INNOCENCE: AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT (WAYNE FERRON) - COA file# C51190

Form 4D

Pursuant to rule 32

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

affidavit

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

- and -

WAYNE FERRON Applicant

affidavit of applicant

(Wayne Ferron)

I, Wayne D. FERRON, of the City of Mississauga, in the Regional Municipality of Peel, MAKE OATH AND SAY:

[1] INNOCENCE:

I state here formally. I have been diligent as is humanly possibly in obeying the laws of the land for as far back as I can remember and as long as I can remember. My criminal history and record speaks for itself. I declare here formally.

[2] I never have nor do I knowing or willfully intend to engage in criminal activity.

[3] I never have nor do I knowing or willfully intend to defile my body with illegal drugs through consumption, injection or inhalation.

[4] I never have nor do I knowing or willfully intend to drink and drive.

[5] I state here officially, that I have never even seen cocaine or crack cocaine with my physical eyes, let-alone consumed it. My disclosed urine analysis exam (Drug Test) to the Crown speak for itself; in addition to my resent drug screening test done on the two vials of blood which was taken from me without my permission at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, should confirm and affirm my none drug use status.

[6] If my driving was not normal on the time and location in question as the complainant alleges; I did not knowingly or willfully intend to drive in the allege manner. Given that the complainant has been coloured by Officers involved in the GO 2007-70285, the complainant has lied under oath in a court of law and did not believe at the time that I, a Canadian from African decent belonged to my own 98% caucasian neighborhood in addition to profiling me as having bad intentions or in his own words; “up to no good.”

[7] How can I reasonable and justifiable base any admission on his testimony. All I can say is the truth and my obligation to the Administration of justice is to be truthful as humanly possible in my given evidence; which is, I don’t recall the allege action at that time. Anything else would be a fabrication or hypothetical or hearsay from other sources which doesnot constitute reasonable personal belief. The duty which lies on the accuse; is to be as truthful as is reasonable possible. I have done this. Therefore, I have done my duty for the administration of justice.

[8] The complainant did cause me to have reasonable fear and deep concerns for the safety and life of my four beloved baby girls and wife through uninformed persistence observation from the shadows and following of my person from place to place to place and so on and so forth, until I was stopped by D303; an unmarked Police Vehicle (gray or charcoal Grand Am) which drove at a high rate of speed without it emergency light for most of the time. I took actions, which I thought at that time was reasonable to obtain my objectives; to remove a possible danger from my beloved family; to identify the unknown stranger; to obtain evidence with minimum infringement on the rights of others. This I saw as my duty, as a reasonable prudent cautious father and husband. Besides, one cannot file charges without supporting evidence.

[9] The complainant never advised or attempted to inform me of any contravention of the Highway Traffic Act, any violations of the Criminal Code of Canada, broken bylaws or legislative statues.

[10] The complainant never advised or attempted to inform me concerning who he was, what authority or jurisdiction he had over my person, or even at the minimum his concerns and personal intentions during his unwanted pursuit and fear inducing observation of my person. How is any one reasonable expect me to know the complainant and his hidden objective.

[11] The complainant never advised or attempted to advised me of who he was speaking to on the phone while driving at a high rate of speed exceeding the speed limit or why he was following me or what he was doing in my 97% caucasian neighbourhood.

[12] Moreover, the complainant never stated any outstanding business he had with me or the nature of the said business.

[13] I at no time on the 27^th of March 2007 and the 28^th of March 2007; tried to or attempt to knowingly or willfully flee an Officer or Officers of the Law while in service of Her Majesty the Queen. But instead tried to lead a strange, suspicious person who was acting in a threatening manner, by observing my work vehicle and family’s residence from the shadows; in addition to following me from place to place to place and so on and so forth. The complainant, whom within my mind and with very limited information at the time, intention was in question; pose a possible eminent danger to my four beloved baby girls and wife. I am not a high risk taker, when it is concerning my beloved families life, liberty, security and the pursuit of happiness;

[14] It was the aforementioned unidentifiable stranger which I tried to lead away from my family and home; which I refer to as the “nest”. This is my duty and responsible as a father.

[15] On 27^th and 28^th of March 2007 Officers did unnecessarily brutalize, assault/battery and unjustly pass judgement on me, by way of tortuous actions; even-though I was acting in the capacity of passivity; defame me, and slander my character. In addition to brutalizing me, prejudging me and giving false return on the process. The none-uniformed Officer which I had the first instance of contact with in the investigative stop; did verbally assault me when he made the statement concerning my person byway of descriptive, pre-judgmental offensive words to my person; “crack-head” and “asshole”; which has racial discrimination implications, human rights violation implications, civil rights rights violation implications, racial profiling implications and systemic racism implications; after having met me for the first time in his life during the his investigative stop and not having any personal knowledge of me or personal knowledge of any wrongful actions or act of omissions alleged against my person. Furthermore, he made his said determination with out the benefit of a DRE TEST, BREATHALYZER TEST, a reasonable prudent investigation or even simple speaking to the complainant before hand, while duly administering the application of my rights in the implementation of due process of law.

[16] On 27^th and 28^th of March 2007, I did not raise a single molecule of air against any Officers to assault them nor one utterance of profanity or disrespect relevant government agents. I had taken on the mantle of passivity; during my investigative stop, uninformed detainment, uninformed arrest, uninformed incarceration and subsequent release. One would have to be a fool,scared crazy or made irrational by way of illicit drugs, not to be passive; when surrounded by at least 5 armed, extremely excitable officer who believe wrongly that they were in a high speed chase; after a, “male black in is thirties wearing glasses and look clean cut” and is “up to no good”, was my given description by the complainant, a person who has reside in Georgina four years less than I. Which was excepted and acted upon without question from the York Regional Police Services. Hence, this is more than likely the reasons for the said Officers unproven “CRACK COCAINE” theory or mentally diseased person theory or whatever the case may be in Officers adverse inferences; which was acted upon and continued by PROBATION AND PAROLE under the guise of DRUGS/ALCOHOL ASSESSMENT, without articulated reasons or justification for conducting such a test; and Probation and Parole attempt to imprison my person(Information No.: 09-14407), for 15 days for not seeing there in house psychiatrist for undisclosed articulated reasons or secret reasons. This profile was most recently alluded to during my unlawful imprisonment at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, in the Mental Intensive Care Unit for 14 days; while under arrest by the Peel Regional Police.

[17] While I was incarcerated, in the custody and care of York Regional Police Services. I WAS BLINDED and traumatized for all practical purposes. This was the result of unnecessary, uncertified and unqualified dangerous use of OC-spray; and brutalization by at least 5 armed police officers. It is utterly ridiculous for the Officers to expect a temporarily blinded and traumatized person to know exactly what is in a holding cell and location of services and accessibility to health/safety facilities. This is readily apparent when the Officers state that I refused to wash out my eyes while in a state of temporary blindness.

[18] I was denied a requested drugs test on the 28^th of March 2007, even tough I asked for one to be performed to prove my innocence on more than one occasion.

[19] It is strange and suspicious, that the complainant had formed opinions and rendered personal judgement after seeing me; but still not knowing me or knowing of me. Moreover, it is stranger still that Officers even after not personally witnessing any contravention of the HIGH WAY TRAFFIC ACT, Criminal Code of Canada, bylaws or any legislative statues by my person; did not request of me to exit my vehicle, nor were they trying to enter my vehicle, asper there testimonies in court; had absolutely no apparent aversion in forming there predetermined opinions, determinations conclusions about my person.

[20] In my humble opinion, I find it strange and disturbing that the conversation between the three officers, (the officer in charge and his partner and the third officer, who was the acting sergeant), and the complainant had element of alleged suspect resistance.

[21] I never tried to leave the area without Officer’s permission during my 20 minutes uninformed detainment, during my uninformed warrantless arrest for allege summary violations or after my uninformed warrantless arrest.

[22] I though that the first order of reasonable logical action was to identify the possible threat, remove the possible danger away from my family, then obtain evidence. No filing of information can proceed successfully without evidence. A stranger(complainant), followed me from place to place to place and so on and so forth; out of my neighbourhood and towards a location which had outside video security cameras.

[23] There were five officers; and not one of them had time to take a statement from the complainant, even though I was detained on location for about twenty minutes during the investigative stop. They had time to verbally assault me by calling me “crack head”, “asshole” and to inquire “what I was doing in the Georgina area”, even though I have live in this area for four more years than the complainant.

[24] They have time to talk and joke about there suits.

They have time to call rogers in the hope of getting me fired; in my humble opinion.

They have time to walk back and forth to my vehicle for about 20 minutes, for only God knows how many times.

They have time to do a visual search of the cab of my vehicle.

They have time to shine their bright flashlight into my eyes, causing me pain.

They have time to assault/batter me by slapping my hat off my head. They have time to feed the complainant false information concerning me refusing to exit my vehicle; when it is against York Regional Police protocol for me to exit the vehicle without a Police Officer’s direction; this would have been justification for the use of deadly force. Three senior Officer in rank, has time to taint and colour the complainant’s testimony.

[25] All five Police Officer had time to detain and watch the accused doing “nothing” for twenty minutes. But not one Police Officer! Not one Officer has time to take a statement from the complainant while the information was fresh in his mind. Not one Officer within the twenty minutes of detainment had time to inform me of my Rights in a meaningful way and to execute the same Rights without delay within the meaning of section 10 of the Charter of Rights. Not one Officer out of the five!

[26] The Officers official given reason for the aforementioned action or act of omissions; Is they were too busy with me or they needed every Officer to control me or Cause they didn’t need to? Supposable, busy with me doing nothing. Please forgive me, If I have problems understanding how the aforementioned actions translated into a professional Police investigation of reasonable prudent cautious Law Enforcement agents?

[27] PROSECUTION/ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTING:

The foundation for evidence, judicial records and accounting of materials for the proper administration of my criminal matter(C51190) is wanting; it is my reasonable belief and I do indeed belief that the basis for the Crowns prosecution is wanting and in question. All I have ever wanted is a fair and impartial trial to show my innocence or for the Crown to prove their allegations and the criminal profile they have forced upon my person.

[28] On March 30, 2007, a “WARRANT FOR AREST WITH OPTIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER A DWELLING HOUSE”(please see exhibit C4), was issued with discretion against my person by the honourable Justice A. Forfar, for failure to re-attend court# 200 on the 30th day of March 2007 at 9:00 a.m.. The aforementioned, is contrary to the fact that I was in the same court on the same day from about 9:00A.M. to about 4:30 P.M. Even my wife was in court on the same day in the same court room in the morning. I unknowingly left without being adjourned or dismissed or whatever the case may be, because everyone in the said court room 200 had left up to and including the Courtroom 200 staff. The last Bus leaving Newmarket to Keswick was at about 5:30 P.M. if I was going to successfully make it home to my beloved children; I desperately needed to catch the said bus to get home, given that I was walking to the bus stop. There is about four buses a day between the two Towns in 2007. I now know why there was a Police squad Car parked outside my home in Keswick everyday for about two weeks.

[29] ACCESS TO THE TRUTH/VANISHED ORIGINAL EVIDENCE LIST:

There is gross negligence in the accounting of Court Material(07-02559), from Newmarket Courthouse to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. The original EXHIBIT LIST(07-02559) cannot be found at the Newmarket Courthouse or the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO(Records), it has simply vanished; there is no account of Court Materials(07-02559), transferred to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR OTARIO(Records), the MATERIAL TRANSFER LIST is simple blank with a statement to refer to the EXHIBIT LIST(07-02559), the original of which has been lost and cannot be found. So, there is no way to know if any material has been misplaced or is missing or if all court material is accounted for. This is in addition to Exhibit 2 being mislabeled and another Exhibit going missing or there has been a failure to include it on EXHIBIT LIST(07-02559)(please see exhibit N2, N3, N4, N5, and N6).

[30] My contact person at Newmarket Courthouse is Lisa Stock(A/Supervisor of Court Operations Criminal Court Services). Court materials for file 07-02559 was transferred on Nov 5, 2009 from the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE to the COURT OF APPEAL. There was a TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT(S. 2605) faxed on November 09, 2011 at 16:42 for MATERIAL/EXHIBITS for file# 07-02559.

[31] On the 5th of November 2009 NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, Superior Court of Justice, Criminal Court Office, Huguette Thomson of THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, sent all the necessary court documents(File# 4911 998 07 02559 00), that was requested for the Appeal(C51190).

[32] On the 9th of November 2009 there was a TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT, for the same released information. Kristen Smith from NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, released the original EXHIBITS to THE COURT OF APPEAL. The original documentation accounting the court transferred materials is completely blank with the exception of file numbers, dates and signatures. When I asked on more than one occasion why the “MATERIAL/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST” is blank at both the Newmarket Courthouse and the Records of the Court of Appeal, no one helping in the care of the relevant court material could answer me. I further inquired as to how anyone would be able to tell if court materials was missing or added to with a blank “MATERIAL/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST”, no relevant person could give me an answer; this is a very week and questionable area in the Criminal Process with in the context of my matter(please see EXHIBIT N5).

[33] There is no original document for EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02599), at the Newmarket Courthouse or the COURT OF APPEAL(Records); at least none could be found upon my many request in writing and verbally. The Certified copy of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02599), the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar issued to my person on April 12, 2011 is a certified copy of an uncertified-photo-copy(none original), of a missing original Court document; it should be self-evident that this is fraud, but the relevant Court did the said action anyway with the permission of her superior (please see EXHIBIT N2).

[34] On the 15th of May 2009, after my patients was exhausted from repetitively asking the Crown for a certified copy of the EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559) for many months, I personally went and requested a copy of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02599), from MS. CHRISTINE RUSSO -- EXHIBIT CLERK; she disclosed a copy of the same document to my person and she stamped it, the 15th of May 2007 with red ink upon my for request, it should be 2009. The 15th of May 2009, is the date Ms. Russo disclosed to me a copy of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL (07-02559), in accordance with my reasonable belief and personal knowledge (please see EXHIBIT N2).

[35] On the 22nd of February 2011, I served on the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar a REQUISITION(07-02500/07-02559), for typed copies of COURT ORDERS AND ENDORSEMENTS in addition to two certified copies of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559); there was a failure to complete my requisition.

[36] On the 7th of April 2011, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a REQUISITION TO REGISTRAR FOR ITEMIZED LIST OF MATERIAL FROM LOWER COURTS(C51190).

[37] On the 12th of April 2011, I served on the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar a REQUISITION(07-02500/07-02559), for typed copies of COURT ORDERS AND ENDORSEMENTS in addition to two certified copies of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559), the prosecution’s REASONABLE PROSPECT OF CONVICTION(07-02500) for March 28, 2007, and the prosecution’s REASONABLE PROSPECT OF CONVICTION(07-02559) for March 28, 2007; in order to aid the Newmarket Registrar and make things easier for them, I included in the requisition a copy of all the COURT ORDERS AND ENDORSEMENTS I was requesting to be typed. What use, significance or purpose does Court Orders and Judges Endorsements have, if one cannot read them or implement their directions? What importance is placed upon Judges decisions and their corresponding orders when the Registrar from the same Court refuse or fail to produce legible copies of the said Court materials on more than one occasion?

[38] I further insisted on the completion of my said requisition and strongly argued on the important of my request to the fairness and proper legal administration to my Appeal at the COURT OF APPEAL(C51190) in addition to having the application of my rights administered to. Upon the refusal to complete my Requisition, I verbally notified the registrar that I will be forced to try to obtain legible endorsements byway of the FREEDOM AND INFORMATION ACT, but there is no jurisdiction under this said act with respect to the Courts. This is when Lisa Stock(A/Supervisor of Court Operations Criminal Court Services), of the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar, gave me her contact information and told me to “go ahead!” As though the aforementioned questionable actions was legally and morally justified.

[39] In the face of the blatant refusal of the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CENTRAL EAST), REGISTRAR TO TRANSCRIBE(TYPE), unreadable ENDORSEMENT of the same Court; the Crown Attorney General(Madam Kim Twohig )served on my person and filed at the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CENTRAL WEST), unofficial typed copies of The Honourable Justice Boswell’s endorsements. Furthermore, Crown’s counsel(Mr. Matthew Asma), has filed typed version of Justice Boswell’s Endorsement(07-02559, in APEAL BOOK(C51190). How and where the said typed copies of Justice Boswell’s ruling was produce I don’t know, but I am denied access to the same quality of documents upon formal request. In accordance with my personal knowledge, and my reasonable belief, and I do believe that I am being denied fairness and due process.

[40] UNILATERALLY PRODUCED APPEAL BOOK:

According to Crown’s counsels at the Newmarket Courthouse concerning the my Appeal as of right to the SUPERIOR COURT;

← “Absent a timely filing of the necessary transcripts the Crown position on June 1, 2009 will be that the appeal be dismissed.”

(Doug Kasko, Letter from the Assistant Crown Attorney)

[41] On the 6th of November 2009, Riun Shandler, Inmate Appeals Administrator, sent a response to my person concerning my Appeal to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO (C 51190);

← “Your non-inmate in person Notice of Appeal was filed at the Court of Ap-

← peal on November 2nd, 2009. I hope this letter will assist you in the prepa-

← ration of your appeal.

←

← As an appellant representing yourself in this appeal, you are required to

← perfect your appeal in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Rules.

← You are required to file full transcripts (except those items

← set out in Rule 8(8)). You are required to file an Appeal Book

← and an Appellant’s factum. Three copies of each must be filed at the Court of Appeal and one Copy must be served on our office before this appeal will be listed for hearing.

←

← At the time your Notice of Appeal was filed, you were required to file a court reporter's certificate or, alternatively, proof that the transcripts have been ordered. If you have not done that, please do so as soon as possible and provide our office with a copy. If transcripts are not ordered in a timely fashion, the Crown may seek to have this appeal dismissed.

←

← If for any reason you wish to abandon this appeal, please fill out a Notice of Abandonment, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Please sign it in the presence of your probation officer or your lawyer and mail it to the Court of Appeal. Please ask you probation officer or lawyer to fax a copy to me immediately to close your file.”

←

(Riun Shandler, Letter from the Ministry of The Attorney General, Crown Law Office, Inmate Appeals Administrator)

[42] The Crown’s initial position was to question weather the appearances was recorded and if Transcripts could be produced for the hearings. Moreover, Crown’s counsels incorrectly believed without an investigation that the hearings in question were not recorded. This was discussed in detailed in the Motion for Direction Application (M38387), on the 27th of January 2010, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[43] On the 12th of December 2009, the I went to the Newmarket Court House, and ordered all the necessary Transcripts I was requesting. But, I could not pay for them. (Please see Tab 2, MANDAMUS MOTION RECORD(C51190), page 1 to 29)

[44] I made copies of all 29 “ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPTS-NEWMARKET” order forms, bundled it under tab 31 in my AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAP OR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(C51190), then served and filed it on the 18th of January 2010.

[45] This simple action, which is documented fact which can be confirmed by the Newmarket Court Reporters, renders the Crown’s initial position on availability of Transcripts on the 27th of January 2010, to be irrelevant. Since the Applicant demonstrated in a practical way there availability.

[46] The Crown’s initial position on the production of the Transcripts, was that it would take a long time, for the location and transcription of all the Transcripts being requested by the Applicant. Moreover, the Crown incorrectly believed without investigation, that the identification, transcription of recordings and production of Transcripts would take up to two years.

[47] The Crown’s initial position on availability, was to question weather the appearances was recorded and if Transcripts could be produced for the hearings. Moreover, the crown incorrectly believed without and investigation that the hearings in question were not recorded. This was discussed in detailed Motion for Direction Application (M38387), on the 27th of January 2010, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[48] On the 12th of December 2009, the I went to Newmarket Court House, and ordered all the necessary Transcripts I was requesting. But, could not pay for them. (see Tab 2, MANDAMUS MOTION RECORD, page 1 to 29)

[49] Furthermore, I made copies of all 29 “ORDER FORMS FOR TRANSCRIPTS-NEWMARKET” order forms, bundled it under tab 31 in his AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(C51190), then served and filed it on the 18th of January 2010.

[50] This simple action, which is documented fact which can be confirmed by the Newmarket Court Reporters renders the Crown’s initial position on availability and production of Transcripts on the 27th of January 2010, to be irrelevant. Since I demonstrated in a practical way there availability.

[51] The Crown’s initial position on the production of the Transcripts, was that it would take a long time, for the location and transcription of all the Transcripts being requested by my person. Moreover, the Crown incorrectly believed without investigation, that the identification, transcription of recordings and production of Transcripts would take up to two years.

[52] I notified the Court Reporter’s of his Motion for Direction to request the Crown pay for the production of the Transcripts because I was financially handicap by my financial destitution. For example, one of the court reporter’s response on Jan 18 & 25, 2010 byway of email;

← “Dear Mr. Ferron,

← I had left a message for you on January 8th regarding the amount of appeal transcripts being $607.50. I asked for confirmation of your request and I would like to again ask for your conformation.”

←

← “ {...} I trust that you will let me know the result and I will invoice the party responsible for payment. I assure you that the transcripts are available as soon as payment can be arranged”

←

(Tab 3, MOTION RECORD(M38706), page 1 and 2)

[53] The other court reporters responded in a similar fashion. This can be confirmed by calling the court reporters to give evidence. This should lay to rest the length of time it would take to produce Transcripts of hearings at the Newmarket court house.

[54] Again the simple action of ordering the relevant Transcripts, which is documented fact which can be confirmed by the Newmarket Court Reporters renders the Crown’s initial position on availability production time of about two years for Transcripts, on the 27th of January 2010, to be irrelevant. Since the I demonstrated in a practical way there availability and inferred the short time line for there production.

[55] On the 27th of January 2010, the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, heard the my Motion for Direction Application (M38387), with Ms. Joanne Stuart as Crown’s Counsel. The Presiding Justice ordered the Crown to pay for, file and serve all the necessary Transcripts in addition to the Book Of Appeal(C51190).

[56] I also requested in my MOTION FOR DIRECTION (M38387), application, a court appointed, CASE MANAGEMENT OFFICER, to oversee and prudently manage the Appeal. I felt that this would optimize the efficiency of the Appeal process and the use of scarce court resources, while avoiding the abuses of the process I experience first hand at Newmarket Courthouse. Which would go a far way in insuring a fair and equitable Appeal or access to the ends of justice. For some reason this was not implemented!

[57] On April 9, 2010 I filed and served NOTICE OF MOTION (M38706), returnable on the 30th of April, 2010, while Ms. Joanne Stuart was still Crown’s Counsel.

[58] My MOTION FACTUM (M38706), MOTION ARGUMENTS (M38706) and MOTION RECORD (M38706), returnable on the 30th of April, 2010, was filed and served on April 29, 2010.

[59] Myself and the Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart), agreed to adjourn MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706 for two weeks, off the record, to give the Crown time to review the material. The Crown initially wanted an indefinite adjournment, but I reconsidered this option to not be useful and unreasonable and later settled for two weeks adjournment which was more than reasonable.

[60] On April 29, 2010, I observed a male associate of Ms. Joanne Stuart, whom I had met earlier with Ms. Joanne Stuart, at the Ministry of The Attorney General’s Office.

[61] The aforementioned person, Ms. Joanne Stuart’s, male associate was filing a copy of the APPLICANT’S FACTUM(C51190), which she previously indicated was an extra copy from the Federal or Canadian Attorney General’s Office.

[62] The filing of the APPLICANT’S FACTUM with attention to a single judge, to help in perfecting the Appeal. The APPLICANT’S FACTUM was longer than the approved length and not double space, so it needed the approval of a presiding judge.

[63] My APPLICANT’S FACTUM(C51190), was served on the 17th of March 2010 on the Federal and Provincial Crown’s Office; the said APPLICANT’S FACTUM(C51190), was refused on the corresponding date at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL for technical reasons.

[64] On the 14th of May, 2010 MOTION (M38706) Hearing, With Ms. Joanne Stuart for Crown Counsel:

The presiding justice did not have access to the following documents;

the Applicant’s MOTION RECORD (M38706) which was filed;

the Applicant’s MOTION FACTUM (M38706) which was filed;

the Applicant's MOTION ARGUMENTS (M38706) which was filed;

the APPLICANT’S FACTUM which the male associate of Joanne Stuart, appeared to have filed for the Crown. It is my reasonable belief and I do believe in conjunction with the factual evidence that the 14th of May, 2010 is the date which the Crown started to ordered the necessary documentation required for perfecting the Appeal. This is about four months after Her Worship, Justice Gillese J. A. endorsed M38387(C51190). My effort in the restitution of my life has been impeded by the continual delay in the perfection of the Appeal(please see EXHIBIT Q1).

[65] The hearing was partially conducted with the Crown’s and my copy of the materials filed for the hearing. I do not know what to say about missing filed court documents for M38706 hearing, other than they were missing at the hearing and the presiding justice did not have privy to them for the conducting of the same hearing.

[66] The said MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE(M38706), for C51190 was adjourned without a returnable date. In short, it was indefinitely adjourned. Which is what the Crown originally wanted, off the record in its private discussions with my person. Even though the Crown only started work on the same day M38706 was hear (please see EXHIBIT Q2).

[67] Moreover, MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE(M38706) was indefinitely adjourned without the disclosing of outstanding disclosure owed to the my person and denied by the respective Crowns throughout 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in violation of the Crowns Directive, FEDERAL PROSECUTORS DESKBOOK, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS article 14 fair trial rights and the Charter(please see EXHIBIT R1).

[68] The Crown’s counsel, Ms. Joanne Stuart reminded the presiding, COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 27th August 2010, the honourable Justice David Watt that she was in a car accident in July. This was important information concerning the progress of the perfection of the Appeal. I was not disclosed this information nor did I have privy to it, I over heard it in court while Ms. Joanne Stuart was reminding the Honourable Justice David Watt of the unfortunate event. She stated some what to this effect, at a location of about half way to the back on the right hand side of the court room;

← “ remember my car accident”

[69] The court was given material proof, (Motion Record for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M38706)), and advised of Ms. Joanne Stuart improper action concerning her handling of my freedom of Information request for official copies of the Attorney General’s Directive and the 500 page Martin Report. Ms. Joanne Stuart advised the court that she returned the my $5.00 check; she later apologized in a letter for asserting this false information as fact in court. She use her undisclosed car accident to my person as justification for what she alleges to be a mistake. It should be noted that she relay the aforementioned information from the right side at the middle of the court room instead of the usually location lawyer use to address the court, in front of the bench.

[70] The important issue here is the Crown attorney, (Ms. Joanne Stuart), exceeded her authority by not forwarding the freedom of information request to the “HEAD” of the relevant Government institution. Then she later returned the $5.00 check, after I advised her that the freedom of information request was directed to the “ HEAD” and not to her.

[71] Furthermore, the Ministry of The Attorney General’s Office advised the Information and Privacy Commission that they never received the said information request and I was forced to file another information request with a new $5.00 fee, which in essence gave the Government Institution an additional 30 days, even though the failure to process the initial freedom of information request was no fault of my own. I was even forced to pay $25.00 for my appeal to the IPC against the Crown’s Office, instead of the $10.00 fee for the first stage; since the actionable wrong against the my person made it seem as though the said Information and Privacy Commission appeal was at it second stage.

[72] This in my reasonable belief, cause damage to my credibility and diminished my integrity, and increase my cost for the IPC Appeal; which caused further delay, caused unnecessary aggravation of my person and impeded the disclosure of the said information request which is crucial to furthering my arguments at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[73] It is my reasonable belief and I do believe, that it was in this context which the presiding justice for the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO was lead into granting the request of the Crown, represented by Ms. Joanne Stuart, while dismissing my Applicant’s, Motion for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M38706) returnable on the 27th of August 2010. In addition, my matter being unilaterally placed into the inmate appeal Court with out my consent or personal input, while Ms. Joanne was misleading the Court with false information on a contested issue.

← R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190)

← Gillese J.A.

←

← January 22, 2010

← {...}

← 3. Mr. Ferron is free to argue at the oral hearing of the motion for leave to appeal that he wishes further transcripts. It is for the judge hearing the motion to determine whether such additional transcripts are necessary.

←

← The Crown has suggested that Mr. Ferron may wish to have this matter dealt with similarly to an inmate appeal as this would give him access to duty counsel, among other things. If Mr. Ferron chooses to follow this route, he is to advise the Crown and together with the Crown, arrange to have this matter transferred to a in-person appeal court to be spoken to.

(Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

[74] Furthermore, the outstanding Motion, MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE (M38706) with a returnable date 14th May 2010, for further disclosure and to resolve outstanding disclosure issues and was adjourned indefinitely was never addressed on the 27th of August 2010. Yet I was later advised on the 7th of April 2011 by a Clerk of the Court of Appeal Registrar, in no uncertain terms, that Motion (M38706) was closed by the Honourable Justice David Watt on the 27th of August 2010. Moreover, Madam Deputy Registrar called me in her office after the same Clerk advised her of the recently discovered said discrepancy and confirmed the same Clerk’s findings along with her college(another appeal hearing scheduling Clerk)(please see EXHIBIT W2).

← “R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

← David Watt J.A.

←

← August 27, 2010

←

← This application seeks relief that this court is not authorized to grant. It is

← dismissed. This application for leave to appeal should be transferred to the inmate/in person list to ensure ongoing supervision. The respondent will provide copies of transcripts already prepared to the applicant.”

(David Watt J.A., August 27, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[75] On the 31st of August 2010, the I received 7 Transcripts, 1 letter and 1 check N0.: 336770 (IPC). The 7 Transcripts were copies of the 7 Transcripts ordered from NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, from the respective court reporters.

[76] Some of the Transcripts were completed in less than one week and in the Crown’s possession for about 3 months; I letter explaining the mistake of asserting false information in court, concerning the returning of the $5.00 check in question; 1 check N0.: 336770, the falsely assumed returned check in question.

[77] This was the totality of work completed by the Crown between 27th of January 2010 and 31st of August 2010 in completing the Crown’s duties assigned by the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, byway of the presiding justice endorsement of the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M38387) for the perfection of the Criminal Appeal.

[78] I had to request four times using the following written format below before I received an answer from the Crown’s Office;

← “RE: REGINA V. WAYNE FERRON, C51190

← I am in receipt of 7 transcripts, 1 letter and check N0.: 336770 (IPC);

← I am not in receipt of the 14 page summary;

← I am not in receipt of any further disclosure or progress report of outstanding disclosure;

← I need confirmation, that the totality of work completed on the matter before the court since January 27, 2009 are the items listed in (a);

← ___________________________________________________________

←

← Dear Madame Stuart;

←

← I am very sorry to hear about your accident in July, and I am exceedingly happy there were no major injuries. If this is not the case, I am not oppose to a change of Crown counsel if undisclosed events in the accident are acting as an impediment to fulfill your duties.

←

← I must proceed with due diligence in perfecting the appeal. My children are waiting on me to return to being there mother. I respectfully request confirmation that the items sent to me are the totality of work completed...”

←

[79] THE CROWN’S 9 MONTHS 22 PAGE PRUDENT INVESTIGATION:

After the aforementioned four request letter was sent to the Crown, I received from the Crown after 9 months, on the 15th of October 2010, the CROWN’S 22 page RESPONSE to Motion for Direction(M38387), returnable on the 27th of January 2010.

[80] This was not even one full business day before the said response was to be discussed before a presiding justice. The date set to be spoken to by COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO was the 18th of October 2010 at 10:00 AM in court room 10.

[81] According to the rules of criminal procedure, there need to be seven business days service of court material to the other party. The Crown would never accept service of material with a returnable date of less than seven days; and the Court would never accept material which service of materials which the Crown refuse for late services.

[82] Yet I, an unrepresented Applicant is expected to accept service of court-material with a returnable date of less than one business day(zero business days). Court material in the form of a 22 page Crown’s Response to Motion for Direction(M38387), returnable on the 27th of January 2010; wherein the Crown has been given about nine months to complete a prudent investigation of the facts. Furthermore, I was expected to be prepared to argue at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 18th October 2010 at 10:00 AM in court room 10, with in the context of the said Crown’s 22 page nine months Response (please see EXHIBIT R2).

[83] On the 18th of October 2010 before the Honourable Justice Laskin, I advised the Court that I received the 22 page Crown’s Response less than one business day prior and I was not in agreement with the Crown’s position in the same document. The Honourable presiding justice adjourned the the same matter to December 13, 2010.

On the 13th of December 2010, I was confused about what was being done and in what capacity whatever was being done was done; I inquire in vain in clear and concise language as to what capacity the Court was acting in, was it an administrative court or was it presiding over hearings, I already affirmed on the 18th of October 2010, before the Honourable Justice Laskin that I do not agree with the Crown’s position in there 22 page, 9 months investigative report. Typed version of handwritten endorsement;

← R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

← Laskin J.A.

←

← October 18, 2010

←

← Mr Ferron has the Crown’s position. This matter is adjourned to the TBST ...on Monday December 13, 2010. At that time Mr. Ferron should advises the court of any disagreement with the Crowns position.

(Laskin J.A., October 18, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190), This typed version is not official)

[84] In accordance with the honourable Justin Laskin order, I filed and served a 107 page responding document (RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE(C51190)), systematically detailing my disagreement and concerns with each point of the Crown’s position on the 06th of December 2010. I was careful to addressed all of the concerns of the Crown, every single indicated and labeled points of concern, in Ms. Joanne Stuart’s prudent 22 page, 9 months investigative report. I once again affirms that I do not agree with the Crowns position on Disclosure and Transcripts. Furthermore, I prudently addressed each of the issues on a case by case bases, giving detailed answers with citations when required in my 107 page response to the Crown’s 22 page report. On page 18 and 19 of my (RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTIONS AND DISCLOSURE(M38706), I quote Ms. Joanne Stuarts statement on agreements and its ramification articulated in her 22 page investigative report, and I then responded in no uncertain terms with my disagreement in clear and concise language;

“On January 27, 2010, you brought an application asking for the Crown to produce the Application Record/Appeal Book for you. Specifically, you asked for the Crown to obtain and pay for every transcript for every appearance you ever made at both levels of Court below in this matter. You also asked for several items of disclosure. Justice Gillese ordered the Crown to obtain the required transcripts in this matter and prepare the Application Record for your application for leave to appeal this summary conviction appeal decision. Justice Gillese asked that the Crown provide a written response summarizing your grounds of appeal and the Crown’s position in relation to your

requests for additional transcripts and disclosure. I note that the Application Record/Appeal Book can only be completed once the transcript issues are fully resolved.

The following contains

(a) a brief summary of the history of this matter,

(b) a summary of your proposed grounds of appeal,

(d) a summary of the disclosure issues you have raised in your materials and the respondent’s position regarding those disclosure issues.

If you and the Crown are unable to reach an agreement about disclosure issues and transcript issues that you have raised, a date will need to be set in Inmate/Tn-person Appeals Court (for self-represented individuals) to argue these issues before the Court of Appeal. If we are in agreement on all of these issues, the Crown will then be able to finalize the Application Record/Appeal Book, serve you with a copy of that Record, and file the Record with the Court. Once that is done, you will be able to proceed with your application for leave to appeal.

[47] (APPLICANT: The Applicant is not in agreement with the Crown’s position on Disclosure and Transcripts.)”

(RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTIONS AND DISCLOSURE(M38706), returnable on 13th October 2010, page 18, 19)

[85] ADJUDICATION ON APPLICATION TRANSCRIPTS/DISCLOSURE ISSUES:

The Honourable Justice MacPherson’s unilateral made a determination on the well known contested issue of Application Transcripts and outstanding disclosure owed to me from the lower Courts, without the benefit of a fair hearing, without taking into consideration my 107 page responding document to the Crown’s position or even considering the Crowns written articulated position duly stated as follows;

”If you and the Crown are unable to reach an agreement about disclosure issues and transcript issues that you have raised, a date will need to be set in Inmate/Tn-person Appeals Court (for self-represented individuals) to argue these issues before the Court of Appeal“;

[86] The Honourable Justice MacPherson failed to weigh the adversarial arguments in a legal scale, or even hear the said arguments in a fair hearing, because there was no hearing on the contested issue conducted. He executed his adjudication without the application of my legal rights being administered to or the application of natural justice being duly followed before and impartial tribunal;

R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

MacPherson J.A.

December 13, 2010

“The Crown is directed to prepare the appeal book which will include the evidence, rulings and submissions, plus the trial and summary conviction appeal decisions.

There is no need to prepare transcripts of other appearances.

The Crown is permitted to borrow the audio and video recordings that were exhibits at trial.

The appeal book is to be completed by January 15, 2010.

Adjourned to February 7, 2011 TBST, hopefully to set a date for the appeal hearing.”

(MacPherson J.A., December 13, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)

[87] I served on the Crown my response to the Crown’s 22 page response of a 9 months prudent investigation in the form of a 107 page document, RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS ANS DISCLOSURE (M38706), in which I clearly opposes all except one of the Crown’s positions.

[88] On December 13, 2010, the Honourable Justice MacPherson, rendered an order which opposed both the Crown’s and the Applicant’s written responses. Not one single issue of concern within my 107 page response was discussed in a meaningful way in open court, in the spirit of open persuasion and a remedy issued by the presiding Judge. This was done without the benefit of a fair and impartial hearing on a balance of probability.

[89] Proper rules of battle demands that fairness and equity be adhered to in an adversarial judicial system. The outstanding disclosure is needed, so that the I would be empowered to know the full extent of my criminal matter(07-02559); so that I can make informed decisions concerning my matter(C51190) before the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[90] To deny me the requested outstanding disclosure of right, and transcriptions for the constitutional question/criminal appeal; is to disarmed me in doing battle with a well armed and fully informed prosecution. The outcome of the criminal matter is being predetermined from the start of the battle. The outcome or the battlefield is being prepared to defeat my person. The Crown’s victory has been sealed at the expense of the Charter, assassinating Fair Trial Rights.

[91] Circumventing a hearing for determining outstanding disclosure and transcript issues only serves to disarm my person, a financially destitute Appellant and send me to do battle against a powerful prosecution. Victory is already been sealed for the Crown as the final nail is being hammered into my coffin. I reasonable believe and do believe, that this is a blatantly denial of natural justice and access to justice.

[92] APPEAL BOOK(C51190):

In my 107 page response to the Crown’s 22 page investigative report, I stated as follows;

““In relation to

March 30, 2007,

June 9, 2007 and

June 29, 2009, the records do not

reflect that you appeared in Court to speak to your matter on those dates.”

I concede that June 9, 2007 is an error on my part. However, your are contesting my account of events on March 30, 2007 and June 29, 2007 and you have forgotten to include March 28, 2007 appearance date (Bond Hearing). Have you forgotten that there is an abuse of Process Application will be overturned with a successful appeal. The Abuse of Process Application was partly base on the issues surrounding the drug charge. Furthermore, their is a violation of natural justice in another application related to Drugs/Alcohol testing which is related to the drug charges. There is also self-incrimination allegation to be argued within the context of the constitutional question.

Furthermore, I am alleging slanderous libel and perjury relating to the drug charges by Officer Stribbell.

Moreover, I am alleging systemic racism and racial profiling by Officer Burd in is characterization and utterance of “CRACK HEAD “ to my person, which brings in more Charter violation and Human Rights concerns. These accounts are all accounted for in my Factum which you have had for a very long time, since March 17, 2010 composing of 171 pages. You have not conceded to these facts. I humble asked that;

March 28, 2007,

March 30,

2007 and,

June 29, 2007

be disclosed. So that they can be used as real evidence and the excepted account of the events on these respective days not be hidden from the court.)

With respect to

May 11, 2007,

June 1, 2007, and

June 29, 2007,

you have indicated in your materials that you advised the Court on those dates that you could not afford counsel for trial. Your materials further indicate that on and June 1, 2009, the Court found that you not afford to produce the appeal record. It is not disputed that you could not afford counsel and, that you were self-represented at trial and on summary conviction appeal, and that you could not afford to produce the transcripts. In view of this factual agreement, it is the Crown’s position that it is not necessary to order these transcripts.

E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

With respect to the mislabelled exhibit, I gather that only the 911 recording was

intended to be entered as an exhibit at trial. This recording was played in court but that the dispatch call was inadvertently entered as that exhibit. It is my understanding that you wish for both pieces of evidence to be before the Court on your appeal. I propose to include in the Application Record/Appeal Book that the Crown is producing on your behalf for your Application for Leave to Appeal, (i) copies of the CD containing the 911 recording and the dispatch recording and (ii) the transcripts of these audio files that you had produced for the Summary Conviction Appeal. This will be marked in the index as Exhibit 2 but will clearly indicate for the Court that Exhibit 2 contains the 911 recording, which was intended to be entered into evidence at trial, and the dispatch recording, which appears to have been inadvertently entered into evidence at trial.

[65] (APPLICANT: You have just illustrated the importance of the court having access to the relative real evidence in the form of Trial Transcripts. You have had my Factum since March 17, 2010 composing of 171 pages and access to my information concerning the Bond Hearing. This is the reason why my Factum needs to be a long Factum and one reason I need all the requested Transcripts, to answer these type of questions in giving a full answer in accordance with section 7. of the Charter.

I cannot reasonably agree with your deduction and remedy in para 1. Doing what is being propose would change the dynamic of what happened at the Trial. Entering the transcripts of the two audio disk into the APPEAL BOOK in this manner would introduce errors in the history of what happened at the trial. This would pervert the events surrounding the exhibits.

What happened to the untimely disappearance of the crowns copy of the EXHIBITS. EXHIBITS which the Crown disclosed to the defence, and the defence filed as EXHIBITS? The Appeals were not filed late, there needs to be an accounting of the Crowns copy of these exhibits? The Crown is the guardian and stewart of these evidence which are the property of the public!

I was ordered by Justice Boswell to file and replace the Crown’s disclosure, which it had misplace or lost or was not able to retrieve. The Crown’s copies of evidence had vanished into thin air. The preservation evidence, securing of evidence and stewardship of evidence is the cross the Crown must bear. Yet I, an unrepresented none legal professional was expected to bear the Crown’s cross, and provide copies of evidence which a legal professional in a high public office was not able to do or incapable of doing.

I propose that the EXHIBITS be left the way they are, to maintain authenticity of the dynamic of the Trial and it process. I will give permission for the Crown to produce a Transcription of the Audio CD (exhibit 2) in the EXIBIT list. The said Transcription is to be entered into the Appeal Book under a different heading as Transcription of exhibit 2, the 911 Audio CD. I would also like an additional copy of the said transcription disclosed to me, for my personal preparation of my Appeal.

To complete the Application Record/Appeal Book, I note that the Court of Appeal has among the exhibits from your trial, a VHS tape (presumably the booking video) and a CD (presumably the recording of the 911 call and the dispatches). Unlike paper exhibits, the Court of Appeal for Ontario requires that we obtain a special order to review this evidence. It would make the process easier and faster if you consent to this request. The Crown requires your consent to release these exhibits for the Crown to review them and ensure that they are clearly noted and described in the Application Record/Appeal Book index as exhibits available for review by the Court. If you are willing to consent, please provide your consent in writing at your earliest convenience.

I will consent on the condition that I am given written articulated reason and justification of what happened to the Crown’s copy of these exhibits. What happened to the York Regional Police copy of these requested exhibits. Recall that these exhibits were copies of the Crown’s evidence disclosed to me. The Crown has been working on this matter for over nine months, why has it not been able to find and secure its copies of the exhibits. None of the Appeals were late so there is no reason for the Crows copy and the York Regional Police copies of the exhibits not to be preserved.

I also am requesting as a separate and independent request, to review the Mc Neil Package on-site in the Crown Attorney Office pursuant to the Attorney Generals Practice Memorandum, at your earliest convenience.) “

[93] The aforesaid taken from my written articulated response to the areas of concern in the Crown’s unilaterally produced APPEAL BOOK(C51190). Similarly in the 37 page response to the same APPEAL BOOK(C51190); titled APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE Crown authored appeal book(C51190)/initial version, returnable on a date on the 7th of February 2011, I articulated my concerns in writing to the Crown. The following is a short summary of my attempt too deal with the areas of concern in the same Appeal Book;

“[57] ERROR: The Applicant forgot to include June 29, 2009 as a Transcript Date and the majority of Appearance Transcripts(S.C.J.) are in-fact Application Transcripts(S.C.J.). Appearance Transcripts is the language the Crown was using to describe none Trial Transcripts and the Applicant adopted it.

[58] Amended Notice of Appeal (Jan. 18, 2010).................................33-52

Please include the full document.

[59] Information.................................................................................53-57

Information 07-02500 is missing. Please include information 07-02500.

Please include RECOGNIZANCE(07-02500).

[60] Appearances and Endorsements (S.C.J.).............................107-119

Please rename Appearances and Endorsements (S.C.J.), to Applications and Endorsements (S.C.J.).

Please include certified copies of all endorsements in the Appeal Book (C51190);

Please include typed copies of all endorsements in the Appeal Book (C51190), in the same manner that Justice Boswell’s endorsements are typed;

[61] (5) January 12, 2009, Application Transcript:

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DRIVING PROHIBITION, PURSUANT TO S. 261 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(07-02559).

Please include the full application in the Appeal Book(C51190) and not just one page.

[62] (6) April 06, 2009, Application Transcript:

STAY OF PROHIBITION APPLICATION FOR SUBJECTIVE DRUGS/ALCOHOL TESTING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION(07-02559)

Please include the full application in the Appeal Book(C51190).

[63] (7) May 04, 2009, Application Transcript:

MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS APPLICATION(07-02559)

Please include the full application in the Appeal Book(C51190)

[64] (9) July 20, 2009, Application Transcript;

APPLICATION TO FIX DATE FOR HEARING OF APPEAL(07-02559)

pursuant to Rule 8, Rule 19 and section 819.

Please include the full application in the Appeal Book(C51190)

[65] (10) July 27, 2009, Application Transcript;

APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559)

Please include the full application in the Appeal Book(C51190).

[66] Pursuant to Justice Bryant’s orders, the Applicant filed and served APPLICANT’S DISCLOSURE FOR INMATE APPEAL (07-02559), on July 21, 2009 in accordance with Rule 46. I respectfully ask that the said document be apart of the APPEAL BOOK (C51190).

[67] Pursuant to Justice Boswell’s orders, the Applicant filed and served APPLICANT’S DISCLOSURE TWO FOR INMATE APPEAL (07-02559), on July 24, 2009 to the Crown’s Office, and on July 25, 2009 to the Court Registrar in accordance with Rule 46. The Applicant respectfully ask that the said document be apart of the APPEAL BOOK (C51190)

[68] Order on Dismissal of Appeal (S.C.J).........................................126

1.1. This is the first time the Applicant has seen the order at issue. Please disclose an official copy of the Order on Dismissal of Appeal.

[69] EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559-00)..........................................127

This action is not forth coming and misleading. For this reason I humbly request;

that a certified copies of the EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559-00) be used to help maintain its authenticity;”

(APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE Crown authored appeal book(C51190)/initial version)

[94] The Honourable Justice MacPherson’s made a unilateral determination on the contested issues concerning the Appeal Book(C51190) without the benefit of a fair hearing

I filed and served a 37 page responding document (RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE(C51190)), systematically detailing my concerns with each area of concern in the APPEAL BOOK(C51190). I was careful to addressed all of the questionable areas of the same Appeal Book.

[95] On December 13, 2010, the Honourable Justice MacPherson, rendered an order which opposed both the Crown’s and my written responses. Not one single issue of concern within the my 37 page response was discussed in a meaningful way in open court, in the spirit of open persuasion and a remedy issued by the presiding ONTARIO APPEAL COURT Judge. This was done without the benefit of a fair and impartial hearing on a balance of probability. Even though the Crown’s written articulated position was;

“I note that the Application Record/Appeal Book can only be completed once the transcript issues are fully resolved.”

[96] The Honourable Justice MacPherson, once again failed to weigh the adversarial arguments in a legal scale, or even hear the said arguments in a fair hearing, because there was no hearing on the contested issues conducted. He executed his adjudication without the application of my legal rights being administered to or effect the application of natural justice and insure that it is being duly followed before and impartial tribunal;

R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

MacPherson J.A.

7 February 2011

“The appeal book prepared by the Crown is fine.

The appeal is adjourned to April 11, 2011 for adjournment of the appellant’ application for leave to appeal.

Mr. Ferron intends to argue the leave application without the assistance of duty counsel.”

(MacPherson J.A., February 7, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190) This typed version is not official)

[97] On February 7, 2009, I was called to be spoken to in the inmate Appeal Court. I advised the said Court that the January 18, 2008 Transcript was not certified and constituted theft by reading it’s copy right disclaimer out loud in open court as follows;

“Photocopies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the signature of Fiona Downer, and Accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario regulation 587/91 Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990.”

[98] I advised the Court that MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE(38702) was still outstanding. Furthermore, it was adjourned since May 14, 2010 and the disclosures at issue was promised to me by the lower Courts. I asked about, endorsement in regards to Motion(38706).

[99] The learned ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL justice, the Honourable Justice MacPherson advised my person that all he needed was the present(7 Feb 2011) Court Order; there was no need for Further disclosure and further Transcripts and the same COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICE, asserted that;

“ I was not going to get anything else.”

[100] The presiding Justice made is order and asked if I would be using the Duty Counsel or representing myself. I said, I will be representing myself. Justice MacPherson, perfected the Appeal without any regard for Rights and Freedoms of the Court reporters or authenticity or certification of the real evidence or the establishment of a sound foundation of real evidence the Appeal was to rely on.

[101] The Honourable Justice MacPherson, once again failed to weigh the adversarial arguments in a legal scale, or even hear the said arguments in a fair hearing, because there was no hearing on the contested issues conducted. He executed his adjudication without the application of my legal rights being administered to or the application of natural justice being duly followed before and impartial tribunal;

[102] Given that the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s ruling on Motion M40301 is free of errors and the Honourable Justice MacPherson Court Order has indeed dispose of MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706 (C51190), on February 7, 2011; then it follows that the Honourable Justice MacPherson’s unilaterally determined on the contested issues concerning the M38706(C51190) and “disposed” of the same motion without a legal given reason or even the endorsement of M38706 filed documentation; moreover, the outcome of M38706 and the contested issues was adjudicated without the benefit of a fair hearing and the determination of contested issues on a balance of probability after the heard arguments of the relevant parties had been weighed in the legal scale.

[103] In essence, I am not allowed or permitted to rebut the Crown’s written articulated position and present my position before an impartial Tribunal. In short, I am being denied my right to properly defend myself and my position before further adverse effects of deprivation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am being denied natural justice!

[104] MOTION M38706 IS M.I.A.:

Was I denied natural justice for NOTICE OF MOTION for DISCLOSURE(C51190/M38706), returnable on the 30^thof April, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. before a single Judge?

[105] On April 7, 2011 I filed and served the following documents; APPELLANT’S FACTUM, APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE, NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE, and NOTICE OF RETURN TO MOTION M38706.

[106] While I was filing NOTICE OF RETURN TO MOTION M38706 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen street West; the Clerk of the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, informed me in clear and concise language on more than one occasion, that M38706 was “closed”. Moreover, Motion M38706 has been closed since August 27, 2010! The same Clerk informed Madam Clerk immediately after confirming to my person in no uncertain terms in the relevant computer data base, that Justice Watt had close M38706 on August 27, 2010. I took notes on a blank peace of paper and started to write a request for investigation into the events surrounding M38706. My initial hand written request for an investigation was refused by madam registrar.

[107] Furthermore, I learned that the Honourable Justice Watt completed MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706, the said motion which was indefinitely adjourned by the Honourable Justice Laskin to “a date to be set by the registrar”.

“...this motion is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar” is given as the following interpretation pursuant to the registrar;

[108] If it is the case that the afore said statement means that, the motion in question will be reconvene before a single Judge. But, this forces the question, what does “ ...a date to be fixed by the Registrar” means ?

[109] If it is the case that the aforesaid statement means that, the motion in question will be reconvene before a panel of Judge. But, this begs the question, why was this internal legal jargon not explained to my person? The Registrar gave both meaning or interpretation to my person for Justice Laskin April 14, 2010 Ruling on Motion M38706. The process in bringing contested issues before a panel is different than before a single judge.

[110] I and the Registrar agreed after a long discussion that the RETURN TO MOTION M38706 would be before a different panel than the leave to appeal panel and before the leave to appeal date, with a new Motion number.

[111] A short period later on the same day, I was called back to the registrar(Madam Registrar’s Office), while I was downstairs in at the Court Records. Upon returning back to her her Office at her beckoning, I inform her that I was correct in filing the RETURN TO MOTION M38706 to be heard before a single Judge. Furthermore, RETURN TO MOTION M38706 would be filed under M38706 on a returnable date of April 29^th.

[113] Furthermore, in accordance with Madam Register's instructions, I was to file the following documents(please see EXHIBIT W2);

“M38706

1 Copy of motion for direction for further disclosure and transcripts.

1 Copy of Factum filed for Motion for direction for disclosure and transcripts.

1 Copy Supplementary Motion Record.”

(Asper Madam Registrar)

At first instant I was going to file these documents asper instructed, but upon further examination I was very concerned if I would be committing fraud or introducing errors into my appeal(C51190). Or even worse, engaging in illegal actions. So I changed my mind, officially notify Madam Registrar to adjourn or dissolve the hearing and place the matter concerning M38706 before a Court of competent jurisdiction(panel of judges), because the case for a constitutional question had been made out(please see EXHIBIT Y5).

[114] Without much analysis of the matter before me, I agreed with the registrar of course, but after having a little quiet time to analyze the new information and the lack thereof surrounding the issue, I decided to dissolve the hearing for RETURN TO MOTION M38706 would be filed under M38706 on a returnable date of April 29^th,2011 and bring a motion for direction on the issue of Motion M38706 which has been outstanding since May 14, 2010 to be argued within the context of the Charter before a court of competent jurisdiction.

[115] A constitutional case has been made out for natural justice and denial of the right to give full answer (disclosure rights), so the onus is now on the Crown to prove otherwise or justify the Charter violations byway of Section 1.

[116] The registrar is thanked for their efforts to remedy an injustice, but Charter issues cannot and must not be resolved in offices or back rooms. They must be placed before an impartial tribunal of competent Jurisdiction. The following will make the reasons why self evident.

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

Laskin J.A.

May 14, 2010

Mr. Ferron's requests to file a long factum and to obtain the Crown's consent to a fresh evidence application are premature. The factum Mr. Ferron proposes to file is not before me. Moreover, he has not yet prepared and filed a fresh evidence application. Mr. Ferron also seeks transcripts of the set date appearances and appearance before the summary conviction appeal court leading up the hearing of the appeal.

Ms. Stuart, counsel for the Crown, has agreed to investigate whether these additional transcripts are necessary. However, it should be pointed out that what is pending before this court is a motion for leave to appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court.

Further, Mr. Ferron seeks additional disclosure of items that he does not have. Again, Ms. Stuart has agreed to look into these matters.

Once Ms. Stuart has made these investigations, she will communicate to Mr. Ferron the Crown's position in writing. Mr. Ferron must understand that in the light of what he has asked for these investigations will take some time.

Pending these investigations, and report to Mr. Ferron, this motion is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.”

(Laskin J.A., May 14, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

[117] The first paragraph of the honourable Justice Laskin’s order states;

“ factum Mr. Ferron proposes to file is not before me.”

This may be the case but it is definitely in my court file(C51190) at the COURT OF APPLE FOR ONTARIO. The Crown (Ms. Stuart) and I had agreed outside of court for the Crown to file a sample to a single Judge to be reviewed for acceptance and in return I would adjourn the matter from an April returnable date to a different date. I checked the court file in the record room and the Factum is their.

[118] Justice Laskin’s order also states that;

“he has not yet prepared and filed a fresh evidence application...”.

While filing a Fresh Evidence Application, I was informed by the Clerk of the Registrar that my fresh evidence need to be sealed and would not be opened until the Appeal date. I fail to see how a fresh evidence Application would be helpful or the said Application is necessary for my Motion M38706, which was for outstanding further disclosure from the lower Courts. Logical you need the evidence first (disclosure), before you can file the fresh evidence or else one would be engaged in a paradox to show merits for an Appeal.

[119] The last paragraph of Justice Laskin’s order gives two condition;

“Pending these investigations, and report to Mr. Ferron, this motion is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.”

i) Pending these investigations: The said investigations was completed and disclosed to my person on October 15, 2010 by Ms. Stuart. So why was Motion M38706 “closed” on August 27, 2010? The given reason is that Justice Watt closed both the Motion for further disclosure and the Application for Mandamus with Certiorari concurrently M38706. I was not aware of this fact or informed of this fact until April 7, 2011. This is a denial of natural justice! It should be noted that the young Clerk who took receipt of the filing of APPLICATION for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI M38706, inquired with someone in higher authority and more knowledge who should have known or aught to have known that the said Application exceeded jurisdiction should have went before a panel or a SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE.

[120] Furthermore, the motion for further disclosure was closed before its conditions for re-adjournment was fulfilled, thereby violating or contracting Justice Laskin’s court order. But, stranger still, Justice Watt’s Order is void of any references or inference to outstanding disclosure or further disclosure which was the contested issue for M38706.

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

David Watt J.A.

August 27, 2010

This application seeks relief that this court is not authorized to grant. It is

dismissed. This application for leave to appeal should be transferred to the inmate/in person list to ensure ongoing supervision. The respondent will provide copies of transcripts already prepared to the applicant.”

(David Watt J.A., August 27, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[121] All this was done, at the hearing before the Honourable Justice Watt, while the Crown(Ms. Stuart) was given false information to the court or misleading the court of appeal from the back right-side of the room instead of before the bench; she was also in violation of her duties owed to the my person and the public by her high office. Yet her request to the Honourable Justice Watt against my person was granted in violation of my rights while contravening or contradicting or over ruling the Honourable Justice Gillese M38387 Court Order. Which can only be overturned by a panel of Judges.

“R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190)

Gillese J.A.

{...}

January 22, 2010

The Crown has suggested that Mr. Ferron may wish to have this matter dealt with similarly to an inmate appeal as this would give him access to duty counsel, among other things. If Mr. Ferron chooses to follow this route, he is to advise the Crown and together with the Crown, arrange to have this matter transferred to a in-person appeal court to be spoken to.

(Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Type

The aforesaid is misleading and not forthcoming in additions to an element of false pretense in Ms. Joanne Stuart's inference of my agreement in discussions with her on the status of C51190 being transferred to inmate Appeal Court in accordance with the Honourable Justice Gillese M38387 Court Order.

[122] Why was I not informed of the status of M38706 only after I accidentally found out that M38706 was closed; given that I have been trying to return to M38706 or reconvene this matter repetitively for more than one year?

[123] I have brought up the said matter many time orally to the Registrar and I have brought this matter up in open court to no avail(please see EXHIBIT V, U, T2, W1, W2, Y1, Y2, Y3, Y5, Y6, and Y7).

[124] For example, on February 7, 2011 in open inmate Appeal Court, I informed Justice MacPherson while he was unilaterally perfecting the Appeal(C51190) without a fair and just determination on a balance of probability for contended issues on Application Transcripts, outstanding disclosure, and discrepancies with the Appeal Book(C51190). That their was still a motion outstanding; Motion M38706 is open, meaning that it has been open since May 14, 2010, and is still open and is not closed; inferring that the further disclosure contested issues has not been resolved or determined on a balance of probabilities in a fair hearing. He said that; “all that was needed was his Court Order.” As upsetting as this is, it is even more upsetting and stranger still that the Honourable Justice MacPherson was not aware and did not inquire about Motion M38706 being open or closed? Or informed the court that the Motion was closed on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt or endorse Motion M38706 documentation that the same motion was closed?

[125] Typed version of handwritten endorsement

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

MacPherson J.A. .J.A.

7 February 2011

The appeal book prepared by the Crown is fine.

The appeal is adjourned to April 11, 2011 for adjournment of the appellant’ application for leave to appeal.

Mr. Ferron intends to argue the leave application without the assistance of duty counsel.”

(MacPherson J.A., February 7, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[126] If M38706 was closed August 27, 2010, why was the MOTION FOR DIRECTION

for FURTHER DISCLOSURE AND TRANSCRIPTS(M38706) returnable on the 22^nd December 2010, before the Honourable Justice Cronk ; how was the COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR able to use motion number M38706 in administration?

[127] If you notice the motion before the Honourable Justice Cronk was about disclosure and denial of natural justice with respect to the perfection of the Appeal. Motion M38706 was about outstanding disclosure and further disclosure owed to me from the lower courts. So why was I not informed or advised that my contended issues on disclosure was already dealt with and the matter was determined against my person on a balance of probabilities? In short, why was I not advised 22^nd December 2010 that M38706 was closed, if it was indeed closed on August 27, 2011?

[128]

“Typed version of handwritten endorsement

R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

Cronk J.A.

December 22, 2010

Mr. Ferron appears today asking that his appeal be expedited, that a hearing be held to determine outstanding disclosure and what transcripts should be produced by Crown, and appointing a ‘Case Management Officer’.

By order of MacPherson J. A. of this court dated December 13, 2010, the Crown has been ordered to prepare the Appeal Book, including relevant transcripts, by January 15, 2011. He further ordered that this matter be adjourned to Feb. 7, 2011 to be spoken to.

Mr. Ferron’s motion today is premature. the Crown must be given an opportunity to do what it has been ordered to do. If any further directions regarding management of the appeal are required, or any other order, they may be addressed on February 7, 2011.

This motion is adjourned to February 7, 2011.”

(Cronk J.A., December 22, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190),)

[129] On March 23^rd, 2011 their were some issues placed before a single Justice; one of which was the reconvening of Motion M38706. Neither the honourable presiding Justice nor the Crown informed my person, whom is the only non legal professional of the completion or closing of Motion M38706 on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, or the completion or closing of Motion M38706 on February 7, 2011 as asserted by the Honourable Rosenberg? Moreover, a single Justice(MaCPherson) cannot overrule or dispose of another Judge’s Court Order, this is the Jurisdictional Authority of a panel of Judges; the Justice MacPherson would be exceeding his jurisdiction.

[130] On March 23, 2011 Return to Motion M38706, motion M39763, and motion M39828 was before the Chief Justice(Winkler C.J. O), of the COURT OF APPEL, yet no legal professional at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, fail to inform me of the status of Motion M38706; if the same motion was indeed closed on February 7, 2011 by Justice MacPherson as asserted by Justice Rosenberg; Or if Motion M38706 was indeed closed on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt as asserted by COURT OF APPEAL Registrar and confirmed by the Deputy Registrar, given that it is the Registrar’s business to know the aforementioned and to deal with Court administration problems.

[131] If Motion M38706 was closed on August 27, 2010 or February 7, 2011 then logic dictates or it is self-evident that Motion M38706 would be closed at any time after February 7, 2011{an element of a subset is also an element of the set}. But, this is not the case and infers a fallacy in the given evidence of the logical flow of events; in addition to faulty premise relied on to arrive at the stated conclusion, points to a fallacy in the utilized argument. Moreover, it points to an “Elephant in the Courtroom” which needs to be dealt with in the spirit of truthfulness and integrity. For the simple reason that it is in the interest of justice to seek a fair and equitable end of justice.

[132] The Registrar which should have known or ought to have known because it is its business to know the status of Motion M38706. Why was I allowed to file a Return to MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE (M38706) before Chief Justice Winkler with a returnable date of March 23, 2011? How is this logically possible, given that M38706 was disposed of on February 7, 2011 pursuant to the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s Endorsement. With all due respect to the honoured COURT OF APPEAL, the aforementioned just does not make logical sense and any falsehoods should be expunged.

“Typed version of handwritten endorsement

R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M39763, M39828 (C51190)

Winkler C.J. O

March 23, 2011

Adjourned on consent

to June 13, 2011.

Motion to file longer Factum denied.”

(Winkler C.J. O, March 23, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[133] Furthermore, the Honourable Justice Winkler, the Chief Justice of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, should have known or ought to have known the status of Motion M38706; furthermore, that he was conducting a hearing for a Return to Motion M38706(C51190), which was closed or aught to have been closed on February 7, 2011 by Justice MaCPherson. How is this logically possible when the status of the Motion M38706 is first checked before any serve/filed documentation can be entered into a court data base under M38706 or received by the COURT OF APPEAL Registrar?

[134] There is a fallacy in the premise or given progression of events which does not allow one to arrive at The Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s conclusion concerning M38706 from the given assumptions. I reasonable believe on reasonable probable grounds, and do believe that The Honourable Justice Rosenberg erred in fact and law on the aforesaid contested issue of M38706.

[135] A single Presiding Justice would be exceeding is authority or acting outside his jurisdiction byway of over ruling another Justice Orders Unilaterally; the same matter should be placed before a Panel of Judges in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, the Honourable Justice MacPherson is not a panel of Judges nor is his court a court of competent Jurisdiction to “dispose of M38706” as the Honourable Justice Rosenberg puts it. In short, we have before the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, a jurisdictional error at the minimum, effected by Justice MaCPherson. If it is the case that Justice Rosenberg assumption or premise is indeed correct.

[136] The Motion number on a court document for a motion before Chief Justice Winkler on March 23, 2011, has been changed from M38706 to M39763 without a notification initial to indicate the same change or advise of the change. It should be noted that hand writing of the clerk who filed the said motion seems to be different than the hand writing of the person who change the motion number.

[137] If Motion M38706 was closed on August 27, 2010 or February 7, 2011;

the Honorable Justice Rosenberg, whom was the presiding Judge over M400082 SIC(M40082 error in motion number), and whom I informed in open court about

the status of M38706, replied by stating that I could bring back the Motion M38706 but it had to be before him a single judge. Even though a single Judge does not have jurisdiction to hear M38706; I am alleging natural justice violation and section 7 violation of the Charter. Furthermore, he said that I must file motions before him, but this was not explicitly laid out in his order, since it left a wide area of interpretation in his June 8, 2011 court order.

[138] It is within this uncertain legal atmosphere which I am expected to place my trust in Duty Counsel. Trust my life to Duty Counsel; trust my children’s lives to Duty Council. In light of all the aforementioned in addition to the irregularities and questionable things, can I reasonable place my trust, my life, my children life and my confidence in Duty Counsel which has the courts apparent policy as its highest priority instead of the fiduciary relationship with their Clients. In short, the duty counsel is a Sub Crown!

[139] PERSONAL FEELINGS ON CROWNS ALLEGE ABUSE OF PROCESS:

Their is no independence, but only apparent independence. A lawyer’s duty is first to the Court then to his Client! If their is a conflict, the Courts priority or silent policy takes presidents. The law is a two edge sword, the Crown’s bold abuse of the process my win cases and put trophy pieces in jail, but they lose the battle for the confidence and trust of the public. In the long run, what has the Crown won when all that it is doing is Claiming to be in the interest or good of the public. In this matter, the Crown has been straddling the fence on the wrong side of the law, destroying the connective tissue of our beloved society.

[140] I requested on many occasion for a Case Management Officer to over see the Case(C51190) and to insure fairness and equity in the appeal process. Moreover, I was relentless in my said request from the start of the Appeal process at the Court of Appeal. The Crown was in opposition to my position for a Case Management Officer. The registrar performing in the capacity as a mediator between the Crown and the accused, could be breeding more bias in the process. I have filed and served all my disclosure arguments on the Crown. My filed documents on disclosure to go before the panel was rejected by the Court. All my recently filed documents plus the ones to come has been changed to reflect what has transpired up until March 23, 2011.

[141] 6. APPEAL MANAGEMENT

1.In exceptional cases it is appropriate that a judge be assigned to manage the conduct of an appeal. The request for the assignment of such an appeal management judge is to be made to the court through the office of the Senior Legal Officer. The request should contain enough information to satisfy the court that such an appointment is appropriate. The decision to appoint an Appeal Management Judge will be made by the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Court. Counsel will be advised of the outcome of the decision.

{...}

This Practice Direction comes into force on January 1, 2004.

Dated at Toronto this 7th day of October, 2003.

(R. Roy McMurtry, Chief Justice of Ontario, Updated November 2008;

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/notices/pd/civil2003.htm#2)

[142] Like I said, I do not know if I will be breaking any rules or law or even challenging Justice MacPherson’s order in an improper way, while producing new documents; I could most likely be introducing errors and falsehoods into my documents for which I would be liable for or render false signed statements in my documents, already served and filed; by turning back the clock to remedy many wrongs in a questionable way with illusive motives.

[143] For example, Mr. Westgate tried to do this by slipping an outstanding transcript held prisoner by the Crown’s office outside of open court under false pretense at the S.C.J.. Likewise, Mr Asma slipped me a copy of the Martin Report after reading the Applicant’s relevant arguments for its disclosing under the radar, even though the matter was being contested at the Information and Privacy Commission.

[144] The best thing to do is upgrade MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706 to a constitutional Application, to be heard before a court of competent jurisdiction(panel of judges). Instead of risking further prejudicing the matter before the COURT OF APPEAL, against my person; given the total rejection of my prudent extended documents on outstanding disclosure, further disclosure, and fresh evidence. The said documents cost me most of his income tax refund. Now I am not all to gather sure why my documents for outstanding disclosure and further disclosure before the panel was rejected?

[145] Given that MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706 was closed or completed by the honourable Justice Watt on August 27, 2010 absent of a fair hearing on a balance of probability asper the Registrar’s confirmation; or MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706 was closed or “disposed of” by the honourable Justice MacPherson on February 7, 2011 absent of a fair hearing on a balance of probability in accordance with Justice Rosenberg’s Ruling on Motion 40323 and it’s Ruling endorsement, was endorsed incorrectly on Motion M40301 for the events surrounding the missing Motion M38706. The unfortunate error of the endorsement of M40301 instead of M40323 has caused the determination of the August 16, HEARING on a formal investigation for M3806 to lose context and significance.

In the face of my failure on official reconvening of Motion M38706, even though I diligently pursued a return to MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706; after the honourable Justice Laskin adjourned Motion M38706 indefinitely. I reasonable believe and do believe that their has been a breach of natural justice, and a failure to duly administer the application of my Rights in accordance with the Charter.

I was not asking for any thing extra or extraordinary but only to be allowed to conduct my matter on a level legal playing field of fairness and equity with the blessings of the consciousness of the Court. Furthermore, I was looking for resolution to contended issues to be determined in the spirit of the ATTORNEY’S GENERALS DIRECTIVE, the MARTIN REPORT, the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK, the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, the BILL OF RIGHTS, the CHARTER, the fair trial rights of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and the COURT OF APPEAL DIRECTIVES.

[146] But, the part played by the Crown in the administration of the matter before the court has shown a disregard for procedural efficiencies, public funds, the public interest, the judicial system’s scarce resources, the Justices heavy work load and hectic schedule, and my Rights and Freedom. The questionable dealings with MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE(M38706) cannot be remedy by further prejudicing the process against my person and inducing other errors byway of bypassing or circumventing determinations which should be executed on a balance of probability; matters such as M38706 should be resolved in a fair hearing for the purpose of adjudicating contentions in outstanding disclosure issues and Transcripts issues. Contended issues need to be weighed in a fair legal scale for a just determination on a balance of probabilities. Pursuant to Ridge v Baldwin, the Charter, and the BILL OF RIGHTS; I reasonable believe and do believe that I have been denied natural justice at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO for my matter (C51190).

[147] On the 12th of April 2011, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a REQUISITION to DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO ADJOURN OR CHANGE RETURN TO MOTION M38706 {...} TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE PANEL(07-02500/07-02559), for the following reasons;

“...given that the Premise is, M38706 was “closed” on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt and on April 7, 2011 the Clerk of the Registrar informed me that M38706 was closed while trying to file RETURN TO MOTION M38706. This implies a fallacy in logic or the logical construct to arrive at the stated conclusion. This does not explain why in almost a year their has been many MOTIONS filed under M38706 and no one in- formed me that M38706 was “closed”? This does not explain why no Justice, no Crown counsel, and no Court Clerk informed me that M38706 was closed, with the exception of April 7, 2011? In short, the closing date of M38706 is in question;

3) the Applicant was informed of the status of M38706 only after the Applicant accidently found out that M38706 was “closed”, given that he has been trying to reconvene M38706 for almost a year

{...}

8) the prudent or judicial action which should be taken is, to dissolve the hearing date for RETURN TO MOTION M38706 on a returnable date of April 29th, 2011 and place Motion M38706 which has been outstanding since May 14, 2010 to be argued within the context of the Charter before a court of competent jurisdiction. A constitutional case has been made out for natural justice and denial of the right to give full answer (disclosure rights), so the onus switches to the Crown to prove otherwise or justify the Charter violations byway of Section 1. of the Charter. In short, Charter issues cannot and must not be remedied in offices and back-rooms oppose to a proper platform

{...}

The applicant’s filed document on outstanding further disclosure, to go before the panel was rejected by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. All the recently filed documents plus the ones to come has been changed to reflect what has transpired up until March 23, 2011. In short, the Applicant has modified his arguments to show merit why the Appeal should not be dismissed to fit the narrow unilateral constraints Justice MacPherson’s Court Order established (Feb 7, 2011 an Dec 13, 2010), or enforces. Furthermore, the Applicant does not know if he will be breaking any rules or law while producing new documents; he could most likely be introducing errors and falsehoods into is documents for which he would be liable for or render false signed statements in documents, already served and filed; by turning back the clock to remedy many wrongs in a question- able way with illusive motives. For example, Mr. Westgate tried to do this by slipping an outstanding transcript held prisoner by the Crown’s office outside of open court under false pretense. Mr Asma slipped me a copy of the Martin Report after being served the Applicant’s relevant arguments for its disclosing under the radar, even though the matter was being contested at the IPC. The best and safest thing to do is upgrade Motion M38706 to a constitutional Application, to be heard before a court of competent jurisdiction. Instead of further prejudicing the matter before the Court against the Applicant. Given, the rejection of the Applicant’s prudent extended documents containing very detailed arguments on outstanding disclosure, further disclosure, transcripts, natural justice, and fresh evidence are still in the hands of all parties concerned. Now it is not all together clear to the Applicant, why his documents for outstanding disclosure and further disclosure before the panel was rejected? Hence, a prudent investigation into the stated issue is in the interest, in order to move forward legally towards the ends of justice.”

(Wayne Ferron, April 12, 2011 REQUISITION to DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO ADJOURN OR CHANGE RETURN TO MOTION M38706 {...} TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE PANEL(07-02500/07-02559))

[148] On the 26th of April 2011, I served on the Crown and filed at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a NOTICE TO THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND CROWN for MOTION DATES April 29, 2011 and May 20, 2011(C51190), for the following reasons;

“The CHARTER is transcendental and it also applies to the Legal Administrative process . I am invoking my section 7., 11 and 15 legal rights. Whatever deal or compromise or promises possibly made between the Attorney General and the Registrar is between them and does not concern me. What concerns me is my fair trial rights, whether the Registrar is acting as agent for the Crown’s counsel and further biasing the processing against me, I don’t know?

I say again, My charter Rights has been violated, I am invoking the relevant sections of the Charter, and I am invoking section 24(1) and 32, to have the matter placed before a court of competent jurisdiction for issues to be contested byway of open persuasion in front of an impartial tribunal and remedy to be determined on a balance of probabilities.

It seems as though seeking the truth while maintaining the judicious part in the process has no relevance in the matter before use.

{...}

I cannot make a formal requisition, with formally signed documents of concerns and discrepancies in accordance with civilized practice in law, without them being ignored.”

(Wayne Ferron, April 12, 2011 NOTICE TO THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND CROWN for MOTION DATES April 29, 2011 and May 20, 2011(C51190))

[149] On the 27th of April 2011, I served on the Crown and filed at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a NOTICE TO REGISTRAR AND CROWN to withdraw MOTION M38706 returnable on April 29, 2011 M38706(C51190), for the following reasons;

“a) M38706 need to be PLACED BEFORE A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. I AM INVOKING MY CHARTER RIGHTS!

‘A person’s words wear their bond and the precious treasures of intentions they display proudly around their neck. The quality and integrity of a person depends on one fulfilling ones promises. Ones honour is encapsulated by his words. A person in high public office carries the reputation of the said office. The said public office builds and binds public confidence in the integrity and equity of the implementation of the Criminal Code.’

(Wayne Ferron, Applicant)

b) The CHARTER is transcendental and it also applies to the Legal Administrative process . I am invoking my Section 7., 11 and 15 legal rights.

c) I say again, My Charter Rights has been violated, I am invoking the relevant sections of the Charter, including section 24(1) and 32, to have the matter placed before a court of competent jurisdiction for issues to be contested byway of open persuasion in front of an impartial tribunal and remedy to be determined on a balance of probabilities in accordance with civilized practice law.

d) I respectfully request, an investigation by the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE into events surrounding MOTION M38706. So that I may be knowledgeable of the irregularities concerning MOTION M38706, so I may be empowered in making informed deci- sions in regards to my matter(C51190) and M38706 within the context of FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS, the CHARTER, and THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.”

(Wayne Ferron, April 27, 2011 REQUISITION to DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO ADJOURN OR CHANGE RETURN TO MOTION M38706 {...} TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE PANEL(C51190))

[150] On the 3rd of August 2011, I served on the Crown and filed at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706(C51190), for the following reason;

“the Applicant is requesting a written copy of the result of the investigation articulating the findings of the investigation for M38706(C51190)”

(Wayne Ferron, April 27, 2011 MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706(C51190))

[151] After many months, there has been no formal document served on me for the result of the requested investigation surrounding motion M38706 by the COURT OF APPEAL Registrar or agents of the Minister of Justice. In-fact, there was no investigation done by any government institutions or public agents. I wanted the application of my rights to be administered to and the false hood of the matter in question to be expunge, so that the truth can reveal itself. But it was not to be; this was not the case. This is the reason for me filing MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 M40323(C51190)), in the first place.

[152] I requested an investigation into the matter of MOTION M38706, but I have received no official documents or briefs of the said investigation. On June 8, 2011 while before the Honourable Justice Rosenberg, I informed the court that I need an investigation into the matter concerning MOTION M38706. I HAVE RECEIVED NO INFORMATION CONCERNING THE REQUESTED INVESTIGATION BY THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE or its PUBLIC AGENTS.

[153] This lack of effort, prudence and desire in seeking the end of justice in the TRUTH SEEKING PROCESS prompted me to file two motions before the Honourable Justice Rosenberg;

MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR THE HEARING OF APPEAL (M40301),

Returnable on the 15th of August, 2011, at 10:00 a.m

MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) , Returnable on the 15th of August, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.

[154] On the 15th of August, 2011 the honourable Justice Rosenberg determined for MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR THE HEARING OF APPEAL (M40301), that the Appeal Hearing would remain at 1 hour even though I pointed out that review of two of the exhibit 2, exhibit 6b and a fresh evidence CD would exceed the allocated 40 mins.

[155] In the face of a silent Crown, whom I am utterly unaware was present because there was no formal introduction by the new Crown council to the Court or my person; Justice Rosenberg disclosed the name of the third new Crown’s counsel and informed my person that their is no need or binding requirement on the Crown to notify the Applicant of a change in Crown counsel; at least this is my personal interpretation of his statement concerning notification of change in Crown’s counsel.

[156] In contrast, the Rules of Civil Procedure makes a demand on my person to formally notify the Crown and Registrar of any change in council. Furthermore, after a passionate plea for an investigation into M38706, the Honourable Justice Rosenberg ordered me to return the next day (August 16, 2011) for the hearing of MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323), after a passionate plea of a denial of natural justice.

[157] During the hearing before the Honourable Justice Rosenberg, the Crown(if he/she was present), never spoke one word in addressing the matter of investigation of M38706 before the Court, even though I requested an investigation from the Ministry of Justice. In fact I still have not seen or hear the voice of the new Crown’s counsel or know if he/she was present at the hearing on August 15 & 16, 2011; I still do not know what he/she look like or sound like. The Honourable presiding Justice quickly went through different events surrounding M38706, which I reasonable believe and do believe were out of context. However, I was allowed to make comments on whatever he was saying.

[158] During the entire hearing the Crown did-not say one single word of rebuttal or formal introduction to what was suppose to be the presentation of my Motion, I just simply felt like I was informally being crossed examined. I still don’t know if the Crown was in attendance at the said hearing; the Crown council who now has carriage and control of C51190, introduced himself to me on December 9, 2011 and made the comment that we have never met before. So was the Crown in attendance on August 15/16, 2011 for the two hearings? In addition to my confusion concerning the capacity Justice Rosenberg was acting in. Was he the referee for the contended issues between me and the Crown or was he acting in the capacity of Crown’s counsel? I don’t know the answer to these questions? Why did the Crown’s counsel not formally introduce him/herself to the Court and give a rebuttal argument to what was suppose to be may motion for both days(Aug 15&16) of the said Hearing?

[159] On August 16, 2011, The Honourable Justice Rosenberg when through a series of selected events which I was expected to agree to, oppose, give explanation or whatever the case may be; I was not afforded to present an argument in the usually way. The hearing felt more like a cross examination to me. The Hearing for MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) was not held in the usually standard format; in-fact the Crown’s counsel never said one word or give a rebuttal argument or even identified himself/herself and his/her client for the two days before Justice Rosenberg for motions M40301 and M40323. It is as though the Crown’s counsel did not exist or was absent for all practical purpose.

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M40301 (C51190)

ROSENBERG J.A.

August 16, 2011

On February 7, 2011 Justice MacPherson ordered that the appeal would be based on the appeal book as prepared by the Crown. That order disposes of the issue raised in M38706. The Appeal will proceed as schedule on September 8, 2011. The appellant will have an hour to argue. The application for leave to appeal and if leave is granted the appeal. Arrangements have been made with ...”

(Rosenberg J.A., August 16, 2011, unofficial, typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M40301(C51190))

[160] The honourable Justice Rosenberg fail to disclose the legal instrument, the legal precedence or the relevant laws the Honourable Justice MacPherson was using to “dispose of” MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE(M38706). Moreover, the Honorable Justice Rosenberg erred in endorsing the incorrect court documentation on August 16, 2011. He mistakenly or whatever the case maybe, endorsed M40301(heard on August 15, 2011), instead of endorsing MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) which was heard on the 16th of August 2011 in accordance with Justice Rosenberg’s Court Order on the 15th of August 2011 to return for the next day for the Hearing of MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323). There has not been any formal presentation or disclosing of investigative papers in relation to M38706.

[161] Moreover, the honourable Justice Rosenberg further inferred or is very vague on the said point, that the Honourable Justice MacPherson on one or both of these dates December 13, 2011 and February 7, 2011 heard motion M38706, dismissed it and then closed it, since the context we were speaking in was the notified closing of M38706.

At leas this is the feeling and humble understanding I came away from the same hearing with. I could be wrong, but this is the apparent impression I got with in the humble scope of my limited understanding of legal business. However, if this is the case, then this is an error of fact and points to and error in law!

[162] This said event never happened, the Honourable Justice MaCPherson never held a fair hearing on MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706; it was when I realized that he was unilaterally perfecting Appeal(C51190), without the just determination of contended issues on a balance of probability, I advises the Court in the few remaining minutes in clear and concise language that M38706 was still open and the Crown(Mr Asma) concurred with this fact; moreover, Justice Macpherson was already completing his February 7, 2011 Court Order; in short he was already writhing on the BACKPAGE Appeal Book(C51190) when I advised him of the status of M38706, to silently alert him of the blatant denial of NATURAL JUSTICE.

[163] This was part of my complaint to the Judicial Council against Justice MacPherson immediately after the February 7, 2011 inmate Court Appeal TBS appearance, I filed a formal complaint to the Judicial Council. Clearly their is an elephant in the room; so I respectfully request that MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323)(C51190), be Endorsed in clear and precise language on more than one instance and a reply in the affirmative when the same presiding Honourable Justice seek conformation of my request.

[164] In any event the Honourable Justice Rosenberg promised to send to the Homeless Shelter‘s address (2500 Cawthra, Mississauga) a copy of his endorsement for the same MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323).

[165] In accordance with my account of evidence surrounded M38706, this is what happened in short. On the Friday 15th of October 2010, I received the Crowns 22 page REPORT/POSITION of their 9 Months prudent professional investigation.

[166] On the Monday 18th of October 2010, I was expected to give my position on the Crowns 22 page REPORT/POSITION with zero business days service. I advised the Honourable Justice Laskin of the Aforesaid and advised him that ‘I do not agree with the Crown’s position”, as a response to his question.

[167] There was never any agreement of fact. Never! He adjourned the matter(C51190) to December 13, 2010, to what I reasonable believed would be a fair hearing to deal with contended issues in an adversarial judicial system. This is why I file and served my 107 page response to the Crown’s position well ahead of time. So it could be read and the matter dealt with quickly and efficiently.

[168] On the of 13th of December 2010, I was trying to advised the Court of my position and the merits to my Transcript request because I was under the impression that I was called “to be spoken to” to work out the contested issues on outstanding further disclosure and Transcripts. The presiding Justice made is determination or opinion or whatever the case may be in regards to Transcripts without the benefit of a fair hearing on the balance of probabilities. This was done by my person and filed and serve to the Crown and Court well ahead of time; his position was in the form of a 107 page response to the Crown’s position.

[169] On the of 13th of December 2010, I tried in vain to advise the court of my disagreements with the Crown’s position. Furthermore, about a week earlier I had filed and served a formal 107 page response document on the areas of disagreement or areas I contested the Crowns position to no avail. I expected my 107 page document to be reviewed by the Crown and Court, so that the contested issues could be dealt with quickly and prudently in a just and fair determination on a balance of probabilities. But this was not the case(please see EXHIBIT R2).

[170] On the of 22nd of December 2010, I brought forward a motion, (MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE AND TRANSCRIPTS(M38706), returnable on 24th December 2010, which was moved to 22nd of December 2010, at the request of the Court.) This was an attempt by my person to put before the Court my dissatisfaction of the methods used in dealing with the contended issues and my denial of natural before the Court at the December 13, 2010 Hearing “to be spoken to”. This was also an attempt to officially place before the Courts my position in Affidavit format. The motion was adjourned to February 7, 2009.

[171] If it is the case that the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s M40301 Endorsement, which should have been MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) ENDORSEMENT, is without error, then Honourable Justice Macpherson’s unilateral disposed of or closed M38706(C51190) without the benefit of a fair hearing or a written articulated endorsement of the reasons for his ruling on M38706(C51190) or the weighing of contended issues in a legal scale on a balance of probability.

[172] The Honourable Justice MacPherson’s decisions before the panel on February 7, 2011 concerning his Ruling on Motion (M38706), need to be placed before the Panel of Judges for the Appeal.

[173] Similarly, the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s decision August 16, 2011 decision/Endorsement of M40301, which should have been MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) ENDORSEMENT, need to be placed before the Panel of Judges for the Appeal. There are discrepancies in Justice Rosenberg’s said decision which points to “elephant in the courtroom” in addition to the same Honourable Justice making an error in endorsing the wrong motion document; furthermore, there are filed materials by the Applicant which dramatically conflicts with the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s decision to which there is legal consequence.

[174] MISSING/MISLABELED EVIDENCE/HISTORY OF EXHIBIT 2, CD-07-70285:

In my response to the Crown’s 22 page 9 months investigative report, the Crown requested permission for the release of EXHIBIT 2 AND EXHIBIT 6B. I consented to the Crown’s given request on the condition that the Crown produce and disclosed a copy of the Transcription of EXHIBIT 2. The aforesaid was articulated and signed in the form of a consignment. The Crown (Mr. Matthew Asma) assured my person orally that he would disclose an additional copy of the Transcription of EXHIBIT 2, to be used by my person for preparation of my matter and another copy to be place in the APPEAL BOOK(C51190). This was never done!

[175] I attempted to deal with the Crown’s concerning a mislabeled exhibit and a missing exhibit in the following way;

“I cannot reasonably agree with Madam Joanne Stuart (Crown’s) deduction and remedy for missing and mislabeled EXHIBITS. Doing what is being propose would change the dynamic of what happened at the Trial. Entering the transcripts of the two audio disk into the APPEAL BOOK in this manner would introduce errors in the history of what happened at the trial. This would pervert the events surrounding the exhibits.

(RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE(M38706), page 100-106)

[176] On December 13, 2011, in addition to fulfillment of requisition made at the lower Courts for EXHIBIT 2, I again requested a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 on page 104 to 107 (REQUISITION FOR EXHIBIT 2 TRANSCRIPTION) in my response to the Crown’s 22 page response. I also confirmed orally off the record with Mr. Asma(Crown council), that the Crown would be disclosing a Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 my person(please see EXHIBIT N6).

[177] Again I requested a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 on the December 22, 2011 under TAB 11(AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT) on page 15 to 16 in my MOTION FOR DIRECTION(M38706).

[178] On March 8, 2011, I served on the Crown a REQUISITION, requisitioning a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2.

[179] On March 8, 2011 I received a reply letter dated March 4, 2011 from the Crown(Mr. Asma), containing uncertified photo copy of transcription of the “DVD recording of the 911 call...” and uncertified photo copy of transcription of the “DVD recording of the radio transmissions of York Regional Police...”, which were both produce on June 22, 2008. The aforesaid, was not what I asked for or what was agreed upon in accordance with my consignment for the release of the EXHIBITS to the Crown. I complied with my part of the bargain, the Crown needed to fulfill their part of our agreement.

[180] On page 127 of the Crown’s authored APPEAL BOOK(C51190) is an uncertified copy of the EXHIBIT LIST; under the first column, under May 9, 2008, under the number 2 is listed “CD - 07-70285”. I requested many times in the present matter(C51190) and i have requested many time at the lower Courts for a certified transcription of the said article of evidence ( EXHIBIT 2). Their has been many Court Orders directing the Crown to provide a copy of EXHIBIT 2 to my person. Why is this request so hard to understand by very intelligent legal professional with a high graduate education. I was requesting and has been requesting since May 2009, a certified transcription of “CD - 07-70285”, which is EXHIBIT 2.

[181] Similarly, the aforesaid was a major issue at the lower Courts:

On July 27, 2009 Hearing(APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE for INMATE APPEAL 07-02559 ), the Honourable Justice Boswell confirmed on his personal portable computer byway of listing to EXHIBIT 2 at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at the Newmarket location that:

[182] firstly, there is an inference of a mistake in the EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL for Information 07-02559, byway of missing material evidence. I determined the missing material evidence to be the 9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285 and should be listed between exhibit one and exhibit three.

[183] Secondly, there is an inference of a second mistake in the EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL for Information 07-02559, byway of exhibit two being mislabeled. I determined Exhibit two should have been labeled “York Regional Police Services Transmission Dispatch log for GO 2007-70285 CD” instead of “9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285”.

[184] The presiding Appellate Court Justice dismissed the my APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE for INMATE APPEAL, for failure to meet the requirements for admitting new evidence.

The Court ordered the matter returnable on September 14, 2008.

The Court set a new Appeal Hearing Date for October 5, 2008 at 2:15 P.M.

[185] Furthermore, the Honourable Justice Boswell ordered the my person to file and serve a copy of my copy of the missing exhibit (9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285), material evidence which had vanished from under the Crown’s protection, the Crown’s stewardship, and could not be retrieve by prosecutor.

[186] In addition, the fraudulent activities surrounding the disclosing of April 28, 2008 Application Transcript(07-02559) and Mr. Westgate’s (Crown Attorney) questionable actions of false pretense in the withholding of the same transcript, was put on the record before the learned Superior Court Judge, Justice Boswell who determined the said issue of Legal Fraud, not to be relevant.

[187] The Honourable Justice Boswell’s reaction to my person was to ask me if I fulfilled my part of Justice Bryant’s Court order issued on July 20, 2009. Furthermore, he issued another Court order against my person to file All my copies of the evidence in dispute with the Crown; in spite of the well documented fact that the Court had directed the Crown to disclose copies of the said evidence to my person on at least four occasion; from May 4, 2009 to July 20, 2009.

[188] On July 20, 2009, the Superior Court of Justice issued the following direction or order;

“July 20 2009

Mr. Westgate for the Crown

Mr. Ferron in person

Mr. Ferron to attend Crown’s office @ 9:30 A:M to bring with him all Transcripts that he has in his possession in order that the Crown may order copies for the Appeal for the Court and the Crown. Mr Ferron to attend the Court Office for a copy of informations, endorsements and orders that he needs for this Appeal. Mr. Westgate will give Mr. Ferron a copy of exhibit 6B.)”

(J. Bryant, July 20, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), not an official typed copy)

[189] Pursuant to Justice Bryant’s orders, I filed and served APPLICANT’S DISCLOSURE FOR INMATE APPEAL (07-02559), on July 21, 2009 in accordance with Rule 46;

“July 27 2009

Mr. P. Tait for the Crown

Appellant in person

{...}

2. It appears that trial Ex 2 - the CD of 911 call - is actually a CD of the dispatch call. The Ex 2 will remain available to the appeal judge. In addition, I order the Appellant to deliver to the Crown a copy of the recorded 911 call that is identical to the one played during trial.

The Crown will confirm if it is content with the recording.

The Crown will ensure that playable audio equipment is available to the court at the hearing of the appeal.

{...}

In the result, the Application is dismissed, save as my order concerning the 911 CD, set out at para 3 above.”

(J. Boswell, July 27, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559))

[190] On May 04, 2009 there was a hearing before the Honourable Justice Bryant for

MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS APPLICATION(07-02559), at the S.C.J.. The same Justice ruled as follows;

“May 04 2009 CROWN: Westgate

Mr. Ferron in person

Crown will attempt to assist Mr. Ferron obtain a copy of a video tape and a cd....”

(Justice Bryant, May 04, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), unofficial)

[191] A copy of EXHIBIT 2 has never been disclosed by the Crown at the lower Courts even though there was an outstanding Court Order starting on May 4, 2009 and subsequently reaffirm by many justices in many hearings at the S.C.J..

[192] On June 29, 2009 there was the Appeal Hearing adjourned from June 01, 2009

APPEAL HEARING(07-02559), at the S.C.J.. The presiding Justice ruled as follows;

“June 29, 2009

Motion adjourned to July 27/09@9:30 a:m.

To Accommodate the following:

-obtaining and providing to A. a Transcript of the trial proceedings on 28 April, 2008;

-copying of Ex.6B for A (same to be release to the Crown for that purpose);

-obtaining and copying of a communication tape requested by the A.”

(Justice , June 29, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), unofficial )

[193] A copy of EXHIBIT 2 has never been disclosed by the Crown at the lower Courts even though there was an outstanding Court Order starting on May 4, 2009 and subsequently reaffirm by many justices in many hearings at the S.C.J..

[194] Although it is not entirely clear in these court orders from the lower Court, it was referring to EXHIBIT 2. But, to clear things up, their was a formal requisition filed and served on all concerned parties on July 20, 2009 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, under the title REQUISITION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559). The Crown and the Court has this document in there possession and the records should have it at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL. On page 2, item (II) is stated(please see EXHIBIT N4);

“I REQUIRE one certified copy of EXHIBIT 2 GO 07-70285 for Information NO: 07-02559 and Information NO: 07-02500; Moreover, a copy of the 9-1-1 CD:”

(REQUISITION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), page 2)

[195] This has never been done at the lower Courts or at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Frankly, I am just plain sick of asking; So, what is the Prosecution hiding? And is this action in accordance with there duty and high public Office? This is just plain criminal and misleading the Court byway of an act of omission or perverting the course of justice in my humble opinion.

[196] The Crown never fulfill its part of the court order. It was protected from fulfilling the said order just like it has always been during the Appellate process (S.C.J.). The apparent impression given to my person is that, Court endorsements, Court directions, Court orders, and Rules are for the accuse to fulfill, while a very liberal “don’t care” attitude is taken by the Crown. This is a challenge to the Martin Report and a direct attack on fairness and equity in the judicial system!

[197] OUTSTANDING DISCLOSURE OWED TO ME FROM LOWER COURTS and DISCLOSURE HISTORY:

On 28^th of March 2007 at about 00:29 hundred hours, Officer Monk completed the processing of my vehicle to be impounded. At about 00:40 hundred hours on the same day, Officer Monk(1399) completed is duties with GO 07-70285.

[198] The Warrantless search of my vehicle occurred between 00:29 and 00:40 on 28^th of March 2007 when I was incarcerated at 3District Head Quarters. It would be prudent to note that there is no Warrantless search report documenting the occurrence. I cannot find any information in the GO 07-70285 disclosed documentation, documenting the warrantless search. All that can be said about the questionable search, which is in my view “trespass to chattel” is that it occurred at an unknown time, in an unknown location by Officer Monk, between 00:29 and 00:40 on 28^th of March 2007.

[199] On the 28^th of March 2007, at 10:29 hundred hours; I was shackled and driven to the Newmarket Courthouse and placed in a cell by a swat team. By now he was able to see again. I was approached by an unknown female officer who claimed to be a counselor. She asked my person if there was anything she could help with. Since I was no longer surrounded by the officers who brutalized me and being able to associate a face with a voice I decided to take a chance with this unidentified Officer. I proceeded to asked her if I could get a drug test. She replied by asking me, if I had family problems, to which I replied by stating “if the Police is interested in the truth, they would give me a drug test”. She replied “I or we cannot do that”.

[200] On the 28^th of March 2007, immediately after the Bond Hearing, I went to YORK MEDICAL CLINIC, 11-1111 Davis Drive Newmarket, L3Y 7V1, 905-853-0404 at the 404 Plaza, had a checkup and gave a urine sample in DR. A. Dworak presence. My urine sample was sent to CML Health Care at 6560 Kennedy Rd., Mississauga. At the said location a urine analysis (drug screening test) was performed on the same sample.

[201] On the 30^th of March 2007, I gave the result of my drug test to Mr. Neziol (Newmarket Courthouse Duty Counsel). Who intern faxed it to all concerned parties and informed the my wife verbally on the said date that the drug charges would be withdrawn. Support for this is on page# 2, 3 and 4 of the Hearing transcripts on the 30^th of March 2007(please see EXHIBIT D1 and D2).

[202] On the 3^rd of August 2007, on page# 1 of the 3^rd of August 2007, Hearing Transcript, the crown states;

“MR. BILLINGTON: If I could just look at the blue sheet, Your Honour? The accused has handed me a document, and I’ll just put it on the record, from CNL Health Care which had to do with some drug screening, I presume, and it’s dated on March 29^th and there were no drugs in his urine.”

I was also advised by the Crown’s counsel to make any request for further disclosure in writing or come in person to the Crown’s Attorney's Office. Supporting documentation can be found on page 3, line 10 to 20, in the August 3, 2007 Hearing Transcript.

[203] On the 7^th of December 2007;

• I disclosed to the Crown a copy of CML Drug test determination via the Crown’s Office.

• I also requested further disclosure from the Crown.

• there was no response from the Crown in regards to further disclosure or the defence disclosure.

[204] On the 18^th of December 2007;

• I requested further disclosure from the Crown.

• there was no response from the Crown in regards to further disclosure.

[205] On the 29^th of March 2007, DCst Broughton filed REQUEST FOR RECORDED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS GO# 2007-70285 for:YRP222; ASAP; investigation for the purpose of laying charges; type of incident is impaired.

[206] On the 11^th of October 2007, the Crown sent a notification for disclose to my person via Purolator Currier. Documentation which came with it stated; “RE: Charge(s): Impaired Driving, Etc. Appearance Date: January 18, 2008, Courtroom:103. Please be advised our office has received further disclosure for this matter, which is available for you at our office for pick up.” The disclosure was 911 voice dialog for GO 07-70285 in CD format.

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was requested ASAP on 29^th of March 2007. The notification for the 911 Communication disclosure was received my person on the 11^th of October 2007.

• This is a difference of more than 7 Months.

[207] I received the disclosure which would be used by the Crown to prosecute for Information No:. 07-02500/07-02559, on the 15^th of January, 2008 at 13:13 hours at 91 Natanya Blv, Keswick Ontario, by Purolator (tracking number 2856 562 749). The trial commencement was on the 18^th of January 2008 at 9:30 AM.

This is about two days before the commencement of the trial.

[208] On the 18^th of January 2008 the first trial Hearing for this matter was schedule to begin in courtroom 104. The matter was moved to courtroom 103 with Mr. Amit Ghosh for the Crown, unrepresented defence and P.S. as the presiding Justice.

[209] On the said morning of trial, I informed the first prosecutor Mr. Amit Ghosh of the untimely disclosure. He indicated to my person that the date of the trial could be changed if I was to wave my rights. I strongly refused!

[210] This is something I would never agree to. About an hour after this event took place another prosecutor came into the court and took possession of my case(07-02559). The case was then transferred to another Judge (Justice Kenkel), and another Prosecutor (Ms Goodier) and another courtroom(101).

[211] I do not know if it is important or not; But, Ms Goodier came into the court room 3 times or more to request carriage and control of my case(07-02559), before the first prosecutor agreed to relinquished the case to her.

[212] I was first in court room# 103 with prosecutor Mr. Amit Ghosh and presiding Justice P.S. before the matter was moved to court room# 101 with J.F.K. as the presiding Judge and Ms Goodier as Crown’s counsel(please see EXHIBIT C3, C5, and C6 for January 18, 2007 appearance in information 07-02500 appearance history).

[213] At or about noon on the same date, for some unknown reason or undisclosed reason, my matter(07-02559) was transferred to court room 101 with Ms. Goodier for the Crown, unrepresented defence and J.F.K. as the presiding judge.

“[25] Upon ordering the INFORMATION/APPEARANCES log from the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar for OCC# 07-70285 and information# 07-02500/07-02559. I notice that even though the change of court rooms is indicated in the history on the 18^th of January 2008, the name of the original prosecutor, Mr. McCallion was missing. I pointed out the discrepancy to the Clerk. She instructed me to go to the Crown’s Office and to have it remedy. The Crown’s Office, informed me that this should have been remedy at the Administration Office, the department which sent me to the Crow’s Office. I proceeded to inform the Clerk in the Crown’s Office of my concerns. She called the Administrative Office, located on the 1^st floor and spent about 0.5 hours convincing the respective Clerk that the problem should be remedy in the Administrative office.

[26] I went back downstairs to the Administrative Office and to the original respective Clerk of that Office. She stated to me thus; “I guess I sent you on a wile goose chase”. And proceeded to remedy the problem by filling in the missing original Prosecutors name, Mr. McCallion.

[27] Now all the aforementioned would not be significant except; On the 18^th January 2008, in the morning, in court Room 104. I verbally informed the said original Crown’s counsel off the record; that I only received the disclosure for information# 07-02500/07-02559, 2 days before the commencing of the trial. He replied by, informing me that I would have to wave my rights. I interpreted this to mean; I would have to wave may rights in-order to adjourn the trial to a future date. I stated somewhat to this affect with absolute certainty; “absolutely not!”; my rights are my most valuable treasure. I would never trow them away.”

( Wayne Ferron, Affidavit of Wayne Ferron, INMATE APPEAL, page 18, Superior Court of Justice)

[214] Note: The Applicant now believes and can prove that the clerk incorrectly named Mr. McCallion as the original prosecutor spoken about above. The original prosecutor was infact, Amit Ghosh, Assistant Crown!

[215] On the 11^th of April 2008;

• I requested further disclosure from the Crown.

• on the 28^th of April 2008, the Crown brought an Application Hearing for disclosure before the courts.

[216] On the 18^th of April 2008;

I sent a hand written letter to the prosecutor via the Crown’s Office;

• requesting to change the 28^th of April 2008 Application date.

• there was no response from the Crown, even though prosecutor had given the option in her letter to change the date of the application.

[217] On the 22^nd of April 2008,

the Applicant sent a typed letter to the prosecutor via express mail (LT340772160 ca);

• requesting to change the 28^th of April 2008, application date.

• there was no response from the Crown, even though prosecutor had given the option in her letter to change the date of the application.

[218] On the 28^th of April 2008;

Ms. Goodier effect an Hearing, brought before the courts by the same prosecutor and was heard for disclosure by Justice Kenkel.

the crown was advised by the courts to disclose the York Regional Police audio log for GO 07-70285, MSDS for use of force protocol. During the said application, I was informed that the Day 56 Courthouse Cells video surveillance tape of GO 07-70285, theI was requesting as further disclosure was destroyed after 7 days of storage, without notice to my person.

[219] This is disclosure the defence has been requesting; Relevant video tape evidence under the care and protection of the prosecution. Relevant material for credibility and Charter violation evidence. This evidence was destroyed, just like the evidence recorded on the confiscated piece of copy paper with green writing was lost or destroyed. Evidence under the care, protection and stewardship of the prosecution.

[220] On the said date, at the Hearing, one of the other things I requested, is an explanation of the questionable statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT .... JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” located in the 911 dispatch log. The Crown asserted that the statement in question was referring to Officer Monk, when he was lost north of Highway 9, on the 28^th of March 2008. Now it is prudent to make a mental note, that this explanation was not only excepted by the courts. But the Court lent its credibility to the Crown. By restating the Crown’s reasons, as an explanation for the statement in question, instead of letting the argument be taken to its logical conclusion.

[221] At some time within the Month of April or May 2008, I appealed the decision of the York Regional Police Services board to deny the defence relevant information requested under freedom of information. The Mediator for the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario was Ms. Zuzanne Tardiff, the Appeal number was MA08-154 and the institution’s file number was 08-0045. The contact person for the York Regional Police was Janet Ryland (Badge# 5234).

One of the issues in the appeal, was request for information concerning the warrantless search.

[222] On the 20^th of May 2008;

• I advised the Crown’s counsel (Ms Goodier), byway of a letter which informed her of abuse of process by the Crown, destruction of evidence, non disclosure, incomplete disclosure and the omission and disinformation perpetrated on my person and the Courts by the Crown.

• my aforementioned request to have the matter discussed before the presiding judge and for the on going disclosure issue to be remedied.

• there was no response from the Crown concerning the said letter.

[223] I was for looking for answers to pending question. Answers to original questions and concerns, namely:

• “Concerning this matter at 00:27 Mar 28, 2007 in the Dispatch Disclosure DP1 made a statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” in response to a missing statement made correlating to this statement. The missing statement is probably within this interval (00:26 Mar 28 to 00:27 Mar 28) but not including the upper and lower bounds.

• Please provide to the defence a copy of this missing statement and the reason for its deletion.

• Please provide to the defence the reason or reasons for this statement and who it is in reference to.

• Please provide to the defence the complete dispatch voice log of my matter (07-02559 and 07-02500) asper the Court’s encouragement to the Crown, to disclose this material to the defence.

• All these question could be answered and the matter settled if a signed affidavit from the Dispatcher who made the statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” could be obtained. It should state what statement the statement in question is in response to, who the statement in question is referring to and to whom the statement is made ?

• The Crown’s credibility is in question. The omission and disinformation perpetrated on me and the courts by the crown. Officer Brouton (#1079) denied ever stating that officer Monk (#1399) was ever lost. I am confuse. Is officer Broughton telling the truth or is the crown telling the truth? The defence need to know if the Crown was giving false information in court in the name of Mr Broughton Shawn (#1079) or if he made a false statement under oath in court on 9 of May, 2008 when he denied stating to the crown that officer Monk was lost north of HWY 9 on 28 of March 2008 ?

• Not the complete voice log of the dispatch dialog. But a 35 min recording of mainly unit 3135 and dispatch. The voice log of the dispatch dialog should be at lease 62 mins not 35 mins. This partial discloser was given to me on 9th of May, 2008 at about 9:30 am during trial.

• I need in writting when the charge “Operate Motor Vehicle While Ability Impaired-s. 253(a) C.C.” was actually with drawn. Was it on 18 Jan 2008, or was it on 30 March, 2007.

• I would like it to be noted officially in the records that Day 56 of the court house security tape contained evidence which the defence could use to give full answer to the court within the meaning of sec. 7 of the charter of rights was destroyed after 7 days.”

(Wayne Ferron, 11 April 2008 LETTER TO THE CROWN )

[224] On the 17^th of June 2008 the Abuse of Process Application against the Crown, file and served by my person was to be heard in court room 303; concerning the Crown speaking on the record on behalf of the officer-in-charge and giving contradictory evidence. Basically giving information on record as an assertion, to explain the questionable statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT .... JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY”; which the I proved to be false. The Application was dismissed by the presiding judge. There is 3 possibilities here;

1. It may be the case, that officer Broughton made a false return in the process and relayed this false information to the prosecutor. Who intern, presented this false information as fact to the Courts.

2. Or it may be the case, that the Crown presented this false information on its own accord.

3. Or it may be the case, that both Officer Broughton and the Crown had equal play in presenting this false information before the courts.

What is certain, is that there was no effort to deal with this part of the matter, and the Crown did state that she was speaking on behalf of the Officer-in-charge.

[225] DISCLOSURE - 911 Recorded Voice Communications for GO 2007-70285

• DCst Broughton, requested on 29^th of March 2007 (ASAP); for impaired driving investigation, for the purpose of laying charges.

• The aforementioned disclosure was disclosed to my person after 11^th of October 2007. A letter was sent to me stating; “please be advised our office has received further disclosure for this matter, which is available for you at our office for pick up.” The said disclosure was the 911 Recorded Voice Communication for GO 2007-70285 IN CD format.

• Difference in dates (29^th of March 2007-11^th October 2008) is about 6 to 7 Months.

[226] DISCLOSURE - Copy of officers notes, from eight officers memorandum notebooks. The officers respectively are DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1079), PC Monk (#1399), PC Brown (1666), PC Beattie (#1583), PC Williamson (#1108), SSGT Ringler (#193) and DC Stribbell(#529).

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was produced on 27^th and 28^th of March 2008.

• A copy of three of the aforementioned officers notes were disclosed to the plaintiff on 12^th April 2007, for GO 2007-70285. The said notes were from these three officers respectively; DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1075) and DC Stribbell (#529).

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-12^th April 2007) is less than 1 Month.

[227] DISCLOSURE - Copy of officers notes, from eight officers memorandum notebooks. The officers respectively are DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1079), PC Monk (#1399), PC Brown (1666), PC Beattie (#1583), PC Williamson (#1108), SSGT Ringler (#193) and DC Stribbell.

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was produced on 27^th and 28^th of March 2008.

• A copy of three of the aforementioned officers notes were disclosed to the plaintiff on 15^th January 2008 at 13:13 hundred hours, for GO 2007-70285. The said notes were from these seven officers respectively; PC Monk (#1399), PC Brown (#1666), PC Williamson (#1108) and SSGT Ringler (#193).

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-15^th January 2008) is greater than 9 Months.

[228] DISCLOSURE - Copy Day 56 3D HQ security surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285.

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was produced on 28^th of March 2008, between the hours of 00:25 hundred hours and 10:39 hundred hours.

• The said disclosure was disclosed to the claimant on 15^th January 2008 at 13:13 hundred hours.

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-15^th January 2008) is greater than 9 Months.

[229] DISCLOSURE - Copy of officer PC Beattie (#1583) notes for GO 2007-70285, from his memorandum notebook.

• Officer Beattie’s notes was requested on the 7^th of March 2008, via officer Janet Raylan (#5234) of the York Regional freedom of information services. The said request was denied.

• The request was later granted through an appeal to the Freedom of Information Commission (Ref.# 8NFOI311).

• A copy of three of the aforementioned officers notes were subsequently disclosed to the claimant on 26^th May 2008.

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-26^th May 2008) is greater than 12 Months.

[230] On June 17, 2008 I brought forward an Application for ABUSE OF PROCESS, before the presiding trial judge. At issue were the further disclosure, timely disclosure, nondisclosure, the Crown in speaking for the Officer in Charge relaying false information to court, as explanation for an incriminating statement in the 911 disclosure log. The said issue discussion can be found on page 2 to 3 of the June 17, 2008 Application TRANSCRIPT.

[231] On April 28, 2008 the Applicant unsuccessfully tried to bring to the presiding judge attention the issue of non disclosure and untimely disclosure. The said issue discussion can be found on page 27 to 30 of the April, 2008 Application TRANSCRIPT.

[232] On May 9, 2008 the Applicant unsuccessfully tried to bring to the presiding judge attention the issue of untimely disclosure. The documented fact that the Applicant received the bulk of the disclosure the Crown would be relying on, 2.5 days before the commencement of the SUMMARY CONVICTION TRIAL. The said issue discussion can be found on page 06 of the May 9, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.

[233] On September 5, 2008 the Applicant unsuccessfully tried to enter Purolator documents as an EXHIBIT. The said documents proved the Applicant received the bulk of the disclosure the Crown would be relying on, 2.5 days before the commencement of the SUMMARY CONVICTION TRIAL. The court refused to enter the documents. The said issue discussion can be found on page 13 to 15 of the September 5, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.

[234] DISCLOSURE - FRESH EVIDENCE(C51190):

On or shortly after the 26^th of April 2011, the York Regional Police Services under the new appointed Chief of Police Eric Jolliffe, disclosed to my person the Court Security Officer’s Notes of Affiant William Hird(Informant for Information No.: 07-02500) for Incident# 07-70285, byway of Officer Janet Ryland(5234) who carries the title “Analyst Freedom of Information Unit Legal Services” (please see EXHIBIT Z1and NB1).

[235] The aforementioned disclosure is a subset of a disclosure package sent to my person on or shortly after the 26^th of April 2011, from the York Regional Police Services under the reference number REF.#11-0247 for Incident # 07-70285 which occurred on March 27/28, 2007; furthermore, I have been prudently requesting the same disclosed information as outstanding disclosure owed to my person from the Crown since the year 2007. Begging the Crown for disclosure of right for over four years. I received the following evidence four years late under a new Chief of Police;

1. Constable William Hird #6058 willsay notebook entries;

2. Constable Joe Willmets #974 notebook entries;

3. Constable Larone #1418 willsay and notebook entries;

4. copy of information 07-02500;

5. copy of YRP April 13, 2007 rescinded CD for Incident #07-70285 by the Crown;

6. and confirmation that no information or documentation on the questionable search of my vehicle exist.

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-26^th April 2011) is more than 4 Years.

[236] REAL EVIDENCE(C51190):

On February 7, 2009, I was called to be spoken to in the inmate Court at THE COURT OF APPEAL to be spoken to. I advised the said Court that the January 18, 2008 Transcript was not certified and constituted theft by reading the disclaimer out loud in open court as follows;

[237] DOC I, January 18, 2008 Transcript (07-02559).

1. Their is no certifying signature in blue ink by Fiona Dower, [RULE 40.06(11)].

2. Their is no Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

3. Their is no Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)];

[238] The presiding Judge kept quietly, steering the proceeding away from the issue the I had brought forward. I reacted by asking “if the law applies here? Does the rules apply here? does the criminal code apply?” something to that effect. The Honourable Justice was silent on this point, until he finally stated “So What?” I could be wrong, but I am assuming that the said response was to the uncertified Transcript Issue.

Steeling is steeling, no matter who does it!

If I am wrong on this point, then at the minimum, filing court documents(DOC I, DOC III, DOC, DOC IV, and DOC IX), under the false pretense of the same documents being certified for real evidence when they are not certified in accordance with law is misleading the THE COURT OF APPEAL and the relevant Justices; moreover, it is fraudulent activity by trusted public agents in high offices.

Is the law discriminatory?

Are the rules and laws which govern man only meant for poor wretched black folk like myself?

[239] In any event, the learned presiding Court Judge did not ask of my person;

• to show the offending documents to the Crown;

• for him to see the offending documents;

• nor did he ask the Clerk of the Inmate Appeal Court if he could review the same documents at issue, served and file in triplicates to the Registrar at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO for the Panel for my Appeal.

[240] So the same Honourable Justice could confirm for himself, the Court and the public my Allegations or disprove it out rightly. The prudent thing to do would be to affirm the allegation or dismiss the allegation and do whatever the Court is required to do to remedy the situation pursuant to the presiding Justices Jurisdiction.

[241] There was other discrepancies with other Transcripts for the Appeal, which brings into question their certification; but I was not able to articulate this point or given the opportunity to explain to the Court these concerns.

[242] In short, their was no affirming or confirmation of the allegation at issue. It was just ignored, even-though this is part of the real evidence the Court, the Crown and I will be relying on at the Hearing of the Appeal and the Leave to Appeal.

[243] The presiding Justice should have confirm for himself, confirm for the Court, and confirm for the public, the truthfulness of the Allegations placed before him, or disprove it out rightly, or give the Crown a chance to show evidence to the contrary. The prudent thing to do would be to affirm the allegation or dismiss the allegation and do whatever the Court is required to do to remedy the situation pursuant to the presiding Justice Jurisdiction.

[244] There was other discrepancies with other Transcripts for my Appeal, which brings into question their certification. These other transcripts are;

[245] DOC III, MAY 9, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).

1. The certifying signature signed by Wendy Campbell on May 17/10 is in blue ink.

2. Their is no Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

3. Their is no Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

[246] DOC IV, JUNE 17, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).

1. The certifying signature signed by Patty Verni on May 17/10 is in blue ink.

2. Their is no Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

3. Their is no Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

[247] DOC IX, OCTOBER 14, 2009 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).

1. The certifying signature signed by Tricia Marinzel on an unknown date in blue ink.

2. Transcript order date indicated is .... October 27, 2010.

3. Transcript completion date indicated is .... December 4, 2010.

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)];

5. Their is no date for Transcript approved for release indicated, [RULE 8(14) & 40(11)].

[248] I was not able to articulate or given the opportunity to explain to the Court my concerns in regards to the questionable Transcripts.

[249] Their has not been a “COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION” sent to me pursuant to RULE 40.06(11) and RULE 8(16);

[250] as far as I am aware, their has not been a “COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION” sent or file with the Registrar pursuant to RULE 40.06(11) and RULE 8(16).

[251] I have physically checked my file at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, and I failed to find any.

[252] I have formally requested the “COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION” from the Registrar, but none has been disclosed to me.

[253] I have formally requested “COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION” from the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Attorney’s Office under the freedom of information Act, but the said Ministry has refused to disclosed. However Mr. Asma (Crown), sent a letter stating that the Crown has paid for the Transcripts in full and the Court Reporter merely forgot to sign it. Well this is suspect!

[254] It is highly unlikely that A Professionally Trained and Professionally qualified Court Reporter would forget to sign five Transcripts of evidence to be used at a high Scholarly Court (COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO), who’s name graces the pages of many important case law, given the importance placed on prudence, the stringent constraints on errors and the very high reliability placed on evidence. This is peoples lives we are dealing with and the all so important public confidence in the Administration of Justice, which the Judicial System and the Criminal process rely heavily on.

[255] Again, Five Transcripts, uncertified without even taking DOC III, DOC IV, and DOC IX into consideration; I personally checked the filed copies in the COURT OF APPEAL RECORD possession, plus my copy and my copy of the Crown’s copy disclosed by Ms. Joanne Stuart as directed by Justice Watt’s August 27, 2010 Endorsement.

[256] Furthermore, their are three other Transcripts besides DOC I whose certification is in question (DOC III, DOC IV, and DOC IX).

[257] On or about October 17, 2011 I received a letter from Madam Anne-Marie Santini(Program Analyst) notifying me of access being granted to the Crown’s copy of the COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION for C51190, byway of the Freedom of Information Commission((MAG 2011-00449/PA-11-170).

[258] There was a total of five copies of five CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION for nine filed and served certified copies of TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE(C51190) disclosed to my person. So what happened to the other four copies of COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION(C51190) for the other four TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE(C51190) filed under the pretense of being duly certified in accordance with parliamentary legislation?

[259] Furthermore, I did not receive copies of COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION(C51190) for DOC I, DOC III, and DOC IX from the Ministry of the Attorney General Freedom of Information & Privacy; these said documents are filed certified TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE(C51190) by the Crown at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, wherein Mr. Asma had carriage and control of the matter(C51190) in the capacity as Crown council at the time.

[260] The Applicant advised the Court that MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE(38702) was still outstanding. Furthermore, it was adjourned since May 14, 2010 and the disclosures at issue was promised to him by the lower Courts. The Applicant asked about, endorsement in regards to Motion(38706). The learned ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL justice advised the Applicant that all he needed was the present(7 Feb 2011) Court Order; there was no need for Further disclosure and further Transcripts and the Applicant was not going to get anything else.

[261] I advised the Court that the MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE(38706) was still outstanding. Furthermore, it was adjourned since May 14, 2010 and the disclosures in-question was promised to me by the lower Courts. I also asked about, determination of the issue or endorsement in regards to Motion(38706). The learned ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL Justice advised me that all I needed was the present (Feb 7, 2011) Court Order; there was no need for Further Disclosure and Further Transcripts and he asserted that I was not going to get anything else.

[262] The presiding Justice made his order and asked if I would be using the Duty Counsel or representing myself. I said, I will be representing myself. Justice MacPherson, not only perfected the Leave to Appeal without any regard for Rights and Freedoms of the Court reporters or authenticity of the real evidence. But, my concerns was also not taken into consideration, nor one single page of my position on contested issues was reviewed in a meaningful way.

[263] The presiding justice made is determination or opinion or whatever the case may be in regards to contended Transcript issues, outstanding further disclosure issues, the discrepancies concerning pending Motion (M38706 from May 14, 2010), without the benefit of a fair hearing on the balance of probabilities. He issued is adjudication or direction or opinion or whatever the case may be on important contested issues which has a dramatic effect on the “Leave to Appeal” without the benefit of weighing the opposing arguments of the contended issues in the legal scale of Justice.

← “ Typed version of handwritten endorsement

← R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

← MacPherson J.A.

←

← February 7, 2011

←

← “The appeal book prepared by the Crown is fine.

←

← The appeal is adjourned to April 11, 2011 for adjournment of the appellant’ application for leave to appeal.

←

← Mr. Ferron intends to argue the leave application without the assistance of duty counsel.”

(MacPherson J.A., February 7, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[264] I presented to the Crown and Court my position in the form of a 107 page response to the Crown’s position and a 34 page document in response to the APPEAL BOOK(C51190). But, my compliance did not make any difference. My response documents were ignored. Not one single page of either document was reviewed in a meaningful way on the platform of a fair hearing. Things were just done without proof of merits on a balance of probabilities.

[265] The issue of outstanding disclosure and Transcript has been determined in a vacuum, I have been simple told on more than one occasion by more than one honourable presiding Justices that; “ you will not be getting anything else!!!” point blankly. Even though the court direction advise that I must show due diligence in requesting disclosure.

FOUNDATION OF OF THE CASE (07-02500/07-02559/C51190):

[266] The disclosed CD filed under EXHIBIT 2 could not be played on S.C.J. courthouse equipment. Furthermore, on April 13, 2008 a audio Transmission CD released for disclosure by the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES was rescinded by the Crown with out given notification to the courts or me; I only recently learned about this aforesaid fact recently(2011), this is the mens rea for crimes committed against my person.

[267] MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), at the lower Courts has vanished from the Appearance history(07-02559).

[268] MOTION TO FIX APPEAL DATE FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), at the lower courts has vanished from the Appearance history(07-02559).

[269] The APPEARANCE on June 29, 2009 before a single Judge for the Appeal Hearing(07-02559) at the lower courts, has vanished from the Appearance history(07-02559). It was on this day that the Honorary presiding Superior Court Judge directed me in no uncertain terms that the MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559);

← “will not be heard!”.

Ever since this said incidence of denial of Natural Justice, I have incorporated “...INMATE APPEAL...” in all my documents at the lower courts to act as a reminder or milestone marking this denial of natural justice.

[270] The presiding Justice then crossed examined me under oath, allowed the Crown to cross examined me under oath and OFFICIALLY declare me INDIGENT; I was in-fact IMPECUNIOUS and I am still IMPECUNIOUS. I am living at an HOMELESS SHELTER and I am still expected to participate in a fair and equitable Leave to Appeal Hearing effectively.

[271] I requested the Application(07-02559) and Motion Transcripts(07-02559) which were deem to be appearance transcripts by the Crown for C51190, and I was denied request to this relevant real evidence. In fact my extended documents for further disclosure and transcripts were simply refused. My extended factum for constitutional question was refused for not being “acceptable”. I was just trying to deal prudently and efficiently with long outstanding issues in the spirit of Mackay v. Manitoba ([1989]2S.C.R. 357), instead of peace mealing them out over long periods of time.

[272] Given my profile, I need to be detailed in my arguments and give prudent proof of issues. I can not use one line explanations or sentences to bring my point across, such as I have experienced in lawyer’s documents containing their arguments. I am not a legal professional. I do-not have the credibility of a lawyer nor do my words carry legal weight. I am not going to fool myself in this fact.

[273] For example, it took me about over two years of repetitively presenting my arguments to respective Justices and Crown counsel with detailed citation to real evidence as witness by the courts, evidence pointing to mistake in the EXHIBITS and mislabeling of the EXHIBITS. Although the Crown has finally conceded after I inferred conspiracy outside of Court that my allegations of mislabeling and mistake in EXHIBITS has merits, the Crown still refuses to disclose to me a certified transcription copy of EXHIIT 2, which it promised off the record in open court after I trustingly gave my written consent for access to EXHIBIT 2 and EXHIBIT 6B. In-fact, the Crown made similar promises in the lower courts; I guess I have been a fool on many occasions?

[274] Because of the aforesaid, I will be forced to request that electronic equipment be provided to view, listen to and review EXHIBIT 2 and EXHIBIT 6B. There are not written professional documents corresponding to the said EXHIBITS or analyzing the said EXHIBITS.

[275] I live in the real world. I have no credibility! The Trial Judge stripped away all my credibility and integrity. The Crown seized on this opportunity to dig my credibility hole deeper to unretrievable depth. This is a barrier to entry in proving my innocence. This is an erected gigantic wall, which must be scale in convincing the panel of the merits of my matter. And scale it I must!”

[276] My request on more than one occasion to the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar for typed copies of endorsements was refused, because it went against the policy of that said court. I asked for a copy of this silent policy and I was refused it.

[277] I officially requested a certified copy of the original EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559) at both the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO and THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE and it could not be found. Only photo copies existed.

[278] I officially requested a certified copy of an itemized log of all Court MATERIALS TRANSFERRED(07-02559), from Newmarket Courthouse, to the records for the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO at both courts; I was informed that the said log did not exist and I was given a blank COURT MATERIAL TRANSFER LIST(07-02559).

[279] There are discrepancies Transcripts for my Appeal filed under false pretense of being certified, which brings into question their certification within the context of no factual agreement between my person and the Crown. The transcripts in question are;

DOC I, DOC III, DOC IV, and DOC IX which were filed at the Court of Appeal while C51190 was under the carriage and control of Mr. Asma(Crown council).

[280] YRP AUDIO TRANSMISSION CD, given to the Crown Attorney’s Office at Newmarket Courthouse as disclosure for my person by the York Regional Police, was rescinded on April 13, 2007 without reasonable notification to my person, even though April 13, 2007 way the date of the disclosing of INITIAL DISCLOSURE to my person by Mr. Billington, who was acting in the capacity of Crown’s council. I recently received this relevant disclosure byway of the Freedom of Information Commission. Ms. Cheryl Goodier (Crown’s council) had carriage and control of 07-02500 & 07-02559 Trial, but I do not know whom rescinded the disclosure in question(please see EXHIBIT NB2).

[281] Mr. Westgate(Crown Attorney) misled the Newmarket Appellate Court under false pretense while withholding or the Crown having possession of April 28, 2008 Application Transcript(07-02559), real evidence from the Superior Court of Justice and served it upon my person at a later date under fraudulent means which impeded the administration of the application of my Legal Rights while denying my person equity in Law (please see EXHIBIT J1, K1, K2, L, M1, M2, and M3).

[282] FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES OF MR. CONTAIN/MR. TAIT:

Fraudulent activities of Mr. Costain and supported by Mr. Tait in their 2008 FACTUM(07-02559) at the Newmarket Appellate Courthouse has put the fairness of my Appeal-of -Right before the Superior Court of Justice in Question. The RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), was not received by my person but left at my place of residence on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 in the late evening, even though the Appeal Hearing was on, Monday, October 5th , 2009 at 2:15 p.m.. It was signed on September 30th, 2009 by Jeffrey Costain, Assistant Crown Attorney. It was delivered by (please see EXHIBIT O1 and O2);

A &B COURIER;

Rush (90 mins) Direct service;

Control# 274 695 3;

SN# 308 899 2;

Pick up Driver # 244;

Acct # 110;

Date: 10/02/2009;

Time: No time indicated

The Applicant was not home to receive it, the is no conformation of service byway of my personal signature.

[283] This is 0 (zero) business days before the Appeal Hearing (Monday, October 5th, 2009), and almost one month after the Appellant filed the AMENDED APPELLANT’S FACTUM FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), on September 4th, 2009.

[284] Mr. Constain and Mr. Tait’s RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), is bound with a navy blue(cover stock) covers, with a rough raised matrix patter. The said raised matrix patter seemed to have caused problems in the printing, so the printed information on the front and back covers are illegible. Their appears to be no back page for the said document; the last page (page 15) of TAB 1 which appears to be the RESPONDENT’S FACTUM(07-02559) is dated the 30th day of September, 2009 and signed by Jeffrey Constain in blue ink:

Jeffrey Constain

Assistant Crown Attorney

Office of the Crown Attorney

50 Eagle Street West

Newmarket, Ontario

L3Y 6B1

[285] Their is no indication of Mr. Constain legal licence to practice law nor a disclosing of his LSUC number.

[286] The Court’s copy or filed copy to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central East) of the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), is stamped October 2, 2009 on the back cover.

[287] I tried to put the aforementioned facts on record at the Appeal Hearing on October 5, 2009 before the Honourable Justice Healey, but Her-Worship directed my person to start the Appeal arguments. Pursuant to MARTIN’S ONTARIO CRIMINAL PRACTICE;

“The specific format of factums is set out in Rules 40.13 and 40.14. The respondent’s factum must be filed with the clerk not later than 15 days after receipt of the appellant’s factum and no later than 7 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal under rule 40.10(1)”

(MARTIN’S ONTARIO CRIMINAL PRACTICE 2004, page R/145)

This was never done by the Crown!

[288] Furthermore, contrary to Rule 21(3) which requires the respondent factum to be filed at least 10 days before the week in which the appeal is to be heard. Again, the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES, was left on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 in the late evening while the Applicant was not home, even though the Appeal Hearing was on, Monday, October 5th, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.. It was signed on September 30th, 2009 by Jeffrey Costain, Assistant Crown Attorney and filed at the Newmarket SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar on Friday, October 2nd, 2009.

[289] Pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure;

SERVICE ON LAWYER OF RECORD

16.05

(1) Service of a document on the lawyer of record of a party may be made,

(a) by mailing a copy to the lawyer's office; .

(b) by leaving a copy with a lawyer or employee in the lawyer's office;

(c) by depositing a copy at a document exchange of which the lawyer

is a member or subscriber, but service under this clause is

effective only if the document or a copy of it and the copy

deposited are date stamped by the document exchange in the presence of the person depositing the copy;

{...}

(e) by sending a copy to the lawyer's office by courier; or

{...}

. O. Reg. 575/07, s. 18.

(2) Service of a document by depositing a copy at a document exchange under clause (1)(c) is effective on the day following the day on which it was deposited and date stamped, unless that following day is a holiday, in which case service is effective on the next day that is not a holiday.

(2.1) Service of a document by sending a copy by courier under clause

(l)(e) is effective on the second day following the day the courier was given the document, unless that second day is a holiday, in which case service is effective on the next day that is not a holiday.

O. Reg. 351194, s. 1(2).

[290] In accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a two day grace period in which a document is deemed to be served when service is byway of Courier; in addition Mr. Constain filed his RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), at the the Newmarket SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar under the false pretense that he have completed a legal service to my person when this was not the case for the same service. Mr. Constain and Mr. Tait should have know or aught to have known because it is there professional responsible to know, that this is Legal Fraud in my humble opinion.

[291] at the THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (central east) APPELLATE COURT, Mr. Costain filed RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559) contrary to Rule 21(3) which requires the respondent factum to be filed at least 10 days before the week in which the appeal is to be heard; the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES, was left on Friday, October 2^nd, 2009 in the late evening while the Applicant was not home, even though the Appeal Hearing was on, Monday, October 5^that 2:15 p.m..

[292] It was signed on September 30^th, 2009 by Jeffrey Costain, Assistant Crown Attorney. Pursuant to Rule 16.05(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, document is to be date stamped (the document had a date, but their was no time indicated). Pursuant to Rule 16.05(2)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the filed document by courier would be deemed to be filed two days after the said courier was given the document. This infers that the document in question would be deemed to be filed on Tuesday, October 7^th, 2009 two days after the Hearing of the Appeal, providing their is no mistake in my calculation or understanding of the relevant Rules.

[293] Now, how is it possible for Mr. Costain to file the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), on Friday, October 2^nd, 2009, which is negative two days in the past.

[294] This is Fraud with intent, since Mr. Costain should have known or aught to have known this allege actionable and wrong was diminishing the effectiveness of my Legal Rights and was helping to diminish my children’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in addition to mine. It is Crown’s counsel(Prosecutor) business to know and it is their responsibility to be familiar with the RULES of PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the RULES OF CIVIL and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Their is no Affidavit of service and the very first thing the Registrar usually ask when filing a legal document is, “was the other party served.”

[295] FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES OF OFFICER STRIBBELL(529):

DC Stribbell(529), is the Officer tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285. It is his name and Officer Broughton’s name which grace most of the GO 2007-70285 DOCUMENTS. DC Stribbell(529) can be shown to be perverting the course of Justice.

[296] On the 28th of March 2007 in the morning, Officer Stribbell (529) file the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT, which states as follows;

“The accused lives at the above address with his wife and children. His wife indicated to police that he does not abuse drugs or alcohol.

In the past however he has used drugs.”

(Officer Stribbell (529), SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT, page 1 comment box)

[297] During DC Stribbell’s cross examination on the 23^rd of July 2008, Officer Stribbell disclosed in his given evidence that the facts surrounding my personal crack cocaine use information had been obtained orally by him from Officer Ledger; who intern obtained the said information orally from Officer Ringler.

[298] To briefly analyze Officer Stribbell’s(529), July 23, 2008 given evidence in is testimony before the Honourable Justice Kenkel; he clearly states, he confirmed in S/Sgt. Ringler’s notes, the allege crack cocaine use information.

[299] Officer Stribbell stated originally that my wife said I personally used crack cocaine in the past and she told his person directly; the same Officer affirmed this on many occasion under oath in open Court. The fundamental problem is. Officer Stribbell entered notes into the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT, between 5:00 AM and 7:45 AM on the 28^th of March 2007. In this same interval he enters into is notes that I used “crack cocaine” in the past.

[300] My wife came to 3D HQ after 8:45 AM on the 28^th of March 2007 in Sutton in the Region of York. After dropping three of our four children to school. Officer Stribbell repetitively stated, that my wife gave him or disclose the information concerning my past alleged “crack cocaine” use orally, directly. In fact he initial insisted this was the case. But, he entered in his note book on page 77-78 and the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT before 7:45 AM on the 28^thMarch 2007; that I used drugs in the past. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE WITHOUT TIME TRAVEL?

[301] When pressed further in his cross examination at the same hearing, Officer Stribbell revealed that my past “crack cocaine” use information, had been obtained orally by him from Officer Ledger; who intern obtained the said information orally from Officer Ringler. PLAIN OLD HEARSAY TO THE THIRD DEGREE OR EVEN WORSE; GOSSIP, TRANSMOGRIFIED INTO EVIDENCE!!!

[302] The learned presiding Ontario Provincial Court Justice, witness most of this in his court room, except for the details about the officers notes; the aforementioned allege perjury, and allege false oat taken by Officer Stribbell on the 23^rd of July 2008.

[303] Myself is also a witness, the record, the Crown(Ms. Cheryl Goodier), and anyone else who was in the court room on the said date.

[304] The prosecutor chose not do an examination in Chief of Officer Stribbell or even to reexamine him to clear up any discrepancies. It was a silent acknowledgment of the real evidence before the Newmarket, Ontario Provincial Court. Yet I alone stand before the Honourable COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, charged, convicted with an allege voidable information in need of process. The consciousness of the Court cries out, weeping for the good of the public.

[305] FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES OFFICER WILLIAM HIRD(529):

The Police Informant of the Affiant for INFORMATION 07-02500, has been a phantom for more than four years. The signed name or given name before the Justice of the Peace as it is indicated on INFORMATION 07-02500, appears to be B. Hird or Batal or whatever the case of their interpretation may be; the Affiant for INFORMATION 07-02500 is legally know as “COURT SECURITY OFFICER WILLIAM HIRD(Special Constable 6058)” BY THE YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. In addition to being legal fraud, the aforementioned is also misleading a Justice of the Peace and brings into question the validity of Information 07-02500, the validity of it’s Jurat, and the validity of Special Constable 6058(B. Hird or William Hird) positive oath of reasonable belief on the truthfulness of the allegation in the same information. The very first thing a Justice of the Peace ask one for before administering an oath of commissioning an affidavit, is for relevant legal Identification with an affirmation that one is indeed the person indicated in the same Identification(please see EXHIBIT Z1, NB1, and NB2) .

[306] FRESH EVIDENCE (C51190):

The following outstanding disclosure was received about 4 years after the start of the matter before the Court. The following list is a brief description of some of the documents contained in the package under the Ref.# 11-0247. It should be self evident that this new information or fresh evidence and the fact that it exist, renders some of the reasons for judgement in the honourable Justice Healey’s Ruling in error. Furthermore, it also renders some of the reasons for judgement in the honourable Justice Boswell’s Ruling in error. The aforesaid will be self-evident went the new information is analyzed in the context of Section 8 and my allegation of defective informations.

[307] The following subset of outstanding disclosure has been recently disclosed to my person by the York Regional Police Services, via Officer J. Ryland(#5234) along with her accompanying letter which states as follows;

“Re: Your request for records in relation to Incident #07-70285, which was an impaired driving complaint investigated by York Regional Police

I am responding to your request for access to information, which has been treated as a request for personal information under the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Our file number is 11-0247.

In response to your request for information regarding the above noted, attached are copies of the

notebook entries of Constable Willmets #974, willsay and

notebook entries of Constable Larone #1418 and

notebook entries of Court Security Officer Bird #6058

for Incident #07-70285. Also attached is a

copy of the court information for Incident #07-70285, which has a court file case number of #07-3542 and a computer

disc containing the audio recordings of all communications between the York Regional Police call centre and all officers dispatched in relation to Incident #07-70285.

In regards to your request for records from the two public complaint files, PCIB #2007- 12-05 and PCIB #2008 -11-09, I wish to advise that the information you requested is excluded under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to Bill 7.

{...}

This office has confirmed that no records or documentation exists in regards to a search of your vehicle in regards to Incident #07-70285.”

(Janet Ryland, Analyst, Freedom of Information Unit-Legal Service)

[308] There are some discrepancies in Ms. Janet Ryland said letter. The following statements try to point to them as follows;

Ref. #11-0247

April 26, 2011

Incident # 07-70285

• Disclosure for Informant William Hird (6058) - Information 07-02500, the letter refers to this said officer as Bird #6058 (sic) incorrectly.

• Disclosure for Informant Joe Willmets (974) - Information 07-02559.

• Disclosure for Chris Larone (1418), this is Officer X and incorrectly refereed to as P.C.Lenore by the Applicant throughout his document. Furthermore, the Willsay statement belongs to Officer Chris Larone and not Officer Joe Willmets, this is another error in Officer Janet Ryland’s letter.

• Disclosure for disc containing the audio recordings of all communications between the York Regional Police call centre and all officers dispatched in relation to Incident #07-70285. This said audio CD was in the possession of the Crown at the lower Courts, but was later rescinded on April 13 2007 without a given reason or reasonable notification. In-fact, the Applicant only learned about this said disclosure being rescinded until recently. This aforesaid is validated by an uncertified copy of information 07-02500 on some of the informations. Similarly, on Information 07-02559 on the second last page an April 13, 2007 date is indicted, but it is crossed out with no note referring to it.

[309] Pursuant to Honourable Justice Boswell,

“R. V. Ferron, Wayne

July 27, 2009

Crown: Mr. P. “(Paul)” Tait

Appellant in person

...The summary conviction appeal court can accept new evidence if 4 requirements are met:

I. The evidence must not have been previously uncoverable through the exercise of due diligence.

II. the evidence must be relevant on a decisive point

III. the evidence must be reasonably capable of belief

IV. the evidence must be such that if believed and when considered with all other evidence, be expected to have affected the result.

In my view, none of the requirements to introduce fresh evidence satisfies the 4 criteria noted above.

See R V. Palmer(1980) 50 ccc(2d) 194 (SCC)

1. The impugned informations were before the court at trial. One was withdrawn and is no longer relevant. The Appellant claims the other is deficient on its face. This was an issue he could have, but did not, pursue at trial. In any event, the Appellant has failed to persuade me that the examination of the affiant is necessarily likely to elicit relevant information. “

(Justice Boswell, APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE for INMATE APPEAL(07-02559)

[310] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Healey;

“[1] The appellant, Mr. Ferron, appeals against conviction and sentencing on one count of dangerous driving and one count of resisting a police officer, contrary to sections 249 and 129(a) of the Criminal Code, which verdict and consequent sentencing were made by Mr. Justice Kenkel of the Ontario Court of Justice on September 26, 2008.

{...}

[6] The third ground of appeal is "unlawful warrantless search". The search that was

conducted by the police officers of the van did not produce any object, let alone any object that

contributed to the charges in question or which was sought to be entered as evidence at trial.

This ground of appeal is dismissed.

[7] The fourth ground of appeal is "Crown's obligation to make timely disclosure to defence". The appellant made seven appearances in the court below prior to his trial date. There was no issue made prior to the trial of any alleged lack of disclosure, and no application made for further disclosure until two mid-trial applications for further disclosure were brought by the appellant. A reading of the transcripts shows that the disclosure requests were dealt with by

Justice Kenkel in a thoughtful and thorough manner. In the final result, the only item not available for disclosure was a videotape made of the cells at the courthouse, where the appellant was taken to await his bail hearing. The trial evidence was that these videos are destroyed after seven days. In the final analysis, all available evidence was disclosed. At no time did the appellant request an adjournment of the trial for delayed production of disclosure. This ground of appeal is dismissed.

{...}

[8] The fifth ground of appeal is "right to call witnesses". There was no time during which Justice Kenkel prevented the appellant from subpoenaing any witnesses that he wished to in the course of the trial, or any way in which the Crown obstructed that right. This ground of appeal is dismissed.

[9] The sixth ground of appeal is "right to call Crown witness as defence witness". Again, the appellant's right to call any witness that he chose was never interfered with by the Crown or

the trial judge.

[10] The seventh ground of appeal is 'right to cross-examine Crown's witness". Similarly, the appellant's right to cross-examine Crown witnesses was never interfered with by the Crown or the trial judge.

[11] The eighth ground of appeal was "misapprehension of evidence; conviction rests on findings tainted by errors". Throughout the argument of this appeal the appellant was urged by the court to concisely outline the misapprehension of evidence or errors in the findings of Justice Kenkel. At no time was he ever able to satisfy me that there were such misapprehensions or errors, and he kept reverting to issues or documents that were inconsequent to the findings made by the trial judge. This ground of appeal is dismissed.

[12] The ninth ground is broadly characterized as "defective information". The appellant claims to have been prejudiced by not being "able" to cross-examine the police officer who swore the information. He did not raise the issue of a defective information as a technical defence during the trial; there was no evidence led nor arguments made that the information was defective. It was open to the appellant at trial to either make this argument or, if he felt it would be fruitful, to cross-examine the officer in question as nothing was standing in his way of doing so. This ground of appeal is dismissed.”

(Justice Healey, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HEALEY’S RULING (07-02559))

[311] Pursuant to to the Crown, its position is that all relevant material has been disclosed and there is no outstanding disclosure or nothing of relevance left to be disclose further. This begs the question, why has the Crown in-prisoned or blatantly refused to disclose non-privileged disclosable disclosure to my person, so I can fully known my case and the resulting jeopardy if I fail to competently defend my person from allege charges within the meaning of section 7 of the Charter. ?

[312] INFORMATION NO.: 07-02500/SHOW CAUSE HEARING:

“(2) Set Date Appearances

(i) March 28, 2007

The Information (i.e. the charging document) does not indicate that you were in Court on March 28, 2007. I note however, that the Information was marked a “replacement” Information and was sworn on March 29, 2007. I trust that you did appear in bail court on March 28, 2007 and were released following a bail hearing. Your materials do not specify what occurred in court on the record (i.e. that would have been recorded by a Court Reporter) on this date that relates to your grounds of appeal. Your materials do refer to a conversation that appears to have occurred off the record in the courthouse cells which would not be captured by a Court Reporter’s transcript.”

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010, page 3)

[313] On March 28, 2007, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02500), court proceedings was before His Worship Justice of the Peace B. Norton:

Ms. K. Wright for Crown’s ;

Ms. Halajian for the Accused;

Recording No. 202;

Court Reporter, D. Dobson.

“THE COURT: And I understand this matter, the Ferron matter is in custody upstairs. upstairs. Is that correct?

MS. WRIGHT: In custody but a consent release.

THE COURT: Pardon?

MS. WRIGHT: It’s gonna be a consent release. Is that correct?

MS. HALAJIAN: Yes, that’s correct.

THE COURT: Who, this one?

MS. WRIGHT: Yes.

MS. HALAJIAN: (Inaudible).

THE COURT: And we’re dealing by video?

MS. HALAJIAN: Yes. It’ll be an own recognizance.

THE COURT: Well, why - I’m just curious.

MS. HALAJIAN: When you hear the allegations it’ll be explained, Your Worship. They’re concerned about - they don’t have enough officers to bring Mr. Ferron down.

THE COURT: I see.

MS. HALAJIAN: There isn’t...

THE COURT: Can I see - can I see the information for Mr. Ferron?

MS. HALAJIAN: There isn’t any issue now I believe but there certainly was an issue at the time of his arrest. And I - and the officers are just being abundantly cautious.

THE COURT: This - with the Ferron matter it’s a - oh, I see, because they (sic) resist arrest. Is that it?

MS. HALAJIAN: Yes.

{...}

MS. WRIGHT: This is a Crown onus situation where the Crown’s content to release Mr. Ferron on his own recognizance in the in the amount of $1, 000. Terms and conditions are simply to include that he reside at a - at an address approved of by this Court. That he - and that he not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

MS. HALAJIAN: If I could just have a moment?

THE COURT: And I think the condition as approved by this Court, I think it should - possibly should just notify us of an address. I don’t know how this Court...

MS. WRIGHT: Yes.

THE COURT: ...approve of an address or?

MS. WRIGHT: Sure. Sure.

THE COURT: But to notify the Court of a current address...

MS. WRIGHT: Sure.

THE COURT: ...approximately 48 hours prior to change of address.

MS. WRIGHT: Yes. And my friend’s indicating that the -

the weapons prohibition is - is something that the Crown who reviewed this is not requiring and I will take her at her word for that and then the Crown won’t be requesting that.

THE COURT: So all we’re looking for is to appear in court? Is there a...

MS. HALAJIAN: Effectively Miss Barnier was in agreement that the release should be as similar as possible to a promise to appear...

THE COURT: All right.

MS. HALAJIAN: ...from a - from the station.

THE COURT: What about the not consume alcohol?

MS. HALAJIAN: No - that - she wasn’t concerned about that.

THE COURT: Any comments from the Crown?

MS. WRIGHT: No.

THE COURT: All right. Well, is there a criminal record?

MS. WRIGHT: No. Does Your Worship, want to know his allegations?

THE COURT: Are they essentially laid out on the face of the information?

MS. WRIGHT: I think so.

THE COURT: Very well. Any comments?

MS. HALAJIAN: No, thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Ferron, this is a Crown onus matter. Crown has chosen not to show cause why you should be held in custody. She is showing cause to the extent the conditions be applied to your release. Therefore, this court is prepared to release you upon entering into surety, without deposit, with conditions. Those conditions are you’re to notify - who’s the officer-in-charge?

MS. WRIGHT: Broughton. It’s B-R-O-U-G-H-T-O-N, badge number 1-0-79.

{...}

THE COURT: Thank you. Is the - is there a health issue here?

MS. HALAJIAN: He is - Your Worship,

he was taken into custody last night. He has not yet been even in the cells uncuffed. He hasn’t hadn’t anything to drink or eat.

THE COURT: And does he require medical attention?

MS. HALAJIAN: He is going - he - what -

the reason why we want to deal with him as quickly as possible is that he needs to go and do a urinalysis given the nature of the charges that he’s disputing. But I’m not concerned about any health issues.

THE COURT: Very well.

MS. HALAJIAN: He’ll be attending a walk- in clinic to get a requisition for that upon leaving the courthouse

THE COURT: Pardon?

MS. HALAJIAN: In order to get the urinalysis, he’ll be going to a walk-in clinic to get the requisition but beyond asking for that, there aren’t any health issues that we’re concerned about.

THE COURT: Very well.

MS. HALAJIAN: I think it...

THE COURT: Any comments from the Crown?

MS. WRIGHT: No.

THE COURT: Very well.

MS. HALAJIAN: I think it’s exhaustion. He’s been awake since o’clock yesterday morning.

THE COURT: Do you understand these conditions, sir?

MR. FERRON: Yes.

{...}

MS. HALAJIAN: We’re asking for this Friday please in 200 court. I understand the case is going to be assessed for a reasonable prospect of conviction.

THE COURT: The matter’s adjourned to March 30th, that’s this Friday, courtroom 200. What time is that?”

(March 28, 2007, APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS, R. V. FERRON (07-02500), page 2-9)

[314] Count 1 on the Information or Informations was supposed to be withdrawn;

first on March 30, 2007;

then on April 13, 2007-disclosing of INITIAL DISCLOSURE/YRP CD revoked;

then on Jan 18, 2008;

then on June 17, 2008 in the YRP records after I filed an abuse of process Application with respect to the said issue. Yet the issue persisted at The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

[315] INFORMATION NO.: 07-02500 RECOGNIZANCE FOR SURETY:

On the 28th of March 2007, I was released under Form 32.1 (a) for information 07-02500 on my own RECOGNIZANCE. The RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL for information 07-02500 was entered into one day before information 07-02559 was filed. Their was only two conditions pursuant to the RECOGNIZANCE;

I. Reside at 91 Natanya Bv. Keswick Ont. L4P 3P7.

II. Notify Officer Broughton, (Badge #1079) of York Regional Police of any change of address in writing, at least 48 hours prior to such change(please see EXHIBIT E, D1, and D2).

[316] Moreover, their was no prohibition on alcohol, their was no prohibition on drugs and their was no prohibition on weapons in the same RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL for information 07-02500, because my lifestyle has never required or need the aforesaid things which wreak havoc in society.

[317] On the 28^th of March 2007 I was released under Form 32.1(a) for 07-02500 on his own RECOGNIZANCE for a Surety of $1000.00 and DCst Broughton as the acting Probation Officer.

[318] On the 28^th of March 2007, immediately after the Bond Hearing, I went to YORK MEDICAL CLINIC, 11-1111 Davis Drive Newmarket, L3Y 7V1, 905-853-0404 at the 404 Plaza, had a checkup and gave a urine sample in DR. A. Dworak presence. My urine sample was sent to CML Health Care at 6560 Kennedy Rd., Mississauga. At the said location a urine analysis (drug screening test) was performed on the sample.

Time within which information to be laid in certain cases

505. Where

(a) an appearance notice has been issued to an accused under section 496, or

(b) an accused has been released from custody under section 497 or 498,

an information relating to the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused or relating to an included or other offence alleged to have been committed by him shall be laid before a justice as soon as practicable thereafter and in any event before the time stated in the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance issued to or given or entered into by the accused for his attendance in court.

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

Pursuant to the RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL for a Surety of $1000.00; the recognizance was entered into on the 28^th of March 2007 which is one day before the filing of information 07-02559, which was filed on the 29^th of March 2007.

[319] On or about the 30^th of March 2007, I lived in Keswick. Their is only about 4 GO BUSES each day which travel between Newmarket and Keswick. Two in the morning and two in the evening. I had spent all morning and all afternoon in Court that day. At about 4:00 P.M., after sitting through the completion of all matters, the presiding Justice and Court Clerks decided to go to a similar Court room to “help out”. I mistakenly thought that was the end of my matter for the day, besides I have to take the last bus going to Newmarket that day. Therefore, the bench warrant was issued after 7 hours of me being in attendance in Court and while the adjournment of the Court was in question.

[320] INFORMATION NO.: 07-02559, NEW INFORMATION:

On the 30th of March 2007, I gave the result of my drug test to Mr. Neziol (Newmarket Courthouse Duty Counsel). Who intern faxed it to all concerned parties and informed my wife verbally on the same date that the drug charges would be withdrawn. Support for this is on page# 2, 3 and 4 of the Hearing transcripts on the 30th of March 2007 (please see Z1, NA, NB1, and NB2).

[321] The Matin Report states as follows;

“To summarize, then, the Committee views the focus of its attention, the early stages of the criminal process, as of superordinate importance for a number of reasons.

First, these stages are an important part of the criminal law, which itself is deeply necessary to an organized and peaceful society.

Second, the criminal law is a social instrument to be used sparingly because it is costly, blunt, and potentially oppressive. Any concern that a social process be resorted to sparingly, inevitably focuses concern on the early stages where in the that process is invoked, and wherein it gathers momentum.

Third, the early stages of the criminal process have perhaps the broadest impact of any stage in that process.

And fourth, the early stages represent the entirety of the criminal process for very many of its lay participants. This in turn places a premium on the fairness, openness, accountability, and cost-effectiveness of the system in its early stages.”

(Matin Report, REORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS, page 19)

[322] It appears as-though the Crown is repetitively trying to erase or cast dough on a part of the initial stage of the process. Mainly March 28, 2007 and March 30, 2007 Appearance date;

“2) Set Date Appearances

(i) March 28, 2007

The Information (i.e. the charging document) does not indicate that you were in Court on March 28, 2007. I note however, that the Information was marked a

“replacement” Information and was sworn on March 29, 2007. I trust that you did appear in bail court on March 28, 2007 and were released following a bail hearing.

{...}

(ii) March 30, 2007

”

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010, page 3)

[323] INFORMATION NO. 07-02559:

count 1 Wayne Ferron, On or about the 27^thday of March in the year 2007 at the Town of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did, while his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug, operate a motor vehicle, contrary to section 253, clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

count 2 AND FURTHER THAT, Wayne FERRON, on or about the 27^thday of March in the year 2007 at the Town of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did resist Jeffrey Monk, a peace officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 129, clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

count 3 AND FURTHER THAT, Wayne FERRON, on or about the 27^thday of March in the year 2007 at the Town of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did operate a motor vehicle on Woodbine Avenue in a manner dangerous to the public, contrary to section 249, subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[324] My disclosed COPY of Information 07-02559 on or about 13th of April 2007. has no informant name or signature listed. Likewise, there is no Justice of the peace name or confirmation signature(please Z1, NA, NB1, and NB2).

[325] At the top left hand corner there is a typographical error of the accused name, which is crossed out. The Information is not in compliance with FORM 2. in my humble opinion.

[326] Concerning my certified COPY of information 07-02559; obtained from the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar after the arraignment of my person and the commencement of my Trial on 18th of January 2008.

[327] The informant’s name on the front of the information is JOE WILLMETS and the informant’s signature is JOE WILLMETS. The Justice of the Peace signature is present for the confirmation date of 29th of March 2007.

[328] At the top left hand corner, there is no typographical error of the accused name which is crossed out. The Information is not in compliance with FORM 2 and the information is not worded in accordance with a person who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegations in my humble opinion.

[329] The copy of information 07-02500 disclosed to my person before the commencement of the trial, did-not contain the name or names of the informant. I was never disclosed the informant’s Officer’s notes from their memorandum notebook, even-though I requested for all officers present for GO 2007-70285 notes to be disclosed to my person. The informant’s or Affiants contact informations was never disclosed, the informants was never called or examined in Chief by the Crown. Hence, I was never given the opportunity to exercise my rights to cross examine the informants or Affiants and their information.

[330] Furthermore; since the disclosed copy of information 07-02500, was sterile of the informant’s name. I lacked the necessary and sufficient information to call and examine the informants with respect to their sworn information of reasonable belief.

[331] Moreover, I have no recollected personal knowledge that B. HIRD or BALTAL or JOE WILLMETS , was ever present for GO 2007-70285. Furthermore, I do not believe I knows who the said police informants are; I do not know the said informant’s badge number, nor do I believe I personally have ever met the said Peace Officers.

[332] The copy of Information 07-02559 disclosed to my person on or about 13^th of April 2007, before the commencement of the Trial. Did-not contain the name of the informant. I was never disclosed Officer’s Notes from the informant’s memorandum notebook, even-though I requested for all Officers present for GO 2007-70285 Notes to be disclosed to my person. The informant was never called or examined in Chief by the Crown. Hence, I was never given the opportunity to exercise my rights to cross examine the informant and his Information.

[333] Furthermore; since the disclosed copy of information 07-02559, was sterile of the informant’s and Justice of the peace names. The Applicant lacked the necessary and sufficient information to call and examine the informant with respect to his sworn information of reasonable belief.

[334] Moreover, I have no recollected personal knowledge that JOE WILLMETS (974) was ever present for GO 2007-70285. Furthermore, I do not believe I know who the said Informant is or have ever met JOE WILLMETS (974) before.

[335] The aforementioned matter concerning the informations infers a high probability that both Informations contains false oaths and are rendered null and void by way of

defective jurats.

[336] Asper the Ontario Provincial Court of Justice in the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript on page 23;

“The dispatcher’s comments about an officer being lost, the Crown is going to call the officers involved, including the one who apparently was unfamiliar with the area and became lost at some point. It’s not plain at all to me that the comments made by a police dispatcher would at all be relevant, but I understand that the Crown - the Crown is, just to be cautious about it, the Crown is going to try to obtain the dispatch records and disclose. The Crown is calling all the officers involved...”

(April 28, 2008 Application Transcript, page 23, line 20-32 )

[337] Furthermore, the Courts states in the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript on page 24&25;

“THE COURT: I’ll just leave it at this. That the - Crown is to make sure that officers being called, if they’re you know, if disclosure is - is there and provide it to the accused for any officer being called and just with respect to that list of eight, if - if he one who is not being called, if the Crown could just provide an indication of why not to the - to the defence.”

(April 28, 2008 Application Transcript, page 24&25, line 31-32, line 1-6)

[338] All the officers having personal knowledge of GO 2007-70285 were called, except for Officer X. The Officers who filed and sworn an oath of personal belief and having personal knowledge in Information 07-02500 & 07-02559 was not among the Officers called to give evidence nor was any of the informants Officer X. Officer X is more than likely “ P/C Lenore”. But P/C Lenore did not file any of the informations.

[339] Furthermore, the Crown has not given the applicant any indication of why the Crown is not calling any Officers involved in GO 2007-70285.

[340] This resulted in a double charge for two of the exact allege crimes; impaired operation by drugs and obstructing a public peace officer. Which cause a lot of confusion in the Court, social damage and stigmatization. The two informations are 07-02559 and 07-02500. Dangerous driving was added to the second information (07-2559), but not the first information (07-02500).

“THE COURT: Okay. Which information is the Crown proceeding on? There’s a replacement and an original.

MS. GOODIER: Oh, is there?

THE COURT: Yes. There’s an impaired - an information alleging impaired and assault resist, or resist Officer, not assault resist - resist - resist Officer, not assault resist - resist Officer in the execution of his duty. Then in a second information that’s marked, replacement, saying impaired - alleging offences of impaired, same resist offence and an alleged dangerous driving.

{...}

COURTROOM CLERK: Do you wish him arraigned on the replacement information?

MS. GOODIER: Yes. Just on the - think it’s just counts two and three - not the impaired count.

COURTROOM CLERK: Yes.

MS. GOODIER: Thank you.”

(January 18, 2008 Application Transcript, page line 20-25, line 1-6)

[341] It would be prudent to mention that the way in which the said information 07-02500 & 07-02559 were processed is not in accordance with parliamentary legislation. Mainly, section 504, 505, 506, 523, 788 and 798 of the C.C.. There was no motion filed or attempts made by the Crown, to cure allege defects in the informations. There is an onus placed on the Crown to ensure the face of the informations are regular and it contains a positive oath; before the full force of the law is brought to bear on my person, causing me to unnecessarily be harassed. Pursuant to Honourable Justice Boswell;

“R. V. Ferron, Wayne

July 27, 2009

Crown: Mr. P. “(Paul)” Tait

Appellant in person

(Justice Boswell, APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE for INMATE APPEAL(07-02559)

[342] Moreover, there was a lot of confusion and damaged caused by the aforementioned irregularities. This was a foreseeable consequence of actions, unbecoming of a reasonable prudent public prosecutor, a trusted agent of the Minister of Justice.

[343] The following is evidence to the contrary, that I was indeed in attendance in Court on March 30, 2007:

“(ii) March 30, 2007

The Information notes that you were present in Court on March 30, 2007 but that when your matter was called, you failed to appear. A bench warrant with discretion was issued and your matter was adjourned to April 13, 2007 to be spoken to. Your materials and the trial transcript dated June 17, 2008 indicates that there was some discussion on that date about whether the impaired driving charge would be withdrawn at that stage. I expect that your reference to this date relates to your complaint that the impaired driving charge should have been withdrawn sooner. The Information does not indicate that the impaired driving charge was withdrawn on this date. Rather it notes that the impaired driving charge was formally withdrawn by the trial Crown on January 18, 2010. The transcript of January 18, 2010 also confirms this. Regardless of what date the Crown requested that this charge be withdrawn, it is officially noted as withdrawn and no one can or will now proceed against you on that particular charge.”

((Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010, page 3)

[344] On March 30, 2007, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02500/07-02559), court proceedings was before His Worship Justice of the Peace A. Forfar:

Mr. D. Manzo for Crown’s ;

Mr. M. Neziol for the Accused;

Recording No. 209;

Court Reporter, D. Dobson.

“...MR. NEZIOL: This matter, Your Worship, it might actually be out with the resolution Crown. I can’t recall if this is one of the ones I asked to be sent out but it’s - I - I was going to see if the charges are going - the charges may be withdrawn. I understand that counsel for Mr. Ferron, Mis Halajian, has been in negotiations with the Crown Attorney’s office so...

THE COURT: Well, perhaps he should - perhaps it’s in his best interest then just to have a seat and - and let duty counsel sort that out if that’s true. It’s for - sir, it’s definitely worth the wait if there’s a possibility that the charges will be withdrawn. I’m sure you’d want to know that today.

{...}

MR. MANZO: Your Worship, I have a brief for a Mr. Wayne Ferron. Is there - is there an information

(inaudible)?

COURT REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Worship.

THE COURT: Yes. Do we know what happened with that now duty counsel?

MR. NEZIOL: We do. One - one of the charges is going to be withdrawn. I wonder if I can ask Mr. Ferron be paged? He was - he was outside just recently.

{...}

MR. MANZO: Well, first I’m gonna ask that the charge of impaired driving be withdrawn.

THE COURT: Thank you. So we...

COURT REGISTRAR: (Inaudible).

THE COURT: We can do that. That is - there’s a (inaudible)...

COURT REGISTRAR: There are two informations, Your Worship so which impaired driving....

THE COURT: If the second information is part of that replacement...

COURT REGISTRAR: That’s right.

THE COURT: ...and then they’ve added the dangerous driving charge on.

MR. MANZO: Right. That one’s gonna remain. And the original information?

THE COURT: Is an ability impaired and an obstruct.

MR. MANZO: Okay. maybe we should just keep them together till the next appearance because I - the information I received is somewhat - it - it tells me to withdraw the impaired but it doesn’t tell me whether I have to withdraw it on both informations or just the old one. It’s not quite clear to me. And, I mean, it can be dealt with at the next appearance I think.

THE COURT: It can be. I mean...

MR. MANZO: unless, Your Honour’s, (sic) already - has, Your Worship, already (inaudible).

THE COURT: Well, I haven’t go - no, I only have a docket.

MR. MANZO: Oh, okay. All right. So let’s - let’s say two weeks; bench warrant with discretion. Duty counsel’s gonna contact Miss Halajian.

MR. NEZIOL: I will.

MR. MANZO: All right.

THE COURT: I - I’d be quite content with that, so bench warrant with discretion. Two weeks would take us to Friday, April the 13th. And at this point, it looks like one of the charges will likely be withdrawn on the record...

MR. MANZO: Yes.

THE COURT: ...at the next occasion for Mr. Wayne Ferron. So all - both informations to be adjourned to that date. Bench warrant with discretion. We can’t find him now.”

(March 30, 2007 Hearing Transcript (07-02559&07-02500), page 2-5)

[345] Concerning the actions of the Administration of Justice in address or bringing to a resolution the issue of impaired driving under the influence of drugs or more specifically;

“ while is ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug, operate a motor vehicle, contrary to Section 253, clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada,”

pursuant to Joe Willmet’s Information 07- 02559 count 1; this important issue was never addressed at any of the subsequent court appearances until the beginning of the trial. This was the main reason for the Abuse of Process Application against Ms. Goodier. I am alleging that their has been a prosecution and conviction which is in want of the proper legal authority, valid information which has not found process and is in want of Jurisdictional authority over the charges the prosecution is relying on.

[346] DINIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

April 06, 2009, Application:

STAY OF PROHIBITION APPLICATION FOR SUBJECTIVE DRUGS/ALCOHOL TESTING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION(07-02559)

The said Application for stay of proceedings was filed and served on April 01, 2009 and returnable on April 6, 2009 at 9:30 AM. Included was an Affidavit of (Wayne Ferron) starting on page 6, it was not cross examined. The said Application was dismissed without it’s completion and without any cross examination by the Crown or acknowledgment of the same Affidavit!

[347] May 04, 2009, Application:

MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS APPLICATION(07-02559)

The same Application for direction in perfecting the appeal was filed and served on April 27, 2009 and returnable on May 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM; furthermore, the same Application was adjourned to June 01, 2009. Included was an Affidavit of (Wayne Ferron) under tab 5 in the NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), it was not cross examined. THE SAME APPLICATION IS STILL OUTSTANDING!

I waited about eight hours for my matter to be spoken to. When the Honourable Justice Bryant was leaving I reminded your Worship that my Application had not been adjourned and it was a violation of the Fundamental Rule of Justice not to hear my Application.

[348] The honourable Justice Bryant stated that;

“the matter is adjourned to June 1, 2009 and be prepared to argue.”

The same adjournment was to the Appeal Hearing date, even though this is an issue which should have been remedied before the hearing of the Appeal of Right.

[349] Included in the said Application are;

MOTION FOR DIRECTION APPLICATION(07-02559);

NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559);

APPLICATION RECORD(07-02559).

[350] June 01, 2009 Application (Initial Appeal Hearing):

The APPEAL HEARING(07-02559), was adjourned to June 29, 2009!

The application NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), was not heard on this said day and was adjourned to June 29, 2009! NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INMATE APPEAL, adjourned by the honourable Justice Bryant was not heard, but the Hearing of the Appeal was adjourned to June 29, 2009 by the presiding Justice.

THE SAME APPLICATION IS STILL OUTSTANDING!

[351] June 29, 2009, Application;

The Hearing of Appeal of Right was adjourned to July 27, 2009!

The application NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), adjourned from June 01, 2009 was not to be heard on this June 29, 2009!

[352] The Honourable Justice Howden determined without the benefit of a fair hearing on a balance of probabilities that MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS APPLICATION(07-02559), for NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), WOULD NOT BE HEARD and that was the end of the said matter without the benefit of a fair hearing and an adjudication made on the balance of probabilities. The Honourable presiding learned Superior Court Justice actually made the state after I inquire about the same Application, that;

“ IT WILL NOT BE HEARD!”

THE SAME APPLICATION IS STILL OUTSTANDING!

[353] July 20, 2009, Application:

APPLICATION TO FIX DATE FOR HEARING OF APPEAL(07-02559)

pursuant to Rule 8, Rule 19 and section 819.

The said Application to fix an Appeal Hearing date was filed and served on July 03, 2009 and returnable on July 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM. THE APPLICATION IS STILL OUTSTANDING!

[354] On July 20, 2009 the Honourable Justice Bryant ordered my person to attend the Crown’s Office and see Mr. Westgate (Crown Attorney); I even got a judicial warning because I stated that the aforesaid direction was unreasonable. I went the very next day (July 20, 2009) to the Crown’s Office to see Mr. Westgate who disclosed to my person under false pretense the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript, in secret, the very same Transcript he accused me of using to hold up the Appeal Hearing of Right, the day before (July 20, 2008) to Your Worship Justice Bryant. The very same Transcript he was advising my person to photo copy and distribute without legal authority, in violation of copyright laws and in violation of the Court Reporters Legal Rights the day before (July 20, 2008). I do not approve of doing Court business off the record and outside of open court with no witnesses. He never have and hopefully , never will.

[355] Mr Westgate chose to disclose the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript at his office, outside of open Court and off the record. “Under the radar” so to speak, as though the said action was a covert action. This is suspect? This is proof for the mens rea part of a criminal offence being done concurrently with fraudulent actions and infers conspiracy. Their was already many unfulfilled court orders or direction starting from May 4, 2009 up until July 20, 2009 against the Crown which were unfulfilled.

[356] For example on June 29, 2009 the Honourable Justice Howden issued an order to the Crown to complete similar tasks which Justice Bryant was now ordering with the exception of attending the Crown’s Office.

[357] On July 27, 2009 the Honourable Justice Boswell simple switch the onus of the unfulfilled parts of the long outstanding Court Orders from the Crown to my person, and tasked me to complete the Crowns disclosure obligations. In my humble opinion, I was being forced to bear the the Crown cross without it jurisdiction and far reaching power of access.

CONFIDENCE AND INTEGRITY:

[358] At the lower Courts I was denied access to relevant evidence. Evidence which would have help me to know the case against me and empower me to give full answer in the context of Section 7 of the Charter. Evidence that belong to the public, evidence advised by the MARTIN REPORT to be disclosed, evidence directed by the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK to be disclosed, evidence directed by the ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DIRECTIVES to be disclosed, and evidence which should be kept safe and secure by it’s Stewart's for the interest of justice and the assurance of the public good.

[359] Similarly, relevant evidence that can effect the case, which I can point to and identify is be kept out of my hands. Is this questionable action to sanitize the matter? is this action to suppress evidence and actively prep the matter for a ruling against me? As oppose to open argument and open persuasion in an fair and equal trial before an impartial tribunal?

[360] The Crown took over four months to start or even assign my matter to a Crown counsel for processing. The Crown took about nine months to investigate the matter and give a written response. I continually made the unreasonable time taken by the Crown to perform its duties an issue. Respective Justices kept telling me that what the Crown is doing takes time and inferred that I should have patience.

[361] When I discovered that their are practiced directions at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO which demands that Appeals which fits the profile of my Appeal should be expedited; I made this an issue whenever I could. Since 360 days has long past to perfect the Appeal, all hell has broke lose to remedy this wrong committed against me by further denying me fair and equitable determination of issues and contentions on a balance of probability before and impartial single Judge.

[362] Their has been no weighing of contended issues in the legal scale for a just determination. Infact their has not even been a discussion in a meaningful way of Transcripts contended issues, contended disclosure issues and contended APPEAL BOOK issues; only a determination on a questionable unstated legal basis that other TRANSCRIPTS are not need in light of the fact that their are pending constitutional issues; only a determination on a questionable unstated legal basis that I will not be getting any more disclosure without rhyme or reason, despite the fact the the disclosure or outstanding from the lower Courts and I can point to them, I can cite them and identify the disclosures in question. THE MORE THAN 360 days which has passed, should have been used to perfect the Appeal and process contended issues prudently!

[363] Pursuant to New Approaches to Criminal Trials THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, May, 2006;

“Recommendations regarding Police Services

1. All parties involved in the provision of the constitutional right to disclosure are strongly encouraged to resolve the outstanding issues regarding the costs and provision of disclosure, and to implement all outstanding recommendations regarding disclosure in the Martin Report and Criminal Justice Review.”

[364] APPEAR OF PERMISSIBLE THEFT:

On February 7, 2009, I was called to be spoken to in the Inmate Appeal Court. I advised the said Court that the January 18, 2008 Transcript(C51190) was not certified and constituted theft by reading the disclaimer on the last page (Certification page), out loud in open Court as follows;

[365] The presiding Judge kept quietly, steering the proceeding away from the issue of theft and authenticity I had brought forward. I reacted by asking “if the law applies here? Does the rules apply here? does the criminal code apply?” something to that effect. The presiding Justice was silent on this point, until he finally stated “So What?” I could be wrong, but I assuming that the said response was to the uncertified Transcript Issue. This Affidavit is an attempt to answer the “So What” question.

Steeling is steeling, no matter who does it!

Is the law discriminatory?

Are the rules and laws which govern man only meant for poor wretched black folk like myself?

[366] In any event, the learned ONTARIO COURT JUSTICE did not ask me;

• to show the offending documents to the Crown;

• for him to see the offending documents;

• nor did he ask the Clerk of the Inmate Appeal Court, if he could review the same documents at issue, served and file in triplicates to the Registrar at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO for the Panel for the my Appeal.

[367] In short, their was no affirming or confirmation of the allegation at issue. It was just ignored, even-though this is part of the real evidence the Court, the Crown and I will rely on at the Hearing of the Appeal.

[368] The presiding Justice should have confirm for himself, the Court, and the public, the truthfulness of my Allegations or disprove it out rightly or give the Crown a chance to show evidence to the contrary. The prudent thing to do would be to affirm the allegation or dismiss the allegation and do whatever the Court is required to do to remedy the situation pursuant to the presiding Justices Jurisdiction.

[369] There was other discrepancies with other Transcripts for my Appeal, which brings into question their certification; but I was not able to articulate this point or given the opportunity to explain to the Court these concerns.

[370] I advised the Court that MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE(38702) was still outstanding. Furthermore, it was adjourned since May 14, 2010 and the disclosures in-question was promised to me by the lower Courts. I also asked about, determination of the issue endorsement in regards to Motion(38706). The learned ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL Justice advised the me that all he needed was the present(7 Feb 2011) Court Order; there was no need for Further Disclosure and Further Transcripts and he asserted that I was not going to get anything else. The presiding Justice made is order and asked if I would be using the Duty Counsel or representing myself. I said, I will be representing myself. Justice MacPherson, perfected the Appeal without any regard for Rights and Freedoms of the Court reporters or authenticity of the real evidence.

[371] I hope the aforementioned is not being done purposefully to bring the Administration of Justice into disrepute for the purpose of invoking 24(2). This argument is not in my AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION(C51190) nor my CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION and I don’t intend to invoke it. I am not here to win on technicalities, or obtain a “get out of jail free” card, nor use the Charter like a “genie in a bottle.” I am innocent, and I intend to prove it in the TRIAL DE NOVO. In the same spirit and manner the Crown believe in my guilt and intend to affirm it.

[372] I would like the opportunity to prove my innocence. I am at the COURT OF APPEAL, for one and only one reason;

• to prove my innocence;

• for this I need a fair and equitable re-TRIAL;

• for this I need a fair and equitable HEARING of the Appeal;

• for this I need a fair and equitable PROCESS;

• to get all that has been stated, the abuses of the process and Charter violation need to stop and be swept aside!

[373] How can the presiding Justice February 7, 2011 Court Order be of any force or effect pursuant to THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, since it infringes on the Section 7, 15 and 6.(1)(b) Rights and Freedoms of others. Section 7 Rights of the relevant Court Reporters who has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore Section 6.(1)(b) of the relevant Court Reporters, has a right to profit from their professional skills of their chosen profession. If Court Reporters Section 6.(1)(b) and Section 7 Rights are being violated, this brings into question there equity in law which is protected by Section 15 of the Charter.

[374] Therefore, pursuant to Section 6.(1)(b), 7, 15 and 32(1)(b), the Honourable Justice MacPherson Court Orders for February 7, 2011 may have no force are effect. And rightly so! I refuse to be party to unremorseful blatant theft of our beloved Court reporters intellectual properties. The real evidence, the Leave to Appeal is relying on consist of at least one of these ill-gotten offensive documents. The said Court Order is forcing me to use misappropriated (illegal) documents. I will obey the Court order;

I will go when the Court says go;

I will come when the Court says come;

I will speak when the court says speak;

However, the Administration of Justice has been advised on more than one occasion of this injustice.

[375] Similarly, on the 20^th of July 2009 Mr. Westgate for the Crown either knowingly or unknowingly, argued under false pretense; inferring that the my inability to bring the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript to the Crown’s Office or disclose the said Transcript to the Crown was delaying the Appellate Appeal.

[376] Mr. Westgate went has far as advising me in open Court on the record, to photo copy the complete April 28, 2008 Application Transcript and distributing them (file and serve copies), even though it is copy written material and is not certified to be material evidence nor is considered to be evidence by the Courts, according to the Evidence Act.

[377] Furthermore, the Transcript at issue was in the Crown’s Office since the 3^rdof July 2009. And was order by the Crown, since June 03, 2009.

Mr. Westgate had forgotten that I had the privilege of sitting through one of is prosecution against a young Asian male accused. The accused and his girlfriend had been Charged somewhere in Toronto for multiple copy right infringements. At the male accused Hearing for bail, he offered $60 000.00 surety for his bail; which failed against Mr. Westgate’s brilliant prosecution. For some reason the males matter was shipped to Newmarket and his girlfriend’s matter stayed in Toronto even though they were co-accused. Her bail hearing was successful and his was not.

[378] In-light of all this and the fact that Mr. Westgate is the Crown’s Attorney at Newmarket Court house for good reasons. One would realize this if one sat through his prosecutions. He still had the nerve to advise me in open court on the record to violate copy righted material and in essence steal the well deserved earnings out of the pockets of our beloved Court Reporters. I advised the Honourable Justice Bryant of this in a less dramatic tone.

[379] Nevertheless, the aforementioned Crown’s argument, induced the Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, to issue a Court Order against me. I even got a warning from the Court for stating that the said Court Order was unreasonable, because I don’t like to conduct Court business outside of Court.

[380] After staying up all night preparing to fulfill Justice Bryant’s Orders; on July 21, 2009 I filed and served a document (Applicant’s Disclosure for Inmate Appeal); containing all relevant information and photo copies to enable the Crown to order Transcripts for the Appeal.

[381] I filed and served, APPLICANT’S DISCLOSURE for INMATE APPEAL with the necessary and sufficient material to fulfill the Court order. Included a complete photo copy of the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript, all Transcript Order Forms used to unsuccessfully order Transcripts in November 2008, copies of all the court orders and both Informations; with a disclaimer for the Crown to pay the Court Reporters for the illegal copied material, since I wanted no part of stealing well deserved and hard earned wages from the Court Reporters for services rendered.

[382] WOMEN RIGHTS AND EQUITY:

I have advise the Courts of theft of Court Reporters intellectual property. Both the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO and THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. The Leave to Appeal materials or documents consist of at least one misappropriated document. Justice MacPherson, is forcing the Appeal to be based on stolen documents in the form of real evidence. This forces into question the credibility of the evidence and it authenticity. One should remember that most of the Court reporters are females. There is no care or concern shown for their rights, lively hood or their important position in the collective.

[383] How is their suppose to be an Appeal with no trusted evidence present. There is in essence no complete or reliable evidence from the lower Courts to base an Appeal on. There is no agreement of facts to base an Appeal on. How can the panel of Judges make a fair and just determination for leave. It is impossible for the Leave to Appeal to conform to the high standards of a judicial process, the said legal construct has been contaminated and its integrity compromised. Hence Leave to Appeal is not possible!

[384] I have done my duty as a law Abiding citizen in bring this fallacy which threaten to bastardize the integrity of the Leave to Appeal Hearing. I trusted and believe the Court would have exercised its jurisdiction to remedy the stated discrepancy. It shatters my heart to be wrong on this point; in condoning or allowing the hard earned dollars of Court Reporters to be Stolen for services rendered. You are in essence allowing apart of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to be stolen. I hope I am wrong on this point, because of lack of knowledge or over looking something. The alternative would be hard to digest, leaving a very bitter taste in ones mouth.

[385] Moreover, you are denying them the right to profit from their profession of choice. I respectfully refuse to be apart of this illegal Act or at the minimum, an actionable wrongs against our beloved Court Reporters. They may not say it or enforce it, but they don’t like it! Who would!

[386] Most of the court reporters I come in contact with are women, so this is just a continuation of the abuse and injustice women must endure each day and been enduring for thousands of years, in having others reap the rewards of their hard work. I am a father of four beloved girls, why should I like it. Hence, why should you!

[387] Again, I respectfully refuse to be party to this illegal Act. Hence, excuse me from being party to this injustice and violation of the SUPREME LAW OF CANADA which infringes on the RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS of the relevant Court reporters.

[388] Similarly, P.C. Lenore treatment by her mail counterparts was substandard while about the business of Her Majesty The Queen in York Regional Police Services.

It would be prudent to note that P.C. Lenore, a young female Officer of small stature dangerously and negligently extracted the me (175 lb) by herself; risking serious injury to the me and serious back injury to herself in the presence of about 6 to 7 strong male Officers of large stature.

[389] P.C. Lenore, a young female Officer of small stature, again without assistance of her strong fellow male Officers, of large stature; again risked back injury by pulling the Applicant (175 lb) from cell# 5 to the Bullpen .

[390] Pursuant to Officer Reid Williamson’s (1108), typed Officer’s Notes at 00:56;

“Transfer the (A) to bullpen. P/C Lenore had to drag him to bullpen”

(Officer Reid Williamson (1108), Typed Officer’s Notes, page 23)

[391] The aforementioned tortious actions, not only brings into question the manner in which suspects in custody are treated in York Regional Police Services, a public institution; but-also, the way in which female Officer are treated, excepted and respected as equal partners in law enforcement under the umbrella of York Regional Police Services.

[392] It is in my humble opinion, that this is a shameful act; to treat someone’s beloved daughter in this manner, risking injury to her person. As a man, as a father, as an Officer and as a human-being; one should feel empathy for P/C Lenore in the face of this insensitivity, even though none was felt for me while I was being assaulted. It would be constructive to know what the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS has to say about the aforesaid issues, the position of the YRP Board and the position of our Human Rights Organization.

[393] HEART OF THE ACCUSED:

The duty which lies on a member of the collective when she discovers a fallacy in a process which threaten to bastardize the integrity of the Appeal; is to bring it to the attention of the authority which has carriage and control of the said process. I have done this duty and should be relieved of any liability.

[394] Is the process being fair to me?

I humbly request my outstanding disclosure, that I may know my case and be empowered to give full answer pursuant to the fundamental rule of justice. I have seen the heart of Justice and felt the sting of the legal whip. I have no reason to call it my friend.

My only comfort is to avoid it at all cost for there is no honour or integrity in it. My only comfort is to be done with the matter, and put pen to paper recording my unGodly experience with guardians of the stolen Code. We are all constrained by the law, we are all constraint by the CRIMINAL CODE and we are definitely constraint by the RIGHTS AND FREEDOM of others.

[395] The battle has always been prep for my defeat by denying me necessary evidence in the form of further-disclosure, to deny me the right to known my case and give full answer. Evidence deemed to be disclosable disclosure by the Attorney General directive. Disclosure which would have greatly assisted me in my Appeal, in my full answer and defence. The battle has always been lost from the start of the battle because of the nondisclosure at the Trial and the Appellate Courts.

[396] I pray, do it fast and swift; unleash the guillotine and shatter the chains binding me with obligations for the Leave to Appeal; so I my put pen to paper and write down a few rhymes. I am the picture I endeavor to paint. I am the story I endeavor to write.

The story and the picture are incomplete. I am not informed fully of my matter, for want of timely disclosure owed to me. I cannot present to the Courts an unfinished picture.

I cannot recite an incomplete story. I am incomplete and my arguments are incomplete because of the evidence denied me, my children and the public to prove my innocence.

This is an affront and disrespectful of the Martin Report and flagrant disregard for the Attorney’s General Directive. This run contrary to the Minister of Justice policies and directives. And it is in human!

[397] I am being prep for defeat! The matter is crafted or molded to fit an already predetermined outcome of dismissal of the Appeal or the defeat of my efforts to show my innocence. There is no fairness in this, there is no honour in this, and their is no integrity. This is reasonable apprehension of bias and a violation of the fiduciary relationship which exist between the administration of justice and the accuse. This is an affront to the Martin Report, Attorney General’s Directive, Federal Prosecution Deskbook and the ends of Justice. Moreover, it is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[398] what I am arguing is fundamental to all Canadians. What I am arguing is fairness and equity of the process with in the context of my matter before this honourable Court! And it effect all players that are in this room, the Bar, the Bench, the Law enforcers and the accuse.

[399] Some thing which effects many members of the collective is much more important than the individual. The sins against the community is much more important than the sins against a member of the community. This diminishes the importance of matter in exchange for the much larger matter of fairness and equity which effects my matter and many other Canadians.

[400] I was under the impression that this was a scholarly Court and it doesn't shackle itself with only the argument of facts. But, prides itself on issues and arguments which evolve our community as a whole, benefits our society and insures or try to insure the health and well being of the collective.

[401] Surely, a self centered, simplistic self benefitting argument is not expected from me in such a institution which is held in such high regards. I recall hearing one Justice saying , that “the law is not dead but a living tree”!

[402] DECLARED WAR ON RIGHTS AND FREEDOM!

The Right to silence or the Right not to give uninformed answers or the Right not to engage in uninformed conversation with a person in authority because of the powerful ramifications in society at large and the Judicial System is a very important issue. Since ones life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness would be in jeopardy. The fact that whatever you say may be used in Judicial System against you, to convict you, and take away your Rights & Freedoms; forces the application of your Rights being duly administered to in a meaningful way in becoming the cornerstone of freedom and democracy; if this was not the case, there would be a gross violation of due process.

[403] One should not be forced, tricked or be conscripted to act as a witness against oneself for an all powerful adversary (the STATE), in manufacturing psychological evidence, producing psychological evidence or whatever the case maybe, in establishing leverage or gaining “the upper hand” to take away or steal ones own Rights and Freedom.

[404] In short the State is using its Public Agents or Public Servants or a persons in high authority to trick you, or to force you, or conscript you into vicariously becoming an agent of the State against yourself.

[405] The State, one’s powerful adversary in the context of law or legal matters; would have successfully transformed it’s own citizen with guaranteed Rights and Freedom into a State Agent and ones own executioner or Prosecutor in crucifying ones own self without due process of law or the application of ones legal Rights in a fair Hearing, in an open Court of competent jurisdiction, and before a fair and Impartial Tribunal.

[406] For all practical purpose, fairness, equity, and justness would have been thrown out of the process and be relegated to a small percentage of people in Canadian society with means while the overwhelming population are forced to contend with injustices and inequalities.

[407] The aforementioned is an open challenge to the Charter or is a shameless slap in the face of the Supreme law of Canada and our Democratic System of Governance. Our way of life along with the administration or our preferred management of Rights and Freedom to all Canadians would be in jeopardy. Your Rights & Freedom and my Rights & Freedom or in danger of being lost or stolen away. This is in essence the actions of a Police State or at the minimum the possible birth of one?

[408] The Rights and Freedoms being spoken about here are the following;

1. the Professional Standard of Reasonable Care;

2. The implied Covenant of Duty and Care, not to do harm to your patient;

3. Section 10. of the Charter;

4. Section 11. of the Charter;

5. Section 13. of the Charter;

6. Section 7. of the Charter;

7. Section 1. and Section 2. of the Bill of Rights;

8. Section 1. of the Human Rights Act;

9. Article 14 and Article 2 of The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

[409] It is with in the context of these said Rights and Freedom which I articulate my experience, state my views, and give my position on the matter before us. The search by law enforcers for psychological evidence for improper purposes or improper legal objectives, whom it seems has conscripted Mental Illness Professional, to mine for psychological evidence to rape, to steal and to ravage my Rights and Freedoms; so that I my be profiled as a mentally diseased violent psychotic individual. In addition with improper actions which are in line with a Police State, this is a shameless application of systemic racism or at the minimum a weaponization of so called “mental illness” in my humble opinion.

[410] This is my notice, this is my complaint, this is my story and this is my experience.

The matter before use began on the 27th of March 2007 in Keswick (OCC# 207-70285, Information 07-02559 & 07-02500). After being brutalize by the York Regional Police; in addition to being called a “CRACK HEAD”, my behaviour was described as being bizarre and strange.

[411] This was just on account of me choosing to exercise my Constitutional Right to remain silent, to guard against self-incrimination and not be engaged in uninformed conversation or giving uninformed answers to Police Officers questions without the counsel of a lawyer. Furthermore, my passive nonviolent action was profiled as strange alien behaviour. This was what was used to convict me in the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, and subsequently to confirm my conviction in the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. However, I don’t expect this miscarriage of justice to be upheld at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO(C51190).

[412] DECEPTION/LIE/FAULSE PRETENSE/ASSAULT:

On the 25th/26th of August 2011, Officer Perkins(2261) and his partner refused to identify themselves as officers of the law by name or badge number even after being asked in clear, load direct language for about 10 times or more, according to my account.

[413] Both the aforementioned Officers were not wearing there Police Hats with their shiny brass badge clearly and proudly displayed for the public to see. Later I found out that Officer Perkins(2261) had his badge number sown into his vest while his partner had no badge number sown into her vest. I still don’t know the said Officers name or badge number.

[414] Officer Perkins(2261) and his partner shamelessly lied to me that they were arresting me for trespassing on 2500 Cawthra Rd. property and I was being brought to the Police Station(12 Division) for processing.

[415] I was sleeping on Municipality property by and against a hydro electrical pole and about 7 feet away from a fire hydrant in the southerly-eastern direction and towards the road. I did not observe any bylaw signs, loitering signs or trespassing signs. I was not notified of any city bylaws or pointed to notification or warning signs. Moreover, if their is legislation in the Criminal Code against my actions which I just described; then I would liked to be charged accordingly and be processed accordingly and not be openly lied to, not be assaulted, not be glaringly deceived and to be informed of my Rights and have them executed forthwith in accordance with the Charter when being detained, arrested or placed into custody. After all we live in Canada and not a POLICE-STATE? It is a Police Officers duty and obligation to ensure that Canadian Rights and Freedoms are respected and enforced. COPS (civilian organized police services) work for the public and not for personal missions or alternative objectives. The public is the Police Officers master! Is this not why they re called Public Servant?

[416] 911’s PREMATURE ABORTION OF CALL FOR HELP:

After being released by Officer Perkins(2261) in an undisclosed, dark and secluded location; I phoned 911 to give a statement of the said event and ask for an Ambulance to check for damage to my person and attend to any wounds to my person and to take a statement of the assault I endured. I could not have been more wrong, this was the biggest mistake I made!

[417] The 911 Operator prematurely aborted the conversation after three squad cars and about 6 Police Officers appeared on the scene. She suspended the phone call for needed help.

[418] After I realized that the Police Sergeant was in a threatening position, at the ready to draw his gun as oppose to being prepared to take notes in the form of a statement, (no pen, no memorandum notebook). I called back 911 to inform them of my legitimate concerns and their reaction was to suspend and abort the phone call for needed help.

[419] For the said reasons and occurrences, my Rights and Freedoms are being stolen away and I am being forced to under go psychiatric assessment to be possible declared mentally ill or even mentally incompetent.

[420] WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM:

Day-1 of my custody and self-imposed hunger strike

After being dropped off at the William Osler Health System, Brampton Civic Hospital, I was placed in custody under Form 1. to have a forced psychiatric assessment to determine my so-called mental state or search for mental illness; without being duly informed of my Rights Guaranteed by the Chartered and having them executed forthwith.

[421] I understand that this is foreign territory for Doctors, since they are trained to administer to the needs of patients, and not trained in the application of legal rights or due process owed to someone in custody or being held against their will or forced to converse or engage in uninformed conversation with someone in authority. The Peel Regional Police and the William Osler Health System, appear to have some sort of symbiotic relationship. But maybe the “The Thin Skull” rule can be applied here, you take your victim as they are.

[422] The hospital staff took two vile of my blood without my given permission or without being duly informed of the reasons or justifications for the said action. I now know that drug screening test was done on my blood; what I don’t know is if some of my blood(bodily substance) is being used and stored as a genetic fingerprint and who has access to it ? One nurse even asked me about tattoos; what does tattoos has to do with medical treatment for my damaged left hand or was the said question just for identification cataloguing.

[423] What does a drug screening test has to do with an Officer assaulting my person and me subsequently calling 911 for help? In addition my temperature, and my blood pressure were taken. Even though my concern was with the damage to my left arm from the assault by Officer Perkins (2261) who was driving Cruiser 52.

[424] I had to insist for them to look at my left arm and continue to insist up until the 29th of August 2011. It was as though their was already a predetermine objective and purpose in-place and a process set up and ready to run you through and process you. It made no difference what injuries I had and that I called 911 and requested to have my injuries administered to.

[425] The medical staff was oblivious to my injuries, my medical concerns and even though I repetitive request medical attention for my damaged arm. It was I who called 911 twice requesting for medical help to administer to my wounds after being assaulted by Officer Perkins(2261).

[426] On the 26th of August 2011 in the very early morning (a guess of about 3:00 A.M), the Emergency Medical Doctor, Dr. Jeffry Handler, saw me for less than 1 min. I requested that my left arm be looked after. Basically he walked into the room and placed or dropped a white sheet of paper on the bed as though I do-not deserve or require due process; which I later found out was a Form 42. which indicated on the back that I had the right to instruct a lawyer. This was the full extent of my interaction with the said Doctor.

[427] This said Form 42. was not handed to me in my hand and explained in a meaningful way nor was I informed of my Rights in a meaningful way nor was my rights administered to forthwith. I was not even told of the existence, importance or relevance of such a form, it was just thrown on the bed like a “dog being fed”.

[428] This said Doctor, Dr. Jeffry Handler, with his prudent medical examination and analysis, decided to admit me to Acute Mental Health care under Form 1. and have my Brain CAT scanned. I had no cuts on my head, I had no bumps on my head, I had no headaches, I was not suffering from trauma to the head. I am a person who doesnot get headaches. Sure, I was knocked in the head many times with the door of Cruiser 52, but the Peel Regional Police would never have told the Doctor that bit of information. Although the Aforesaid would constitute assault under the Criminal Code and the hits were firm, I don’t believe there was any damage to my head because the force is distributed over a large surface area which is padded; in contrast, my left arm was numb and my left finger and fingernail was bleeding and yet the medical staff refused to apply medical treatment to it.

[429] So where is the medical justification for a CAT scan of my precious Brain? Or more precisely, where is the medical justification to reradiate my Brain bombarded with charged subatomic particles which have an adverse side effect of inducing free radicals, which intern increase the likelihood for cancer or induce cancer for no good medical reason. Furthermore, to have me assessed for mental illness and more than likely declared mentally incompetent, without due process, without access to counsel and without the application of my Rights and having them administered to forth with in accordance with the Supreme Law of Canada.

[430] The security guard assigned to me, whom did-not understand the dynamic of the CAT scan and could not articulate the process in scanning ones brain, was insistent on this said test. He kept on repeating multiple of time that the doctor ordered it and I should be taking it. The said security guard was so insistent and forceful in his language for this said procedure, that the nurses who were responsible for the CAT scan medical procedure , had to boldly tell him in clear and direct language that;

“the patient has the last word on medical procedures!”

[431] Just imagine, a security guard, who is not a licence or trained medical technician or medical professional at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, has enough confidence to step outside the boundaries of his authority(exceeding his jurisdiction), and to try and effect a medical procedure or process under the carriage and control of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital! This is very, very, very, scary!!!

[432] On the aforementioned basis, Dr. Handler in addition to ordering a CAT scan of my Brain for no medical or an undisclosed medical reason to the patient made an application for me to have a psychiatric assessment in the following manner;

“This is to inform you that Dr. Jeffry Handler examined you on 26/08/2011 and has made an application for you to have a psychiatric assessment.

The physician has certified that...he has reasonable cause to believe that you have:

✓behaved or behaving violently towards another person or have caused or are causing another person to fear bodily harm from you; or

✓shown or are showing a lack of competence to care for yourself and that you are suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in:

✓serious bodily harm to yourself;

✓serious bodily harm to another person; or

✓serious physical impairment of you.

{...}

The application is sufficient authority to hold you in custody in this hospital for up to 72 hours.

You have a right to retain and instruct a lawyer without delay.”

[433] On the 26th of August 2011, Dr. Jeffry Handler did not in any shape or form review or even inform me of the existence of Form 42 or Form 1, much-less in a meaningful way. The medical staff did-not asked if I was capable of reading or had the mental or intellectual capacity to understand Form 42. Furthermore, I am not a lawyer and Dr. Jeffry Handler was making an adverse inference to my mental state so how could their possible be a reasonable assumption made within the context of my understanding of Form 42., Form 1. (a legal document) or the medical process that I was being subjected to.

[434] This is blatant defamation, a denial of due process, and a denial of my Section 7., Section 10. and Section 15. Charter of Rights; since it has no real basis in facts. Furthermore, the Peel Police Officers know some of the medical staff which could be coloured to their way of thinking for their task, their objective, and their purpose. Hence, reasonable apprehension of bias exist with in this mingled medical and legal process for custody/psychiatric assessment.

[435] Where is the Standard of Reasonable Care? Where is the Duty of Care and its implied covenant, not to do harm to your patients? I am being harmed! I feel as though I live in a Police State containing fringes elements with improper personal missions. The said fringed elements seemed to have the power and ability to use good medical people vicariously to side step or circumvent the Judicial process and force or engineer desirable outcomes for legal matters they cannot hope to win in open Court, in a fair Hearing, and before a fair and impartial Tribunal in my humble opinion.

[436] On the 26th of August 2011, the 1st councilor who came to engage me in conversation was unknown and I would like to refer to him as Councilor X. On the 26th of August 2011, an unidentified person, slipped into the room I was being held in after Dr. Jeffry handler’s less than 1 minute visit. No one has been able to identify or confirm the existence of Councilor X.

[437] I was sitting on a blanket on the right side of the floor in a cross legged position if one is facing the door to the same room, when Councilor X walked into my holding room to engage me in uninformed conversation. Councilor X sat on the bed staring at me with a sinister look. He was a male caucasian past his middle age or older than middle age, about 5 feet 4 inches and had a similar size to a marathon runner. I am not saying he was as fit as a long distance runner, but only that he had a similar body type or physical appearance taking into consideration his clothes. He had on a black military style pant's (the kind security guards wear). He might have been wearing a gray vest but I am not sure. He had a clipboard in his hand and a constant grin which revealed all his upper front teeth while he sat cross-legged with a persistent stare downwards at me.

[438] I wrongly believed that he was the psychiatrist; I wrongly believed that Councilor X

was the psychiatrist; maybe this was part of some plan of deception, I don’t know. But this event was too strange for me not to take note of it, especially when the nurses on the floor could not identify him at my request. The first thing Councilor X said to me was that I have a mental problem. He did not ask me but boldly stated it in a soft direct tone and in no uncertain language in the following form;

“You have a mental problem!”

[439] He made this statement repetitively many times while shaking his head up and down in the affirmative manner. I countered repetitively by stating that I did-not have a mental problem in clear, direct and concise language. In addition to the aforesaid, Councilor X would randomly check off things on a clipboard he had in his hand.

[440] I eventually started talking about the occurrence with the Peel Regional Police. While Councilor X became increasingly bolder in his questioning as time went on; he started to ask leading questions, I deduced that he was trying to or attempting to get me to agree with him or concur with his improper leading questions; which were not proper questions but suggestion and professional advise with in the context of psychological key words to catalogue mental disorders when probing ones mind. For example, hearing voices , perceiving that someone is always following you, having special powers, etc.

[441] After boldly denying the occurrence of any of the things Councilor X was inferring, advising or suggesting. I informed him that he was asking me leading questions. Furthermore, that he was trying to stare me in a certain direction of his choosing, and what he was trying to do would not hold up in Court.

[442] I became very suspicious and , requested that he identify himself in clear direct precise language. He flashed an identification card with orange horizontal stripes or strip on a white background, and asserted that he was a councilor. I Countered and said that as a councilor you cannot ask psychological questions. Imagine the horror of a councilor giving an appearance or presenting himself in the cloak of a psychologist or acting in the capacity of a psychiatrist whom is also a medical doctor.

[443] This is about when the Session with Councilor X ended. Councilor X with a slow motion movements ticked something off his clipboard with the same sinister grin and left the room I was being held in.

[444] TAKE NOTICE: That a second councilor, a friendly middle age tall caucasian lady came to speak with me later on in the morning and was more concerned with my well being (housing, work, mobility), instead of leading questions, my mental state or covert interrogation. So if this second councilor who the floor nurses confirmed is the councilor, who was Councilor X and what was his objective and purpose?

[445] On the 26th of August 2011, Dr. Koczerginski, a psychiatric Doctor entered the room I was being held in to engage me in uninformed conversation for the 1st time. Neither Dr. Koczerginski nor any one else before him who came to speak to me, informed me of my Rights in a meaningful way, or that I had a Right to access or instruct council forthwith.

[446] On the 26th of August 2011, Dr. Koczerginski (a psychiatrist) with 30 years experience and is a person in great authority, engaged me in uninformed conversation while under the carriage and control of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, when he and all who came before him to engage me(Wayne Ferron) in uninformed conversation, failed to inform me of my rights in a meaningful way or advise my person that I had the right to retain and instruct counsel forthwith.

[447] As a result Dr. Koczerginski and I had uninformed discussion for about 30 minutes. Furthermore, I had a uninformed discussion or assessment or whatever the case may with the said psychiatrist, a person in authority and whose words carry great weigh in society at large, in the Judicial System and have great ramification to my life and my beloved children’s life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness; without being duly informed of my Rights, without having access to a council to advise me, and without having a lawyer present. Dr. Koczerginski at the end of the uninformed conversation asked me in a bold voice with a clear and direct language;

“What can I do for you?”

[448] I silently placed an adverse inference on this question, to indicate Drugs in the form of prescription. but I did not say this to the said Doctor because their was no factual basis for it other than my interpretation and and opinion. The meaning of his question was never articulated in a meaningful way. The said doctor informed me that he would release me and a councilor(2nd councilor) would be meeting with me.

[449] JUSTICE TAKES VACATION ON FRIDAYS:

Upon my release from the Brampton Civic Hospital, in the morning on the 26th of August 2011, I went to the Willians Davis Brampton Court House to file an Information or file charges against Officer Perkins(2261) whom assaulted me, lied to me, deceived me and refused to disclose his name or badge number even after being asked for about 10 or more times in clear and concise language to do so.

[450] After entering the Judicial Office and signing up to see a Justice of the Peace for the purpose of filing an information and making an oath of reasonable belief on the truthfulness of my allegation in the said Information as prescribed by Section 504. of the Criminal Code legislation.

[451] A Brampton Court House Clerk advised me to go to 12-Division and file a complaint against Officer Perkins(2261). This is in spite of the fact that Officer Perkins(2261) had successfully castrate my ability to travel by taking all my ID, all my bus tickets and my Bank card which in essence established a barrier to my mobility.

[452] I informed the said Clerk in clear, direct, and concise language that I am familIar with the complaint process she is speaking about, however I was here to file an information. Moreover, I had no means of going to 12-DIVISION.

[453] After about 5 minutes the said Clerk returned and called me up to the counter window to inform me that I cannot file a private information on that day. Imagine that, Justice is taking a vacation on Fridays. Moreover, Justice is taking a vacation from it obligation to private citizens on Fridays, but Police Officer are welcome and Crown Prosecutors are welcome; but private citizen who wish to enforce the law in accordance with Parliamentary Legislation and the Public Good are not welcomed because justice is on vacation for their Rights and Freedom.

[454] I don’t know if any one in the Courthouse realizes that Section. 15 (Equality of the law) and Section 504. (filing charges or an information) of parliamentary legislation is being violated. In my humble view, this is an illegal action in a Court House.

[455] Imagine, you are assaulted. The Criminal Code of Canada tells you that in such cases, you may go to a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, then swear an oath of reasonable belief before a Justice of the Peace while filing an information of the said allegation. This is to start the wheels of Justice moving to meet the ends of Justice or to fulfill the interest of Justice.

[456] Imagine my horror in discovering that something as disgusting as this exist in Canada, a Free and Democratic System of Governance; or are Canadians of the opinion that what has been said only exist in a Police State of some sort or variation?

[457] If one is raped, assaulted or if anyone believe that a Crime has been committed against her person; the Criminal Code of Canada tell you that in such a case, you may go to a Court of Competent Jurisdiction and file charges against the one who did you wrong.

[458] And here I was being told by a Clerk of the Williams Davis, Brampton Courthouse

; a Court of Competent Jurisdiction and residing in the jurisdictional Territory or Provence or whatever the case may be, of where the allege crime occurred; that the Williams Davis Brampton Courthouse would not be able to do what the Parliament of Canada has legislated and enshrined in the Criminal Code, to administer to my Rights in seeking Justice for allege crimes committed against my person.

[459] What else is left, but to ask to be arrested. Since I was shown in a practical way that there was no Justice or it was at the minimum taking a vacation on that particular day. So I asked to be arrested in a non violent passive manner, Just like Dr. King or Mr. Gandhi would have done. But I was arrested in an abusive way. I was choked and I have a 3 to 4 inch scar on my left side of my neck and a soreness on the left inside part of my throat.

[453] I more than likely informed the Officers more than 20 times of my Rights to silence, whom seem to come like the box cars of a train to question me and strongly engage me in informed conversation against my stated wishes of chosen silence in the application of my guaranteed Charter Rights and Freedom.

[454] FORM 1/CUSTODY:

For this reason, Officers, Public servants for the betterment of the community; endeavor to act in the capacity of a medical doctor or a medical professional, to determine that my actions were bizarre, that I was “borderline” at best. At least, this is what a female Officer kept repeating at the William Osler System, Brampton Civic Hospital.

[455] In my humble opinion, for this reason I(wayne Ferron) of sound mind was put on a FORM1. for psychiatric assessment to be determine mentally diseased or more than likely mentally incompetent. But more importantly, to be profiled as a mentally diseased, violent, bizarre psychotic individual, just for being assaulted and daring to seek the ends of justice for crimes committed against my person during the said assault. Is this not in the interest of justice or the consciousness of the Court? Is the aforementioned not improper profiling and systemic racism in action?

[456] But just on the face of it without a prudent investigation; this action and ones similar to it would solve many problems. This is possible a way to reduce the traffic and pressure in full Court Houses taxed with a large amount of human traffic.

[457] To have a process in place to deal with the undesirables in our society and the funding problems Hospitals have; Moreover, to divert a part of the Court traffic to hospital mental intensive care wards, with the added benefits of circumventing my Rights and Freedom while extending my custody without ever seeing or speaking to a lawyer or having a fair and equitable hearing is truly a sad day in Canada and a massive blow to Canadian Rights and Freedom.

[458] The hospital and subcontracting medical staff must be paid for services rendered. In short, it would solve a problem with undesirables who are not really criminals while at the same time filling the coffers of Hospitals and lining the pockets of relevant medical staff and drug or pharmaceutical companies,m in my humble opinion. This is why I said the relationship between law enforcement and hospital might possibly be symbiotic.

[459] I am prepared to say that the mental health services is being bastardized and weaponized against undesirables like myself at the cost of integrity and public confidence, at least this was my experience. But where there is one, there are more than likely many. For me, this is much more than just a “false positive.” Hence, this is a declaration of war on my Rights and Freedom and maybe even the Rights and Freedoms of society at large? Who best to start with than the homeless? Thus, declaration of war on the homeless?

[460] For this reason, I was put on a FORM 1. for psychiatric assessment to determine mental illness or more than likely mental incompetence.

[461] There is a false appearance of no requirement , which has a negative effect on effort or a lack of urgency placed upon having the Rights and freedom of a person in custody in a mental intensive care unit administered to and applied in a practical way. There is a great need for due process.

[462] Wrongly or rightly, as for as I am concerned, my legal Rights exist, the Supreme Law of Canada is alive and well. The Charter is transcendental, and is not rendered impotent or dead because the Peel Regional Police decides to arrest me, then circumvent my legal Rights by bypassing the Judicial System and placing me under custody in the WILLIAM OSLEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Brampton Civic Hospital, Mental Intensive Care unit, for seeking the ends of Justice of an allege assault by Officer Perkins(2261). I don’t even know who has carriage and control over me at this point; the Brampton Civic Hospital or the Peel Regional Police Service or both?

[463] The whole even is strange and questionable;

I. I have not been issued any tickets for any crime or crimes committed;

II. I have not been issued any summons to appear to be spoken to for identification of a criminal act, before a Judge of the Court and in a court of competent jurisdiction;

III. I have not entered into any recognizance of bail;

IV. I have not been served any warrants for contravention of any section of the Criminal Code or ticket for municipality bylaws or for a lawful search for evidence of a crime or crimes reasonably believe to have been committed; and

V. there has not been a disclosing of an information along with a crown’s brief.

[464] The Peel Regional Police Services reasons for making and adverse inference of mental illness is a result of my decision to effect the application of my Right to silence and avoid being conscripted into defeating myself before being given the right to instruct a lawyer forthwith.

[465] I informed Officers that I will not make uninformed statement or have uninformed conversation with with a person in authority many many times(about 20). Because of my application of my constitutional Right to silence, the Officers profiled my behavior as bizarre and borderline, even though I repetitively informed them of my Rights to silence. Different Officers would constantly harass me to engage them in uninformed conversation, even though I had not contacted a lawyer forthwith. One particular Officer was even annoyed that I would have conversation with the emergency staff and not him.

[466] It is an officer’s duty to protect the constitutional Rights of the citizens of Canadian society at large, and to protect their Human Rights, Civil Rights, Political Rights, and any other Rights and Freedoms they may have.

[467] Once again for the aforesaid occurrences, I was placed on a FORM 1. for psychiatric assessment for mental illness or possible to be determined mentally incompetent.

[468] The staff at the WILLIAM OSLEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Brampton Civic Hospital , Acute Mental and Mental Intensive Care Unit would constantly try to engage my person with psychological questions, even though I would constantly inform them that I have not been informed of my Rights and I need to consult with my lawyer before having conversation with a person in authority. I refuse to have uninformed conversations!

[469] It should be noted that Officers or one of the Officers kept saying that I was “borderline”. I inferred that this was a psychological assessment by the said Officers. When are Law Enforcement Officers permitted to act in the capacity of a psychiatrist and make a ruling on a person’s mental state or supposed mental illness?

[470] How is the logical jump made from my person being assaulted along with the aforesaid irregular events transmogrified into my mental state being questioned? Did anyone question law enforcement Officers motives, objective or even professionalism?

[471] How is the logical leap made from my person being;

I. assaulted by Peel Regional Police;

II. lied to and deceived by Officers of the Law;

III. having 911 prematurely abort my phone call for help twice before the completion of the conversation or call; and

IV. denying me the Right to file charges against Officer Perkins(2261) who assaulted me, harassing and deceiving me into having uninformed conversation with person in authority.

[472] How are the logical chains connected and the logical leap made from the aforementioned, to questions about hearing voices, having special powers, people following me, and having thoughts of harming myself?

I. Is there a witness or did someone take a statement of me hearing voices?

II. Is there a witness or did someone take a statement of me having special powers?

III. Is there a witness or did someone take a statement concerning people following me?

IV. Is there a witness or did someone take a statement of me having thoughts of harming myself?

V. Is there a witness or did someone take a statement of me being violent, threatening, and psychotic?

[473] There is a great fallacy in the logic being used. There is a logical disconnect between the factual evidence and the adverse inferences of the Peel Regional Police and the Brampton Civic Hospital Acute Mental Illness and Mental Intensive care unit. There is simple no evidence to support all that is being done to my person and the adverse inferences to my person. So is this improper profiling and systemic racism in action?

[474] There is no logic here! There is a want of sound scientific basis for what is being asked; hence fallacies in the chain of logic being desperately relied upon. This is voodoo science, harassment of my person, the profiling of a person belonging to a undesirable racial group being engineered, and systemic racism in action, in my humble opinion.

[475] On Friday the 26th of August 2011, I was placed on FORM 1. by Dr. Hood to be mentally assessed and possible declared mentally incompetent. According to the medical staff, Dr. R. Hood saw me for about 7 minutes and she made the following findings on the said basis;

[476] On the aforementioned basis, Dr. R. Hood for undisclosed medical reason to her patient made an application for me to have a psychiatric assessment in the following manner;

“This is to inform you that Dr. R Hood examined you on 26/08/2011 and has made an application for you to have a psychiatric assessment.

The physician has certified that...she has reasonable cause to believe that you have:

✓shown or are showing a lack of competence to care for yourself and that you are suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in:

✓serious bodily harm to yourself;

✓serious physical impairment of you.

{...}

The application is sufficient authority to hold you in custody in this hospital for up to 72 hours.

You have a right to retain and instruct a lawyer without delay.”

[477] On the 26th of August 2011, Dr. R Hood did not in any shape or form review or even inform me of the existence of Form 42. or Form 1., much-less inform me of my Rights to instruct a lawyer forthwith in a meaningful way.

[478] The medical staff did-not asked if I was capable of reading or had the mental or intellectual capacity to understand Form 42.. Furthermore, I am not a lawyer and Dr. R Hood was making an adverse inference to my mental state so how could their possible be a reasonable assumption made within the context of my understanding of Form 42., Form 1. (legal documents), or the medical process that I was being subjected to.

[479] This is blatant defamation, a denial of due process, and a denial of my Section 7., Section 10., and Section 15. of the Charter of Rights; since it has no real basis in facts. Furthermore, the Peel Regional Police Officers know some of the medical staff which could be coloured or tainted to their way of thinking for their task, their objective, and their purpose in my humble opinion.

[480] Hence, reasonable apprehension of bias exist in the process applied to the matter before us. For example, the female Officer kept on repeating all night that he(wayne Ferron) is borderline or it is as-though he is borderline, yet she spent a great deal of time trying to engage me in uninformed conversation after I informed the Peel Police Officers that I need to speak to my lawyer and will not have uninformed conversation with persons in authority.

[481] She was diligent in taking notes when we were talking about similar things we both do, such as running and physical workout. She was also familiar with the Hospital, referring to a Chinese Doctor who had adverse feeling towards the police because of a Highway occurrence between his wife and Police Officers. She named another one which she had good experience with and are favourable in her view.

[482] TAKE NOTICE: I had not slept on the night of Thursday the 25th of August 2011. Moreover, I suffered from Trauma from the abuse from the Peel Regional Police, law enforcement. I was kept for a very long period of time with my hands cuffed behind my back and suffer from fatigue and trauma from the assault of Officer Perkins (2261) , the pressure of the metal cuffs against my tender tissues(nerves, etc..), for unGodly length s of time, and assault from other Officers. In addition to this aforementioned, my back, hands, and arms was extremely fatigue and I tried to deal with it along with severe depravation of sleep as best as I could.

[483] ACUTE MENTAL HEALTH UNIT:

Day-2 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

On Saturday the 27th of August 2011 at or about 4:00 A.M. I was moved into a holding room in the Acute Mental Health Unit.

[484] There was two rooms in the said ACUTE MENTAL CARE unit, there was a face wash bowl in the hallway, located between or on the outer wall of the first room which was empty. A washroom was located across the hallway from the first empty room and a lone security guard sat guarding at a location between the closes exit to the first room and the washroom. Directly across from the second room which I was assigned to, was a nurse station or observation room.

[485] I was assigned to the second room from the security guard and across from the nurses observation room. My room had a camera or cameras contain in a dark transparent black half globe which was installed on the right hand side on the ceiling. So much for the Rights to Privacy or whatever they may call it these days?

[486] I move the bed in the opposite direction of the location of the camera, to give me more space, and I spread a blanket on the floor to do my regular morning Yoga practice. The 1st Nurse came from her nurses station across the hallway and burst into the said room while declaring in a loud voice;

“Who moved the bed?”

[487] She stated at close proximity to my person while looking into my face in a direct voice;

“Only crazy people exercise this early in the morning!”

[488] She was obviously, very upset at something or the other. Furthermore, the 1st Nurse asserted or inferred that they think that I am crazy and that I was violent and threatening people. She did not give any examples of who I was violent to or whom I had or was threatening. I was only doing my Yoga practice on a blanket on the floor; which in my view was not a big deal and a much smaller issue than she was making it out to be. Or maybe I was unknowingly messing up some sort of observation in progress or whatever the case may be?

[489] Furthermore, the 1st Nurse asserted on many occasions that the floor which I was doing Yoga was filthy!! She continued to ramble on about how disgusting the hospital floors were, by stating to my person repetitively;

“The floor is filthy! The floor is filthy! The floor is filthy...”

[490] I was not aware that a patients doing regular morning Yoga exercises to maintain good health and well being and reduce stress, could cause this much problems. However, I ignored her and continue my Yoga practice, I was not about to have my peace and tranquility sabotaged; In any event I continued to do and complete my Yoga exercises. The early mornings is the part of the day I most enjoy.

[491] CASE 1:

If it is the case that the floor is indeed so filthy as being inferred by the 1st Nurse , then this would be an obvious continual violation of the Health and Safety Act; not to mention a flagrant violation of the of Professional Standard of Reasonable Care owed to a patient, and a violation of the implied covenant of Duty of Care, not to do harm to your patient.

[492] CASE 2:

Patients such as myself, are not allowed to wear their shoes. Patients shoes, clothes, and personal items are prudently confiscated by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, security Officers and locked away. So most of the time at the initial stage of this process I was walking with bare feet on the so called “filthy floor”, as were many others. I had to beg the said hospital security to keep my socks as a guard against the cold floor.

[493] CASE 3:

I had an open wound on my left little finger and nail as a result of the assault of Officer Perkins (2261) who drove Cruiser 52. I repetitively begged the emergency staff to stitch close my open wound from the Friday the 26th of August 2011, early in the morning to no avail.

[494] If the 1st Nurse in the ACUTE MENTAL CARE unit, at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Brampton Civic Hospital, care so much or was so concerned about “filthy floors.” They would have guarded me against the “ filthy floors” by stitching up my open wound shut, to help guard against deadly infections, when I repetitively requested it to be done.

[495] WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Brampton Civic Hospital, should have showed reasonable profession standard of care by protecting my health and well being. To protect me their patient against, infections, flesh eating bacteria, ets and antibiotic resistance bacteria like MRSA.

[496] Later on in my stay at the Mental Intensive Care Ward at Brampton Civic Hospital, one of my nurse (Filomena) witness me doing Yoga at about 7:00 A.M. and her reaction was to say;

“Boy you are flexible...”

[497] Another time my nurse (Joan) said to me at about 7:00 A.M. in the morning while I was practicing Yoga;

“Sorry to disturb your sun salutation, but I will be your nurse today.”

[498] The Orderlies, Jeff, Ian and Junior witness me practicing Yoga every morning when they came to take my vitals, blood pressure, oxygen, temperature, and heart rate; there reactions are similar in kind and in the following format;

“You are in excellent shape, keep up the good work.”

[499] My medical Doctor (Dr. Siegel), reaction after my examination was;

“You look good.”

[500] REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE/MRSA:

There is a patient two doors to the left of me in Isolation Room N.1.117, whose name I reasonable belief to be “Brant”. Brant has been possibly exposed to MRSA, an antibiotic resistance bacteria. Brant shared a room upstairs(possible 6th floor), with a person who has been determined to be infected with MRSA or tested positive for MRSA or been exposed to MRSA or whatever the case may be. The aforesaid unnamed person was Brant’s past roommate before the Hospital found out that his injuries was caused by an attempt to commit suicide.

[501] The important issue is Brant, a patient who has been possibly exposed to MRSA and is deemed to be in isolation by the caution sign on is door (N.1.117), to all medical staff and his visitors; moreover, their is an isolation delineation along with Brant’s Room number (Isolation N.1.117). He was out all morning and all day on the 2nd of september 2011, even though he was not dully declared by the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, relevant medical staff to be free of any MRSA contamination. Brant, in addition to spending the morning and day outside, spent time in the lunch room while using the phone or finish eating his lunch.

[502] In the evening on the same day, Brant’s nurse(Janie) came in to the TV room and asked him to go back to his isolation room. Since, I was in close proximity to nurse Janie and Brant on the sofa adjacent to the one they were sitting and talking in, I overheard her inform Brant that his MRSA test were not completed and he must go back to his isolation room. Brant replied by saying;

“please don’t do that to me.”

Nurse Janie countered by informing him that she allowed him to be out all day already and his test related to MRSA exposer has not been completed or something to that effect.

[503] Recall, Brant was out and about all morning and all day. I had long conversations with him, sat in the same chair and used the same TV converter after he used it. I even handed him his lunch while he was getting in his wheel chair and wipe up the water he left on the arm of the same chair after he left to finish his lunch in the lunch room.

[504] Brant disclosed to me how his ex-wife and daughter was suppose to visit him on the same day and how he was going to move in with his parents after he left Brampton Civic Hospital.

[505] Brant even told me how he tried unsuccessfully to commit suicide by jumping off a 40 to 50 feet bridge; breaking his legs or thigh and shattering the bones in his face. He also revealed that he has a long metal rod holding the broken bone of his right thigh together. The resulting open wound from the operation had to be closed with an accumulated length of about 18 inches of staples to his right thigh

[506] According to Brant, his face had about 3 medal plates holding the shattered bones together. He would repetitively ask the medical staff for ice to sooth the pain in his face.

[507] I don’t know how much damage was done to his left leg, but, he removed his removable cast after asking permission to do so and for which I answered in the affirmative.

[508] He said that after he jumped and did all his physical damage, he crawled between two bridges; so when he was admitted to the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, quite possible on the sixth floor, no one knew he had tried to end his life.

[509] It was not until his ex-wife, “ratted him out”, as he puts it or made the Hospital aware of his attempted suicide, that the hospital transfered him to the MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT and assigned him to Room N.1.117 for a mental illness or mental state of depression and being suicidal.

[510] Brant, informed me that he is constantly in unbearable pain, for which has been taking up to 12 pills a day(addictive pain killer). He said they were addictive, but the Hospital was trying to cut him down to 6 pain killers per day. I even spoke wishfully, to have both his legs cut off, if it would reduce the pain.

[511] On Friday evening of the 2nd of September 2011, Brant left his isolation room (Room N.1. 117) covertly and went to the lunch room to use the phone and was using the regularly used Bell phone, which all patients use. This was after his nurse(Janie) returned him back to his room and confined him there until an all clear from the relevant authority of the Hospital. I promptly informed the orderly, to inform his nurse, that Brant of isolation room N.1.117, was suppose to be in isolation.

[512] In addition to having a sore throat, my left little finger and upper part of left nail has open wounds which the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, medical staff has refused to stitch close from the 26th of August 2011. Furthermore, the open wound in the left side of my throat which I reasonable believe was caused when Police Officers pulled me up by the back of my shirt thereby chocking me with my own collar and also grabbing me by the neck with a bare hand. Their is a 3 to 4 inch scar on the lower part of my neck to show for this use of force action.

[513] The point is, I have open wounds the antibiotic resistant bacteria (MRSA) could enter my body and proliferate. I was possible being unnecessarily and negligently exposed to MRSA. Is the unknown risk I am being exposed to fair to me and the other patient? Is the aforesaid action in accordance with the professional standard of reasonable care?

[514] Brant’s young daughter (about 16 or so), along with her friend came too visit him and his daughter and her friend had to conduct themselves in accordance with the policy and procedure the hospital has laid down. They washed before entering Brant’s room(N.1.117) and they washed after leaving the room. I am unaware of other precautions which might have been taken.

“CONTACT PRECAUTIONS

Visitors Report to Nursing Station before entering Room

PICTURE OF GOWN PICTURE OF GLOVES

FOR ALL PERSONS ENTERING ROOM

Wash our Hands Before and After Patient Contact”

[515] FOOD TO SUSTAIN ME:

Day-8 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

On Friday the 02nd of September 2011, at or about 7:30 P.M., my cousin came to visit me and bring me some simple foods. She immediately noticed a long scar on my neck healing or at the final stages of the healing process on the left lower part of my neck. I have been in the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, for eight days, begging for the staff to attend to my wounds caused by the Peel Regional Police and all the personnel from the medical staff at the said medical institution iI came in contact with, failed to point out my injury on the left side of my neck, even though I have been constantly complaining of pain in the left side of my throat where the Officer grabbed me by the throat.

[516] Is this a professional standard of reasonable care? It should be noted that the light in the washroom was dull and dying and didn't provide sufficient illumination to see the damage to my neck. The washroom is the only place a mirror exist for me to see my reflection.

[517] Day-9 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

On Saturday the 03rd of September 2011, at or about 2:00 P.M., Dr. Noorani came to engage me in conversation in my room (N.1.121), in the capacity of a psychiatrist. He asked me if I was okay? I responded by asking him if he he had read my file? He answered in the negative. So I informed him that I cannot have uninformed conversation with him, and I must speak to my lawyer before speaking to him. He indicated that he understand and left to see other patients.

[518] Day-10 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

On Sunday on the 04th of September 2011, at or about 8:00 P.M.. My throat is still sore and my left finger and nail is still healing. Brant, is still in isolation. Brant still occupies room N.1.117 with a warning or caution sign on it.

[519] Day-11 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

On Monday the 05th of September 2011, at or about 1:00 P.M., Brant was brought out of his room with a bright yellow mask on in his wheel chair. I don’t know if he has been cleared to leave his room. I don’t know if he is still in isolation for possible MRSA exposer.

[520] What I know is that the warning or caution sign is still on his door, the isolation delineation along with his room number (N.1.117) is still there.

[521] A little later on the same day, I saw Brant without the bright yellow mask and his escort, go to the TV room and proceeded to watch TV.

[522] On Monday the 05th of September 2011, at or about 2:30 P.M., I went to the nurses Office to ask and inquire if Brant in isolation room(N.1. 117), and with the warning or caution sign on his door has been cleared for MRSA contamination?

[523] The personnel in the nurses office responded in the affirmative. However, I advised the said medical staff in the nurses office that the warning or caution sign on isolation room(N.1.117) is still on the door. The said personnel in the nurses office could not articulate the reason why the warning or caution sign was still on Brant’s door, if it is indeed the case that he has been cleared for MSRA exposer. I informed the said medical staff that it is a contradiction for Brant in room N.1.117 to be cleared for MRSA contamination and yet his door still has a Warning or caution sign on it.

[524] I decided not to use the TV room for obvious reasons. My health and well being is much more important than access to a TV or a common room. Brant being cleared for possible MRSA exposer and still having a caution or warning sign for entering his room or have contact with him, does not make logical sense to me. There is an unresolved contradiction. It is better to be safe than sorry. Therefore, I will confine myself to my room except for when I need to take a shower or use the bath room. The first time Brant was out of is isolation room without being cleared, it was nurse (Janie) who had allowed him to leave the isolation room and possible risk to the well being of the other patients and Hospital Staff. I feel empathy for Brant’s isolated in a room, the hospital should probable provide a TV for him, but the health and well being of the hospital staff, the other patients, and society at large should have first priority.

[525] On Monday the 05th of September 2011, at or about 6:00 P.M., Dr. Brida I reasonable believe and because my nurse advised me that this was the Doctor who visited me on the same date; came to my room N.1.121 to engage me in conversation concerning when my lawyer is coming and if I was eating and so forth.

[526] On Monday the 05th of September 2011, shortly after 6:00 P.M., and after Dr. Brida had finished visiting me, my nurse came to my room N.1.121 to engage me in uninformed conversation. She asked me if their was any thing I would like to speak to her about? I Responded in the negative. She asked if she could asked some standard questions.

[527] The said Nurse asked me if I heard voices when I sleep or if I have thoughts of harming myself. These said psychological questions that is asked by almost every one, except the orderlies and security guards are thrown at you like carpet bombs on a repetitive basis.

[528] I have answered these same psychological question many many times already. I have serve on WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, more than one written articulated document containing short answers to these same said questions. Moreover, the capacity which my nurse is acting in is questionable. Is she my psychiatrist or is she my nurse? I have not spoken to my lawyer yet nor have I been given the opportunity to participate in a fair and equitable Hearing before an Impartial Tribunal, so this is just harassment! Plain and simple.

[529] It should be noted that the alarm and announcements are always on the internal communication system and medical staff can come into and leave your room at will and everyone can hear the constant opening and closing of the heavy noisy security door. In addition you are always offered something to help you sleep, I ofcourse don’t have problems sleeping; I can sleep in any environment because this is how I have trained myself from a young age. When I need to sleep I sleep. I have always said no to drugs in any shape or form. Just because it is approved by the Government does not make it right or morally correct.

[530] Drugs is a foreign chemical or material in the body that may provide an immediate false solution and carries along with it other problems. Drugs is always the absolute last resort for me when there is absolutely no other alternative solution. I live clean and healthy, I try not to abuse the health care system. This is why my attendance in the hospitals is minimal, at lease until this enforced custody with no reasonable justification or sound legal basis.

[531] I have waited patiently for my lawyer to engage me in conversation and to engage the Appeal Tribunal with respect to the merits of FORM 3.; the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, and its medical staff should also be able to wait patiently for the Appeal Tribunal’s Hearing and subsequent Ruling, after all I am the one in custody and being denied his life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness while being defamed.

[532] The said engagement of my person and the bombardment with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, medical staff insistent and forcefulness in engaging me in uninformed conversation and covert psychiatric assessment even though I am trying to challenge the merits to there justification of my custody and justification for the aforesaid medical procedure or process.

[533] It is as though there is a want or a need for me to have a preordained, undisclosed, unjustified, and unarticulated psychological mental state assessment; they are pushing with overwhelming force as-though though the aforesaid is “the best thing since slice bread”.

[534] I choose to wait patiently for the Appeal Tribunal’s fair Hearing on the matter of mental illness, mental state, and the merits of the legal, medical, and moral justification of FORM1.. In short, I need the Appeal Tribunal’s fair Hearing and adjudication on the matter of mental illness or lack thereof?

[535] The WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, must also wait patiently on the appeal hearing and adjudication of the Appeal Tribunal and stop harassing me.

[536] Day-12 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

On Tuesday the 06th of September 2011, at or about 7:30 A.M.. The warning or caution sign on isolation room N.1.117, two door away from me on the left hand-side, was removed. To say again, the warning or caution sign on Brant’s door was removed. However, Brant spent the afternoon and evening outside yesterday mainly in the TV room.

[537] It is very good news that Brant has been cleared of MRSA contamination, and it is very good news for the rest of us, in light of all the brazen violation of what was supposed to be a responsible isolation of Brant in room N.1.117 for possible exposer to MRSA. I guess I don’t have to concern myself with the said irresponsible violation anymore.

[538] On Saturday the 27th of August 2011, at or about 7:30 A.M., Dr. Koczerginski (2nd time) came to engage me in conversation in the Acute Mental Health Unit. I immediately informed the said Doctors, that I have not spoken to a lawyer to act as my advocate and advise me. Furthermore, I informed Dr. Koczerginski that he was a person in authority and his words carry great weight in society at large and in the judicial system, so I would not be having uninformed conversations with him or making uninformed decisions without my lawyer. I advised Dr. Koczerginski that they were in violation of my Section 10 and Section 7. Charter of Rights. Moreover, Article 14 of THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, demand that a lawyer be provided and pay for by the state if a citizen cannot pay for one.

[539] This is the minimum legal Rights prescribed by the said covenant, to which the Federal and Provincial Governments or signatures. I boldly declared, I need my Lawyer to make informed decisions! And that was the end of the conversation.

[540] On Saturday the 27th of August 2011, at or about 7:30 A.M., after I spoke with Dr. Koczerginski (2nd time), the 2nd Nurse came to engage me in conversation in the Acute Mental Health Unit. The said 2nd Nurse asked if it would be okay to speak with Dr. Koczerginski if she was present as a witness. I answer the same nurse in the negative, and informed her that I need my lawyer to make informed decision, and have informed conversations. She inferred that this was not a requirement of FORM 1..

[541] Moreover, all the relevant medical staff of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, have been advising me that a lawyer is not a requirement for FORM 1.. Later on that morning, the same 2nd Nurse asked me for the location of FORM 42. I advised the said 2nd Nurse that if she did-not know a lawyer is a requirement for FORM 1., then why is she asking me for FORM 42.? She obviously knows or aught to have known byway of FORM 42, that a lawyer was a requirement for FORM 1., this was the first time I saw a FORM 42. and I was able to figure this out without anyone showing me the same form, but instead covertly tossing it on the bed.

[542] I told the same nurse that I was not going to reveal its location. FORM 42. states;

“The application is sufficient authority to hold you in custody in this hospital for up to 72 hours.

you have the right to retain and instruct a lawyer without delay.”

[543] MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT:

On Saturday the 27th of August 2011, by Dr. Koczerginski, to WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, Mental Health Intensive Care Unit. I was admitted through regular admission and I advised the intake Hospital Staff (3 workers), that I was a political prisoner who is here against my will and I am on hunger strike until I leave this facility that has me in unjust custody. Furthermore, I advised the same Staff that I was being held in contravention of Section 10. and Section 7. and I have not been informed of my Rights nor given access to a lawyer. Therefore, I will not have uninformed conversation with anyone in authority nor make uninformed decision without my lawyer.

[544] On the morning of Saturday the 27th of August 2011, Dr. Ohene-Darkoh came to engage me in uninformed conversation for the 1st time in my room (N.1.121). I informed him that I will not speak to a person in authority without my lawyer. Furthermore, I have not been informed of my Rights nor have I been given the opportunity to obtain council; which would advise me in making informed decisions and having informed conversations. Moreover, the one responsible for my custody are in contravention of Section 10. and section 7. of the Charter of Rights. In addition to the afore said, Article 14 of The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, demands that a lawyer be provided to citizens and be payed for by the State if the said citizen cannot afford one.

[545] He said I am on a FORM 1., which has never been disclosed to me; it is a secret document, and as far as I am concerned a phantom document used to condemn me to unjust and immoral custody without due process or the application of my Rights being administered to. I told him in a bold voice with clear and direct language, that I need my lawyer and that was the end of the conversation.

[546] Day-4 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

On Monday the 29th of August 2011 at or about 4:30 P.M. , Dr. Koczerginski came to to engage me in uninformed conversation in my room(N.1.121) for the 3rd time. I informed Dr. Koczerginski for the 2nd time, that I will not be speaking to him a person in authority until I have a Lawyer present, so that I may make informed decisions and participate in informed discussions. I affirmed in a strong and direct voice that I need my lawyer.

[547] Dr. Koczerginski, left my room and came back a short time later and advised me that he has put me on a FORM 3, so that I may have a lawyer and a Rights councilor would attend later to speak to me. He also left me a certified copy of a FORM 30.

Which states as follows;

“This is to inform you that you are being detained under the authority of a Certificate of involuntary Admission (FORM 3)...

I completed this certificate on Aug 29, 2011...

I am of the opinion that

a) you are suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

✓serious physical impairment of you, unless you remain in the custody of a psychiatric facility;

{...}

If you wish to challenge your detention, you have the right to a hearing before the Board. You may apply for a hearing by completing FORM 16(attached).

date: August 29, 2011 signature of... physician: Dr. Koczerginski

After you receive this notice, a person called a “rights adviser” will meet with you to inform you as to your rights and help you in applying for a hearing if that is what you wish to do. You have the right to retain and instruct a lawyer without delay.”

[548] ACCESS TO PHONE/ACCESS TO JUSTICE/OR SYSTEMIC RACISM:

On Tuesday the 6th of September 2011, at some unspecified time in the afternoon, I called LEGAL AID ONTARIO to make a legal aid application with respect to the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL APPEAL HEARING, which I have pending on November 30, 2011.

[549] Legal Aid Ontario Informed me that I would have to speak to a specialist and that I would have to wait a long time. LEGAL AID ONTARIO, did not say how long I would have to wait.

[550] I concede that I was waiting on the phone for a long time. However, this is the only way or method the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, and its medical staff allows me to conduct essential business or necessary things needed to return my life back to normalcy.

[551] Mrs Janie (Brant’s and Chris’s nurse) said in clear distinct language to my person after I advised her of whom I was on hold for and for what reasons;

“I don’t care what you are on the phone for!”

Inferring that I should get off the phone because there or other people waiting to use it. It is the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, policy to threat each other with respect.

[552] It should be noted that I allowed nurse Janie to listen on the phone to establish that LEGAL AID ONTARIO, did indeed have me on hold.

[553] Like I said, this was an extremely important application to LEGAL AID ONTARIO, which I informed Nurse Janie and her superior Mrs. Hamilton, the nurse in charge.

[554] It should be noted that I am a Black patient or African Canadian patient or whatever I am to be labeled. Contrastly, Mrs Hamilton(nurse in-charge) is Caucasian, Nurse Janie is Caucasian, and the other patients waiting for the phone are all Caucasian.

[555] TAKE NOTICE: The is another Bell pay-phone located in the other lunch room on the other side of the U or “MORE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT”, which was not checked if it was being used before openly kicking me off the phone without any regard for the importance of my Legal Aid Application, while impeding me or denying me the right to make a LEGAL AID APPLICATION for the pending November, 30, 2011, Social Benefit Tribunal Hearing.

[556] There is also a courtesy phone which was not in use or checked for being in use. Patient use the courtesy phone all the time, me included. I used the same courtesy phone the night before to receive a call, so I know it is fully functional. I try not to abuse the privilege, so if I have a 1800-tole free number I use the Bell pay phone.

[557] Because LEGAL AID ONTARIO HAS A 1-800 tole free number and the wait time and time required to make a legal Aid Application, I chose to use the Bell pay phone, so I would not need to tie up the courtesy phone.

[558] On Tuesday the 6th of September 2011, at or about 2:00 P.M., without checking the availability or status of the other Bell pay phone or the courtesy phone Nurse Janie, whom articulated;

“I don’t care what you are on the phone for!”

[559] Mrs. Hamilton (nurse in charge), concluded that I, Wayne Ferron must relinquish the phone in question immediately without the completion of my LEGAL AID BUSINESS; which I promptly did at the said nurses insistences, because I Wayne Ferron is under their carriage and control vicariously through the custody affirmed by Dr. Koczerginski on Aug 29, 2011 on a FORM 3.; thereby losing the opportunity and wasting time to make my legal Aid Application for the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL.

[560] On Tuesday the 6th of September 2011, at or about 2:30 P.M., I asked for a copy of the legal papers, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, and its relevant medical staff demand that I sign in order to be released from custody. Remember that I am a prisoner, I am in custody against my will and there is to be a fair and equitable Appeal Hearing before an Impartial Tribunal to determine the merits of my custody and reasonable justification for a psychiatric assessment pending.

[561] Day-12 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner.

Maria from room N.1.113 came by to give me $0.05 for penances while I was was writing this. On many occasions, she and I have spoken about her wanting to visit Sarah(her youngest daughter), her Church, and her Priest who is no longer at her Church before being admitted to the Mental Intensive Care unit at Brampton Civic Hospital. She often times ask me to phone her daughter for her and she constantly sequentially goes through her memory; it is as though she knows she knows her memory is degrading so she is constantly checking it and affirming it. She is always one day behind the societies general excepted date; sometime two day behind the standard date, but mostly one day.

[562] I don,t understand why she could not resolve her three important issues before being placed in a the mental intensive care unit. She requested a hug from me when I was leaving; I hugged her , wish her well and said goodbye. She is a retired nurse and only desire the comfort and love of her family as she slowly loses full functionality and independence. As a society, we are collectively committing a crime when we actively prevent a member of our community who has served use so honourable from enjoying their retirement years or last years or whatever the case maybe.

[563] She was one of the person waiting for the phone. She usually gives money when she believes she has committed a sin. I have witnessed her doing it on many occasions. Her religious affiliation, I reasonable believe is Roman Catholic. She probable recognized that an injustice has been done against me, so she gave me $0.05 for penances and said she was sorry. I ofcourse don’t blame her or bear any ill feelings towards such a sweet Italian lady. It is the principle of the matter which I am concern with. I accepted her noble gift and reassured her that all was well between use.

[564] UNREASONABLE THREAT/OR SYSTEMIC RACISM:

Tuesday the 06th of September 2011.

About one week earlier on Wednesday the 31st of August 2011, at about 9:00 A:M;

I politely requested from the nurse receptionist who is located in the nurses station at the section directly across form room N.1.117, for pen and some paper to construct a legal document for my Rights Advisor. She replied by stating boldly in a slightly elevated voice;

“get this guy away from me! Who is your nurse?”

[565] I moved to the adjacent side of the nurses station that is perpendicular to room N.1.125 and requested from my nurse a pen and some paper to construct a legal document (consignment), for my so called Rights Counselor (Pat Brar). While I was being given 1/2(half) a sheet of copy paper like a kindergarden child and a very small pencil, I advised the staff that the requested pen and paper was need to construct a legal document, and is not possible in pencil for obvious reasons.

[566] I was denied a pen! I asked my nurse why I was refused a pen; Mrs Hamilton (nurse in charge) informed me in clear precise direct language that it was against the policy of the Hospital. I countered by politely requesting in clear precise direct language, to disclose a copy of the said policy which states that patients are not allowed to have pens, to my person. She responded boldly with a shameless slighter higher and directed elevated voice;

“The policy is not for you.” or “The policy is not for your eyes.”

[567] I politely asked Mrs. Hamilton in a soft calm clear and direct voice to disclose her name and please spell it. She disclosed her name, but refused to spell it a second time.

[568] Since Mrs. Hamilton, the nurse in-charge refused to disclose the Hospital Official Documented Policy on pens; I decided to test the fairness of the process a little, so I politely asked Mrs. Hamilton if I may leave to purchase pen and paper. There was no answer from the nurse in-charge, instead she commanded me to go back to my room before she put me in the “MORE INTENSIVE CARE” section of the MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT.

[569] On Wednesday the 31st of August 2011, at about 9:00 A:M; while I was across the hall from room N.1.125 and at the nurses station, recording notes of the occurrence to insure I got the facts accurate. Mrs. Hamilton instructured me in clear and directed language, to leave, depart, get out of here or something to that effect or else she would have me placed on the “OTHER SIDE.”

[570] Whatever place me on the “OTHER SIDE” may mean? As for as I am concern, the aforesaid was a threat which runs contrary to Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada without legal, moral, or reasonable medical professional justification. Furthermore, it is against the policy of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, which is clearly posted in the lunch room and states;

[571] I Wayne Ferron, reasonable believe that the “OTHER SIDE” is the right part of the U, the “MORE INTENSIVE CARE” of the MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, where I hear constant, ceaseless load screams, random riveting banging on the doors, and loud unending foul language.

[572] In addition to this, some of the patients on “THE OTHER SIDE” were locked in their rooms like a prison cell for length of period of time which I do-not know. This situation got better as time progressed, but it was more the case at the beginning of my ordeal.

[573] The aforesaid, would be my fate , if I continue to ask the nurse in charge (Mrs Hamilton), for a copy of the undisclosed Hospital Policy concerning pens, or if I humbly request for her to spell her name, or if I humbly request to go and purchase pens and some paper on my own accord; since I was not being provided these necessary tools to conduct my present Hospital Custody business, or my on going legal matters and personal business outside of the Hospital which the unjust Hospital custody is damaging. In essence, the said requested tools are necessary tool in todays modern society for affectively administering to matters placed before a member of Canadian society.

[574] One must remember that I am essentially in prison; I am isolated from society at large, I am in custody and can access the outside world for help only by Bell pay-phone via 1 800 toll free numbers and challenge my unjust custody by written articulation; since there is a want of due process and application of my rights was not being duly administered to.

[575] It is my reasonable belief and personal opinion that, initial treatment in the mental care unit at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, is drugs, isolation and dependancy. In custody, isolation from society at large is strictly enforced; so it is very difficult to seek help if you are in an unjust and immoral situation. The enforced isolation castrate ones ability for self help and steals ones independence.

[576] This creates a dependence on the medical staff for any and every thing. Furthermore, you undergo a drug treatment before being graduated to a much better part of the mental illness section of the hospital I heard; with exercise machines and nicer treatments. I have witness patients who did nothing but sleep and eat for many days. For example a black lady who was in room N.1.123 who though that many men was after her with knifes chasing her down the street. I was constantly being asked if I need something to sleep by the medical staff and if I slept well.

[577] I am a person who can sleep sitting down, laying down on a thin board, probably even in a three. In essence I have no problems sleeping, never have and hopefully never will. As for as I am concern for people unluckily enough to be in my position of unjust custody or more accurately in prison in a mental intensive care unit; drugs numb your feelings, drugs numb your senses, drugs numb reality and drugs inhibit the efficiency of the cognitive process or even impedes cognitive ability; so how is one suppose to formulate a solution if I cannot feel or sense the reality of ones problems? How are you suppose to help yourself? How?

[578] In my opinion, when the afore said is concatenated, you have a pitiful, disarmed and ineffective member of Canadian society. It make no difference if your cause is noble, if your prayer for relief is just; you will get no understanding or empathy, for you have already been effectively objectified and placed in an abstract psychiatric container for the mentally diseased individual who do not have the same Rights and Freedoms as other members of society at large.

[579] Maria’ roommate is Christina or she is more commonly known as Chris. She came to Brampton Civic Hospital or was admitted to WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, Friday the 26th of August 2011, in handcuffs. for trying to cut open the lower front legs close to the front of her ankles.

[580] Chris came to the MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT, where I was located on Monday the 5th of September 2011, she was admitted to room N.1.113 the same room as Maria.

[581] Chris informed me that the other mental section she came from was much nicer and nurse Janie seemed to be her nurse.

[582] FAIRNESS/UNIFORMITY AND EQUITY:

On the Tuesday the 06th of September 201, Chris spent the morning and after noon making a lot of noise and disturbances. The following is some of the things she was doing and screaming;

“I want to go home!”

“This is bullshit!!”

“Give me the papers, I will sign it and go home!”

“Let me out of here!!!”

“Give me, my stuff, I will get out of here!”

“They are stupid, they don’t know what they are doing!!!”

“I came here last friday in handcuffs!!”

“Put them all in Jail!”

“Let me out of here!!!”

“am I going home or not!!”

“I want to talk to Frank.”

[583] The staff is extremely tolerant of Caucasian patients. Chris nurse(Janie) reaction was to say to Chris in a soft sweet voice;

“Don’t make so much noise, you will disturb the other patients.”

[584] It would be interesting to know the statistics on the percentage of minorities to Caucasian from the much nicer section of mental health were Chris came from; compared to the statistics on the percentage of minorities to Caucasian in the MENTAL INTENSIVE UNIT, I am staying in?

[585] Similarly, in room N.1.123 was a young Caucasian patient in about his twenties are close to it. He wore expensive clothes and disclosed that his pajama pants cost $200.00. The said pants were blue with flowers and look like silk or satin fabric. In addition he had a small freezer bag full of coins for the phone.

[586] He was not violent, but he was extremely loud and disrespectful to the nurses. He would say things out loud to the nurses which I didn't write done because of the extreme vulgarity and explicit pornographic nature. I had to speak to him personally on three occasion not to be so rude to the nurses or else they would put him on the “OTHER SIDE” and confine you to your room by locking you in from the outside. His famous words was;

“You think you are smart! But I am smart too! I have all the time in the worlds!”.

He was never transferred to “OTHER SIDE” ofcourse, he was just ignored.

[587] Similarly, in room N.1.115 I believe but I could be wrong on this point; there was a young 18 or 19 year old Caucasian patient of orthodox Jewish origin. His father according to him was a drug dealer and was brutally killed when he was three years old. He believed that their was many people chasing him and trying to kill him. So he was placed under arrest by and off duty Police Officer byway of citizen arrest while going through backyards to escape eminent pursuit. So he checked himself in to the Mental Intensive Care unit at the Hospital for fear of personal harm to self. I don’t know if any of this is true, but this is the information he disclosed to me while talking in the TV room. He enjoyed talking to me and wrongly though that I was 30 years old and use to work with him.

[588] The patient spoken about in para [209], was not violent as far as I know. But he was very loud and rude to the nurses judging by the names he use to call them while yelling at them. He would do this regularly. I spoke to him on two occasion not to be so rude to the nurses, because these type of things get back to your Doctor who is the one who determines wether you should be released or not. He was also rude to his mother on the phone in the same manner. Maybe it was just older woman in general, because he was quite pleasant and respectful to me. This said patient was never transfered to the “OTHER SIDE” ofcourse, he was just ignored.

[589] Contrastly, I was polite to the nurses. I was firm on the issue of due process and having the application of my rights duly administered to. But I was always respectful in manner and language used with the Hospital Staff.

[590] Recall that I asked for the Hospital Policy to be disclosed to me and Mrs. Hamilton(nurse in charge) shameless reaction was to tell me that the said policy was not for me and to threaten to confine my person to the “OTHER SIDE” where you hear screams and ranting such as Chris has been doing all morning and afternoon.

[591] Sometimes the things go so childish and ridiculous. There is a checkers board in the lunch room, which I would use to press on like a clip board to help me in taking notes when I was using the phone. I was always careful to return it back to the top of the fridge in the lunch room when finished with it, everyone saw me using it. One day I went to retrieve it to use it while taking some notes while using the phone. It was not at its usually location.

[592] When looking for it I found it tucked in a corner in the nurses station, and not being utilized. I was not looking for it in the nurses station, but the defibrillating machine caught my eyes because electronics and technology is an interest of mine; the checkers board was tucked away closed to the defibrillating machine in a corner on top of some unknown materials. I explain to my nurse what I just said above and commented that it was very childish to deny me the use of the checkers board in this manner. She said no comment.

[593] Day-13 of my custody and self-imposed hunger-strike as a political prisoner. On the Tuesday the 07th of September 2011, at about 9:00 A.M., I asked my nurse(Mona) if I could use the courtesy phone. She said yes and to go to the “OTHER SIDE”, where the phone is located. I need to speak to my lawyer who had never seen me nor speak to me personally or electronically about the Appeal Hearing byway of FORM3. In addition, I also needed make a LEGAL AID APPLICATION for my SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL HEARING on November 30, 2011.

[594] Remember the day before on September 6, 2011, nurse Janie and Mrs. Hamilton had prevented me from completing my LEGAL AID ONTARIO call to make a legal aid application.

[595] LIE/DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS/DENIAL OF FAIR APPEAL HEARING:

While I was speaking to my nurse and making arrangement to use the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Brampton Civic Hospital, MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE courtesy phone; Mrs. Hamilton who was listening to the said conversation promptly interjected and stated that the Courtesy pHone on the “ OTHER SIDE” is not working. I knew this was a lie, or false information, because I had used the phone in question on the night before to receive an outside call.

[596] I informed Mrs. Hamilton and my nurse(Mona) in clear distinct direct language, that the phone was working , because I had used it the night before to receive a call.

[597] Mrs. Hamilton(nurse in charge), changed her statement to say that patients or not allowed to use the said Courtesy Phone anymore. She did not offer a reason why?

[598] I countered by saying, then say patients or not allowed to use the Courtesy Phone instead of the Courtesy Phone is not working.

[599] I went to the pay phone to call the Rights Advisor, the Rights Advisor Office Informed me that they could put me through to my lawyer D’arcy Hiltz, this is the 1st Time I have been advised that this was even possible by the PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT ADVOCATE OFFICE or the RIGHTS ADVISOR(Pat Brar), after all this time and my many calls to the Rights Advisor.

[600] Councilor D’arcy Hiltz assistant answered the phone. Mr./Ms. D’arcy Hiltz did not have the common decency to inform his/her client (Wayne Ferron), that the Appeal Hearing challenging FORM3. and the merits of a psychological assessment was canceled. Mr./Mrs. D’arcy Hiltz assistant gave me this news on the phone when I called.

[601] I, have never met Mr./Ms. D’arcy Hiltz my lawyer. I have never sat down and talked to Mr./Ms. D’arcy Hiltz my lawyer. Mr./Ms. D’arcy Hiltz has never came to the Hospital to see me and take any statement from me or produce an Affidavit or hear my side of the story.

[602] Not even on the phone, has my lawyer spoke to me. My lawyer Mr./Ms. D’arcy Hiltz, is a phantom retained by the RIGHTS ADVISOR Pat Brar who has refused to disclose legal Aid Ontario list of Tribunal Lawyers to me. I don’t even know if my lawyer is male or female.

[603] So the Appeal Tribunal Hearing against FORM3. was canceled without notice, without Due process or the application of my rights being duly administered to. I have not spoken to a lawyer nor had the chance to speak to a lawyer even though I had been given a phantom lawyer by the RIGHTS ADVISOR, who does not speak to his client personally or give his/her client the opportunity to instruct him/her.

[604] I do not have a lawyer to go over and review the necessary legal documents the hospital require me to sign or to be released from custody.

[605] I am left alone, without due process, without a lawyer who would speak to me personally; still in custody undergoing psychological assessment and without rights or the application of my Rights and Freedom being duly administered to in accordance with the supreme law of Canada. I am abandon to the mercy of the will of the Peel Regional Police working vicariously through the Doctors who do-not seem to be acting independently in retaining me in unjust custody. Like I said, I am a political prisoner.

[606] REASONS FOR BEING HELD IN CUSTODY:

I am a political prisoner for daring to challenge and question the fairness, equity, and justness of the Judicial system. I have been placed here, so the law enforcement(public servant), are given the ability to circumvent my Rights(along with other Canadians Rights) byway of placing me in a mental institution.

[607] This said improper action is in contravention of Section 10, Section 7 of the Charter; Section 1. of the Human Rights Act; Article 14 of The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and in contravention of the implied covenant of duty of care not to do harm to someone in your care whom you have carriage and control over.

[608] I am being held for the purpose of declaring me and other Canadians like me as mentally Incompetent, for the purpose of ripping my guarantee rights and freedoms away, or state and the police can claim victory in the courts for actionable wrongs they cannot hope to win in open court, in a fair hearing, and before an impartial tribunal

[609] The Police Officers (Public Servants) Assaulted 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.

[610] So the law enforcement proceed vicariously through Doctors and WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Brampton Civic Hospital, 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.

[611] I served letter to Dr. Koczerginski and the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital and a mailing address to send information

[612] Day-14, DAY OF RELEASE FROM CUSTODY/IMPRISONMENT :

On the Tuesday the 08th of September 2011, at or about 10:30 A.M. my imprisonment at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Brampton Civic Hospital, Mental Intensive Care Unit, ended. In addition to my request for information byway of the freedom and information act, served on the “Head” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM on the 29th of August 2011; I served on Dr. Koczerginski and WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, a letter in which the first page disclosed an address to mail all information to my person. I said letter to Nev(secretary) at 10: A.M on 8th of September who gave it to Brenda(my nurse). The letter was later discarded outside the secretary’s window in the nurses station under the watchful eye of the security camera.

[613] I arrived at Dundas/Huontario at about 1:50 P.M.; I got on the Dundas East Mississauga Transit Bus to Cawthra.

[614] On the Tuesday the 08th of September 2011, at or about 2:00 P.M. I reached 2500 Cawthra Rd. at the Salvation Army’s Emergency Shelter.

[615] Ms. Forgol, was at the intake office, she was extremely curtious and considerate; there was however an discussion or argument being engaged in to resoled a problem of admitting me to the shelter or not to admit me to the shelter. This produce two cases in the aforementioned irregular situation.

[616] CASE 1:

According to one perspective of the argument that was going on by the staff in the intake office. Ms. Nicole Arbour discharge and restricted me on the 22nd of August 2011. The restriction according to the same staff is suppose to be 14 days. This was affirmed and confirmed by Ms. Forgol and a tall Caucasian gentleman (Mr. Harry Boom) who was acting in the capacity of a Salvation Army councilor after going through the documentation in my file.

[617] CASE 2:

According to the perspective of the argument that was going on by the staff in the intake office. Ms. Nicole Arbour discharge and restricted me on the 22nd of August 2011. The restriction according to some staff is suppose to be 30 days.

[618] In any event, I was given a copy of the of the August 15, 2011 letter discharging me on the 22nd of August 2011, and told that I am restricted from August 22nd, 2011 for 30 days. The same letter does not mention the length of period for the so-called restriction.

[619] Furthermore, I over heard another intake attendant saying that she showed Ms. Nicole Arbour her discharged letter and she confirmed to her person that it was indeed a 30 days restriction.

[620] On the Tuesday the 08th of September 2011, I filled out a formal request for personal information and policy disclosure byway of the Freedom of Information Act.

[621] I informed, Ms. Forgol that I would like to speak to the manager. Ms. Forgol is a very kind and hard working lady. She went over the data again and determined that the restriction was for 14 days which had long passed, since I was in the Hospital for about 14 days.

Wayne Ferron

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

INNOCENCE: AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT (WAYNE FERRON) - COA file# C51190

Folder Contents

Free Membership

Who's online

Who's new