criminalbydesign.files.wordpress.com · Web viewNews release - November 5, 2012: Toronto mobile dental clinic launch Toronto Public Health has a new fully-equipped mobile dental clinic(

BROKEN COVENANT HRTO FILE NO.:2015-22852-I

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO______________________________________________

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron againstTHE 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 –and-Richard Hennessy–and-Sandra Theroulde–and-

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

for violation of Section. 1, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the HUMAN RIGHT ACTand Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105, 25(c), 26, 27, 50, and 51

________________________________________AMENDED

NO ACCESS to JUSTICE or HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL!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 ?”______________________________________________________

Pursuant to Section. 1, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 3.5, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the Human Rights Code, Section. 15 of the Charter, Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105.25(c),

“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!

Do I have any CIVIL RIGHTS, LEGAL RIGHTS or HUMAN RIGHTS in Ontario? Page 1


26., 27, 50, and 51 of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and Section 1 and 2 of the BILL OF RIGHTS, Section 8 of the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK, Premiere of Ontario Kathleen Wynne September 25, 2014 Mandated Letter to the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Section 1 & 2 of, POLICE SERVICE ACT, POLICE POLICY, Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry Report of the Chief Justice of Ontario Upon the Opening of the Courts of Ontario for 2003 , and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY’S POLICY .

Wayne FERRONHOMELESS VAGABOND

HOMELESS SHELTERST. SIMON’S SHELTER

BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East,Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1

[email protected] – Registrar Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario655 Bay Street, 14th floorToronto, ON M7A 2A3Phone: 416-326-1519Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322Fax: 416-326-2199

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 signature to THE

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL

RIGHTS;




9. ONE of the obligations in 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 principlesPolice 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 APPLIC-

ANT; ” Constitutional Foundation for the Role of the Crown

…The Attorney General is accountable to the Legislature for the entire process through which justice is admin-istered in the province…”

(page 2, Role of the Crown Preamble to the Crown Policy Manual)




“As the Attorney General, you are responsible for the ad-ministration 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. Pursuant to Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry;

“Access to justiceIt 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 in-creased significantly over recent years. In 1996, a review of the civil justice sys-tem 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 import-ant 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 pro-ject that would develop recommendations for approaches that will assist in ensur-ing 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, http://ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/archives/ocs/2003.htm )

14. “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 se-duced by the notion, borrowed from criminal law, that process ensures justice, that we have come to believe that process is justice. Yet to mem-bers of the public who find themselves mired for years in the civil justice sys-tem's process, process may be the obstacle to justice.{…}

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 compli-cated, 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. “

(Rosalie Silberman Abella Justice, Court of Appeal for Ontario, The Law Soci-ety of Upper Canada Professionalism Revisited, Opening Address Benchers', Retreathttp://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/professionalism.htm)



http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/professionalism.htm


15. PARAMOUNTCY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND STILL IN

FULL FORCE;

Information, Summons and WarrantMarginal 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 unlaw-fully obtained within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; or

(d) that the person has in his possession stolen property within the territorial juris-diction of the justice.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 455; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

Paramountcy (Canada)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSee 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.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interjurisdictional_immunity


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_constitutional_law


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_aspect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pith_and_substance


OVERVIEW:

HRTO COMPLAINT:

1. Impeded or Band from the normal APPEAL PROCESS

(DIVISIONAL COURT, COURT OF APPEAL, ETC…)for judicial “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



review byway of leave of the court for HUMAN RIGHTS

MATTERS;

2. NO ACCESS TO JUSTY and HUMAN DEGNITY, The

Applicant is a repetitive victim of LEGAL BULLYING;

3. 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.

4. Denial of legal service or equal legal services for truth

finding, resolution, JUST LEGAL PUNISHMENT, and restitution;

5. 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;

6. Reprisal of LEGAL BULLYING for being concerned with the

PUBLIC GOOD, and the CONCIOUSNESS OF THE COURT;

7. 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;

8. 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 de-velopment;

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 funda-mental 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

PreambleThe 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 inherentdignity 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 21. 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“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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 141. 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:

Services1. 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.

Reprisals8. 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 prohibited9. 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 Crown47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 , s. 47 (1) .



http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec9_smooth

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html







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 CodeR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19Constructive discrimination11. (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 association12. 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:


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.















http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec11subsec1_smooth













THE FOLLOWING IS THE YARDSTICK FOR DISCRIMINATION:

Right to life.1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal se-curity, 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-12Charter 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 pro-vided 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 pref-erence 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.1RIGHT 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 re-quirement 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. (dis-senting, 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 re-lating 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 Commis-sion), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22 , page 24 and 25)

DISTINCTION:GOODS AND SERVICES DISTINCTION

a. DENEIED FULL ACCESS TO JUSTICE’

b. DENIED FULL UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO COURT

SERVICES,

c. DENIED FULL ACCESS TO THE APPEAL PROCESS

FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW,

d. DENIED GOODFAITH;

e. DENIED FULL ACCESS TO JUSTICE, THE COURTS, TO

THE APPEAL PROCESS, TO LEAVE FOR THE APPEAL , TO




FINAL ORDERS WHICH IS A NECESSARY CODICTION

FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR

ERRORS AND WANT OF GOODFAITH;

f. 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), Officer Stribbill, Officer Burd,

Officer Monk, and Ms. Krick, from the enforcement of

the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

g. DENIED FULL ACCESS TO JUSTICE, FULL

PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND

SECURITY/PROTECTION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

OF CANADA, THE LAW DOES NOT PROTECT the




Applicant - Officer Pekeski(2261), Ms. Joanne Stuart,

and the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL/SALVATION

ARMY are allowed to steal the Applicant’s RIGHTS,

FREEDOM, 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. The Applicant is the

only one in Ontario that is experiencing the


ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart,

and Officer Pekeski(2261) etc… from the enforcement

of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

h. DENIED FULL ACCESS and BENEFIT OF THE LAW,

prevented and impeded from full benefit and

protection of the LAW BYWAY OF PRIVATE

PROSECUTION in accordance with the CRIMINAL

CODE OF CANADA,

i. DENIED FULL ACCESS and BENEFIT of the PUBLIC

COURTS,




j. DENIED FULL ACCESS and BENEFIT of the

COURT’S APPEAL ROUTE AND LEAVE TO APPEAL

PROCESS ,

k. DENIED FINAL ORDERS OF THE COURT OR

ACCESS TO FINAL ORDERS OF THE COURT to be

informed and given the ability and benefits of

making informative decisions,

l. PARAMOUNTCY DOES NOT APPLY for the proper

administration of justice within the Applicant’s

context – THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, THE

GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION, 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 HIS prosecutions, take away all HIS




legal rights, and take away HIS Human Rights. The

Applicant seem to be the only one in Ontario that

that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as

though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is

protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart, Officer Pekeski(2261)

who seem to be immune to the RULE OF LAW and from

the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act

of omission.

m. The Applicant is denied the opportunity and

right of being a mother to his children,

n. 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


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.

o. 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 DISTINCTIONof SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION:

LINKAGE FACTORSTAKE NOTICE: THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO- REGISTRAR (SANDRA THEROULDE) DECISION to refuse (DENIED APPEAL byway of leave), and not file the Applicant’s NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL;

“[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.”

(honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013)

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. Sandra Theroulde

2. Richard Hennessy

3. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

4. Court reporters

5. OFFICER GOLDICKS(6790)

6. Officer David Green(10235)

7. Deborah Krick - unlawfully removed court file WHILE

DEFENDING Ms. Joanne Stuart

8. John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March

2014])

9. Jason Gordan – filed manufactured evidence, and false

affidavit while defending Ms. Joanne Stuart

10. Former Police Chief Bill Blair

11. POLICE Chief Mark Saunders

12. Mr. Callaghan-mislead byway of false hearsay

evidence, and lied to the court while defending Ms. Joanne

Stuart

13. Joanne Stuart- stole the Applicants FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION REQUEST, SUPRESS EVIDENCE, committed

fraud, AND MISLEAD THE COURT.




14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI (257691) – Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument.

19. DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH Slander, unlawful detainment, and unlawful procurement of a legal instrument.

20. 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.




21. Officer Bachoo S.(3180)-filed false report, and disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence.

22. Police Chief H. M. Metcalf – resigned or retired23. Officer Serville D.(3547),-arrest Applicant for filing

appeal for private prosecution, and disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence.

24. Officer Halfyard T.(3484), disobeyed a lawful summons to assist the court in giving evidence.

25. William Hird(6058) – filed a false information 07-02500 under false name, with a false positive oath, and perjury.

26. Stribbellʼs Gregoryʼs(#529))- false return on police investigation(07-02500 & 07-02559), fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice.

27. Chief of Police Armand P. La Barge – resigned or retire,

28. SLANDEROUS MEDICAL PROFILING BY WILLIAM OLSER HEALTH SYSTEM,

29. SLANDEROUS MEDICAL PROFILING BY PROBATION OFFICER AFTER PROBATION period WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT,

30. SLANDEROUS DOCTORS PROFILING WITHOUT MEDICAL EXAMINATION(BASED ON SECRET POLICE REPORT DOCTORS AND POLICE SERVICES REFUSE TO DISCLOSED),

31. RACIAL PROFILING-POLICE SERVICES SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION-POLICE SERVICES,

32. YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE,“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



33. 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,

34. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, denied service of or a response to 3 freedom of information request AND even respond to the same personal information request which was in a state of “deem refuse”, after making a promise to disclose the same.

35. PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE,36. 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.))

37. 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,

38. 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.”

39. INTERPOL (information is shared with international members to facilitate crime fighting beyond a NATION state borders)

40. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT( according to Officer in charge, information in ALPHA FILE is sent to Federal Government for statists),

41. 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 RIGHTS2. DENIAL OF DIGNITY AND WORTH OF A HUMAN BEING




3. DENIAL OF LEGAL RIGHTS

4. DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES

5. DENIAL or unreasonable delay 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. DIMINISHING OF MY CHILDREN RIGHT TO PURSUE 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

MALICIOUS medical 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 ConvicTION (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 THE APPLICANT’S 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); THE APPLICANT was refused legal

services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in

giving full answer for alleged crimes(Offence Number:

8271152B ) THE APPLICANT was charge within the Province

of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal

justification. THE APPLICANT 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. Band, bared, or impeded from PRIVATE PROCICUTION

2. Band from or obstructed and impeded from the APPEAL

PROCESS and LEAVE TO APPEAL process for judicial

review,

3. 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 LAW!

4. missing and lost private prosecution public evidence;

5. impeded or restricted access to PRIVATE PROSECUTION

public evidence;

6. harassment while filing required court documents for

PRIVATE PROSECUTION;

7. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file PRIVATE

PROSECUTION information;

8. conviction without notice or fair hearing;

9. 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;

10. The EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits are

impeded, I have no social services rights, and access to

goods, services (Health services, Police Services etc. are

impeded), and not even a right to an in person fair

HEARING before my rights/freedoms are taken away in




accordance to the BILL OF RIGHTS and PARLIMENTARY

legislation, 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.




SUMMARY OF FACTS:

[-37] Why is the Applicant being punished, and why are his

children being punished;

“I was made to suffer homelessness, lost of dignity, separated frommy beloved child, hunger, and forced to battle the natural ele-ments fortrying to affect my legal rights to bring before a court of competent jur-isdiction,matters which affect the public good and the public confid-ence and trust in services involving a civil society. Violation of Par-liamentary legislation is to be dealt with by the courts of com-petent jurisdiction and not by way of vigilante punishment as though the law is a slave to certain particular element of soci-ety or jus a pastime game of legal football. Pursuant to the Hu-man Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19”

[-36] On or about the 16th of June, 2010 the Applicant’s first HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT was field against WAS FILED AGAINST PEEL RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER (located @ 2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, Ontario, L5A 2X3),

The said entity’s name has been changed to

THE SALVATION ARMY PEEL SHELTER & HOUSING SERVICES (CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER)

and use to be called (old name):

PEEL RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER (located @ 2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, Ontario, L5A 2X3)




Documents in the form of legal papers of the aforesaid human

rights violation was sent to the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

The human rights matter concerned the Applicant, and his child

(Asha Hill full custody). The Applicant was assured or promised

that the complaint was forwarded to the HRTO.

[-36] Presently the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-REGISTRAR

has failed to process or render equal court services, and

continue to fail to render equal court services for a HUMAN

RIGHTS MATTER involving the Applicant, and his beloved Child:

i. There is no HRTO-complaint FILE number assigned.

ii. There is no issuing of a decision on the SAME complaint

OR no REASON FOR JUDGEMENT.

iii. There is no formal dismissal of the same complaint.

iv. There is no investigation into the HRTO complaint.

v. There is no records kept of the HRTO complaint.

vi. There was no IMPARTIAL HEARING of the said matter

before the Applicant and his child’s HUMAN RIGHTS was

taken away.




The following is the Applicant’s account sent to the

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION;

“PAST HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER (PAUL RICHARD-there is no HRTO filenumber, but Paul Richard responded by asserting in a letter that he wasforwarding the matter to HRTO):

[154] Sometime about the 16th of June, 2010 I called the PEEL REGIONRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, to request temporary housing formy person and my child, after finding the relevant information online.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT HOME_A-2nd PEEL ACCESS TO HOUSINGPLEASE SEE EXHIBIT HOME_A-1ST GAIL WILLIAMS(5-622B),PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT HOME_A-2nd GAIL WILLIAMS(5-622B)

[155] In the initial part of the Homeless Shelter INTAKE questioning, it wasbrought to the attention by the Intake shelter representative that, Ontario –Works(REGION OF PEEL) just recently discontinued my financial assistance.

[156] The same INTAKE person informed me that the Shelter facility wasoperated by O NTARIO-WORKS(REGION OF PEEL) and that they would havet o review my file at ONTARIO WORKS. I was asked to hold the line. Which Ipatiently did.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT HOME_A-2nd PEEL ACCESS TO HOUSING

[157] Upon the Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCYSHELTERS, representative’s returning to the phone conversation, I was informed that the conversation would have to continue another time. I took this as a nor-mal part of the process for admitting a family to the same family Homeless Shelter.

[158] I was not told or disclosed relevant information that the shelterwas full or that their were present problems which prevented myadmittance. In short, I though innocently and blissfully believed that the shelter needed an interval of time to complete a required investigation for a families admit-tance.

[159] I recalled(phone) the same Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIALEMERGENCY SHELTERS, after a couple of days and after a brief introduction, I was informed that the shelter staff was moving or rearranging attendancearound to make room, and to call back later.

[160] I prudently accommodated their wishes without any ill feelings. I was not in-formed that the shelter was full or that there were present problems which prevented his admittance. I was only asked to call back at a later time. The phone I was using was not my own so it is not a good method of contacting me.

[161] I called the Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCYSHELTERS, again in the evening and the male person who answered hungup the phone on my person or prematurely severed the phone connectionafter a brief introduction.




[162] I phone the Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCYSHELTERS, yet again, and the female person who answered told me theshelter was full and proceeded prematurely to end the call or sever thephone connection.

[163] I called the Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCYSHELTERS, again, and the female person who answered told me that the shelter was full, and to “go to Brampton” and then she proceeded to prematurely end the call or hung up the phone on my person or untimely sever the phone connection or whatever the case may be; but the aforesaid action was extremely rude, unprofes-sional and inhuman.

[164] I phone back many times and no one was answering or would answer the phone. So I started leaving messages such as; “I WOULD LIKE TO BEASSESSED”, “ I WILL BE FILING A HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT AGAINSTYOU”, and “I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MANAGER”.

[165] I called the Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCYSHELTERS, again, and the female person who answered told me that the same shel-ter was having a medical emergency and to call back in an hour.

[166] I asked her, who I should ask for and I also requested of her to disclosethe manager's name. S he said his name is “Rodrego”. Furthermore, I asked her to spell it and she proceeded to prematurely end the call or to immediately sever the phone connection without the completion of the ongoing conversation.

[167] The aforementioned last repetitive occurrence happened atabout 7:26 P.M. on July 4, 2011. The phone records can be checked forconfirmation.

[168] I called the Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCYSHELTERS, again, and a different female person answered. She said they were full. I asked or requested in clear precise language to be assessed anyway and I will be coming the next day to be assessed.

[169] Moreover, I asked for the managers name and requested to speak to him. She said his name was “ Sean” , and no managers would be in till 8.00 A.M. the next morning.

[170] I further requested the said manger’s first initial and last name, so I could properly identify him. She immediately put me on hold! It was at this point that I gave up on the conversation and decided to file a formal complaintwith the PROVINCIAL HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION, which they neglectedto investigate prudently or even to investigate or at least follow upon the said com-plaint.

[171] On or about July 11, 2011 Paul Richards(PUBLIC AGENT WHORESPONDED TO THE COMPLAINT) for the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OFONTARIO, articulates as follows;

“I have forwarded your complaint to HRTO for their reviewand action. Thank you for bringing your concerns to theattention of the commission.”

TAKE NOTICE: Paul Richards is the same exact name of the Federal PrivacyCommission’s manager which I have a claim against for Breach of Trust and




negligence of duty to the public. But, it is not known if they or separate anddistinct entities or one and the same person.

[172] I reasonable and probable believe and do believe that the Mississauga,PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, staff was taking myplight as a joke, which was caused by unfortunate events.

[173] To threat a person as a SUBHUMAN in such an unprofessionalmanner with total disregard for the pitiful desperate position in ones life,has no excuse which I will except. It is hard enough to musterconfidence and ask for shelter, because of my shameful inability toprovide for my children and myself, because of the foreseeability ofdamage of a malicious prosecution(07-02500/07-02559) and a denial ofNATURAL JUSTICE and PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS for an APPEAL OF RIGHT(07-02559) and a LEAVE TO APPEAL(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEALFOR ONTARIO, has no place in Publicly funded institutions when lookedat in the context that the Canadian Provincial and Federal Governmentsare signature parties bound by the INTERNATIONAL COVINANT OF CIVILAND POLITICAL RIGHTS. In short, our State parties promise to theinternational community binds them to the standard of humanity andhuman dignity.”

[-35] On April 3, 2015 at 3:18:59 am during the early-morning

hours (RECEIPT #: 318 5882 for TAKE OUT@ 289). Toronto Police

Service was called by a Restaurant employee (discriminated by

distinction), to attend Tim Hortons Restaurant #2491 and to

remove the APPLICANT from the same TIM HORTONS LOCATION

to be remove from the same restaurant for sitting in a restricted

area that other none paying customers were allowed to sit

in, even though the Applicant was a paying customer and

had just purchased a extra large green tea.

[-34] On April 3, 2015 at about 3:18:59 am Officer (9311) ,

and Officer (10576) of the Toronto Police Service failed to




protect, and secure evidence for Incident Number 551 151 in

contravention of the POLICE SERVICE ACT (Section 86.(1) and

26.7(1)(b)), THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(Section 495),

Crown’s Policy and the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE(Section 1. and 8.).

“ 495. (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

{…}

Limitation

(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for

(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553, (b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he

is punishable on summary conviction, or (c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,

in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

o (i) establish the identity of the person,o (ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, oro (iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of

another offence,

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and...”

[-33] On October 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, pursuant to Daniel Chodos

at Whitten & Lublin and acting for the

RESPONDENT(1580684 ONTARIO INC. COB TIM HOR-

TON’S RESTAURANT# 2491)



http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec553_smooth


who asserted that the video evidence documenting Incident Number: 551 151

was destroyed and could not be disclosed;

“To the Respondent's knowledge, there is no video footage from the date in question, as the Respondent does not keep video footage for longer than a short period unless there is a reason to do so. “

[-32] On October 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Agents of HERMAJESTY THE

QUEEN in right of ONTARIO, failed to secure evidence in accordance with

the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA (Section 495), TIM HORTON’S

RESTAURANT# 2491, fail to secure evidence for Incident

Number : 551 151 , even though it was in the INTEREST OF

JUSTICE if it is the case that they were acting in GOOD FAIT;

Daniel Chodos at Whitten & Lublin and acting for the

RESPONDENT(1580684 ONTARIO INC. COB TIM

HORTON’S RESTAURANT# 2491 fail to secure evidence for

Incident Number : 551 151 even though it was in the INTEREST OF

JUSTICE. The Applicant manage to video secure evidence

for OCCURRENCE (1 433 449) on or about January 26, 2014 a

complaint of theft by the Applicant under the TORONTO POLICE

SERVICES care and control while TIM HORTONS, their lawyers,

and the TORONTO POLICE SERVICES seems to be negligent or




discriminate by distinction when the INTEREST OF JUSTICE for the

Applicant’s benefit, and the PUBLIC is involved.

[-31] On October 29th, 2015 the TORONTO POLICE SERVICES

treated the Applicant with distinction and differently from the

Canadanian Public, not in accordance with the POLICE SERVICE

ACT, not in accordance with the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, not

in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and not in the

INTEREST OF JUSTICE, while Officer (9311), and Officer

(10576) was affecting POLICE SERVICES, and while the same

Officers were acting in the capacity of Agents of Hermajesty the

Queen in right of Ontario to enforce the RULE OF LAW.

[-30] On August 4th, 2014 Officer Green(10235) said to the

Applicant after he was trying to disclosed to him the details of the

July 12 th , 2014 Highway Traffic accident without a proper

investigation, without a proper review of the evidence(photos on

USB key in jpeg), the Applicant left Officer Green(10235) for

investigation, or a reasonable investigation of the signed

“VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT” the Applicant left without any




POLICES SERVICES being affected. Officer Green(10235)

concluded without an investigation or evidence to the contrary,

and boldly asserted on more than one occasion that;

“there was no accident!”

Even though, there was damage to the Applicant’s property.

There was damage to the Applicant’s person.

There was pain, and suffering from the Applicant’s injury for

about a month.

[-29] On August 4th, 2014 Officer Green(10235) angrily

rendered his prejudgement byway of DISCRIMINATION BY

DISTINCTION without a proper police investigation, reasonable

review of evidence before him, without the enforcement of

LEGISLATION or the administration of POLICE SERVICES to the

Applicant, without a trial, and with out having jurisdiction to

OVER RULE THE POLICE SERVICE ACT, THE CRIMINAL CODE OF

CANADA, THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and the POLICY of HER

MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN ONTARIO;

MISCONDUCTWITHOLDING 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)




Pursuant to the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE;FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATIONServices1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect toservices, 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, maritalstatus, 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.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODEServices1. 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.

Reprisals8. 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 .

[-28] On August 4th, 2015 Officer Green(10235), Officer

Green’s fellow Officers of 13 Division, and the TORONTO

POLICE SERVICES rendered POLICE SERVICES(s. 86.(1)(B) and

S.26.7(1)(B)) to the APPLICANT with distinction, and

differently from the Canadanian Public, not in accordance

with the POLICE SERVICE ACT(s. 86.(1)(B) and S.26.7(1)(B)), not

in accordance with THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(S. 495), and

not in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE(S. 1 and 8.),





























while Officer Green(10235) was affecting POLICE SERVICES,

and while the same Officer was acting in the capacity of Agents of

Hermajesty the Queen in right of Ontario to enforce the RULE OF

LAW and the CROWN’S POLICY.

[-27] On or about January 26, 2014, the Applicant filed OCCURRENCE (1 433 449), a complaint of theft by the Applicant under the TORONTO POLICE SERVICES care and control. It was a complaint filed by the Applicant concerning theft of his property ($400.00 money order, etc.; where in the 13 DIVISION tried to convince him that the said theft was not a theft(again trying to deny POLICE SERVICES to the Applicant), and did not investigate or picked up a copy of the video security tape with a possible suspect until THE APPLICANT wrote them a nasty letter.The Applicant had to secure the evidence of the possible

suspects stealing his belongs from the TIM HORTONS

RESTURANT. Furthermore, the Applicant had to beg the

TORONTO POLICE SERVICES to go, and secure a copy of the

same video evidence for an investigation, which he himself had to

secure at the same TIM HORTONS.

[-26] On November 30th, 2015 at 4:27 pm, Ms. Christine E.

LeBlanc working in the capacity of counsel for the GOVERNING “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



COUNSEL OF THE SALVATION ARMY OF CANADA sent the

following email;CONFIDENTIAL

“Mr. Ferron,

I am in-house legal counsel for The Salvation Army. We have recently found a wallet belonging to you at one of our shelters. The wallet contains:

(1) Drivers license (expired 2010/05/01)(2) Health card (expired May 2015)(3) Alterna saving card (4) World Biggest Books store card(5) York University student card (expire 2016/04/30)(6) Georgina Public Library card (7) Mississauga Library card

Would you like us to return the wallet to you via courier? If so, please provide an address. We are happy to discuss alternate delivery arrangements if that works better for you.

Sincerely,

Christine E. LeBlanc

The Salvation Army2 Overlea Blvd.Toronto ON M4H 1P4Phone: 416.467.3366Fax: 416.422.6157E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.SalvationArmy.ca

”[-25] On November 30th, 2015 the Applicant informed Ms.

Christine E. LeBlanc that the aforesaid was stolen many years

ago at the TIM HORTONS at ST. CLAIR, and DUFFERINE.

[-24] There was video evidence which the Applicant reviewed ,

secured, and informed the LAW ENFORCERS of the Crown of the

said crime, and same video evidence, mainly TORONTO “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!


http://www.SalvationArmy.ca/

mailto:[email protected]

tel:416.422.6157

tel:416.467.3366


POLICE SERVICES (OCCURRENCE (1 433 449)), at 13

DIVISION (Eglinton West).

[-23] Furthermore, on November 30th, 2015 the Applicant

informed Ms. Christine E. LeBlanc that

“i have never lost any wallet at any of your shelter, I have never stayed at your shelter, and the last time I ate at one of your drop-in is many years ago.

That particular Item was stolen at TIM HORTON'S, IT WAS REPORTED STOLEN ALONG WITH MANY OTHER OTHER ITEMS INCLUDING MONEY ORDER, POEMS ETC.

please forward-it to the TORONTO POLICE SERVICES DIVISION 13 SO THEY CAN

COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION AND CLOSE THE CASE.”

[-22] Furthermore, on November 30th, 2015 the Applicant

made the following demand to Ms. Christine E. LeBlanc whom

was acting in the capacity of THE GOVERNING COUNSEL OF THE

SALVATION ARMY;

“I DEMAND BYWAY OF COLOUR OF RIGHT THE RETURN O OF MY STOOLEN PROPERTY

[55] The SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO-WORK, for the second time ASPER the IPC directions, I made a re-quest




for personal information collected or maintained at PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS (“THE HEAD”), in addition

to the $5.00 search fee being paid inclusive in the $10.00 Canada-Post money order being sent to PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS (“THE HEAD”). The CANADA POST

MONEY ORDER contain the following informa-tion:CHECK SERIAL NO.: 11 466 978 57SECURITY CODE.: 697 965 794OFFICE NO.: 102 205

ONTARIO-WORKS (“THE HEAD”) at PEEL REGION

RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, and THE GOV-ERNING COUNCIL OF TH SALVATION, failed to respond, and complete the Aforementioned information request for personal information, and also failed to return the $5.00 search fee in contravention of Section. 334, 322(1) , 22.1, 22.2 and 380(1) the Criminal Code of Canada.”

[-21] Again for OCCURRENCE (1 433 449), the TORONTO

POLICE SERVICES at 13 Division, treated the APPLICANT with

distinction and differently from the Canadanian Public, not in

accordance with the POLICE SERVICE ACT, and not in accordance

with THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and not in accordance with

the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, while was affecting POLICE SERVICES




for OCCURRENCE (1 433 449), and while TORONTO POLICE

OFFICERS were acting in the capacity of Agents of Hermajesty the

Queen in right of Ontario to enforce the RULE OF LAW.

[-20] ELSE WITHIN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT COULD BE

MATERIALS STOLEN ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 26, 2011 AND

SHOULD BE FORWARDEED TO THE PEEL REGIONAL POLICE

SERVICES OR ONTARIO PROVENCIAL COURT OF

JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION) FOR OCCURRENCE NO. 11 -

268834/11 – 268181.

[-19] ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2015 THE APPLICANT INFORMED MS.

CHRISTINE E. LEBLANC AND THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE

SALVATION THAT THE STOLEN PROPERTY IN THE

POSSESSION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE

SALVATION ARMY(

(1) DRIVERS LICENSE (EXPIRED 2010/05/01)(2) HEALTH CARD (EXPIRED MAY 2015)(3) ALTERNA SAVING CARD (4) WORLD BIGGEST BOOKS STORE CARD(5) YORK UNIVERSITY STUDENT CARD (EXPIRE 2016/04/30)(6) GEORGINA PUBLIC LIBRARY CARD (7) MISSISSAUGA LIBRARY CARD)




COULD ALSO BE PROPERTY STOLEN BY OFFICER

PESKESI(2261) ON OR ABOUT THE 26 AUGUST 2011,

WHEREIN THE APPLICANT (INFORMANT’S SWORN EVIDENCE)

FOR OCCURRENCE NO. 11 - 268834/11 – 268181 WAS FILED IN THE

ONTARIO PROVENCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST

REGION). IN ANY EVENT THERE IS A MATTER OF PRIVATE

PROSECUTION FOR ALLEGE CRIMES OF FALSE ARREST, FALSE

IMPRISONMENT, ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, MISFEASANCE

OF DUTY AND THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FERRON INFORMANT

-and-

OFFICER PEKESKI(2261) RESPONDENT




PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND

FREEDOM AND SECTION 505., 507.(1), 585 AND 540. OF THE CRIMI-

NAL CODE OF CANADA.

[-18] On August 23 rd , 2015 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-Brampton-civil-registrar

was searved a REQUISITION with payment for

courtservices, FOR THE FINAL ORDER(CV-0716-00 & CV 13-

1060) and the COURT ORDER staying CV12-716. NUSRAT R

received and signed for the aforesaid REQUISITION AND

MONEY FOR COURT SERVICES.

“[6] The authorities are clear that where an order or decision is not pronounced or delivered in public, the order or decision is not made until such time as the order or decision is entered by the Registry or when the parties are notified of the decision.{...}Strong J., in concurring reasons, was also of the view that the time to ap-peal could not begin to run until the judgment had been entered. At page 218, he made the following remarks:

I do not recognize the handing by the judge to the registrar, not in open court but in his office or perhaps in the street, as a "pronouncing of a deci-sion" within the terms of rule 269.”

(VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al., 2003 FCA 56)

“ORDER

UPON PLAINTIFFS" EX PARTE MOTION made on September 27, 1999, for




IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Commencement and Term of Order

The terms of this Order shall become effective against each Defendant only from the commencement of the day on which it is served on that defendant and shall remain in effect for fourteen days thereafter, unless otherwise ordered by the Court...”

(NIKE CANADA LTD. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and -JANE DOE and JOHN DOE et al., T-1636-99 on page 4 )

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 .

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 un-der 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

(RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE )

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 pro-vides otherwise.

SECTION 137.(3) - COURT LIST PUBLIC



http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/rro-1990-reg-194.html#sec4.03_smooth

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/rro-1990-reg-194.html


http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137_smooth




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.

SECTION 137.(4) - COPIES

Copies

(4)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any docu-ment the person is entitled to see. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 , s. 137 .

(COURT OF JUSTICE ACT )

[-17] Today is December 09 th , 2015 and there still is no

response. The COURT SERVICE WORKERS at the SUPERIOR

COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-CIVIL REGISTRAR

continues to deny the Applicant access to FINAL ORDER TO CV-

12-0716 and FINAL ORDER CV 13-1066 by not responding to

the SAME REQUSITION in contravention of the COURT OF JUSTICE

ACT, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND FEDERAL COURT RULES.

Which intern has denied the Applicant access to the Appeal

process for the same matters, since higher courts require a

FINAL ORDER as a necessary and sufficient condiction for Appeal

or judicial review.

[-16] 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 de-livered them.

Drafting of order

394. (1) Where the Court gives reasons, it may direct one of the parties to pre-pare for endorsement a draft order to implement the Court's conclusion, ap-proved 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 ac-cordance 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 de-lay 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 or-der 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 Admin-istrator shall confirm receipt by the party and place proof of that receipt on the Court file.

SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

Proof of conviction or discharge22.1 (1) Proof that a person has been convicted or discharged anywhere in Canada of a crime is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the crime was committed by the person, if,(a) no appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken and the time for an appeal has expired; or



http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html#sec6_smooth

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html#sec36subsec3_smooth



(b) an appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken but was dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (3).

(evidence act, Evidence Act, RSO 1990, c E.23)

[-15] The COURT SERVICE WORKERS at the SUPERIOR

COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-CIVIL REGISTRAR

continues to deny the Applicant access to FINAL ORDER TO CV-

12-0716 and FINAL ORDER CV 13-1066 while working in the

capacity of Agents of THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL and

Agents of HERMAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO,

rendering courtserves to the Applicant with distinction and

rendering court services differently to the Applicant from the

Canadanian Public, and discriminating against the Applicant in

administrating unequeal courtservice to the Applicant while acting

in the capacity of an Agent of Hermajesty the Queen in right of

Ontario.

[-14] Given that the Applicant is a homeless vagabond

and financially destitute, HRTO-REGISTRAR continually

failed to notify the Applicant of directions, judgments, and

dismissed matters reasons for judgment in accordance with the




Honourable David Muir (Vice-Chair) COURT ORDER. The

Applicant is assuming that the Order was not singling him

out by distinction and applying only to him but applied to

all parties of the matter byway of fair civilized practice

law in modern democracies.;

“[5] Pursuant to its authority to control its process and to prevent the abuse of its process {…} the Tribunal directs that that all further communication with the Tribunal with respect to his various Applications will be by regular mail or had de-livery. The only exception to this direction will be communica-tions with respect to the scheduling of preliminary hearing in 2012-12585-I which may be done by email. Any other commu-nication from the Tribunal by email or fax in any of the applicant’s Applications will be disregarded.”

(Signed David Muir Vice-Chair, June 23, 2015 CASE ASSESSMENT DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL)

Effect of judicial acts3.1 Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, jus-tice 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 court127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a law-ful 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 of-fense and that other person is afterwards a party to that offense, the per-




son 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 of-fense is a party to every offense that the other commits in conse-quence 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 in-cite.R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22;R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7.

[-13] On January 15th, 2015 Mr. Richard Hennessy working

in the capacity of the HRTO-REGISTRAR rendered courtservices

by distinction to the Applicant different from the Canadanian

Public, and with disstinction in giving unequeal courtservices to

the Applicant while acting in the capacity of an Agent of

Hermajesty the Queen in right of Ontario within the context

following.

[-12] Mr. Richard Hennessy working in the capacity of the

HRTO-REGISTRAR should have known or aught to have known

that his were actions were in contravention of Section 127(1) of

the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, contravention of Section 4.01




of the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, and in contravention

of Section 137 and 131 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

Fabricating evidence137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

Perjury131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.

i. Effect of judicial acts3.1 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 court127. (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.

ffences of negligence — organizations22.1 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization is a party to the offence if(a) acting within the scope of their authority(i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or(ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omis-sion, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that repres-entative would have been a party to the offence; and(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activ-ities that is relevant to the offence departs — or the senior officers, collectively, depart — markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence.2003, c. 21, s. 2.

Marginal note:Other offences — organizations22.2 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove fault — other than negligence — an organization is a party to the offence if, with the in-tent at least in part to benefit the organization, one of its senior officers(a) acting within the scope of their authority, is a party to the offence;(b) having the mental state required to be a party to the offence and acting within the scope of their authority, directs the work of other representatives of the or-ganization so that they do the act or make the omission specified in the of-fence; or(c) knowing that a representative of the organization is or is about to be a party to the offence, does not take all reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to the offence.2003, c. 21, s. 2.




Marginal note:Accessory after the fact23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a per-son has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.(2) [Repealed, 2000, c. 12, s. 92]R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 23;2000, c. 12, s. 92.

Marginal note:Where one party cannot be convicted23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused not-withstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence.R.S., 1985, c. 24 (2nd Supp.), s. 45.

Marginal note:Attempts24. (1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an at-tempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circum-stances to commit the offence.

Marginal note:Question of law(2) The question whether an act or omission by a person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too re-mote to constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of law.R.S., c. C-34, s. 24.

[-11] On November 6th, 2015 at or about 3:36 pm, THE

DEPUTY CLERK (Sandra Theroulde) of the COURT OF

APPEAL REGISTRAR, acted in the capacity of a Judge,

refusing the filing of the said appeal matter under Section 6.1 of

the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT, then calling SPECIAL COUNSTABLE

(Police Officer badge# 90456 ) to have the Appellant(queue

ticket# -PUBLIC-043), remove from a PUBLIC COURTHOUSE for

LEGAL HUMAN RIGHTS BUSINESS(HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-

19681-I & 2014-19680-)with relevance to the public good “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



and lawful service (HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I), without

jurisdictional, judicial input or lawful determination of a Judge of

competent jurisdiction on 11/06/2015 AT OR ABOUT 15:36

HUNDRED HOURS.

[-10] On November 6th, 2015 at or about 3:36 pm, THE

DEPUTY CLERK (Sandra Theroulde) of the COURT OF APPEAL

REGISTRAR, confirmed without a doubt that there is no APPEAL

OR LEAVE TO APPEAL route for the Applicants HUMAN

RIGHTS COMPLAINT’S in a practical way by refusing the

Applicant access to the COURT OF APPEAL or its LEAVE TO

APPEAL process.

[-9] On January 15th, 2015 Mr. Richard Hennessy working in

the capacity of the HRTO-REGISTRAR treated the Applicant

differently from the Canadanian Public and with disstinction in

giving unequeal courtservices to the Applicant while acting in the

capacity of an Agent of Hermajesty the Queen in right of Ontario.




[-8] On Feburary 5th, 2015 at the HRTO-REGISTRAR (Richard

Hennessy) , JUDICIAL IMMUNITY was frauduently usurped and

unlawfully given to ONE OR MORE RESPONSDENTS(JOHN GER-

RETSEN, SANDRA THEROULDE, GAIL HUGH or DESIREE VI-

CERAL) in it’s NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS (HRTO 2014-

19681-I) matter, and reasons for NOTICE OF INTENT TO DIS-

MISS HRTO 2014-19681-I matter.

[-7] Pursuant to Richard Hennessy reasons, and false asser-

tions, which were based on false facts in the HRTO-REGIS-

TRAR’S NOTICE OF DISSMISSAL(2014-19681-i) on February

5, 2015 ;

“The HRTO does not have the power to consider claims filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination or the last in a series of incidents of discrimination unless the delay in filing was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay [s.34(1)]. You do not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the HRTO’s case law. See for example Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 1582 (CanLII) and see for example Diler v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1224 (CanLII) for a discussion of “good faith”. {…}

•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).”

(TWO OF Richard Hennessy FALSE STATEMENTS OR ASSERTIONS while acting in the capacity of the HRTO-REGISTRAR; February 5, 2015 Notice of Intent to Dismiss(2014-19681-I))

[-6] On Feburary 5th, 2015 Mr. Richard Hennessy working in

the capacity of the HRTO-REGISTRAR the Applicant differently

from the Canadanian Public and with distinction in giving

unequeal courtservices to the Applicant while acting in the

capacity of an Agent of Hermajesty the Queen in right of Ontario

within the context of the aforesaid.



differently from the Canadanian Public, and with distinction in

giving unequeal courtservices to the Applicant while acting in the


within the context following.

[-4] On or about January 15, 2015, the Applicant sent the

HRTO-REGISTRAR the following email;




“ATT Mr. Richard Hennessy YOUR ARE SLOWLY KILLING ME-NEW COMPLAINT-URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Inbox x

Wayne Ferron <[email protected]> Jan 15

to HRTO-Registrar, newswatch, Want, editor.indiati., tarun.grover, washingtonbure., Inyt, holly-woodbureau, isdr, america, ajam.community, gleanerna, feedback, editorial, Julie, cbcnewsott-awa, freedom4canada., city, LawCommission, publicenquiries, mail, info, registrar

My life, death, or damage to my health is in the hands of THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, in accordance with the policy and processing procedure of ONTARIO WORKS and the FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL(EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE).

tHE OTHER DAY, I SPOKE TO the FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, to confirmthat my employment insurance was received. I was told that an appealtakes 6 weeks to process, and I will be contacted then to confirm thereceipt of my application

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 con-tacted then to confirm thereceipt of my application. Urgency would be ineffective here despite me labelling the matter as URGENT.

So, it would seem that all the responsibility for saving my life and restoring my life back to normal with normal access to social ser-vices without reprisals is the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL and it alone caries the aforesaid burden.

I tried getting some Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA) to thin my blood and reduce the chances of a stroke or heart attack, but dispens-ing 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 ser-vices; negative $150.00 is what I have in my Bank account.

But, HARM (GOVERNEMENT program for dispensing drugs to drug ad-dicts by diminishing the role or dependency on drug dealers. The Gov-ernment 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.

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.

Am not a human being, how far we have fallen?4 AttachmentsPreview attachment ei-2nd- letter to the Umpire for motion record.pdf

Preview attachment OW-DIRECTIVE-1101.pdf

Preview attachment AMENDED-EI-EXHIBIT X -FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL APPEAL-GENERAL.pdf

Preview attachment Bundle 29.pdf

“



differently from the Canadanian human beings, and with diction in

giving unequeal courtservice to the Applicant while acting in the



https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=55489170bd&view=att&th=14aee636379caf79&attid=0.4&disp=safe&realattid=f_i4ycbud23&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=55489170bd&view=att&th=14aee636379caf79&attid=0.3&disp=safe&realattid=f_i4yc7h0p2&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=55489170bd&view=att&th=14aee636379caf79&attid=0.3&disp=safe&realattid=f_i4yc7h0p2&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=55489170bd&view=att&th=14aee636379caf79&attid=0.2&disp=safe&realattid=f_i4ybrrtm2&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=55489170bd&view=att&th=14aee636379caf79&attid=0.1&disp=safe&realattid=f_i4ybrrtd1&zw



within the context following.

[-2] On Feburary 5th, 2015 JOHN GERRETSEN, SANDRA

THEROULDE, GAIL HUGH or DESIREE VICERAL

was UNLAWFULLY GIVEN THE TITLE OF JUDICIAL OFFICER ,

in addition to JUDICIAL IMUNITY in contravention of the

CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

Fabricating evidence137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.Perjury131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.

ii. Effect of judicial acts3.1 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 court127. (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.

ffences of negligence — organizations22.1 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization is a party to the offence if(a) acting within the scope of their authority(i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or(ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omis-sion, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that repres-entative would have been a party to the offence; and(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activ-ities that is relevant to the offence departs — or the senior officers, collectively, depart — markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence.2003, c. 21, s. 2.

Marginal note:Other offences — organizations22.2 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove fault — other than negligence — an organization is a party to the offence if, with the in-tent at least in part to benefit the organization, one of its senior officers(a) acting within the scope of their authority, is a party to the offence;(b) having the mental state required to be a party to the offence and acting within the scope of their authority, directs the work of other representatives of the or-ganization so that they do the act or make the omission specified in the of-fence; or(c) knowing that a representative of the organization is or is about to be a party to the offence, does not take all reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to the offence.2003, c. 21, s. 2.

Marginal note:Accessory after the fact23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a per-son has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.(2) [Repealed, 2000, c. 12, s. 92]R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 23;2000, c. 12, s. 92.




[-1] On Pursuant to the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF

CONDUCT;

“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,

{..}(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,

{…}(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,...”

[0] On January 15th, 2015 Mr. Richard Hennessy working in

the capacity of the HRTO-REGISTRAR treated me differently from

Canadanian human beings, and with diction in giving unequeal

courtservices to the Applicant while acting in the capacity of an

Agent of Hermajesty the Queen in right of Ontario.




[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 smoking within 9 meters of building

entrence door, and besider consumer 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 SHELTERST. SIMON’S SHELTERBED#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 FAIR-NESS, 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, un-spoken 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 be-ing 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 Na-tion is founded upon principles that acknowledge the su-premacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human per-son 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 spir-itual 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 Hu-man Rights and Freedoms asserts;

“WHEREAS every human being possesses intrinsic rights and freedoms designed to ensure his protection and de-velopment; 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 funda-mental 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, Pre-amble.) {…}”

[-1]

-wie was given inapropreate document concerning

beastality but the respondents and the courts thought

there was nothing wrong with it. After being brutalized,

called a crack head, assaulted, and labeled as not

belonging to my 99% Caucasian neighborhood

-child almost died- had to be revived whiled Iwas being

legal bullied and held up in court

-branded a a mentally high risk person by the probation

officer who unlafull procured charging legal instrument to

maliciously prosecut the Applican on manufactured

evidence whike the probation period had expired without

incident




[5] The Applicant has notifyed THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GEN-

ERAL 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 fidu-ciary 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 in-testines, 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 HEAR-ING, WITHOUT CONVINCING EVIDENCE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE MY CASE AND GIVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL BE-FORE 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 re-move the said braces. Dentist as a rule are aversive to touching an-other dentist work. I regretfully inform you that I am unable to serve you the motion re-cord for the constitutional application. I do not have the money to pro-duce 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 IN-TENSION IN REGARDS TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN CR-12-




70000061, BUT I WAS NOT FORMALLY INFORMED OF YOUR IN-TENSIONS. 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, in-telligence, 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 re-sponse to proceed to restitution, resolution, or adversarial contentious argument of humane parties at trial, for the de-termination of a plea of a just cause. We all know that none re-sponse 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 correspond-ing policies in addition to Tribunals, all respond to none re-sponse 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 bondsand the precious treasures of intentionsthey 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 confidencein 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 vigor-ously defending vicariously Public Agents whom has commit-ted 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 respect-fully request the HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO, and HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA, to please in-sure 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 col-our of right over the said legal instrument.

To the SALVATION ARMYandTo the REGION OF PEEL or REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHEL-TERplease 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 SERVICES7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton,ON, L6V 3W6(905) 453-3311RE: 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 dis-closed to my person the false identity of Officer Perkins(2261) in addi-tion to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing his identity as Officer Per-kins(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 en-forcement 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 per-son 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 beno less than a beloved mother. I have fourbeloved 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 at-

tempted on at least one occasion to defeat the proper course of

justice with the fraudulently procured “VEXATIOUS LIT-

TIGAN” court order; the aforementioned court order was re-“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



leased 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 RE-

GIONAL 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 in-

tent of perverting the course of justice.

[7] The Applicant has notified HRTO, and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE/

SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL since January to no avail the follow-

ing;

“URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATIONI 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 identi-fication.

Recall that Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my Identification and fail to re-turn 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-dir-ecting 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 with-holding services from a Afro Canadian.




I require at the minimum an interim order for a drug card or the IMMEDI-ATE return of my identification from PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SER-VICES.

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 al-ways 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 INSUR-ANCE 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 re-spect 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 IN-SURANCE (E. Hoffman – 1 866 – 950 -722 ext 5684)




HEALTH RISK:1. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my first blood pres-

sure 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 reason-able thing to do in accordance with EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION.

3. I HAVE -$100.00 IN THE BANK, I SLEEP IN out of the cold shel-ters (HOMELESS SHELTERS) in my futile effort to access med-ical 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 res-

ult 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. “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



The Applicant’s and his children suffered unnecessarily for

the aforesaid social punishment . The following is what the Ap-

plicant 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 MA-TERIAL 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 RE-LAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELE-MENTS. 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 facil-

ity(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL CENTRE)

at 129 Peter St for the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY form to re-

quest 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 HOME-




LESS FACILITY; she directed my person to Mark Nilson, the As-

sistant 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 & REFER-

RAL CENTRE) at 129 Peter St for the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY

form to request personal information collected by homeless shel-

ter and drop in centers. Mark Nilson stated that he didn't have

one, nor did he know where there was any located to be dis-

closed.

[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 CENTREShelter Support & Housing AdministrationAnthong Sigh-ManagerTel: 416 392 0090Fax: 416 338 4760129 Peter Streettoronto, Ontario, M5V 2H3”




[13] On or about March 30, 2015, I (Wayne Ferron) asked An-

thong Sigh, the manager of the CITY OF TORONTO homeless fa-

cility(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL

CENTRE) at 129 Peter St for the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY

Form to request personal information collected by homeless shel-

ter 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 HOME-

LESS, 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 ser-

vice for the HOMELESS, I was directed by someone I reason-

able 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 HOMESFree Dental Care at 129 Peter StreetMonday from 9:30am - 1pm, April to June 2015Toby Druce 416 397 [email protected]”

[16] I approached an attendant for the MOBILE DENTAL

CLINIC, and to also be sign up for the said dental care ser -

vice for the HOMELESS, which I was in desperate need of be-

cause 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 careFree 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, Uni-son 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, in-

stead 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.



http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/7017df2f20edbe2885256619004e428e/86e1311f8423d94d85257aad00564af9?OpenDocument

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=51b74485d1210410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD


[20] On May 23, 2015, after I went to 129 Peter Street for

goods and services, I read out loudly from a legal document(Pur-

suant to Blair McCreadie speaking for the GOVERNING COUN-

CIL 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 Ap-plicant 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 BENE-

FIT TRIBUNAL, made an INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER ( 1106-

04904 ) in the following manner;

“...The Tribunal directs that the Administrator, Social Services Dept Regionof Peel, pay interim assistance to the above noted appellant effectiveJune 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 IN -

TERIM 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 be-cause: youcannot receive financial assistance if you reside in an institution that providefor your basic needs and shelter. Your financial assistance will stopas of August 2nd, 2011 because you are living in an institution.”

[23] On May 23, 2015, the Staff of the homeless facil-

ity(STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL CENTRE)

at 129 Peter St, Toronto was asserting and explaining to my per-

son that one does not need to be on SOCIAL SERVICE FIN-

ANCIAL(ONTARIO WORKS/ODESP) BENEFITS to be able to

access the homeless shelters. The funding comes from a sep-

arate part of the Government. I tried to no avail to explain, show ,

and read to the CITY OF TORONTO staff that according to the law-

yers 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 SHEL-

TER WITHOUT SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS, OR ONTARIO

WORKS FINANCIAL HELP;

Wayne FERRONHOMELESS VAGABOND



[email protected]

[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 discrim-

inate against me with distinction, after using the bathroom to re-

lieve 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 us-

ing 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 dis-

ables for maintenance or repairs.

[29] On May 24, 2015 the next day, I went to 129 Peter Street

homeless facility( STREET TO HOMES ASSESSMENT & REFER -

RAL 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 pre-

scribed 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 dis-

charged 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. How-

ever, when she got there she was again refused access to her

medications.

[35] On May 22, 2015 she came out of the same SHELTER men-

tally traumatized, crying her eyes out over the denial of her per-

sonal property, not to mention the blatant theft of some of her be-

longings.

[36] On May 22, 2015 I instructed Fiona Sanders to call the Po-

lice 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 pre-

scription has a solution of calling 911 instead of a proact-

ive 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 prescrip -

tion 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 med-

ical 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 home-

less people trespassing, the Police take about 5 to 15 mins to ar-

rive.

[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 be-“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



longs 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 mus-

tache whom claim to be of German descent and is always uttering

racial ramblings continuously about mostly “jews” and “nig-

gers” and the unlawful thing he is going to do to them. Many of

these people are mentally ill, yet again, where does this atmo-

sphere or aura comes from.

[46] I also remember that a bylaw(POLICE PROTOCOL DIRECT-

IVE 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 be-

lieve 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 re-

ceived her prescription medicine being held hostage by the home-

less 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 re-

ceived her prescription medicine being held hostage by the home-

less 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 Resid-

ence

Women's Residence

674 Dundas Street WestToronto M5T 1H9416-392-5500Tracy Campbell,Manager at 416-392-8747e-mail [email protected].

Women's Residence is a place for homeless, single women in down-town Toronto. The shelter offers many services to help homeless wo-men 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:


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;

“RESPONSETO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION,without response from RESPONDENTS,

NOTICE to dismiss matters withHRTO 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 DIGNITYMorgan 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



http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2005/2005hrto30/2005hrto30.html








http://canliiconnects.org/fr/arr%C3%AAts/2013hrto650













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- Super-

ior 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 applica-




tion 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 participa-tion. 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 Respond-ent; 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 re-spondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate re-spondent 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, to-gether 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 indi-vidual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiv-ing 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 Lit-kee 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 Charges11.2.1 The Common Law Principle

Maintaining the independence of the police from direct political control is fun-damental 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 investiga-tion, much less lay charges. As one former Attorney General said,



http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/fpd/ch11.html#fnb1


“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 Den-ning 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 per-sons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecu-tion or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Min-ister 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 en-forcement 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 Commis-sioner 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 Su-preme 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 gov-ernment while engaged in a criminal investigation. The Commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly en-gaged, 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 re-source allocation. They also describe the role of the RCMP vis-à-vis the provin-cial Attorney General.








11.2.3 Other Statutory Exceptions

Some Criminal Code offences -- for instance, war crimes,Footnote 6 bribery of judi-cial 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 Laid11.3.1 Introduction

Crown counsel and investigative agencies play complementary roles in the crim-inal 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 de-ciding 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 in-vestigation 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 assess-ment 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 invest-igating agency Footnote 12 .

(The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook)

[55] Pursuant to the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK; CROWN POLICY MANUAL

March 21, 2005 16. POLICE: RELATIONSHIP WITH CROWN COUNSEL

PRINCIPLES



http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/fpd/index.html









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 ex-cept where the consent of the Attorney General is required by stat-ute. 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 Act Footnote 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- Super-

ior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012

HRTO 1462;



[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 applica-tion 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 participa-



http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/fpd/index.html




tion. The corporate respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:








[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 JusticeContinuing 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?

Services1. 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 569Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 ( CanLII ) Marineland of Canada Inc . , 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without DiscriminationMorgan 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 RespondIn 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 )”



http://canliiconnects.org/fr/%C3%A9diteurs/32



http://canliiconnects.org/fr/utilisateurs/402


http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec8


















http://canlii.ca/t/fx556





























































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 HU-

MAN 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 ex-

ercising 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 dis-crimination that is contrary to law…”

SOME RIGHTS UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE: Services1. Every person has a right to equal treatment …2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occu-pancy of accommodation...8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac9. 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 invest-igator shall give a receipt to the person from whom the record or thing is re-moved. 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 ne-cessary 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 re-

lated to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I.




[72] I do not have full access to drugs and medical ser-

vices, 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. Sanc-

hez Truck(851 3YY ) whom seem to be above the law, im-

mune to the law, and operate outside the RULE OF LAW;

which I reasonable believe to be an accident, was not really an ac-

cident, 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 unlaw-

fully discard of the evidence or throw it in the garbage.

[80] Now HRTO is refusing to deal with the matter of denial of Po-

lice 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 Code6. Area of Alleged DiscriminationHousing (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 6Housing (Form 1-B)

Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C)22. Other Documents, from Question 12 to 15A 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 1Questions About the Service, Good or FacilityPolice ServicesGovernmentMedical/health services

page-1 of 5: Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Reprisalpage-4 of 5

[81] 2015 - Was I denied EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE bene-

fits, access to MEDICINE and MEDICAL SERVICES, access to SO-

CIAL SERVICES byway of policy, access to housing, exposed to

the elements, expose to homelessness, expose to homeless dis-

eases, 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 Directives1.1 Overview of Ontario WorksLegislative 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 stand-ards 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 verifica-tion in the relevant technology and/or placing a copy of the documentation on file as required. The program verification standards help to maintain program in-tegrity 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 pro-

cess, and I will be contacted then to confirm the receipt of my ap-

plication. 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 ac-

cess to social services without reprisals is the HUMAN RIGHTS

TRIBUNAL, and it alone caries the aforesaid burden.“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



[85] I tried getting some Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA)

to thin my blood and reduce the chances of a stroke or heart at-

tack, 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 deal-

ers. 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 product-

ive 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 daugh-

ters and I being given what is promised in the HUMAN RIGHTS

PREAMBLE?




“Human Rights CodeR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19Last amendment: 2012, c. 7.PreambleWhereas 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 discrimina-tion that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of under-standing and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each per-son 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 enact-ments of the Legislature and it is desirable to revise and extend the protection of hu-man 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 569Morgan 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, SO-

CIAL SERVICES PROTOCOL, EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefit en-

titlement decision, and the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL delay of

HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I in contravention of the following;






Services1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and fa-cilities, 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 prohibited9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right un-der 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;

Reprisals8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to in-stitute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of an-other 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 by-

way of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legis-

lation 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 per-

son;




1. the CROWN being allowed to UNLAWFULLY remove

PRIVATE PROSECUTION PUBLIC EVIDENCE (C 58716-IN-

CRIMINATE THE CROWN) from the COA-RECORDS while af-

fecting an unwritten restriction of the PUBLIC HAVING AC-

CESS 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 addi-

tion 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 im-

peded, 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 SHEL-

TERS, 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 med-

ical 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 belong-

ings and have me signed off on receiving all out standing

pending personal belongings.“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



[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 Fer-

ron) from all courts in ONTARIO and taking my legal rights

and the ability to defend my civil and political rights. If I can-

not defend my rights, then I have no rights including human

rights!




2. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL endorsement or order to sus-

pend 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 in-

formation, 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 com-

mission.

4. I was sent to SOCIAL SERVICES BY EMPLOYMENT IN-

SURANCE 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 condi-

tions 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 head-

aches.

5. I have provided a copy of the prescription I cannot af-

ford, 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 so-

ciety 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 COVEN-

ANT 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 ViceralSubject: 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: AJanzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569Morgan 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 CodeR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19PART IFREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATIONServices

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 CodeR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19PART IFREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Reprisals8. 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 .


Constructive discrimination11. (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.


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?

Services1. 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 Ac9. 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.







Act binds Crown47. (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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!









the right to the rights given in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE!

Does the following rights stated below apply to my children and

I?


[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.




[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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!











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.













[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: AJanzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569Morgan 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,


order 7 certified copies of the June 4, 2013

TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter



COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges. I had the




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








fairness.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160[133] On or about the 19th of November 2013, June 4,


order 7 certified copies June 4, 2012











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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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


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


5. JUNE 4, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of

receiving equal service for service rendered by Orbe Santiago in


6. JUNE 18, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of

receiving equal service for service rendered by Marc Lacroix in


7. JULY 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of

receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in


8. OCTOBER 9, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of

receiving equal service for service rendered by Orbe Santiago in


· 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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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


[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


· 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


· 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.


[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.“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



[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.


[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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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.




























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 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.


[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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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.


[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.


[159] There seems to be an willful effort to hold my COURT

OF APPEAL files hostage or impede my Private Prosecutions “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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


[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.


[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.“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



· 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.





[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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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


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

REQUISITION4.08 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 DOCUMENTS4.03 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.













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.


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 C56817CERTIFIED COPY OF JUSTICE CROLL’S ORDER (M61) UNDER TAB 03

2.) *EXHIBIT A255532CERTIFIED 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 20123. received on Wednesday August 1st, 20124. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTARAR on the 24th of July 20125. TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE is blank6. TRANSCRIPT completion DATE is blank7. TRANSCRIPT completion notification DATE is blank8. no certification9. signiture by Arlene Gorewicz FORM 2 is not present

4.) *EXHIBIT O55532 – SANITIZED FROM FILE C.O.A C568171. NOT CERTIFIED IN FORM 2/ COURT FILED2. PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(M61) SENT VIA MAIL 3. received by CROWN on June 28th, 20124. mailed on or about 9th of August 20125. received on or about August 15th, 20126. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTRAR on the 24th of July 20127. TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE is blank8. TRANSCRIPT completion DATE is blank9. TRANSCRIPT completion notification DATE is blank10. undated signature of Arlene Gorewicz is present11. 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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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


[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


[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


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


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 13 th 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 13 th 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 24 th 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 Justice4.01 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,...”





[209] On the 13 th 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 28 th , 2012, and

then proceeded to fraudulent file the same TRANSCRIPT on

the 24 th 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 1 st 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 30 th , 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: M61/12Please 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 24 th of July 2012 ;

the same TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) was served on

Wayne Ferron(the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR) about the 15 th 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 488S.C.J CR-12-70000061Wayne Ferron v. ReginaAccused: Matthew AsmaAccused: Joanne StuartMs. 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 Evidence6.05 (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 28 th 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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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


[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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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...”


[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.


[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.“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



· Please see EXHIBIT NB1, NB2, PPL, PPQ EXHIBIT C4.

[256] Pursuant to A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS

COURTHOUSE, internal policy;

“RESPECTFAIR TREATMENTCOURTESY DIGNITYAs 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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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 HEARDIn absence of opposite party3.03(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);




http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html#sec36subsec3_smooth


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,



http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/english/civil

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900194_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900194_e.htm



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.


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 OFFICER59.02 (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).



https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/rro-1990-reg-194.html#sec59.02subsec2_smooth


https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/rro-1990-reg-194.html




[299] Pursuant to RULE 59.03 of the RULES OF CIVIL

PRACTICE;

PREPARATION AND FORM OF ORDERPreparation of Draft Formal Order59.03 (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.




http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html#sec26.1_smooth


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 acts3.1 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 court127. (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.“CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



[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);


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);





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: [email protected]”

[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 KrickThe Attorney General of OntarioCRIMINAL LAW BRANCH6th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 416 326 4015


upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), the following documents:















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 LLPScotia Plaza, 40 King Street WToronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4T 416.367.6000F 416.367.6749blg.comCounsel for Defendants;REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;




YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICESCounsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092F [email protected]


upon PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION

MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY

LLP), the following documents:












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 SzymanskiBLANEY MCMURTRY LLP2 Queen Street, EastSuite 31500Toronto, Ontariotel: 416 593 1221fax: 416 593 5437COUNSEL FOR:OFFICER PEKESKI (2261)REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEELPEEL 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


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 KrickThe Attorney General of OntarioCRIMINAL LAW BRANCH6th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 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:









Deborah Krick


documents with Kim Parsons an employee at BORDEN

LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who accepts legal service on


the said defendant) at the following location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLPScotia Plaza, 40 King Street WToronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4T 416.367.6000F 416.367.6749blg.comCounsel for Defendants;REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICESCounsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092F [email protected]

[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:









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 SzymanskiBLANEY MCMURTRY LLP2 Queen Street, EastSuite 31500Toronto, Ontariotel: 416 593 1221fax: 416 593 5437COUNSEL FOR:OFFICER PEKESKI (2261)REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEELPEEL 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


location;

Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439STHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIOCivil Law Branch8th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1Tel: 416 314 2059Fax: 416 326 4181


upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as

represented by the Attorney General of Canada), a NOTICE


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 CANADACivil Law BranchSuite 3400, Exchange TowerBox 36, First Canadian PlaceToronto, Ontario M5X 1K6fax: 416 973 3004


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 LLPScotia Plaza, 40 King Street WToronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4T 416.367.6000F 416.367.6749blg.comCounsel for Defendants;REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;




YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICESCounsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092F 416.361.2769

[email protected]

[417] The aforementioned document stated as follows on page

6 of the same served document;

“RE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK et. al. Ats Ferronourt File No.: CV-12-0716-00BLG File No.: 016995.000102TAKE NOTICE: That I, Wayne Ferron(Private Prosecutor) new address iWayne FERRONHOMELESS VAGABONDON THE STREETS OF TORONTOTel: 416 420 1353,Email: [email protected]"

[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


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 CANADACivil Law BranchSuite 3400, Exchange TowerBox 36, First Canadian PlaceToronto, Ontario M5X 1K6fax: 416 973 3004


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as

represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), a NOTICE


signed copy with Wahab Khan an employee at the MINISTRY OF




THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who excepts service on


location;

Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439STHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIOCivil Law Branch8th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1Tel: 416 314 2059

Fax: 416 326 4181


YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), a NOTICE OF


copy with Brenda Jacome a Legal Receptionist at BORDEN

LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal service on


the said defendant) at the folowing location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLPScotia Plaza, 40 King Street WToronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4T 416.367.6000F 416.367.6749blg.com




Counsel for Defendants;REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICESCounsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092F [email protected]


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 SzymanskiBLANEY MCMURTRY LLP2 Queen Street, EastSuite 31500Toronto, Ontariotel: 416 593 1221fax: 416 593 5437COUNSEL FOR:




OFFICER PEKESKI (2261)REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEELPEEL 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 whiletaking the given constraints into consideration; if thedocuments in question are to reach their proper destinationor intended recipient.Wayne FERRON1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto,ON, Postal Code M6E 4A6Tel: 416 420 1353,Email: [email protected] NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THESTREETS OF TORONTO WHILE LIVING AS AVAGABOND, EVEN THOUGH I STILL SLEEP ON THEFLOOR AND WALK THE CITY FOR FOOD!! SO, PLEASESEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTEREDMAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NOASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVEADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MYPERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTSBEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOTHOME IN THE DAY TIME; I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THEABOVE 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 THEFOODBANK 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 MetcalfPEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton,ON, L6V 3W6(905) 453-3311RE: I respectfully request byway of COLOUR OF RIGHT, theprompt return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated orwhatever the case my be, by your subordinate Officer Peke-ski(2261) whom disclosed to my person the false identity ofOfficer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICEdisclosing his identity as Officer Perkins(2261).”


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

CANADA4711 Yonge Street,Suite 1600




Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6K8tel: 416 730 3088fax: 416 7332058COUNSEL FOR DEFENDENTS:WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEMMRS HAMILTON


SALVATION ARMY and HARRY BOOM, a NOTICE OF


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 400TORONTO DOMINION CENTREToronto, Ontario, M5K 0A1tel: 416 863 4511fax: 416 863 4592COUNSEL 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;


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 SERVICESHOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICESFLOOR: SLLOFFICE: SLL 242DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLERBrampton Civic Hospital2100 Bovaird DriveBrampton, 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 “CIVIL DEATH,” THEFT OF LEGAL RIGHTS, THEFT HUMAN RIGHTS, and DENIAL OF HUMAN DIGNITY!



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.


DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691), the following documents:






0716-00);







receiving legal service on behalf of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH


capacity of her employer’s public relation's personal at the

following location;

CARILLION SERVICESHOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICESFLOOR: SLLOFFICE: SLL 242DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691)Brampton Civic Hospital2100 Bovaird DriveBrampton, OntarioL6R 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.


DR. R. HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR. CHARLES A.

OHENE-DAR KOH, the following documents:






0716-00);




receiving legal service on behalf of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH


capacity of her employer’s public relation's personal at the

following location;

CARILLION SERVICES




HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICESFLOOR: SLLOFFICE: SLL 242DR. R. HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR.

CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH,Brampton Civic Hospital2100 Bovaird DriveBrampton, OntarioL6R 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- Su-

perior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012

HRTO 1462;



[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 applica-tion 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 participa-tion. The corporate respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:












“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 JusticeContinuing 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.”


[441] Pursuant to Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry;

“Access to justiceIt is clear that we must remain vigilant to ensure our system of civil justice is access-ible 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 recommenda-tions 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 per-formance 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 accessibil-ity 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, http://ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/archives/ocs/2003.htm )

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 se-duced by the notion, borrowed from criminal law, that process ensures jus-tice, 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 re-think how civil disputes are resolved. For a start, we need to sever the philoso-phies 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 pri-vate parties. Can we honestly say that the fair resolution of such a dispute re-quires 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? Peo-ple 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 proce-dural 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? Un-certainty, delay and expense ... [are] direct results of the ... backwardness of our procedure. The effect of our exaggerated contentious procedure is not only to irri-tate 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 re-placed 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 re-placed by the assertive diversity of minorities; and adoring wives have been re-placed 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 ex-actly 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 doc-tor 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, compli-cated process is in their interests and for their benefit, because they are not buy-ing 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 em-ployer 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 ex-perienced 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 compli-cated, 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 expecta-tion 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 expecta-tion 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 ut-terly 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 unavoid-able 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-produc-ing 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 func-tions 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', Retreathttp://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/professionalism.htm)

DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE [443]

“In their reflection of these principles, the courts have also indicated fre-quently 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 deter-mining 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 inter-est if the participants and the public generally have grounds for be-lieving 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



http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/professionalism.htm


the common law that it applies to all those who fulfill judicial func-tions and it is not excluded by inference. See: L’Alliance des Pro-fesseurs 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 VACCUME1) 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 plaintiffwishes 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.



https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2013/2013hrto2006/2013hrto2006.html






[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)


“[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.”



“[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.


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;





“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.”


[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.

Friday, December 11, 2015

_____________________________Wayne FERRON(Informant/APPLICANT)

[email protected]

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.




TOHRTO – Registrar Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario655 Bay Street, 14th floorToronto, ON M7A 2A3Phone: 416-326-1519Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322Fax: 416-326-2199Email: [email protected]

AND TO:

John GerretsenThe Attorney General of OntarioCRIMINAL LAW BRANCH11th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:Gail HughMINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERALSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICECOURT REPORTER'S OFFICE(TORONTO REGION)361 University Queen AvenueRoom 310Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1T3

Tel: 416 327 5565

Fax: 416 327 5886




AND TO:GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMYThe Salvation Army2 Overlea Blvd.Toronto ON M4H 1P4Phone: 416.467.3366Fax: 416.422.6157E-mail: [email protected]

AND TO:Sandra TherouldeThe Clerk of the Court--Registrar

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIOOsgoode Hall130 Queen Street WestToronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5Tel: 416 327 5020Fax: 416 327 6032

AND TO:

Richard HennessyHRTO – Registrar 655 Bay Street, 14th floorToronto, ON M7A 2A3Phone: 416-326-1519

AND TO:

THE HONOURABLE MADELEINE MEILLEURThe Attorney General of Ontario720 Bay Street, 11th flrToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:



mailto:[email protected]

tel:416.422.6157

tel:416.467.3366


THE HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSENMINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL720 Bay Street, 11th flrToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARDToronto Police Service 40 College Street Toronto, ON M5G 2J3 Canada

Telephone (+1) 416-808-2222

AND TO:

MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERALThe Attorney General of Ontario720 Bay Street, 11 flrToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLPScotia Plaza Tower, 40 King St W, Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4Phone:(416) 367-6000

AND TO:

PEEL POLICE SERVICE BOARD

Peel Regional Police7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton, ON, L6V 3W6

(905) 453-3311



tel:9054533311

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&daddr=7750+Hurontario+Street,+Brampton,+Ontario

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&daddr=7750+Hurontario+Street,+Brampton,+Ontario


AND TO:

KATHERINE KIRKPATRICKBORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLPScotia Plaza Tower, 40 King St W, Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4Phone:(416) 367-6000

AND TO:

POLICE CHIEFT BILL BLAIRTORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARDToronto Police Service 40 College Street Toronto, ON M5G 2J3 Canada

Telephone (+1) 416-808-2222

AND TO:

DEBORAH KRICKThe Attorney General of OntarioCRIMINAL LAW BRANCH6th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 416 326 4015

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Wednesday, December-09-2015




_____________________________Wayne FERRON(Informant/APPLICANT)

HOMELESS VAGABOND



[email protected]

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.

TOHRTO – Registrar Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario655 Bay Street, 14th floorToronto, ON M7A 2A3Phone: 416-326-1519




Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322Fax: 416-326-2199Email: [email protected]

AND TO:TORONTO POLICE SERVICES/Officer Green(10235)13 Division

E - mail 13 Division 1435 Eglinton Av. W., Toronto, ON, M6C 3Z4Phone: 416-808-1300Fax: 416-808-1302 Email: [email protected]

Unit Commander: Superintendent Scott Baptist2nd in Charge: Inspector Anil AnandCommunity 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



http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/directory/mail.php?id=396






Paramountcy (Canada)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSee 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 doctrineParamountcy 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 in-consistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and federal legisla-tion, 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.

HistoryThe 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]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#cite_note-3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Murray,_1st_Viscount_Dunedin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Prohibition_Case



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Major

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#Further_reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#Significant_cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#See_also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#Nature_of_the_doctrine


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_constitutional_law


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_aspect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pith_and_substance


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

References1. Rothmans, par. 112. COPA, par. 643. Colvin 1979 , p. 884. 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)



http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1960/1960canlii70/1960canlii70.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Grady_v._Sparling


http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1906/1906_72.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1896/1896_20.html



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)#CITEREFColvin1979

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_109_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_British_Columbia_v._Mangat


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Access_v._McCutcheon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires


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,





http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc39/2010scc39.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_(Attorney_General)_v._Canadian_Owners_and_Pilots_Association





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Access_Ltd._v._McCutcheon


“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





http://seanbawden.blogspot.com/2013/04/workplace-harassment-complaints-and.html

http://seanbawden.blogspot.com/2013/04/workplace-harassment-complaints-and.html





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 ActR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22

Disposition without hearing4.1If 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 hearing4.6(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 representation10. A party to a proceeding may be represented by a representative. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (3).

Examination of witnesses10.1A 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 representation11. (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).

Summonses12. (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 CodeR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19PART IFREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Services1. 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.

Accommodation2. (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








http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s22/latest/rso-1990-c-s22.html#sec12subsec1_smooth

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s22/latest/rso-1990-c-s22.html






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 .


Constructive discrimination11. (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 association12. 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 discriminate13. (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 applications40. 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 rules41. 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 Act42. (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 rules43. (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.




http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s22/latest/rso-1990-c-s22.html#sec32_smooth








Penalty46.2 (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.


Complaints before Commission on effective date53. (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-

MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ET. AL.



http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f31/latest/rso-1990-c-f31.html


HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNALPROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario655 Bay Street, 14th floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519___________________________

AMENDEDNO ACCESS TO JUSTICE!

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 FERRONVAGABOND

[email protected]

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 .

