FROM A DEAD POET, A CAUTION AGAINST LOSING YOUR “FREEDOM RIGHTS!”

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

___________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

for violation of

Section. 1, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT

and Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105, 25(c), 26, 27, 50, and 51

________________________________________

RESPONSE

TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION,

without response from RESPONDENTS,

NOTICE to dismiss matters with

HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I,

and without any resolution of my stolen property being returned to my person to enable full access to public medical services, public goods and public services or RESTITUTION of DIGNITY

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED”

PLEASE STOP PUNISHING MY CHILDREN with denial of PUBLIC goods and service AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT(S. 12); for the unlawful crime of acting within the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (s. 507 C.C.) and endeavoring to enforce our beloved CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

_______________________________________________________

Pursuant to Section. 1, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 3.5, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the Human Rights Code, Section. 15 of the Charter, Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105.25(c), 26., 27, 50, and 51 of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and Section 1 and 2 of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Wayne FERRON

HOMELESS VAGABOND

HRTO – Registrar HRTO FILE: 2012-12585-I

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519

Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322

Fax: 416-326-2199

TAKE NOTE: There has been no response from the respondents, which implies that they except all my allegations as the unchallenged truth or the unchallenged factual evidence for HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and 2014-19377-I. I am willing to and would life to testify under oath to assist the court in its finding of facts of all the above matters to render a fair and just decisions.

If it is the case that the above matters are not in the correct jurisdiction, I respectfully request that the same matters be transferred to the correct jurisdiction to affect DUE PROCESS OF LAW for the just determination of a judicial matters HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and 2014-19377-I. Note that I have filed some of the same matters to the Federal Human Rights is which they have responded as having no jurisdiction for the matters.

According to employees of the Federal Human Rights Commission and according to Mr Richard Hennessy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, they both do not have jurisdiction for the two matters which Mr. Richard Hennessy is endeavouring to dismiss: AGAIN, PLEASE TRANSFEREE ALL MATTER’S Mr. Richard Hennessy has given notice to dismissed to the proper jurisdiction, if my CHILDREN and I as Canadians has the right to the rights given in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE! Does the following rights stated below apply to my children and I?

Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment …

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation...

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Is an act of reprisal in response to an unfounded human rights complaint grounds for an award of damages under the Ontario Human Rights Code? According to a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII), the answer is yes.{...}

The Duty to Address and Respond

In reaching the decision that Mr. Morgan had been discriminated against, Adjudicator Debané made reference to the 2005 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Laskowskav. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, which discusses the obligation of an employer to adequately address and respond to allegations of Code-related discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Adjudicator Debané then went on to hold that an applicant need not prove that discrimination has occurred to benefit from the protection of section 8 of the Human Rights Code; the applicant must only have a genuinely held the belief that the respondents were infringing his Code rights. (See paragraph 87.)

Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act{...}

Based on that rule of law, Adjudicator Debané found that the decision to terminate Mr. Morgan’s employment was made as a reprisal because he had claimed his Code rights by raising issues of harassment and discrimination in his workplace. Adjudicator Debané also found that the employer failed to adequately address, or take any steps in response to, Mr. Morgan’s, albeit unfounded, allegations of discrimination and harassment. On this second point Adjudicator Debané wrote that:

Instead of dealing with the applicant’s allegations in an appropriate manner, the company chose to terminate the applicant’s employment.{...} Although reprisal need only be one factor in the decision to terminate the applicant in order to find that the applicant was terminated contrary to his right to be free from reprisal under the Code, in my view the reasons in the respondent’s termination letter were otherwise pre-textual. (Para. 108)” (Par Sean Bawden — Labour Pains)”

HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

Pursuant to ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE;

“…the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear in numerous cases that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plenary trial remains the mode for the resolution of disputes and Rule 20 does not represent court reform, or the reform of the adversary system, in disguise{...}

A motion judge ought not lose sight of her or his narrow role in determining whether a genuine factual issue exist, and must be careful not to assume the role of a trial judge by adjudicating any genuine factual issues which do exist. The motions judge ought never assess credibility, weight the evidence, or find the facts, all of which are functions reserved to the trial judge. However, an issue of fact must relate to material fact; otherwise it cannot give rise to a “genuine issue for trial.” Moreover, merely raising an issue of credibility will not be an answer to a motion for summary judgment; the issue of credibility must be material and genuine:...“

(page 543, ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE 2009, THOMSON CARSWELL)

Pursuant to Eugene Cerruti, Professor of Law at New york Law School;

“In the earliest stages of the common law trial system the accused was not permitted to present much in the way of an actual forensic defense to the charges. When the accused did finally gain permission to present such a defense he was not permitted to be represented by counsel, to call witnesses or even testify under oath in his own behalf. He was permitted only to appear personally at trial and to provide direct responses to the evidence offered against him. “In short, the defendant's position was one of standing alone without counsel, books, the means of procuring evidence or the right to offer evidence which he did possess.”8 The purpose of self- representation was to promote self-incrimination.9 Self- representation began, in other words, as the default position that resulted from the denial of any other right of fair trial or representation.”

(SELF-REPRESENTATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA: REMOVING A FALSE RIGHT OF SPECTACLE, UGENE CERRUTI)

HRTO FILE NO: 2012 - 1258-I

[1] There has been no response from the REGION OF PEEL.

[2] There was an attempt to dismiss this matter on more than one occasions while I was living on the street as a vagabond.

[3] Richard Hennessy I have filed a HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER (2012 – 12585-I) matter, of extreme urgency of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for my beloved daughter (A. H.) and, I (Wayne Ferron) concerning homelessness, viable secure housing, and denial of access to a HOMELESS SHELTER without lawful cause, and byway of reprisals(unlawfully punishments for human rights complaint, private prosecution, and seeking justice in a court of competent jurisdiction for righteous legal complaints).

[4] HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I - JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED FOR ME AND MY CHILD!

Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination.

[5] HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF POLICE SERVICES (s. 1) - Pursuant to Mr Richard Hennessy (Registrar) who seem to be acting in the capacity of a lawyer for RESPONDENTS, who are not honourable enough to respond to serious allegations of concern to the PUBLIC GOOD;

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Services Division and Officer Green

Subject: No Notice of Intent to Dismiss or assigned date for trial, just the continually suffering and punishment my daughter and I must endure...”

PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

[6] COMPLAINT: HRTO FILE NO: 2012 - 1258-I, Denial of goods and service byway of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE.

Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1.

[7] REASONS: HRTO FILE NO: 2012 - 1258-I Reprisal for past lawful legal complaints byway of Section 8. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE. Denial of access to homeless shelter and accessible housing, when it was not full, without lawful cause and to punish my child and I for past legal complaints.

Reprisals

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 8.

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

[8] HOUSING-ADDITIONAL COMPLAINT: HRTO FILE NO: 2012 - 1258-I Way articulated in the following way, it can be found on the back of almost all my numerous legal document;

“1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto, ON, Postal Code M6E 4A6

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE INHUMANLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO- WORKS. PLEASE SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.”

“Accommodation

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 2 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (2); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (2); 2012, c. 7, s. 2 (1).

[9] Is the following in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE, which states as follows;

“...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

With respect to HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, why is my beloved daughter being punished?
With respect to HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, why am I being punished?
With respect to HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, was I left in a dangerous unhealthy place to get sick, to justify slander profile of my person and police past criminal action against me or for me to slowly died?

[10]

I love the Law!
I love the CRIMINAL CODE!
I love the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE!
But I am most in love with the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

[11] Please show me that the aforementioned guiding Rules for civilized societies around the world, are still relevant in this society, in this age, and at this time of our unfolding history.

[12] Is the following in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE, which states as follows;

PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

[13] I am the person who acted in the capacity as a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR, to prosecute rouge elements of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL who believe themselves to be immune to the Law, above the Law. That is rouge elements that served under the same authority (Authority General of Ontario) as Mr. Richard Hennessy.

[14] Is the following in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE, which states as follows;

“...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

[15] Please, have the Respondent who have not responded; show some honour, honesty, and dignity by returning all my stolen property forthwith and for which I have exercise my colour of right over in accordance with the laws of this land we call Canada;

“ATTENTION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

MR. JOHN GERRETSEN:

{…}

The unmentioned individuals seem to be above the RULE OF LAW, and the State has no problem defending them vigorously. Since the Provincial and Federal Government has shielded the individuals in my private prosecution allegation; I respectfully request the HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO, and HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA, to please insure that it's employee do what is right, what is honourable, and show some integrity in the prompt return of all the property stolen from my person. The following are my property which needs to be returned:

To Ms. Joanne Stuart or the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE please return forthwith, my FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST Ms. Joanne Stuart stole and never return to my person. I am exercising my colour of right over the said legal instrument.

To the SALVATION ARMY

and

To the REGION OF PEEL or REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER

please return forthwith my $5 0r $10 check made out to the Minister of Finance and my $10(11 466 978 57 ) money ORDER issued by CANADA POST to the SALVATION ARMY for the SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO WORKS.

CANADA POST MONEY ORDER INFORMATION:

SERIAL NO.: 11 466 978 57

SECURITY CODE: 679 965 794

OFFICE NO.: 102 205

To PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton,

ON, L6V 3W6

(905) 453-3311

RE: I respectfully request byway of COLOUR OF RIGHT, the prompt return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated or whatever the case my be, by your subordinate Officer Pekeski(2261) whom disclosed to my person the false identity of Officer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing his identity as Officer Perkins(2261).

TAKE NOTICE: OFFICER #2261 Pekeski, M. (12B), having seized my personal belongings and exerting carriage and control over the same seized property to which I had colour of right, in addition to the same Officer continuing to effect his authority, care, guardianship or jurisdiction over my property, became in essence the BAILIFF of my seized personal property, for example “the finder of mislaid property becomes a bailee thereof. Please, return forthwith my property which has been stolen!! For we are all equally subjected to the fair application and enforcement of the law. We AUGHT TO respect the RULE OF LAW.

To the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL EAST REGION)-REGISTRAR and Your Worship Justice Maklif, please return promptly the evidence(AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON C51190) I disclosed to Your Worship Justice Malik for my filed information against Geoffery Farday; I have exercised my colour of right in requesting the same Affidavit evidence to no avail.

To the duty counsel(Rene Rupert) of ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL EAST REGION)Renee Rupert; thank you for the return of my court material, which you promised to return to my person which I sent you via express mail to participate on my behalf in my matter(CR-126 et al); Even though it took you about one year to return my legal documents after asserting that DUTY COUNSELS are bared from assisting in SUPERIOR COURT matters.

“Contrary to popular belief I am a father who can be

no less than a beloved mother. I have four

beloved girl children.”

HRTO FILE NO: 2012-1258-I SITUATION AT PRESENT:

[16] Is the aforesaid and the following in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE, which states as follows;

“...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

[17] FACTS:

Officer Pekeski(2261) stole my Wallet, ID, etc.
Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart refuse to return my belongings after I exercised my colour of right.
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE refuse to return my belongs after exercising my colour of right.
Mr. John Gerretsen (former Attorney General ), refuse to have my property returned after exercising my colour of right.
As a direct result of Officer Pekeski(2261) theft, I am barred from fully accessing social services byway of there policies.
As a direct result of all the above, I don’t have full access to the medical services.

PUBLIC POLICY - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

SOME RIGHTS UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE: Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment …

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation...

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

POLICE SERVICE ACT

Records or things removed

26.8 (1) In removing a record or other thing while acting under subsection 26.6 (2) or under an order issued under subsection 26.6 (6) or 26.7 (1), an investigator shall give a receipt to the person from whom the record or thing is removed. 2007, c. 5, s. 8.

Detention of record or thing

(2) A record or other thing removed by an investigator acting under subsection 26.6 (2) or under an order issued under subsection 26.6 (6) may be detained by him or her. 2007, c. 5, s. 8.

Same

(3) The investigator shall return within a reasonable time a record or other thing detained by him or her under subsection (2) to the person from whom the record or thing was removed if the investigator is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to detain the record or thing for the purposes of the investigation or any proceeding under this Act arising from the investigation. 2007, c. 5, s. 8.

[18] I can die any day.

[19] I can have an heart attack any day.

[20] I have no legal rights to protect my HUMAN RIGHTS.

I have no access to public goods and services.

[21] I have no income, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I. I am a homeless vagabond, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I.

[22] I do not have full access to drugs and medical services, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I.

[23] My daughter is being cruelly punished, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I.

[24] I am denied full access to medical services while HARM support equipment for unlawful drug use, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I. In addition to HARM clients receiving social assistance or financial assistance.

[25] I am exposed to secondhand smoke daily while lining up to access homeless shelters, which is related to the delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I.

Chapter 9 of the Toronto Municipal Code

Human

§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions.

A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building.

§ 709-6. Offences.

Any person who contravenes any provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence.6

STOP KILLING ME PLEASE!!

[26] September 2012 - Was when I was denied access to Peel Housing and Peel Homeless Shelter, to expose me to the environment on the streets, homeless diseases, second hand smoke, and crack cocaine smoke in the hopes of killing me slowly?

Human

§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions.

A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building.

[27] 2013 - Was when I was mercilessly left in a black mold environment, faulty electrical system, regular flooding, second hand smoke, and second hand crack cocaine smoke while being denied safe housing for my beloved daughter and I in the hopes of killing me slowly?

Human

§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions.

A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building

[28] 2014 - Was when I was denied Police Services with the threat of my public evidence being thrown into the garbage by Officer Green (BADGE#10235 ).

[29] Because my almost fatal bicycle collision with Mr. Sanchez Truck(851 3YY ), which I reasonable believe to be an accident, was not really an accident, but a failed assassination attempt on my life; since the Police Services refuse to deal with it, and threaten to unlawfully discard of the evidence.

[30] Now HRTO is refusing to deal with the matter of denial of Police Services, even though this is a indicated area of complain on the HRTO Form 1. complaint form. Was Mr. Sanchez attempting to kill and murder me?

Application – Goods, Services, or Facilities (Form 1 and 1C)

page-6 of 21: Reprisal or Threat of Reprisal

Areas of Discrimination under the Code

6. Area of Alleged Discrimination

Housing (Complete and attach Form 1-B)

Goods, Services, and Facilities (Complete and attach Form 1-C)

page-15 of 21:21. Area of Discrimination from Question 6

Housing (Form 1-B)

Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C)

22. Other Documents, from Question 12 to 15

A copy of a statement of claim (from Question 12)

Application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Area of Discrimination: Goods, Services, or Facilities (Form 1-C)

PART 1

Questions About the Service, Good or Facility

Police Services

Government

Medical/health services

page-1 of 5:

Questions About Discrimination on the Ground of Reprisal

page-4 of 5

[31] 2015 - Was I denied EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits, access to MEDICINE and MEDICAL SERVICES, access to SOCIAL SERVICES byway of policy, access to housing, exposed to the elements, expose to homelessness, expose to homeless diseases, and expose to second hand smoke and drug’s smoke in the hopes of killing me slowly?

Human

§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions.

A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building

Ontario Works Policy Directives

1.1 Overview of Ontario Works

Legislative Authority

The Ontario Works Act, 1997 ("the Act") and related regulations provide the legislative framework for the provision of employment assistance and financial assistance to help people in temporary financial need.

“Program Verification Standards

Delivery agents are responsible for adhering to the program verification standards identified in the policies. These standards set out the documentation that is acceptable for verifying the personal and financial circumstances of applicants and participants. Delivery agents are responsible for confirming visual verification in the relevant technology and/or placing a copy of the documentation on file as required. The program verification standards help to maintain program integrity by guiding workers in the consistent application of legislation and policy to support fair and accurate decisions.”

[32] 2015 - “Justice delayed is justice denied” Am I being denied Justice in the hopes that I will die from a heart attack, there by killing me?

[33] On January 16, 2015 I SPOKE TO the FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, to confirm that my employment insurance was received. I was told that an appeal takes 6 weeks to process, and I will be contacted then to confirm the receipt of my application. Urgency would be ineffective here despite me labelling the matter as URGENT.

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

[35] I tried getting some Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA) to thin my blood and reduce the chances of a stroke or heart attack, but dispensing this type of over the counter drug is not proper. I have no money because of the restriction of my person to access public goods and services; negative $300.00 is what I have in my Bank account.

[36] But, HARM (GOVERNMENT program for dispensing drugs to drug addicts by diminishing the role or dependency on drug dealers. The Government is in essence the new drug dealer), HARM-shops dispense drugs every day to make drug addicts high or feel nice while curving there appetite for Crack Cocaine or other drugs. I learned this fact from drug addicts themselves, one of whom had a $1400.00 habit per month for which Doctors were supply him with all the drugs he needed, but he wanted more so he was complaining. I investigate, no matter where I am forced to live.

[37] Contrastly, I cannot get an Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA) TO thin my blood and save my life or prevent a stroke or organ damage. Not to mention, to fill a $60.00 proscription to save my life and maintain my health and be a healthy an productive TAX PAYING human being.

[38] Am not a human being, how far we have fallen? Pursuant to the CHARTER OF RIGHTS;

	12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

		Equality Rights
	15.	(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[39] With respect to my present position, are my beloved daughters and I being given what is promised in the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE?

“Human Rights Code

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19

Last amendment: 2012, c. 7.

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;

And Whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province;

And Whereas these principles have been confirmed in Ontario by a number of enactments of the Legislature and it is desirable to revise and extend the protection of human rights in Ontario;

Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

[40] There is no question in my mind that my Section 1. right in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE is continually infringed daily as a direct result of the combination of Justice Andrea’ order, Officer Pekeski(2261) being allowed to retain my stolen property, SOCIAL SERVICES PROTOCOL, EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefit entitlement decision, and the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL delay of HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I in contravention of the following;

Services

[41] The following section from the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, should be protecting my HUMAN RIGHTS;

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

[42] The following section from the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, should be protecting MY FAMILY AND I from unjust punishment;

Reprisals

[43] Even though required materials has been served on THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL. THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL has never given an official response

to the allegations which form the issues of HRTO APPLICATION( file No.: 2012-12585-I).

[44] THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, asked for a dismissal of HRTO APPLICATION( file No.: 2012-12585-I) if possible, else a stay for the same matter until the completion of CV – 12-0716 for which they have not filed a

motion for summary dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, for which there notice of defence is based on. This has caused unreasonable pain and suffering, a contravening of Chartered rights, put my beloved daughter's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy in addition to mine.

[45] The HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HRTO FILE NO.: 2012-12585-I, cited as CITATION: 2013 HRTO 1544, and

INDEXED AS: Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel.

[46] I would rather have a fair argument with a decision based on a balance of probabilities, instead of stating without challenge that THE REGIONAL OF PEEL has failed to respond in a meaningful way, and in doing so has effectively

accepted all my allegations as unchallenged truth of the human-rights issues brought to light in HRTO APPLICATION ( file No.: 2012-12585-I).

[47] THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL has had from about September

2012 to investigate, fact find, analyze, conjecture, and articulate an informed response in a meaningful way instead of trying to have the human-rights matters at issue dismissed without a fair hearing of the matter on a bases of a balance of

probabilities; but instead my daughter and I are just punished for have a just claim and righteous HUMAN RIGHTS complaint.

[48] Given that the THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and the THE GOVERING COUNCIL OF SALAVATION ARMY IN CANADA has refused to disclose any of the Applicant's requested personal information, produced at the

REGIONAL OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER at 2500 Cawthra Rd. Mississauga Ontario; I respectfully ask for the diligent return of the search fee( $5.oo personal check, $10.00 Canada Post Money Order) ASAP; because it is the lawful thing to do, it is the right thing to do, it is the honourable thing to do, and I am exercising my colour of right over the same check and money order.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

[49] All my legal right/human rights was stolen in all of ONTARIO by BLG(Kathrine Kirkpatrick) via fraudulent means and based on a fallacy in her arguments(JUSTICE ANDRE'S ORDERS), to take all of my legal rights away in all of ONTARIO byway of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legislation and PRIVATE PROSECUTION of people in high public office who believe they are above the law, immune to the law, and does not have to answer to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA for allege criminal offenses. In short the serves them, but they are not subject to it. Because of my just private prosecutions (Section 507.1 and 504), the following has happen to my person;

the CROWN being allowed to UNLAWFULLY remove PRIVATE PROSECUTION PUBLIC EVIDENCE (C 58716-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN) from the COA-RECORDS while affecting an unwritten restriction of the PUBLIC HAVING ACCESS TO THE SAME PUBLIC FILE without reasonable cause. THERE IN NO EQUALITY IN THE LAW!
missing and lost private prosecution public evidence;
impeded or restricted access to private prosecution public evidence;
harassment while filing required court documents for private prosecutions;
unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file private prosecution information;
conviction without notice or fare hearing;
and finally stopping me from exercising my legal rights by banning me from all courts in Ontario, taking away all my legal rights in Ontario by fraudulent means, and in addition to impeding or restricting my HUMAN RIGHTS;
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO refuse to deal with the matter;
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA refuse to deal with the matter;
now my EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits are impeded, I have no social services rights, and access to goods, services (Health services, Police Services etc. are impeded), which are enjoyed by other CANADIANS have vanished. All I have access to now is HOMELESS SHELTERS, OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS, and SOUP KITCHENS.

[50] URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION:

I came to Toronto to attend an Hospital to obtain necessary medication for my health according to doctors best medical practice, only to discover that I don't qualify for a drug card from social services without the proper identification.

Recall that Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my Identification and fail to return it after I exercised my colour of right on more than one occasions.

The courts has refused to enforce the RULE OF LAW, at the minimum-directing Officer Pekeski(2261) to returned my belongings and have me signed off on receiving all out standing pending personal belongings.

[51] It seems that I AM NOT A HUMAN BEING, deserving of equal services even if it means damaging my health or possible killing(social murder) me by withholding services from a Afro Canadian.

[52] I require at the minimum an interim order for a drug card or the IMMEDIATE return of my identification from PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. Please EMAIL ME TO PICK WITH THE ORDER OR HAVE ME PICK IT UP AT YOUR OFFICE. i AM IN TORONTO, STAY AT OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS! I CAME FOR NECESSARY REQUIRED MEDICAL SERVICES

[53] FACT-PERMUTATION:

Justice Andrea’ COURT ORDER banning me(Wayne Ferron) from all courts in ONTARIO and taking my legal rights and the ability to defend my civil and political rights. If I cannot defend my rights, then I have no rights including human rights!
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL endorsement or order to suspend HRTO 2012-12585-I(2013 HRTO 1544).No resolution or restitution for this matter has damaged my life and my children life, in addition to crippling me in moving closure to normal living.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Nov 26, 2014 decision to denied me employment insurance benefits for the false PREMISE OF “left your employment without just cause”. I have call EI(1800 206 7218) to offer more information, answer any question, but they always replied in the negative. I have called E. Hoffman (1 866 950 7227) at least four time to no avail at EI commission.
I was sent to SOCIAL SERVICES BY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE for help, when there was no help pursuant to there policy.
ONTARIO-WORKS policy which denies social benefits on the bases of not having proper identification. I WAS DENIED A DRUG CARD in accordance with policy.

6. John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]), choosing no to enforce the CRIMINAL of CANADAN , with respect to Officer Pekeski (2261) theft of my personal proper(HEALTH CARD etc.) is the cause of action for this matter.

[54] The aforesaid permutation create the perfect conditions for the denial of SOCIAL SERVICES and creating an impediment to my health and well being.

[55] Furthermore, this may cause my death or fatal injury. I leave my life (weather I live or die in the hands of HRCTO and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (E. Hoffman – 1 866 – 950 -722 ext 5684)

HEALTH RISK:

[56]

On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my first blood pressure reading was 203/118.
On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my second blood pressure reading was 196/183.
On January 8, 2015, I was experiencing headaches in the back of my head, in addition to headaches at the side of my head.
A few days before January 9, 2015, I was experiencing headaches.
I have provided a copy of the prescription I cannot afford, but desperately need.

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINANT

(The PRIVATE PROSECUTOR):

[57] I want to work!

[58] I want to pay taxes!

[59] Your inability to affect the principles of the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE is preventing me from returning back to society as a normal productive human being. You are helping my opponents to murder me slowly.

[60] I love the law!

[61] I love the CRIMINAL CODE.

[62] But I am most in love with the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

[63] Please show me that the aforementioned guiding Rules for civilized society around the world, are still relevant in this society, in this age, and at this time of our unfolding history. I want to still believe in this ideal. Earn my confidence, you will not get it for free.

[64] I am the person who acted within the CAPACITY OF A Private Prosecutor, TO PROSECUTE rouge elements of the ministry of ATTORNEY GENERAL who believe them selves to be immune to the LAW , above the LAW, and are not subject to the LAW.

[65] Please, have the RESPONDENTS, who have not yet responded; show some honour, honesty, and dignity byway of returning all my belongings forthwith, I have exercised my COLOUR OF RIGHT over my property in accordance with the laws of this land we call Canada. That is;

” ATTENTION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

MR. JOHN GERRETSEN:

{…}

To the SALVATION ARMY and To the REGION OF PEEL or REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER

{...}

RE: I respectfully request byway of COLOUR OF RIGHT, the prompt

return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated or whatever the

case my be, by your subordinate Officer Pekeski(2261) whom

disclosed to my person the false identity of Officer Perkins(2261) in

addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing his identity as Officer

Perkins(2261).

{...}

Statutory Powers Procedure Act

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22

Disposition without hearing

4.1 If the parties consent, a proceeding may be disposed of by a decision of the tribunal given without a hearing, unless another Act or a regulation that applies to the proceeding provides otherwise. 1997, c. 23, s. 13 (2).

Dismissal of proceeding without hearing

4.6(1)Subject to subsections (5) and (6), a tribunal may dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if,

(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;

(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal; or

Human Rights Code

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Services

Accommodation

Reprisals

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

Act binds Crown

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

Act has primacy over other Acts

(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 47 (2).

HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

[66] PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A at the end of this document for;

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination…”

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

[67] I respectfully request that the HRTO FILE:2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I BE TRANSFERRED TO THE RIGHT jurisdiction or a court of competent jurisdiction if is beyond your authority.

[68] The HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION is on going; presently the crime is causing me to be denied access to medical treatment ( goods and services). So it is a perfect reprisal which continually punished me socially the finally murders me eventually.

COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I

[69] Denial of access to homeless shelter services. There was an attempt to dismiss this matter on more than one occasions while I was living on the street as a vagabond.

[70] Richard Hennessy that I filed a HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER (2012 – 12585-I) matter, of extreme urgency of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for my beloved daughter (A. H.) and, I (Wayne Ferron) concerning homelessness, viable secure housing, and denial of access to a HOMELESS SHELTER without lawful cause, and byway of reprisals(unlawfully punishments for human rights complaint, private prosecution, and seeking justice in a court of competent jurisdiction for righteous legal complaints).

[71] HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED FOR ME AND MY CHILD!

Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF POLICE SERVICES (s. 1) - Pursuant to Mr Richard Hennessy (Registrar) who seem to be acting in the capacity of a lawyer for RESPONDENTS, who are not honourable enough to respond to serious allegations of concern to the PUBLIC GOOD;

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Services Division and Officer Green

Subject: No Notice of Intent to Dismiss or assigned date for trial, just the continually suffering and punishment my daughter and I must endure...”

PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

[72] COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I

Denial of PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES although on going became unbearable on Jan 5, 2015 because it involved my life. I was slowly being killed or murdered to pretech Officer Pekeski(2261), and Ms. Joanne Stuart etc who are above the law and not subject to the law.

[73] HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY PREMISE!

Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES (Officer Pekeski(2261) defiant action of keeping stolen property belonging to me and refusing to return them before the proper authorities, is the main contributor for my denial of goods and services) (s. 1). - Pursuant to Mr Richard Hennessy (Registrar) who seem to be acting in the capacity of a lawyer for RESPONDENTS, who are not honourable enough to respond to serious allegations of concern to the PUBLIC GOOD;

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Peel Regional Police Services and Officer Pekeski

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2015-19792-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on January 5, 2015.

The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because:

• the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in your Application and you do not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the HRTO’s case law [s.34(1)]. See for example Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 1582 (CanLII) and see for example Diler v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1224 (CanLII) for a discussion of “good faith”.”

[75] Was Officer Pekeski(2261) acting in “good faith” when he retained my ID, wallet, etc.. and still retains the stolen materials; in addition to denying me the use of the said stolen material to fully access PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES and MEDICAL SERVICES?

As long as Officer Peski(2261) refuse to return the stolen material and fail to return my belongings after I have exercised my authority over the same stolen materials by way of me exercising my colour of right; he his still committing a crime which is denying me my HUMAN RIGHTS or life, liberty, security, and pursuit of happiness.

[76] So do the just RIGHTEOUS thing and have Officer Pekeski(2261) return my belongs to ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS Toronto Office with the proper paper work for me to sign in receiving the same stolen material to end this evil saga which in taking my life.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

[77] COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 2014-19681-I

HRTO FILE: 2014-19681-I PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY PREMISE!

Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF COURT SERVICES WHICH ARE STILL PENDING (certified reproduction, production of evidence, order of court materials to perfect appeal, location of missing evidence. All of the aforesaid was requested in REQUISITION for C567168 etc. and to which there has been no response.) (s. 1) - Pursuant to Mr Richard Hennessy (Registrar) who seem to be acting in the capacity of a lawyer for RESPONDENTS, who are not honourable enough to respond to serious allegations of concern to the PUBLIC GOOD;

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Services Division) John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desire Viceral

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19681-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on December 19, 2014.

The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because:

• while your response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination you experienced occurred on or about April 30, 2014, a review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code...”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

[78] COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 2014-19680-I

HRTO FILE: 2014-19680-I PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY PREMISE!

Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF COURT SERVICES WHICH ARE STILL PENDING (certified reproduction or production of evidence as witness by the court in accordance with the EVIDENCE ACT, the COURT REPORTERS sworn oath to give equal TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, and the COURT REPORTER’S ACT; order of SOME CERTIFIED transcripts ARE STILL PENDING, some TRANSCRIPTS(C 56718) payed for and received or not certified in accordance of the laws and rule of evidence, and REQUISITIONS(c 56718) were not responded to) (s. 1). - Pursuant to Mr Richard Hennessy (Registrar) who seem to be acting in the capacity of a lawyer for RESPONDENTS, who are not honourable enough to respond to serious allegations of concern to the PUBLIC GOOD;

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Arlene Gorewicz, Santiago Orbe and Joy Webster

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19680-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on December 19, 2014.

The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because:

• while your response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination you experienced occurred on or about January 2, 2014, a review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code....”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 20114-19377-I

[79] Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) (form1,21-question 6)

When you chooses goods and services as your area of complaint and fill out FORM 1, it directs you to fill our FORM 1-C, where you choose POLICE SERVICES as the area in GOODS AND SERVICES that you are complaining about.

Police services (FORM 1-C, C1)

[80] HRTO FILE: 2014-19680-I PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY PREMISE!

Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination.

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Arlene Gorewicz, Santiago Orbe and Joy Webster

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19680-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on December 19, 2014.

The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because:

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

REPRISALS (for all matters - HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I):

[81] For loving the Law and endeavouring to act with in the capacity of a Private Prosecutor and in accordance with Section. 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA. In addition to LEGAL BULLYING and harassment after I became hated and despised in legal circles. Now I am just left to die with no legal rights, no human rights, no access to EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits entitlements, no access to Public goods and services, and no access to full medical services.

Services

Reprisals

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

Act binds Crown

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

1) DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2) DENIAL OF DIGNITY AND WORTH OF A HUMAN BEING

3) DENIAL OF LEGAL RIGHTS

4) DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES

5) DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS ENTITLEMENTS

6) DENIAL OF FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES

7) DIMINISHING OF MY CHILDREN RIGHT TO A FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION

8) DENIAL OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND HAPPINESS

9) LEGAL BULLYING

[82] DISCRIMINATION (discrimination by distinction for all matters - HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I):

I am relying on the following legislation;

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Services

Reprisals

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

Act binds Crown

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

Police Service Act:

Declaration of principles

Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles:

1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario.

2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.

R.S.Q., chapter C-12

Charter of human rights and freedoms

Exercise of rights and freedoms.

9.1. In exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec.

CHAPTER I.1

RIGHT TO EQUAL RECOGNITION AND EXERCISE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Discrimination forbidden.

10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.

Discrimination defined.

Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.

1975, c. 6, s. 10; 1977, c. 6, s. 1; 1978, c. 7, s. 112; 1980, c. 11, s. 34; 1982, c. 61, s. 3.

Harassment.

10.1. No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10.

1982, c. 61, s. 4.

Discriminatory notice forbidden.

11. No one may distribute, publish or publicly exhibit a notice, symbol or sign involving discrimination, or authorize anyone to do so.

1975, c. 6, s. 11.

Discrimination in juridical acts.

12. No one may, through discrimination, refuse to make a juridical act concerning goods or services ordinarily offered to the public.

1975, c. 6, s. 12.

Clause forbidden.

13. No one may in a juridical act stipulate a clause involving discrimination.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Human Rights Code

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19

Constructive discrimination

11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member, except where,

(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or

(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (1).

Discrimination because of association

12. A right under Part I is infringed where the discrimination is because of relationship, association or dealings with a person or persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 12.

DISTINCTION:

GOODS AND SERVICES DISTINCTION

[83] PERMISSIBLE THEFT - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[84] CRIMINAL CODES DOES NOT PROTECT ME- Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[85] PARAMOUNTCY DOES NOT APPLY TO ME - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. Furthermore, when I tried to prosecute them, a provincial legislation was used to declare me as a vexative litigant; and defeat my prosecutions, take away all my legal rights, and take away my Human Rights. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[86] DENIED FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES - Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep my stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[87] DENIED FULL ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES -Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep my stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (CR 12-70000061, CR 12-1912, C56817 etc.)

Section 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

About a 32 million dollar civil law suite (CV 12-716)
BELIEFS

[88] I believe the CRIMINAL CODE is relevant and should be enforced.

[89] I believe that PARAMOUNTCY is essential for a healthy federation of Provinces, and consequently should be enforced.

[90] I believe the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE is relevant and should be enforced.

[91] I believe the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS is relevant and should be enforced.

[92] I believe the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is relevant and should be enforced.

[93] I believe the HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE is relevant and should be granted to all that live in societies where civilized practice law is affected under humane governance.

[94] I believe in working and paying taxes. I believe in nurturing children and that it is the parents responsibility to provide for children. So why is my foes preventing me from doing this?

SYSTEMIC RACISM

[95] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[96] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[97] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[98] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[99] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[100] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[101] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[102] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

RACIAL PROFILING

[103] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[104] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[105] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[106] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[107] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[108] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[109] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[110] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

SLANDER IN ALPHA DATA BASE

[111] Called a “CRACK HEAD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[112] Called an “ASS HOLE” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[113] Called a “CRAZY GUY” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[114] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[115] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[116] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[117] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

SLANDER IN MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES FILES

[118] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

SLANDER IN HOSPITAL FILES

[119] Profiled as a “MENTALLY DECEASED” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

POSSIBLE SLANDER IN THE FEDERAL FILES

[120] Profiled as a “DRUG ADDICT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[121] Profiled as a “ALCOHOLIC” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[122] Profiled as a “VIOLENT” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

[123] Profiled as a CRIMINAL “UP TO NO GOOD” without lawful cause or reasonable cause.

CRIMINAL CONVICTION-FROM MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

[124] PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

[125] A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF SOME REPRISALS:

[126] Because I dear to act in the capacity of a Private Prosecutor in accordance with Section 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and prosecute those who falsely believe themselves to be above the law, immune to the Law, and are not subject to the Law of the land.

[127] Because I was hated and despised person in Courts and was continually:

I was not permitted to take the stand and give sworn evidence while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR.
My AFFIDAVIT evidence were not cross examined.
I was not permitted to call witnesses to assist the Court while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR.
I was not permitted to cross examine the RESPONDENT’S AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE while acting in the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR.
Legally Bullied.
Unjustly punished.
Threaten with being arrested and thrown out of court while trying to Affect a Private Prosecution against a Probation Officer who unlawfully procured a legal instrument to maliciously prosecute my person and put me in jail for 15 days after the probation period was successfully completed without incident.
Threaten with being arrested and thrown out of the OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE (BRAMPTON COURT HOUSE), after a Justice called me “crazy guy” without lawful cause for requesting the commission of an affidavit as is directed by the EVIDENCE ACT, CRIMINAL CODE, and the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES.
Called names without lawful cause (CRACK HEAD, ASSHOLE),
Assaulted without lawful cause, arrested without lawful cause.
Arrested and convicted ( ), for lawful service of a Private Prosecution appeal against Ms. Joanne Stuart without being allowed to speak to a lawyer(requested lawyer/duty counsel next door), without a lawful service of a summons or NOTICE OF A TRIAL.
Unlawfully arrested by Officer Pekeski(2261) who helped filed a false police report and falsely accused of being violent after calling 911 to report an aggravated Police Assault, for medical help which caused injury to my left arm and hand.
Falsely accused of being violent by Doctor Hardly who never examined me.
Assaulted, Unlawfully arrested, and unlawfully imprisoned for 13 days without my rights being affected for trying to file assault charges against Officer Pekeski(2261); without speaking to a lawyer even though I requested one, without the administration of a fair trial .
Public evidence I filed against Ms. Joanne Stuart for appeal(C56817) VANISHED from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without lawful cause or reasonable explanation; to which assistance Crown Attorney Ms. Krick has confirmed in open court, before a Justice without any reasonable doubt that the evidence was missing from the COA file C56817. This of course was for a private prosecution.
Public evidence I filed against Ms. Joanne Stuart for appeal(C56817/M61 at lower courts) was unlawfully taken out of the COURT OF APPEAL COURT HOUSE without lawful cause or reasonable justification back to the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S office for about a one month period, even thought the same Ministry was the RESPONDENT and the PROSECUTION was against one of their employee’s they believed to be above the law.
Unequal service by court service workers was affected by COURT SERVICE WORKERS in not full-filling my requisition which are still pending. In addition to not accepting Private Prosecution motions without lawful cause.
Unequal service was affected by COURT REPORTERS giving inferior or none certified TRANSCRIPTS (C56817. ETC) of evidence for judicial matters at max cost, even though the same transcripts did not constitute evidence in a court of law or by the evidence act. In addition there are still pending requisitions for certified TRANSCRIPTS(c56817 ETC.) for which a down payment might have been payed.
The aforesaid concerning LEGAL BULLYING was done for the following reasons in my reasonable personal belief. Because I love the Law, I tried to enforced the law byway of Private Prosecution (S. 507 C.C.), and I demanded DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW for my self(Private Prosecutor), and the alleged accuse (Ms. Joanne Stuart, Officer Pekeski(2261), William Hird (5068), and DC Greorgy Stribbell(529).
I disclosed and filed the following legal documents for LEGAL BULLYING:

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT (1912)
AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (1912)
AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (C56817)
AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (12-70000061)
REQUISITION TO PUT RESPONDENTS IN DEFAULT(m61)
REQUISITION TO PUT RESPONDENTS IN DEFAULT(1912)
AMENDED-AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM (CV 12-716)
LETTER TO COURT REPORTER Joy Webster(C56817)
LETTER TO COURT REPORTER J Santiago (C56817)
JUSTIN ANDRE’ COURT ORDER
NO LEGAL RIGHTS
NO HUMAN RIGHTS
NO ACCESS TO MEDICINE AND FULL HEALTH CARE SERVICES
UNJUST DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT
SYSTEMIC RACISM

481 792 695 (directly dependent on 2012-12585-I)

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL (GE - 15 -229)

[128] Upon appealing my EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefit entitlement at the start of January 2015, to the FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL-GENERAL. I was told to check back in 6 weeks, because it takes 6 weeks to process the matter. I have had no viable response nor has an appeal file number been given to me.

[129] On are or about Monday February 16, 2015, I was told by the FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL-GENERAL that I would receive a response in 3 days. I have had no viable response nor has an appeal file number been given to me.

[130] On are or about February 20, 2015, I was told by the FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL-GENERAL that I would receive a response in 3 days. I have had no viable response nor has an appeal file number been given to me.

[131]I spoke to the Manager Mr. West (7523) whom refused to disclose his full name to me and found the following task impossible;

[132] Mr. West(7523) could not tell me the file name(case matter) nor could he transfer me to a person in authority who could, because there exist an impenetrable wall of barrier to entry for an appeal for EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefit entitlement;

[133] Mr. West(7523) could not tell me the status of the appeal (case matter) nor could he transfer me to a person in authority who could because there exist an impenetrable wall of barrier to entry for EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefit entitlement;

[134] I informed Mr. West (7623) in clear and direct language that it is a life and death situation and that I have indication the gravity of the emergency of the situation. He was still powerless to transfer me to any person in authority who could because there exit an impenetrable wall of barrier to entry for EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefit entitlement;

[135] I informed Mr. West (7623) in clear and direct language that the only way to contact me was byway of email (leegalpoet@gmail.com), because of my impoverishness. I told him that I live on the streets with no income to afford a phone or money to pay for government mail.

NEW ADDRESS:

Address: HOMELESS

Phone number: no viable phone number

Email: leegalpoet@gmail.com

[136] I informed Mr. West (7623) in clear and direct language that if the FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL-GENERAL must have an address; then they can use the TORONTO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, and I will pick up the items there; the following is the address.

TORONTO HUMAN RIGHTS

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

655 BAY ST., 14TH FLOOR

TORONTO, ONTARIO, M7A 2A3

However my email is the best and only way to contact me:

leegalpoet@gmail.com

[137] I have informed the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION on many occasion concerning my situation on the phone. When I told about my need of medications and I might possible die without it; i was told;”...you will die then.”

[138] When I told EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE about my child need paying and securing residence, she told me that my daughter is an adult who will find or figure out a way! Does my beloved daughter have the right to study without unnecessary stress?

[139] I have done all I could, I can’t do any more now. I don’t know if this problem will be solved before I am dead, have a stroke, or have major organ damage.

[140] I would like to know how what is being done help me to be marketable, find a job, and be a productive taxpaying member of society. And if it is the case that the answer is in the negative, then what is the purpose of it all?

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Friday, March 6, 2015

_____________________________

Wayne FERRON(Informant/APPLICANT)

VAGOBOND

HRTO – Registrar

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519

Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322

Fax: 416-326-2199

___________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX: A

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

The case is interesting because it stands in stark contrast to decisions taken by the Ontario Labour Relations Board with respect to claims of reprisal following unsuccessful claims of workplace harassment. On this latter point I would encourage readers to review my post Workplace Harassment Complaints and Bill 168.

The Morgan Decision

The Morgan case concerned an application brought before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by employee Aldeen Morgan. Mr. Morgan had taken the position that he was discriminated against by his employer, Herman Miller Canada Inc. on account of the fact that he was black man. Specifically, Mr. Morgan had claimed that he was made to perform tasks outside his job description, which he found demeaning, and that he was put on probation solely because he was a black man.

In her reasons for decision Human Rights Tribunal Adjudicator Geneviève Debané found that the Mr. Morgan had not established that the events complained of were evidence of any discriminatory or racist conduct on the part of the employer. Adjudicator Debané therefore dismissed those aspects of his claim.

However, although Adjudicator Debané made findings that the incidents complained of were not motivated by racism, the Tribunal still found that the company’s failure to appropriately respond to Mr. Morgan’s complaints was sufficient to result in an award of damages.

The Duty to Address and Respond

Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

Instead of dealing with the applicant’s allegations in an appropriate manner, the company chose to terminate the applicant’s employment. I note that the termination letter itself relies on the fact that the applicant was “profoundly unhappy”. I find that this unhappiness was a direct result of the fact that he perceived that he was being treated in a discriminatory manner because of his colour. Although reprisal need only be one factor in the decision to terminate the applicant in order to find that the applicant was terminated contrary to his right to be free from reprisal under the Code, in my view the reasons in the respondent’s termination letter were otherwise pre-textual. (Para. 108)” (Par Sean Bawden — Labour Pains)

Kotevski v. 1217993 Ontario Wimpy’s Diner, 2011 HRTO 705

(Gender, sexual harassment)

Chuvalo v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2037

(Gender and race)

Couchie v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing), 2011 HRTO 689

(Ancestry)

Lauzon v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2011 HRTO 1404

(Disability)

Tearne v. City of Windsor 2011 HRTO 2294

(Age)

Knibbs v. Brant Artillery Gunners Club, 2011 HRTO 1032

(Gender, disability, association and reprisal)

Statutory Powers Procedure Act

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22

Disposition without hearing

4.1If the parties consent, a proceeding may be disposed of by a decision of the tribunal given without a hearing, unless another Act or a regulation that applies to the proceeding provides otherwise. 1997, c. 23, s. 13 (2).

Dismissal of proceeding without hearing

4.6(1)Subject to subsections (5) and (6), a tribunal may dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if,

(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;

(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal; or

Notice

(2)Before dismissing a proceeding under this section, a tribunal shall give notice of its intention to dismiss the proceeding to,

(a) all parties to the proceeding if the proceeding is being dismissed for reasons referred to in clause (1) (b); or

(b) the party who commences the proceeding if the proceeding is being dismissed for any other reason.

Same

(3)The notice of intention to dismiss a proceeding shall set out the reasons for the dismissal and inform the parties of their right to make written submissions to the tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in the notice.

Right to make submissions

(4)A party who receives a notice under subsection (2) may make written submissions to the tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in the notice.

Dismissal

(5)A tribunal shall not dismiss a proceeding under this section until it has given notice under subsection (2) and considered any submissions made under subsection (4).

Rules

(6)A tribunal shall not dismiss a proceeding under this section unless it has made rules under section 25.1 respecting the early dismissal of proceedings and those rules shall include,

(a) any of the grounds referred to in subsection (1) upon which a proceeding may be dismissed;

(b) the right of the parties who are entitled to receive notice under subsection (2) to make submissions with respect to the dismissal; and

Continuance of provisions in other statutes

(7)Despite section 32, nothing in this section shall prevent a tribunal from dismissing a proceeding on grounds other than those referred to in subsection (1) or without complying with subsections (2) to (6) if the tribunal dismisses the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of an Act that are in force on the day this section comes into force. 1999, c. 12, Sched. B, s. 16 (3).

Right to representation

10. A party to a proceeding may be represented by a representative. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (3).

Examination of witnesses

10.1A party to a proceeding may, at an oral or electronic hearing,

(a) call and examine witnesses and present evidence and submissions; and

(b) conduct cross-examinations of witnesses at the hearing reasonably required for a full and fair disclosure of all matters relevant to the issues in the proceeding. 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (20).

Rights of witnesses to representation

11. (1) A witness at an oral or electronic hearing is entitled to be advised by a representative as to his or her rights, but such representative may take no other part in the hearing without leave of the tribunal. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (4).

Idem

(2) Where an oral hearing is closed to the public, the witness’s representative is not entitled to be present except when that witness is giving evidence. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 11 (2); 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (22); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (5).

Summonses

12. (1) A tribunal may require any person, including a party, by summons,

(a) to give evidence on oath or affirmation at an oral or electronic hearing; and

(b) to produce in evidence at an oral or electronic hearing documents and things specified by the tribunal,

relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding and admissible at a hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 12 (1); 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (23).

Form and service of summons

(2) A summons issued under subsection (1) shall be in the prescribed form (in English or French) and,

(a) where the tribunal consists of one person, shall be signed by him or her;

(b) where the tribunal consists of more than one person, shall be signed by the chair of the tribunal or in such other manner as documents on behalf of the tribunal may be signed under the statute constituting the tribunal. 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (24).

Human Rights Code

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Services

Accommodation

Reprisals

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

Constructive discrimination

(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or

(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (1).

Idem

(2) The Tribunal or a court shall not find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (2); 1994, c. 27, s. 65 (1); 2002, c. 18, Sched. C, s. 2 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 35 (1).

Idem

(3) The Tribunal or a court shall consider any standards prescribed by the regulations for assessing what is undue hardship. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (3); 1994, c. 27, s. 65 (2); 2002, c. 18, Sched. C, s. 2 (2); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 35 (2).

Discrimination because of association

Announced intention to discriminate

13. (1) A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (1).

Opinion

(2) Subsection (1) shall not interfere with freedom of expression of opinion. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (2).

Disposition of applications

40. The Tribunal shall dispose of applications made under this Part by adopting the procedures and practices provided for in its rules or otherwise available to the Tribunal which, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the applications. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Interpretation of Part and rules

41. This Part and the Tribunal rules shall be liberally construed to permit the Tribunal to adopt practices and procedures, including alternatives to traditional adjudicative or adversarial procedures that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, will facilitate fair, just and expeditious resolutions of the merits of the matters before it. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Statutory Powers Procedure Act

42. (1) The provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act apply to a proceeding before the Tribunal unless they conflict with a provision of this Act, the regulations or the Tribunal rules. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Conflict

(2) Despite section 32 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, this Act, the regulations and the Tribunal rules prevail over the provisions of that Act with which they conflict. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Tribunal rules

43. (1) The Tribunal may make rules governing the practice and procedure before it. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Required practices and procedures

(2) The rules shall ensure that the following requirements are met with respect to any proceeding before the Tribunal:

1. An application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions in accordance with the rules.

2. An application may not be finally disposed of without written reasons. 2006, c. 30, s.

Penalty

46.2 (1) Every person who contravenes section 9 or subsection 31 (14), 31.1 (8) or 44 (13) or an order of the Tribunal is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000. 2006, c. 30, s. 8.

Consent to prosecution

(2) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except with the consent in writing of the Attorney General. 2006, c. 30, s. 8.

Act binds Crown

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

Act has primacy over other Acts

Complaints before Commission on effective date

53. (1) This section applies to a complaint filed with the Commission under subsection 32 (1) of the old Part IV or initiated by the Commission under subsection 32 (2) of the old Part IV before the effective date. 2006, c. 30, s. 10.

Commission powers continued for six months

(2) Subject to subsection (3) and despite the repeal of the old Part IV, during the six-month period that begins on the effective date, the Commission shall continue to deal with complaints referred to in subsection (1) in accordance with subsection 32 (3) and sections 33, 34, 36, 37 and 43 of the old Part IV and, for that purpose,

(a) the Commission has all the powers described in subsection 32 (3) and sections 33, 34, 36, 37 and 43 of the old Part IV; and

(b) the provisions referred to in clause (a) continue to apply with respect to the complaints, with necessary modifications. 2006, c. 30, s. 10.

Applications to Tribunal during six-month period

(3) Subject to subsection (4), at any time during the six-month period referred to in subsection (2), the person who made a complaint that is continued under that subsection may, in accordance with the Tribunal rules, elect to abandon the complaint and make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the subject-matter of the complaint. 2006, c. 30, s. 10.

Expedited process

(4) The Tribunal shall make rules with respect to the practices and procedures that apply to an application under subsection (3) in order to ensure that the applications are dealt with in an expeditious manner. 2006, c. 30, s. 10.

Applications to Tribunal after six-month period

(5) If, after the end of the six-month period referred to in subsection (2), the Commission has failed to deal with the merits of a complaint continued under that subsection and the complaint has not been withdrawn or settled, the complainant may make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the subject-matter of the complaint within a further six-month period after the end of the earlier six-month period. 2006, c. 30, s. 10.

New Part IV applies

(6) The new Part IV applies to an application made under subsections (3) and (5). 2006, c. 30, s. 10.

Disclosure of information

(7) Despite anything in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, at the request of a party to an application under subsection (3) or (5), the Commission may disclose to the party any information obtained by the Commission in the course of an investigation. 2006, c. 30, s. 10.

Place where proceeding commenced

21.11 (COURT OF JUSTICE ACT)

Transfer to other court

(3) A judge presiding over the Family Court may, on motion, order that a proceeding commenced in the Family Court be transferred to the appropriate court in a place where the Family Court does not have jurisdiction if, in the judge’s opinion, the preponderance of convenience favours having the matter dealt with by that court in that place.

Transfer from other court

(4) A judge of a court having jurisdiction in a proceeding referred to in the Schedule to section 21.8 in an area where the Family Court does not have jurisdiction may, on motion, order that the proceeding be transferred to the Family Court in a particular place if, in the judge’s opinion, the preponderance of convenience favours having the matter dealt with by that court in that place.

Directions

(5) A judge making an order under subsection (3) or (4) may give such directions for the transfer as are considered just. 1994, c. 12, s. 8.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

Chapter 9 of the Toronto Municipal Code

Human

§ 709-3. Smoking restrictions.

A. No person shall smoke within a nine metre radius surrounding any entrance or exit of a public building.

§ 709-6. Offences.

Any person who contravenes any provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence.6

Pursuant to the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT:

Driving a privilege

31. The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely... 1993, c. 40, s. 1

Motor Vehicles, Vessels and Aircraft

Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft

249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;

{...}

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 249; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 57; 1994, c. 44, s. 11.

Common nuisance

180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby

(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or

(b) causes physical injury to any person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

. Pursuant to the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT:

192. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle or street car is liable for loss or damage sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle or street car on a highway. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 2.

Duty of person in charge of vehicle in case of accident

200. (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall,

(a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident;

(b) render all possible assistance; and

(c) upon request, give in writing to anyone sustaining loss or injury or to any police officer or to any witness his or her name, address, driver’s licence number and jurisdiction of issuance, motor vehicle liability insurance policy insurer and policy number, name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle permit number. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 (1); 1997, c. 12, s. 16.

Penalty

(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence... 2009, c. 5, s. 54.

Duty to report accident

199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 199 (1); 2002, c. 17

Police Service Act:

Declaration of principles

Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles:

1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario.

2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code

3. The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the communities they serve.

4. The importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding of their needs.

5. The need for sensitivity to the pluralistic, multiracial and multicultural character of Ontario society.

6. The need to ensure that police forces are representative of the communities they serve. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 1.

Misconduct

80. (1) A police officer is guilty of misconduct if he or she,

(a) commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct;

(f) contravenes section 81 (inducing misconduct, withholding services);

(h) deals with personal property, other than money or a firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132;

Records or things removed

Detention of record or thing

(2) A record or other thing removed by an investigator acting under subsection 26.6 (2) or under an order issued under subsection 26.6 (6) may be detained by him or her. 2007, c. 5, s. 8.

Same

	12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
	13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
		Equality Rights
	15.	(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
		(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Human Rights Code

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Services

Accommodation

Reprisals

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

Act binds Crown

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

Act has primacy over other Acts

Reprisals

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9.

Act binds Crown

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

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

WAYNE FERRON

-versus-

THE REGIONAL

MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL et al

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519

___________________________

RESPONSE

TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION,

without response from RESPONDENTS,

NOTICE to dismiss matters...

____________________________________________

Wayne FERRON

VAGABOND

Mr. Adrian Sanchez TRUCK(851 3YY)

TAKE NOTICE:

I WAS DIRECTED TO THE WRONG PLACE AND COMMANDED TO FILE AN ACCIDENT REPORT AT THE WRONG PLACE BY MORE THAN ONE OFFICER(SPECIAL CONSTABLE(BADGE# 90479).

AFTER A LONG WAIT TO FILE A HIWAY ACCIDENT REPORT AND AFTER Officer Green(10235) BOLDLY PRONOUNCED HIS JUDGEMENT ON THE SAME MATTER, THAT NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED, AND THAT THERE WAS NO WITNESSES, AND INFERRED THAT THE PHOTO EVIDENCE AND THE “VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT” DISCLOSED TO HIM WAS NOT RELEVANT WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE INVESTIGATION; I WAS SHOWN OUT THE DOOR OF TORONTO POLICE SERVICE, DIVISION 13. WITH A THREAT OF BOTH THE EVIDENCE AND “VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT” BEING THROWN INTO THE GARBAGE.

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

FROM A DEAD POET, A CAUTION AGAINST LOSING YOUR “FREEDOM RIGHTS!”

Folder Contents

Free Membership

Who's online

Online users

Who's new