DID NOT DISCLOSE HER BADGE NUMBER AND NAME, RECEIVED THE LEGAL SERVICE WHILE SHE |
|THE APPLICANT |WAS INFERING, ADVISING, AND MISLEADING ME, THAT THERE WAS NO OFFICER GREEN AT 13 DIVISION(DID NOT HAVE BADGE |
| |NUMBER ON PACKAGE), I INTERN INFORMED HER THAT 13 DIVISION IS WHERE i MET HIM AND MUST SERVE THE RESPONDENTS IN |
| |ACCORDANCE WITH THE HRTO RULES FOR RECONSIDERATION-FORM 20. |
|BRADBURY |AFFIDAVIT OF BRADBURY FERRON V. R.; court file No. 07-22259(S.C.J.) Ms. |
|Sandra Theroulde |peronal knowledge |
| |
|17. Important Documents the Respondent(s) Have | |
|If you believe the respondent(s) have documents that you do not have that are important to your Application, list them here. List only the most important. |
| |
|Document Name |Why It Is Important To My Application |Name of Respondent Who Has It |
|OCCURRENCE (1 433 449) under the TORONTO |SHOWS HISTORY OF TRYING TO DENY POLICE SERVICES | |
|POLICE SERVICES care and control | | |
|RESULT OF INVESTIGATION |ANY OR ALL DOCUMENTATION OF FACTS ARE IMPORTANT IN | |
| |ASSISTINNG THE COURT | |
|POLICE REPORT |ANY OR ALL DOCUMENTATION OF FACTS ARE IMPORTANT IN | |
| |ASSISTINNG THE COURT | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
| | |
|18. Important Documents Another Person or Organization Has | |
|If you believe another person or organization has documents that you do not have that are important to your Application, list them here. List only the most |
|important. |
| |
| | | |
|Document name |Why it is important to my Application |Name of Person or Organization Who Has It |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
|Confidential List of Witnesses |
| |
|19. Witnesses | |
|Please list the witnesses that you intend to rely on in the hearing. Note: The Tribunal will not send this list to the respondent(s). See the Applicant's |
|Guide. |
| |
|Name of Witness |Why This Witness Is Important To My Application |
|WAYNE FERRON |Personal knowledge |
|Mr. Sanchez |Personal knowledg |
|Officer Green(10235) |Personal knowledg |
|SPECIAL COUNSTABLE(BADGE# 90479) |Personal knowledg |
|Officer 6790(Goldiks) |excepted the HRTO LEGAL DOCUMENT-form 20_RECONSIDERATION, ON Thursday June 4, 2015 or about 11:30 pm |
|An unknown FEAMALE OFFICER WHO DID NOT |TAKE NOTICE: An unknown FEAMALE OFFICER WHO DID NOT DISCLOSE HER BADGE NUMBER AND NAME, RECEIVED THE LEGAL SERVICE|
|DISCLOSE HER BADGE NUMBER WHEN ASKED ABOUT 3|WHILE SHE WAS INFERING, ADVISING, AND MISLEADING ME, THAT THERE WAS NO OFFICER GREEN AT 13 DIVISION(DID NOT HAVE |
|TIMES TO DO SO. |BADGE NUMBER ON PACKAGE), I INTERN INFORMED HER THAT 13 DIVISION IS WHERE i MET HIM AND MUST SERVE THE RESPONDENTS|
|Officer 6790(Goldiks), TOOK OVER RECEIVING |IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HRTO RULES FOR RECONSIDERATION-FORM 20. |
|OF THE SERVICE OF FORM 20 FOR OFFICER | |
|GREEN(10235) AND TORONTO POLICE SERVICES | |
|BRADBURY |Personal knowledge |
|B. Hird |Personal knowledge |
| |
|Other Important Information |
| |
|20. Other Important Information the Tribunal Should Know | |
|Is there any other important information you would like to share with the Tribunal? |
| |
| |
|OVERVIEW: |
|[1] HRTO COMPLAINT: denial of goods and services (Section 1. HUMAN RIGHTS CODE), BYWAY OF denial of POLICE SERVICES by distinction(DISCRIMINATION), and the |
|threat to DESTROY PUBLIC EVIDEN (REPRISALS), associated with the same matter of complaint without lawful cause. IT IS BY DISTINCTION, because I didn't witness |
|any other law enforcement clients being denied POLICE SERVICES or turned away from 13 DIVISION while waiting for five hours or more for POLICE SERVICES TO BE |
|AFFECTED in accordance with the CHARTER or CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA or THE POLICE SERVICE ACT or the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. |
| |
|[2] The following was asserted in the FINAL JUDGEMENT OR DECISION…(2014-19377-I); |
|“[2] In his Application the applicant alleges reprisal and no other ground by the respondents Toronto Police Service and an individual police officer. The |
|applicant alleges that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The applicant was riding a bicycle at the time. The applicant appears to allege that he |
|attempted to come to an understanding with the other driver but that either the other driver either would not agree or agreed and then changed his mind. The |
|applicant alleges that he then reported the accident to the respondent police service but was directed to the accident reporting centre. When the applicant |
|reported to the accident reporting centre he was told that unless he was an owner of a motor vehicle with a valid insurance policy for the vehicle he could not|
|file a report of accident. |
| |
|[3] The applicant alleges that he had to wait for a long time before officers on patrol could come and take his statement about the accident. The applicant |
|alleges that the police officer did not conduct a proper investigation and threatened to throw the applicant’s evidence in the garbage. |
| |
|[4] There is no apparent link between these alleged actions and any Code issue having been raised by the applicant. The applicant alleges however that these |
|actions by the respondent were in reprisal for his having filed Application 2012-12585-I. This Application which has been deferred pending the conclusion of |
|legal proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice involved allegations against the Regional Municipality of Peel and The Governing Council of the Salvation |
|Army. None of the respondents in the instant Application appear to have been involved or even aware of the prior Application, nor does the applicant make any |
|such allegation. |
| |
|[5] On February 5, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss this Application for a number of reasons including that it appeared that the |
|Application may be out of time for two reasons: |
| |
|a. Having reviewed the Application it appeared that the applicant had failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code |
|allegedly committed by the respondents. |
| |
|b. That the applicant alleged reprisal but the applicant had failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to any of the following: claiming or |
|enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the |
|Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273. |
| |
|[6] The applicant responded to the NOID but his submissions are difficult to follow and do not appear to respond to the issues raised in it. The applicant’s |
|submissions take the form of a motion to transfer the applicant’s application to a court of competent jurisdiction. In his motion the applicant seeks to call |
|witnesses and requested that the motion be heard orally.” |
| |
|[3] Pursuant to the Applicant in the filed and Amended legal document VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT of Wayne FERRON (INFORMANT) HRTO 2014-19377-I; |
| |
|[1] I articulate to the best of my ability and reasonable recollection the |
|following OCCURANCE which took place on a clear warm bright summer's |
|day in the absence of rain or fog, on the 12th of July 2014 in the |
|REGIONAL jurisdiction of TORONTO at or about 5:00 pm at a location |
|just after the very busy intersection of Dufferin St., and Glencairn Ave |
|close to the entrance at the PETRO CANADA gas station at the same |
|location. Pursuant to the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT: |
|{...} |
|[11] Mr. Adrian Sanchez whom had carriage and control of the |
|TRUCK's(851 3YY) in question, articulated to my person on more than one occasion after the accident in the following manner after disclosing that he was |
|attempting to pick up his mother; “I thought you would break...?” in addition to constantly repeating; “I am sorry {…} we can come to a gentlemen agreement... |
|we can come to a gentlemen agreement...?” My response to him was that I had the “RIGHT OF WAY!” |
|{...} |
|[14] I did not respond to Mr. Adrian Sanchez offer or request because I |
|had not been to the doctor, I did not know the implication of the |
|accident, I did not know the effect it had on my employment or on my |
|life or on my quality of life or even the damage to my bicycle? I knew I |
|did not want his life destroyed after the wheels of justice was set in motion |
|against him. Yet he was relentless about me making an uninformed decision. |
|{...} |
|MISCONDUCT |
|WITHOLDING POLICE SERVICES (pursuant to S. 80.(1)(b) & S. 26.7(1)(b)) EQUALITY OF SERVICES (pursuant to S. 1 of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT) |
|[24] On August 4th, 2014 I left work early at or about 3:30 pm to attend the TORONTO METROPOLITAN POLICE 13 DIVISION to do my |
|duty by reporting the aforesaid Highway Traffic accident or occurrence on |
|July 12th, 2014 at the following address; |
|TORONTO METROPOLITIAN POLICE |
|13 Division |
|E-mail 13 Division |
|1435 Eglinton Av. W., |
|Toronto, ON , M6C 3Z4 |
|Phone: 416-808-1300 |
|Fax: 416-808-1302 |
| |
|[25] After explaining to the SPECIAL COUNSTABLE(BADGE# 90479) |
|the aforementioned concerning the Highway Traffic Accident on July 12, |
|2014; the same peace Officer incorrectly directed my person to attend an |
|accident centre and file an accident report. I tried to no avail to explain that |
|an accident centre was not the proper place to report my particular accident. |
|The other officers were abrasive, and boldly adamant about sending me to |
|the wrong place to file an accident report. |
| |
|[26] I read from the information paper I was given by the officers of 13 |
|DIVISION, but they were impervious to pleas. The same information paper |
|which seemed to demand that the Highway accident parties to be motor |
|vehicle owners as a precondition for using the accident reporting centre. |
|Another different officer asserted that I must attend the accident reporting |
| |
|[27] On August 4th, 2014 at 4:35 pm I(Wayne Ferron) call the same |
|ACCIDENT CENTRE(416 745 1600). The person whom answered the |
|phone at the ACCENDENT CENTRE(416 745 160) informed my person in |
|no uncertain terms, that only motor vehicle owners who have insurance |
|and motor vehicle licence report accidence to the said centre. I |
|ofcourse had no such documents, but was a civilian riding a bicycle who was |
|in an accident or occurrence with a large TRUCK resulting in damage, |
|wherein Mr. Sanchez had carriage and control of the motor vehicle in |
|question. |
| |
|Pursuant to the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE; |
|FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to |
|services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, |
|ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, |
|sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital |
|status, family status or disability. R .S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s . 1; 1999, |
|c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, |
|c. 7, s. 1. |
| |
|[28] The STAFF SERGENT took the same information paper without my permission which had been given for the accident centre from my person, |
|and told me I had to wait for the officers which were on the road to |
|come and take an accident report; the same information paper had been |
|given to my person by SPECIAL COUNSTABLE(BADGE# 90479). I |
|informed the OFFICER IN CHARGE that I was willing to wait even if it was for |
|a long time. I waited a very long time and as a result missed my last bus at |
|8:20 pm. |
| |
|[29] On August 4th, 2014 at 4:35 pm I saw Officer Green(10235) and |
|another officer who was suppose to investigate the July 12th, 2014 |
|Highway Traffic accident . |
| |
|[30] On August 4th, 2014 Officer Green(10235) said to my person after I was trying to disclosed to him the details of the July 12th, 2014 Highway Traffic |
|accident without a proper investigation, without a proper review of the evidence(photos on USB key in jpeg) I left with Officer Green(10235), or a reasonable |
|investigation of the signed “VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT” I brought and left with Officer Green(10235) whom concluded, and boldly asserted on more than one |
|occasion that; |
| |
|“there was no accident!” |
| |
|[31] On August 4th, 2014 Officer Green(10235) angrily rendered his |
|prejudgement without a proper police investigation, reasonable review of |
|evidence before him, without a trial, and with out having jurisdiction to do |
|what was done.” |
| |
| |
|[3] The following was asserted in the NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19377-I); |
|“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Services Division and Officer Green |
| |
|Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss |
| |
|The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19377-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on November 17, 2014. |
| |
|The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because: |
| |
|• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination |
|within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents. |
| |
|• you allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to any of the |
|following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of |
|another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32 (CanLII); Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273 |
|(CanLII). |
| |
|You must provide written submissions responding to the issues identified above. You must file your written submissions on or before March 9, 2015. |
|{...} |
|The HRTO will consider your submissions and may decide whether to dismiss your Application, may decide to continue processing the Application or may provide |
|further directions to the parties regarding this proceeding. If you do not file written submissions by the required time the HRTO will make its decision based |
|only on the information in your Application or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of your Application and dismiss the Application for that |
|reason. |
|You may file your written submissions with the HRTO by email, fax or mail. Please clearly write your name and the HRTO file number, 2014-19377-I, on all |
|correspondence and any other documents you file with the HRTO.” |
| |
| |
|[4] The following was on the title page of the RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19377-I), but the same document was not referred to or mentioned in|
|the reasons for judgement. Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL DOCUMENT; |
| |
|“RESPONSE |
|TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION, |
|without response from RESPONDENTS, |
|NOTICE to dismiss matters with |
|HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I, |
|and without any resolution of my stolen property being returned to my person to enable full access to public medical services, public goods and public services|
|or RESTITUTION of DIGNITY |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED” |
|PLEASE STOP PUNISHING MY CHILDREN with denial of PUBLIC goods and service AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT(S. 12); for the unlawful crime of acting within the |
|capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (s. 507 C.C.) and endeavoring to enforce our beloved CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA” |
| |
|[5] The following was asserted in the RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19377-I), but was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement.|
| |
|Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL that carried the above on the title page of the same document; |
| |
| |
|“TAKE NOTE: There has been no response from the respondents, which implies that they except all my allegations as the unchallenged truth or the unchallenged |
|factual evidence for HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and 2014-19377-I. I am willing to and would life to testify under oath to|
|assist the court in its finding of facts of all the above matters to render a fair and just decisions. |
| |
|If it is the case that the above matters are not in the correct jurisdiction, I respectfully request that the same matters be transferred to the correct |
|jurisdiction to affect DUE PROCESS OF LAW for the just determination of a judicial matters HRTO FILE: 2012-12585-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, |
|2014-19680-I,and 2014-19377-I. Note that I have filed some of the same matters to the Federal Human Rights is which they have responded as having no |
|jurisdiction for the matters. |
| |
|According to employees of the Federal Human Rights Commission and according to Mr Richard Hennessy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, they both do not |
|have jurisdiction for the two matters which Mr. Richard Hennessy is endeavouring to dismiss: AGAIN, PLEASE TRANSFEREE ALL MATTER’S Mr. Richard Hennessy has |
|given notice to dismissed to the proper jurisdiction, if my CHILDREN and I as Canadians has the right to the rights given in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE! Does the |
|following rights stated below apply to my children and I? |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment … |
|2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation... |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569 |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Is an act of reprisal in response to an unfounded human rights complaint grounds for an award of damages under the Ontario Human Rights Code? According to a |
|recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII), the answer is yes.{...} |
|The Duty to Address and Respond |
|In reaching the decision that Mr. Morgan had been discriminated against, Adjudicator Debané made reference to the 2005 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of|
|Ontario in Laskowskav. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, which discusses the obligation of an employer to adequately address and respond to allegations |
|of Code-related discrimination and harassment in the workplace. |
|Adjudicator Debané then went on to hold that an applicant need not prove that discrimination has occurred to benefit from the protection of section 8 of the |
|Human Rights Code; the applicant must only have a genuinely held the belief that the respondents were infringing his Code rights. (See paragraph 87.) |
|Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that: |
|Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act{...} |
|Based on that rule of law, Adjudicator Debané found that the decision to terminate Mr. Morgan’s employment was made as a reprisal because he had claimed his |
|Code rights by raising issues of harassment and discrimination in his workplace. Adjudicator Debané also found that the employer failed to adequately address, |
|or take any steps in response to, Mr. Morgan’s, albeit unfounded, allegations of discrimination and harassment. On this second point Adjudicator Debané wrote |
|that: |
|Instead of dealing with the applicant’s allegations in an appropriate manner, the company chose to terminate the applicant’s employment.{...} Although reprisal|
|need only be one factor in the decision to terminate the applicant in order to find that the applicant was terminated contrary to his right to be free from |
|reprisal under the Code, in my view the reasons in the respondent’s termination letter were otherwise pre-textual. (Para. 108)” (Par Sean Bawden — Labour |
|Pains)” |
|HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities |
|without discrimination that is contrary to law…” |
| |
|Pursuant to ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE; |
|“…the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear in numerous cases that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plenary trial remains the mode for the |
|resolution of disputes and Rule 20 does not represent court reform, or the reform of the adversary system, in disguise{...} |
|A motion judge ought not lose sight of her or his narrow role in determining whether a genuine factual issue exist, and must be careful not to assume the role |
|of a trial judge by adjudicating any genuine factual issues which do exist. The motions judge ought never assess credibility, weight the evidence, or find the |
|facts, all of which are functions reserved to the trial judge. However, an issue of fact must relate to material fact; otherwise it cannot give rise to a |
|“genuine issue for trial.” Moreover, merely raising an issue of credibility will not be an answer to a motion for summary judgment; the issue of credibility |
|must be material and genuine:...“ |
|(page 543, ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE 2009, THOMSON CARSWELL) |
|{...} |
|COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 20114-19377-I |
|[79] Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) (form1,21-question 6) |
|When you chooses goods and services as your area of complaint and fill out FORM 1, it directs you to fill our FORM 1-C, where you choose POLICE SERVICES as the|
|area in GOODS AND SERVICES that you are complaining about. |
|Police services (FORM 1-C, C1) |
|{...} |
|COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 20114-19377-I |
|[79] Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) (form1,21-question 6) |
|When you chooses goods and services as your area of complaint and fill out FORM 1, it directs you to fill our FORM 1-C, where you choose POLICE SERVICES as the|
|area in GOODS AND SERVICES that you are complaining about. |
|Police services (FORM 1-C, C1) |
| |
|[80] HRTO FILE: 2014-19680-I PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY PREMISE! |
| |
|Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination. |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF COURT SERVICES WHICH ARE STILL PENDING (certified reproduction or production of evidence as witness by the court in |
|accordance with the EVIDENCE ACT, the COURT REPORTERS sworn oath to give equal TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, and the COURT REPORTER’S ACT; order of SOME CERTIFIED |
|transcripts ARE STILL PENDING, some TRANSCRIPTS(C 56718) payed for and received or not certified in accordance of the laws and rule of evidence, and |
|REQUISITIONS(c 56718) were not responded to) (s. 1). - Pursuant to Mr Richard Hennessy (Registrar) who seem to be acting in the capacity of a lawyer for |
|RESPONDENTS, who are not honourable enough to respond to serious allegations of concern to the PUBLIC GOOD; |
| |
|“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Arlene Gorewicz, Santiago Orbe and Joy Webster |
|Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss |
|The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19680-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on December 19, 2014. |
|The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because: |
|• while your response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination you experienced occurred on or about January 2, 2014, |
|a review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident|
|described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code....” |
|PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A |
|Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC) |
|Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569 |
|Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII) |
|Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, |
|“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination” |
| |
|REPRISALS (for all matters - HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I): |
|[81] For loving the Law and endeavouring to act with in the capacity of a Private Prosecutor and in accordance with Section. 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE of |
|CANADA. In addition to LEGAL BULLYING and harassment after I became hated and despised in legal circles. Now I am just left to die with no legal rights, no |
|human rights, no access to EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits entitlements, no access to Public goods and services, and no access to full medical services. |
|Services |
|1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of |
|origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or |
|disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1. |
| |
|Reprisals |
|8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to|
|infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 8. |
| |
|Infringement prohibited |
|9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9. |
| |
|Act binds Crown |
|47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (1). |
| |
|1) DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
|2) DENIAL OF DIGNITY AND WORTH OF A HUMAN BEING |
|3) DENIAL OF LEGAL RIGHTS |
|4) DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES |
|5) DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS ENTITLEMENTS |
|6) DENIAL OF FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES |
|7) DIMINISHING OF MY CHILDREN RIGHT TO A FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION |
|8) DENIAL OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND HAPPINESS |
|9) LEGAL BULLYING |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Checklist of Required Documents |
| |
|21. Area of Discrimination from Question 6 | |
| |
|Attach a form for each area you checked in Question 6 |
| |
| |
| |
|Employment (Form 1-A) |
|Housing (Form 1-B) |
|Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) |
|Contracts (Form 1-D) |
|Membership in Vocational Association (Form 1-E) |
| |
|22. Other Documents, from Question 12 to 15 | |
| |
|Confirm whether you are sending the Tribunal any of the following documents: |
| |
|A copy of a statement of claim (from Question 12) |
|A copy of a complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (from Question 13) |
|A copy of a document that started another proceeding based on these facts (from Question 14 or 15) |
|A copy of a decision from another proceeding based on these facts (from Question 15) |
|23. Declaration and Signature |
|Instructions: Do not sign your Application until you are sure that you understand what you are declaring here. |
|Declaration: |
|To the best of my knowledge, the information in my Application is complete and accurate. |
|I understand that information about my Application can become public at a hearing, in a written decision, or in other ways determined by Tribunal policies. |
|I understand that the Tribunal must provide a copy of my Application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission on request. |
|I understand that the Tribunal may be required to release information requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). |
|Wayne Ferron |
|Name |
| ____________ 15/07/2015 |
|Applicant’s Signature Date (dd/mm/yyyy) |
| |
|Please check this box if you are filing your Application electronically. This represents your signature. |
|You must fill out the date, above. |
|Accommodation Required |
| |
|If you require accommodation of Code-related needs please contact the Registrar at: |
| |
|Email: HRTO.Registrar@ontario.ca |
|Phone: 416-326-1519 Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322 |
|Fax: 416-326-2199 Toll-free: 1-866-355-6099 |
|TTY: 416-326-2027 Toll-free: 1-866-607-1240 |
|Where to Send your Application |
|Note: Only file your Application once. If the Tribunal receives this Application more than once, it will only accept the first Application form received. |
|Send your completed Application form and any attachments to: |
| |
|Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario |
|655 Bay Street, 14th floor |
|Toronto, Ontario |
|M7A 2A3 |
| |
|Fax:416-326-2199 Toll-free: 1-866-355-6099 |
|Email: HRTO.Registrar@ontario.ca |
PART I
|Questions About the Service, Good or Facility |
| |
|C1 Put an "X" beside the point that best describes the service, good or facility that this Application is based on. |
|Income support Store |
|Education & training Theatre |
|Police services Insurance |
|Medical/health services Public transportation |
|Sporting or other recreational facility Government, please describe: THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEUR -and- |
|TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD-and- |
|MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL -and- |
|__________________ |
|Retail Other, please describe: BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP -and- |
|KATHERINE KIRKPATRICK-and- |
|POLICE CHIEFT BILL BLAIR -and- |
|DEBORAH KIRCK __________________ |
| |
|C2 Complete this section only if your Application is about a practice or policy. |
|Tell us what is the practice or policy you are complaining about and explain how it relates to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities.|
| |
|MINISTY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNEQUAL OR DISCRIMITORY SERVICES TO MY PERSON |
| |
|TORONTO POLICE BOARD OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES, UNEQUAL OR DISCRIMITORY SERVICES TO MY PERSON |
| |
|DIVISION 13 OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES, UNEQUAL OR DISCRIMITORY SERVICES TO MY PERSON |
| |
|C3 Complete this section only if your Application is about a law. |
|Tell us what is the law you are complaining about and explain how it relates to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities. |
|FAILURE TO RESPECT AND AFFECT THE RULE OF LAW UNIFORMALLY FOR MY PERSON LIKE ALL OTHER TORONTONIANS AND CANADIANS |
| |
|FAILURE TO RESPECT AND AFFECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE UNIFORMALLY FOR MY PERSON LIKE ALL OTHER TORONTONIANS AND CANADIANS |
| |
|FAILURE TO RESPECT AND AFFECT THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS UNIFORMALLY FOR MY PERSON LIKE ALL OTHER TORONTONIANS AND CANADIANS |
| |
| |
|FAILURE TO PROTECT MY RIGHT TO LIFE, RIGHT TO LIBERTY, RIGHT TO SECURITY OF A PERSONS, RIGHTS TO EQUAL RIGHTS AND EFFECTIVE REMEDIES |
| |
|FAILURE TO PROTECT MY RIGHT TO POLICES SERVICES, AND POLICE PROTECTION WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION |
| |
|FAILURE TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE |
| |
|FAILURE TO PROTECT MY HUMANITY AND DIGNITY |
| |
|Questions About Complaining to Someone in Authority |
| |
|Complete this section only if you complained to someone in authority about the alleged discrimination. |
|C4 To whom did you complain? |
|13 DIVISION TORONTO POLICE SERVICES |
| |
|ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE |
| |
|PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES |
| |
|YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE BOARD |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-PROVENCIAL |
| |
|HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-FEDERAL |
| |
|MINISTRY OF AUTORNEY GENERAL |
| |
|THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEUR |
| |
|THE HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSEN |
| |
|C5 Was there an investigation? | Yes No (Go to Part II) |
| a) If you answered “Yes” to C5, what was the outcome of the investigation? |
|I AM NOT SURE, NO ONE NOTIFY ME OF ONE, Ms. Joanne Stuart did an investigation which she did not file in court |
| |
|PART II |
| |
|The following Part asks you to answer how you believe you were discriminated against based on grounds you identified. If you believe that you were |
|discriminated against based on more than one ground, fill out all the sections that apply. |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Grounds of Race, Colour, Ancestry, Place of Origin, Citizenship, or Ethnic Origin |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have been discriminated against on one or more of these grounds: race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, |
|citizenship, or ethnic origin. |
|C6 Explain why you believe you were discriminated against because of your race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, or ethnic origin. |
| |
|DISCRIMINATION BY the DISTINCTION |
|of SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION: |
| |
|LINKAGE FACTORS |
|1. TAKE NOTICE: An unknown FEAMALE OFFICER WHO DID NOT DISCLOSE HER BADGE NUMBER AND NAME, RECEIVED THE LEGAL SERVICE WHILE SHE WAS INFERING, ADVISING, AND |
|MISLEADING ME, THAT THERE WAS NO OFFICER GREEN AT 13 DIVISION(DID NOT HAVE BADGE NUMBER ON PACKAGE), I INTERN INFORMED HER THAT 13 DIVISION IS WHERE i MET |
|OFFICER DAVID GREEN, AND MUST SERVE THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HRTO RULES FOR RECONSIDERATION-FORM 20. |
| |
|CONTRASTLY, OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790) FINISHED RECEIVING THE LAWFUL SERVICE FOR FORM 20-RECONSIDERATION 2014-19377-I, AND WAS QUITE PLEASANT AND HELPFUL. |
|1. OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790) |
|2. Officer David Green(10235) |
|3. Deborah Krick - unlawfully removed court file WHILE DEFENDING Ms. Joanne Stuart |
|4. John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]) |
|5. Jason Gordan – filed manufactured evidence, and false affidavit while defending Ms. Joanne Stuart |
|6. Police Chief Bill Blair |
|7. Mr. Callaghan-mislead byway of false hearsay evidence, and lied to the court while defending Ms. Joanne Stuart |
|8. Joanne Stuart- stole the Applicants FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, SUPRESS EVIDENCE, committed fraud, AND MISLEAD THE COURT. |
|9. Gloria Gingrich – False positive oath, perjury, and unlawful procurement of legal instruments, laid before a Justice of the Peace Justice P. H. Wilkie, |
|Information 09-14407. The Crown took over the prosecution of Gloria Gingrich from the APPLICANT. |
|1. ANGELA PASQUALE– unlawful procurement of legal instruments, manufacturing evidence, and malicious prosecution to have Wayne Ferron the Applicant placed in |
|jail for 15 days. The Crown took over the prosecution of Angela Pasquale from the APPLICANT. |
|2. The Honourable Madeleine Meilleur(Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services [2006 – 2013]) –was Gloria Gingrich and Angela Pasquale’s superior|
|Officer. The Crown took over the prosecution of Gloria Gingrich and Angela Pasquale from the APPLICANT. |
|1. DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER – Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument. The Crown or the Court took over the prosecution of |
|Dr. Jeffry D. Handler from the APPLICANT. |
|2. DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691) – Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument. |
|3. DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument. |
|4. Officer Pekeski M.(2261) disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence, Slander, file false report, unlawful detainment, and unlawful |
|procurement of a legal instrument. The Crown or the Court took over the prosecution of Dr. Jeffry D. Handler from the APPLICANT. |
|5. Officer Bachoo S.(3180)-filed false report, and disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence. |
|6. Police Chief H. M. Metcalf – resigned or retired |
|1. Officer Serville D.(3547),-arrest Applicant for filing appeal for private prosecution, and disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving |
|evidence. |
|2. Officer Halfyard T.(3484), disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence. |
|3. William Hird(6058) – filed a false information 07-02500 under false name, with a false positive oath, and perjury. |
|4. Stribbellʼs Gregoryʼs(#529))- false return on police investigation(07-02500 & 07-02559), fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice. |
|5. Chief of Police Armand P. La Barge – resigned or retired |
|1. SLANDEROUS MEDICAL PROFILING |
|2. SLANDEROUS MEDICAL PROFILING BY PROBATION OFFICER AFTER PROBATION period WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT |
|3. SLANDEROUS DOCTORS PROFILING WITHOUT MEDICAL EXAMINATION(BASED ON SECRET POLICE REPORT DOCTORS AND POLICE SERVICES REFUSE TO DISCLOSED) |
|4. RACIAL PROFILING-POLICE SERVICES |
|5. SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION-POLICE SERVICES |
|6. YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE |
|7. Subjective drug testing(no scientific instruction, but only and unqualified hired third party person’s opinion after a half of a session of interrogation) |
|by MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES |
|8. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, denied service of or a response to 3 freedom of information request or even respond to the same personal |
|information request which was in a state of “deem refuse”, after making a promise to disclose the same. |
|9. PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE |
|10. TORONTO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILES (THERE are two occurrences of trying to deny the Applicant Police Services-TAKE NOTICE: “I was almost run |
|over by someone whom was in the process of contravening the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT, and all that I seem to being told is that my life is worthless, I have no |
|human rights, I have no legal rights and HRTO has no jurisdiction to return my dignity to my person - that Division 13 of the TORONTO POLICE SERVICES was |
|served first with the initial filing of the COMPLAINT against Officer David Green(10235) whom is protecting Mr. Adrian Sanchez possible failed attempt on my |
|life, byway of denial of police services which is contrary to the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, POLICE SERVICE ACT, CRIMINAL CODE, and CHARTER. tHERE STILL HAS BEEN NO |
|RESPONSE FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE OR OFFICER DAVID GREEN(10235), NO INVESTIGATION, NO DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATION BY HRTO (i have requested disclosure,|
|no response) The RESPONDENTS has had my material since Nov 2013, and has still not responded.)) |
|11. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES(Probation Officer assaulted me, then along with her college and maliciously procured legal documents to |
|charge me, summon for fingerprinting, attempted to imprison me for 15 days byway of manufactured evidence after the probation period granting the MINISTRY OF |
|COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, authority over me was expired) - FILE or FILES |
|12. BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL(PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION)- DOCTOR JEFFREY HANDLER SLANDER ET AL. “[214] The Police Officers (Public Servants) Brutalize |
|me, lied to me, deceived me, scared the crap out of me, and traumatize me; it is on this basis, on this foundation and within this atmosphere I have been |
|profiled as a violent psychotic mentally disease person, a danger to society, a danger to myself and threatening the health and wellbeing of others. |
| |
|[215] So the law enforcement proceed vicariously through Doctors and Brampton Form 1. to give you a psychiatric assessment to manufacture our mental profile |
|or Brand you as mentally Incompetent, thereby erasing all your Rights and freedom within this society. The ones in position of public authority should know or|
|aught to have known that the aforementioned apparent actions is more inline with the actions of a Police State and a crime against society at large.” |
| |
| |
|13. INTERPOL (information is shared with international members to facilitate crime fighting beyond a NATION state borders) |
|14. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT( according to Officer in charge, information in ALPHA FILE is sent to Federal Government for statists) |
|15. MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ontario - possible from numerous files from some of its many sub departments like MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL |
|SERVICES etc. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|MORE LINKAGE: |
|OR APPLICANT PROFILE IN ALPHA FILE |
|1. John Gerretsen (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]), choosing not to enforce the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA , with respect |
|to Officer Pekeski (2261) theft of my personal proper(HEALTH CARD etc.) or the prosecution of Ms. Joanne Stuart his agent and representative for her criminal |
|actions ). |
|2. Ms. Joanne Stuart(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), who stole the Applicant’s FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST in addition to committing legal fraud, and misleading the |
|court at least one Justice and a COURT OF APPEAL judge; |
|3. SALVATION ARMY, and To the REGION OF PEEL(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to return forthwith my $5 0r $10 check made out to the Minister of Finance and my |
|$10(11 466 978 57 ) money ORDER issued by CANADA POST to the SALVATION ARMY for the SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO WORKS. |
|CANADA POST MONEY ORDER INFORMATION: |
|SERIAL NO.: 11 466 978 57 |
|SECURITY CODE: 679 965 794 |
|OFFICE NO.: 102 205 |
| |
|4. MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL – (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the rules of the court, refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE |
|OF LAW; |
|5. THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEUR– (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the rules of the court, refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the |
|RULE OF LAW; |
| |
|6. THE HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSEN– (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the rules of the court, refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE |
|OF LAW; |
| |
|7. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES – refuse to respect the expiration date of the probation order 07-02550 and tried to prosecute Applicant on |
|manufactured evidence in addition to medically profiling Applicant |
|8. PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect the Applicant’s COLOUR OF RIGHT, respect the CRIMINAL CODE, and enforce the RULE OF |
|LAW, in the the prompt return of all his belongings stolen or confiscated or whatever the case may be, by their agent subordinate Officer Pekeski(2261) whom |
|disclosed to the Applicant the false identity of Officer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing his identity as Officer |
|Perkins(2261), when his legal name is Officer Pekeski(2261). |
|9. YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE OF LAW; |
|10. TORONTO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE OF LAW; |
|11. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL EAST REGION)-REGISTRAR and the failure to return promptly the evidence(AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON C51190) I disclosed to |
|Your Worship Justice Malik for the Applicant’s filed information against Geoffery Farday; The Applicant have exercised his colour of right in requesting the |
|same Affidavit evidence to no avail. |
| |
|12. Intoxication on Alcohol above the allowable limit while driving (slander/false fact) |
|13. Drug Addict/consumed drugs with an inference of crack cocaine (slander / false fact) |
|14. Crack Cocaine Addict - slander |
|15. Violent (slander/false fact) |
|16. Assaultive (slander/false fact) |
|17. Mentally Diseases (slander/false fact) |
|18. Criminal Convic (brought into existence byway of a NOT LEGALLY EXISTING AFFIANT B. HIRD: False positive oath, perjury, and misleading a judicial officer |
|to defeat the course of justice. Information 07-02500 filed by Police Officer B. Hird who does not lawfully exist) |
|19. Vexatious (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: Private Prosecutor of those with self immunity above the law. All the Applicant’s right/human rights was |
|stolen in all of ONTARIO by BLG(Katherine Kirkpatrick), via fraudulent means and based on a fallacy in her arguments. JUSTICE ANDRE'S ORDERS take all of the |
|Applicant’s legal rights (HUMANITY) away in all of ONTARIO, by way of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legislation(PARAMOUNTCY), and PRIVATE |
|PROSECUTION of people in high public office who believe they are above the law, immune to the law, and does not have to answer to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA |
|for alleged criminal offenses. In short they serves THE LAW, but they are not subject to THE LAW. Because of my just private prosecutions (Section 507.1 and |
|504).) |
|20. Frivolous (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: Private Prosecutor of those with self immunity above the- The JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the |
|ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full|
|answer for alleged crimes(Offence Number: 8271152B ) I was charge within the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. |
|I was discriminated against with systemic prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE |
|KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON|
|(Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKE OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by |
|distinction without lawful cause, but also conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my |
|person even though they are required not to do so(OPEN COURT POLICY).) |
|21. PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION:arrested, assault, slandered, called names, falsely imprisoned, VICTIM OF THEFT, convicted without |
|notice or trial, and being punished with reprisals for trying to prosecute those whom I witness contravening the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA in the territorial |
|jurisdiction of Ontario and in accordance with section 507 of the Criminal Code and Supreme Court case law case law and section 15 of the Charter). |
|22. FATHER (A FATHER THAT'S A MOTHER: with full custody of one of my child-Forced to be separated from child and not being able to provide for them, while |
|being requested by ONTARIO WORKS to sue the mother of my other three children) |
| |
|23. Blackman (VISIBLE MINORITY WHO HAVE JUST ACCEPTED RACISM AS A PART OF NORMAL EVERYDAY LIFE: who has been pulled over many times and then Officers |
|asserting they smell alcohol when I don’t EVEN DRINK, or asking me for drug dealers when I DON’T CONSUME DRUGS. Or a group of young white males driving by in |
|a ford pickup truck and calling me “nigger” for who knows what. This has been my experience since I was small.) |
|24. INFERIOR EDUCATION- (SYSTEMIC RACIAL TARGETING by the ONTARIO GOVERNMENT to be plucked out of ELEMENTARY SCHOOL at a tender age (grade 5) and sent to a |
|inferior highschool (W.J. FENTON S. S.) to learn how to cook, clean, weld, and operator machines; but I did self study at the library by myself. Though |
|myself math, physics, philosophy, and the unteachable thin of thinking, just to find out that I was smarter or as smart as the other children in my same |
|elementary school. BILL DAVIS signed the certificate for ONTARIO SCHOLAR and signed the CERTIFICATE FOR THE GOLD MEDAL IN ALL ONTARIO BOXING. Now the BRAMPTON|
|COURTHOUSE which is named after him abuse me by way of court service workers, JUSTICE CALL ME NAMES(‘CRAZY GUY’), ASSAULT ME, choke me, arrest me, leave me in|
|steel handcuffs for about 7 hours which caused temporary nerve damage falsely imprison me, threaten to call the police to throw me out of the courtroom and |
|courthouse for HAVE TOO MUCH EVIDENCE and just exercising my rights to PRIVATELY PROSECUTE CRIMES to which I have personal knowledge and is the main witness.)|
|25. VICTIM OF LEGAL BULLYING (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and |
|WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full answer for alleged crimes(Offence Number:|
|8271152B ) I am charged with in the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I was discriminated against with systemic|
|prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge |
|of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in |
|front of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKE OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by distinction without reasonable cause, but|
|also conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my person even though they are required |
|not to do so(OPEN COURT POLICY). AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE |
|PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING; |
|TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE|
|INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE |
|SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY |
|REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAYTIME, I |
|MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.)” |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|[7] REPRISALS: (PUNISHMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS, CIVIL ACTIONS, OR PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS), The following are some REPRISALS against my person for being|
|a private prosecutor ; |
|1. the CROWN(Ms.. Krick) being allowed to UNLAWFULLY remove PRIVATE PROSECUTION PUBLIC EVIDENCE (C 58716-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN) from the COA-RECORDS while |
|affection a unwritten restriction of the PUBLIC HAVING ACCESS TO THE SAME PUBLIC FILE without reasonable cause. THERE IS NO EQUALITY IN THE LAW! |
|2. missing and lost private prosecution public evidence; |
|3. impeded or restricted access to PRIVATE PROSECUTION public evidence; |
|4. harassment while filing required court documents for PRIVATE PROSECUTION; |
|5. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file PRIVATE PROSECUTION information; |
|6. conviction without notice or fair hearing; |
|7. BARRED FROM DEFENSE OR OBTAINING JUSTICE: and finally stopping me from exercising my legal rights by banning me from all courts in Ontario, taking away all|
|my legal rights in Ontario by fraudulent means, and in addition to impeding or restricting my HUMAN RIGHTS |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|DISTINCTION: |
|1. GOODS AND SERVICES DISTINCTION |
|[83] PERMISSIBLE THEFT - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without |
|the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that |
|is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the |
|enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission. |
|[84] CRIMINAL CODES DOES NOT PROTECT ME PROTECTION - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the |
|same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one |
|in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer |
|Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission. |
|[85] PARAMOUNTCY DOES NOT APPLY TO ME - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen |
|property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. Furthermore, when I tried to |
|prosecute them, a provincial legislation was used to declare me as a vexative litigant; and defeat my prosecutions, take away all my legal rights, and take |
|away my Human Rights. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is |
|protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission. |
| |
|[86] DENIED FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES - Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep |
|my stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing |
|the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the |
|RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission. |
|[87] DENIED FULL ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES -Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep |
|my stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing |
|the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the |
|RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission…” |
| |
|C7 Please describe how you identify yourself in terms of your race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin. |
|FATHER OF FOUR GIRLS, PRIVATE PROSECUTOR, BLACK, VISIABLE MINORITY, CRIMINALLY COVICTED |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Disability or Perceived Disability |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have been discriminated against on the ground of disability or perceived disability. |
|C8 Explain why you believe you were discriminated against based on your disability or a perceived disability. |
| |
| |
|C9 Do you have particular needs related to your disability? | Yes No (Go to C12) |
| a) If you answered “Yes” to C9, describe your particular needs. |
| |
| |
|C10 Did you ask the Respondent(s) to meet your needs? | Yes No (Go to C12) |
| If you answered “Yes” to C10, describe what you asked the Respondent(s) to do. If you named more than |
|one Respondent, please tell us who you spoke to. |
|FILE A POLICE REPORT, INVESTIGATE, BEGED FOR COLOUR OF RIGHT TO BE INFORCED |
| |
|C11 Did the Respondent(s) try to meet your needs? | Yes No (Go to C12) Don’t Know (Go to C12) |
| a) If you answered “Yes” to C11, describe what the Respondent(s)’ did to meet your needs. If you named |
|more than one Respondent, please tell us what each did. |
|[11] On August 4th, 2014 at 4:35 pm I call Officer Green(10235) who in-formed to my person after I was trying to disclosed to him the details of the July |
|12th, 2014 Hiway Traffic accident without a proper review of the evi-dence(photos on USB key in jpeg) before him or reasonable investigation of the signed |
|“VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT” I brought and left with Officer Green(10235) whom concluded, and boldly asserted on more than one occa-sion that there was no |
|accident. Pursuant to the POLICE SERVICE ACT: |
|Inducing misconduct and withholding services |
|Inducing misconduct |
| |
|81. (1) No person shall, |
|(a) induce or attempt to induce a member of a police force to withhold his or her services; or |
|(b) induce or attempt to induce a police officer to commit misconduct. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. |
| |
|Withholding services |
| |
|(2) No member of a police force shall withhold his or her services. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. |
| |
|Offence |
| |
|(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment |
|for a term of not more than one year, or to both. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. |
| |
|[12] In addiction Officer Green(10235) threaten to dispose of my statement and evidence on a USB STICK(public evidence) by an unlawful action of throwing |
|them into the garbage after I insisted on leaving the same legal materials with the same Officer(10235), even though there was not going to be a report filed |
|or subsequent investigation. |
|Misconduct |
| |
|80. (1) A police officer is guilty of misconduct if he or she, |
| |
|(a) commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct; |
| |
|{...} |
| |
|(f) contravenes section 81 (inducing misconduct, withholding services); |
| |
|(g) contravenes section 117 (trade union membership); |
| |
|(h) deals with personal property, other than money or a firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132; |
|{...} |
|(k) contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 15 (equipment), 16 (use of force), 17 (standards of dress, police uniforms), 20 (police pursuits) or 21 |
|(records) of subsection 135 (1). 2007, c. 5, s. 10. |
| |
|[13] The aforesaid seems to be the state of law enforcement these days; my life and wellbeing is put in jeopardy, moreover, I almost got run over as a |
|result of Mr. Sanchez unlawful act which runs contrary to the Hiway Traffic Act, and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and all the POLICE SERVICE can do is |
|mislead my person, assert that there was no accident, and direct me out of DIVISION 13, of THE TORONTO METRO POLITAN POLICE SERVICES. |
|I saw no other person or persons being denied POLICE SERVICE ON THAT DAY!! |
| |
| b) If you answered "Yes" to C11, why do you believe the Respondent(s) efforts to meet your needs were not |
|enough? |
| |
|no response |
| |
|THE RESPONDENT WAS HOSTILE, DENIED ME POLICE SERVICE, THEN THREATEN TO DESTROY PUBLIC EVIDENCE |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Disability or Perceived Disability |
| |
|C12 Do you plan to submit medical reports or documents related to your particular| Yes No |
|needs at the hearing? | |
| a) If you answered “Yes” to C12, please list the medical reports or documents here. You do not need to send |
|copies at this time. |
|I WENT TO THE HOSPITAL AFTER THE ACCIDENT, I PLAN TO SUBMIT THOSE REPORTS |
| |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Creed (Faith, Religion or System of Beliefs) |
| |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have been harassed or discriminated against on the ground of creed (faith, religion or system of beliefs). |
|C13 Explain why you believe you were discriminated against based on your creed. |
| |
| |
| |
|2. PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (CR 12-70000061, CR 12-1912, C56817 etc.) |
|Section 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA |
|3. About a 32 million dollar civil law suite (CV 12-716) |
|4. BELIEFS |
|[88] I believe the CRIMINAL CODE is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[89] I believe that PARAMOUNTCY is essential for a healthy federation of Provinces, and consequently should be enforced. |
|[90] I believe the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[91] I believe the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[92] I believe the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[93] I believe the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE is relevant and should be granted to all that live in societies where civilized practice law is affected under |
|humane governance. |
|[94] I believe in working and paying taxes. I believe in nurturing children and that it is the parents responsibility to provide for children. So why is my |
|foes preventing me from doing this? |
| |
| |
| |
|5. SYSTEMIC RACISM |
|[95] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[96] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[97] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[98] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[99] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[100] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[101] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[102] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
| |
|6. RACIAL PROFILING |
|[103] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[104] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[105] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[106] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[107] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[108] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[109] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[110] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
| |
|7. SLANDER IN ALPHA DATA BASE |
|[111] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[112] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[113] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[114] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[115] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[116] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[117] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
|8. SLANDER IN MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES FILES |
|[118] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|9. SLANDER IN HOSPITAL FILES |
|[119] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
|10. POSSIBLE SLANDER IN THE FEDERAL FILES |
|[120] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[121] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[122] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[123] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|11. CRIMINAL CONVICTION-FROM MALICIOUS PROSECUTION |
|12. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION |
| |
|[124] PRIVATE PROSECUTOR |
|[125] A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF SOME REPRISALS: |
|[126] Because I dear to act in the capacity of a Private Prosecutor in accordance with Section 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and prosecute those who |
|falsely believe themselves to be above the law, immune to the Law, and are not subject to the Law of the land. |
|[127] Because I was hated and despised person in Courts and was continually: |
|1. I was not permitted to take the stand and give sworn evidence while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. |
|2. My AFFIDAVIT evidence were not cross examined. |
|3. I was not permitted to call witnesses to assist the Court while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. |
|4. I was not permitted to cross examine the RESPONDENT’S AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. |
|5. Legally Bullied. |
|6. Unjustly punished. |
|7. Threaten with being arrested and thrown out of court while trying to Affect a Private Prosecution against a Probation Officer who unlawfully procured a |
|legal instrument to maliciously prosecute my person and put me in jail for 15 days after the probation period was successfully completed without incident. |
|8. Threaten with being arrested and thrown out of the OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE (BRAMPTON COURT HOUSE), after a Justice called me “crazy guy” without|
|lawful cause for requesting the commission of an affidavit as is directed by the EVIDENCE ACT, CRIMINAL CODE, and the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES. |
|9. Called names without lawful cause (CRACK HEAD, ASSHOLE), |
|10. Assaulted without lawful cause, arrested without lawful cause. |
|11. Arrested and convicted ( ), for lawful service of a Private Prosecution appeal against Ms. Joanne Stuart without being allowed to speak to a |
|lawyer(requested lawyer/duty counsel next door), without a lawful service of a summons or NOTICE OF A TRIAL. |
|12. Unlawfully arrested by Officer Pekeski(2261) who helped filed a false police report and falsely accused of being violent after calling 911 to report an |
|aggravated Police Assault, for medical help which caused injury to my left arm and hand. |
|13. Falsely accused of being violent by Doctor Hardly who never examined me. |
|14. Assaulted, Unlawfully arrested, and unlawfully imprisoned for 13 days without my rights being affected for trying to file assault charges against Officer |
|Pekeski(2261); without speaking to a lawyer even though I requested one, without the administration of a fair trial . |
|15. Public evidence I filed against Ms. Joanne Stuart for appeal(C56817) VANISHED from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without lawful cause or reasonable |
|explanation; to which assistance Crown Attorney Ms. Krick has confirmed in open court, before a Justice without any reasonable doubt that the evidence was |
|missing from the COA file C56817. This of course was for a private prosecution. |
|16. Public evidence I filed against Ms. Joanne Stuart for appeal(C56817/M61 at lower courts) was unlawfully taken out of the COURT OF APPEAL COURT HOUSE |
|without lawful cause or reasonable justification back to the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S office for about a one month period, even thought the same |
|Ministry was the RESPONDENT and the PROSECUTION was against one of their employee’s they believed to be above the law. |
|17. Unequal service by court service workers was affected by COURT SERVICE WORKERS in not full-filling my requisition which are still pending. In addition to |
|not accepting Private Prosecution motions without lawful cause. |
|18. Unequal service was affected by COURT REPORTERS giving inferior or none certified TRANSCRIPTS (C56817. ETC) of evidence for judicial matters at max cost, |
|even though the same transcripts did not constitute evidence in a court of law or by the evidence act. In addition there are still pending requisitions for |
|certified TRANSCRIPTS(c56817 ETC.) for which a down payment might have been payed. |
|19. The aforesaid concerning LEGAL BULLYING was done for the following reasons in my reasonable personal belief. Because I love the Law, I tried to enforced |
|the law byway of Private Prosecution (S. 507 C.C.), and I demanded DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW for my self(Private Prosecutor), and the alleged accuse (Ms. Joanne |
|Stuart, Officer Pekeski(2261), William Hird (5068), and DC Greorgy Stribbell(529). |
|20. I disclosed and filed the following legal documents for LEGAL BULLYING: |
|• VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT (1912) |
|• AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (1912) |
|• AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (C56817) |
|• AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (12-70000061) |
|• REQUISITION TO PUT RESPONDENTS IN DEFAULT(m61) |
|• REQUISITION TO PUT RESPONDENTS IN DEFAULT(1912) |
|• AMENDED-AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM (CV 12-716) |
|• LETTER TO COURT REPORTER Joy Webster(C56817) |
|• LETTER TO COURT REPORTER J Santiago (C56817) |
|• JUSTIN ANDRE’ COURT ORDER |
|• NO LEGAL RIGHTS |
|• NO HUMAN RIGHTS |
|• NO ACCESS TO MEDICINE AND FULL HEALTH CARE SERVICES |
|• UNJUST DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT |
|• SYSTEMIC RACISM |
| |
|C14 Please describe your creed. |
| |
| |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Grounds of Sex, Pregnancy, Gender Identity or Gender Expression |
| |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have been discriminated against on the grounds of sex, pregnancy, or gender identity or gender expression. |
|C15 Is your Application about discrimination on the ground of pregnancy? | Yes No |
| |
|C16 Explain why you believe you were discriminated against based on your sex, pregnancy, or gender identity. |
| |
| |
|C17 Please identify your sex or describe your gender identity or gender expression. |
| |
| |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Sexual Solicitation, Sexual Advances or Reprisal for Refusing a Sexual Solicitation or Advance |
| |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have experienced sexual advances or sexual solicitation or reprisal for refusing a sexual solicitation or |
|advance from someone who is in a position to grant or deny you a benefit. |
|C18 Tell us what happened. |
| |
| |
|C19 How was this person in a position to grant or deny a benefit? |
|POLICE OFFICER, AUTHORNEY GENERAL |
| |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Sexual Orientation |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have been discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation. |
|C20 Explain why you believe you were discriminated against based on your sexual orientation. |
| |
| |
|C21 Please describe your sexual orientation. |
| |
| |
|Questions About Discrimination or Harassment on the Grounds of Family or Marital Status |
| |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have been discriminated against on the grounds of family or marital status. |
|C22 Explain why you believe you were discriminated against based on your family or marital status. |
|Blocked from helping my children |
| |
|C23 Please describe your family or marital status. |
|fATHER |
| |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Age |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you have been harassed or discriminated against on the ground age. |
|C24 Explain why you believe you were harassed or discriminated against based on your age. |
| |
| |
|C25 Please give your date of birth. (DD/MM/YYYY) |
| |
| |
|Question About Harassment or Discrimination on the Ground of Association |
| |
|Complete this section only if you believe that you were discriminated against because the Respondent(s) associated you with a person who is a member of a |
|group identified in the Code. |
|C26 Please explain why you believe you were discriminated against because of association. |
| |
| |
|Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Reprisal |
|Complete this section only if you believe that the Respondent(s) have done something to punish you for exercising your rights under the Ontario Human Rights |
|Code. |
|C27 Put an "X" in each box that applies to you: |
|I claimed or enforced my rights under the Code (Go to C29) |
|I refused to infringe on another person's rights under the Code (Go to C29) |
|I started or took part in a human rights proceeding (Go to C28) |
| |
|C28 If you marked that you started or took part in a human rights proceeding in C27, put an "X" in each box that applies to you and give any file |
|number(s). |
|The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) OHRC File #: ___________________ |
|The Human Rights Tribunal Of Ontario (HRTO) HRTO File #: 2015-21418-I___________________ |
|Other Proceeding – specify: |
| |
|C29 Please explain why you believe you were reprised against. |
|1. PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (CR 12-70000061, CR 12-1912, C56817 etc.) |
|Section 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA |
|2. About a 32 million dollar civil law suite (CV 12-716) |
|3. BELIEFS |
|[88] I believe the CRIMINAL CODE is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[89] I believe that PARAMOUNTCY is essential for a healthy federation of Provinces, and consequently should be enforced. |
|[90] I believe the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[91] I believe the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[92] I believe the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is relevant and should be enforced. |
|[93] I believe the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE is relevant and should be granted to all that live in societies where civilized practice law is affected under |
|humane governance. |
|[94] I believe in working and paying taxes. I believe in nurturing children and that it is the parents responsibility to provide for children. So why is my |
|foes preventing me from doing this? |
| |
|4. SYSTEMIC RACISM |
|[95] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[96] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[97] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[98] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[99] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[100] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[101] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[102] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
| |
|5. RACIAL PROFILING |
|[103] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[104] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[105] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[106] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[107] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[108] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[109] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[110] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
| |
|6. SLANDER IN ALPHA DATA BASE |
|[111] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[112] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[113] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[114] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[115] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[116] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[117] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
|7. SLANDER IN MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES FILES |
|[118] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|8. SLANDER IN HOSPITAL FILES |
|[119] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
| |
|9. POSSIBLE SLANDER IN THE FEDERAL FILES |
|[120] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[121] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[122] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|[123] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause. |
|10. CRIMINAL CONVICTION-FROM MALICIOUS PROSECUTION |
|11. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION |
| |
|[124] PRIVATE PROSECUTOR |
|[125] A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF SOME REPRISALS: |
|[126] Because I dear to act in the capacity of a Private Prosecutor in accordance with Section 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and prosecute those who |
|falsely believe themselves to be above the law, immune to the Law, and are not subject to the Law of the land. |
|[127] Because I was hated and despised person in Courts and was continually: |
|1. I was not permitted to take the stand and give sworn evidence while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. |
|2. My AFFIDAVIT evidence were not cross examined. |
|3. I was not permitted to call witnesses to assist the Court while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. |
|4. I was not permitted to cross examine the RESPONDENT’S AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. |
|5. Legally Bullied. |
|6. Unjustly punished. |
|7. Threaten with being arrested and thrown out of court while trying to Affect a Private Prosecution against a Probation Officer who unlawfully procured a |
|legal instrument to maliciously prosecute my person and put me in jail for 15 days after the probation period was successfully completed without incident. |
|8. Threaten with being arrested and thrown out of the OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE (BRAMPTON COURT HOUSE), after a Justice called me “crazy guy” without|
|lawful cause for requesting the commission of an affidavit as is directed by the EVIDENCE ACT, CRIMINAL CODE, and the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES. |
|9. Called names without lawful cause (CRACK HEAD, ASSHOLE), |
|10. Assaulted without lawful cause, arrested without lawful cause. |
|11. Arrested and convicted ( ), for lawful service of a Private Prosecution appeal against Ms. Joanne Stuart without being allowed to speak to a |
|lawyer(requested lawyer/duty counsel next door), without a lawful service of a summons or NOTICE OF A TRIAL. |
|12. Unlawfully arrested by Officer Pekeski(2261) who helped filed a false police report and falsely accused of being violent after calling 911 to report an |
|aggravated Police Assault, for medical help which caused injury to my left arm and hand. |
|13. Falsely accused of being violent by Doctor Hardly who never examined me. |
|14. Assaulted, Unlawfully arrested, and unlawfully imprisoned for 13 days without my rights being affected for trying to file assault charges against Officer |
|Pekeski(2261); without speaking to a lawyer even though I requested one, without the administration of a fair trial . |
|15. Public evidence I filed against Ms. Joanne Stuart for appeal(C56817) VANISHED from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without lawful cause or reasonable |
|explanation; to which assistance Crown Attorney Ms. Krick has confirmed in open court, before a Justice without any reasonable doubt that the evidence was |
|missing from the COA file C56817. This of course was for a private prosecution. |
|16. Public evidence I filed against Ms. Joanne Stuart for appeal(C56817/M61 at lower courts) was unlawfully taken out of the COURT OF APPEAL COURT HOUSE |
|without lawful cause or reasonable justification back to the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S office for about a one month period, even thought the same |
|Ministry was the RESPONDENT and the PROSECUTION was against one of their employee’s they believed to be above the law. |
|17. Unequal service by court service workers was affected by COURT SERVICE WORKERS in not full-filling my requisition which are still pending. In addition to |
|not accepting Private Prosecution motions without lawful cause. |
|18. Unequal service was affected by COURT REPORTERS giving inferior or none certified TRANSCRIPTS (C56817. ETC) of evidence for judicial matters at max cost, |
|even though the same transcripts did not constitute evidence in a court of law or by the evidence act. In addition there are still pending requisitions for |
|certified TRANSCRIPTS(c56817 ETC.) for which a down payment might have been payed. |
|19. The aforesaid concerning LEGAL BULLYING was done for the following reasons in my reasonable personal belief. Because I love the Law, I tried to enforced |
|the law byway of Private Prosecution (S. 507 C.C.), and I demanded DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW for my self(Private Prosecutor), and the alleged accuse (Ms. Joanne |
|Stuart, Officer Pekeski(2261), William Hird (5068), and DC Greorgy Stribbell(529). |
|20. I disclosed and filed the following legal documents for LEGAL BULLYING: |
|• VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT (1912) |
|• AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (1912) |
|• AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (C56817) |
|• AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (12-70000061) |
|• REQUISITION TO PUT RESPONDENTS IN DEFAULT(m61) |
|• REQUISITION TO PUT RESPONDENTS IN DEFAULT(1912) |
|• AMENDED-AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM (CV 12-716) |
|• LETTER TO COURT REPORTER Joy Webster(C56817) |
|• LETTER TO COURT REPORTER J Santiago (C56817) |
|• JUSTIN ANDRE’ COURT ORDER |
|• NO LEGAL RIGHTS |
|• NO HUMAN RIGHTS |
|• NO ACCESS TO MEDICINE AND FULL HEALTH CARE SERVICES |
|• UNJUST DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT |
|• SYSTEMIC RACISM |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.