WARNING TO THE PUBLIC, if you love "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 Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desiree Viceral

WITHHOLDING or

DENIAL of EQUAL “COURT SERVICES”

for violation of Section 1., 8., 9., and 47. of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT

________________________________________________________

NOTICE of MOTION

TO TRANSFER MATTER TO

COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION

_____________________________________________________________________

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1., 8., 9., 47. OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, SECTION 80.(1)(b) & SECTION 26.7(1)(b) of the of the POLICE SERVICE ACT

Wayne FERRON

HOMELESS VAGOBOND

HRTO – Registrar HRTO FILE: 2014-19680-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

TTY Toll-free: 1-866-607-1240

Fax: 416-326-2199

TAKE NOTICE: that a Motion will be made before a single JuSTICE or the TRIBUNAL to transfer the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction, and to request that the response to the NOTICE OF DISMISSAL(2014-19681-I) be an oral submission with the calling of witnesses to assist the court, for HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I,

on a date and on a time to be chosen by the HUMAN RIGHTS-REGISTRAR, at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor Toronto, ON. The motion is to be heard orally.

PROPOSED METHOD OF HEARING:

The motion is to be heard orally.

THE MOTION IS FOR:

an order to SUMMON WITNESSES to assist the court;
if it is the case that the matter is in the wrong jurisdiction, then an order to transfer matter to a COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL COURT-ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE);
to give any relief or remedy this Honourable Court deems just and reasonable.

THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE:

LEGAL BULLYING:

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
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 716)
LETTER TO COURT REPORTER Joy Webster
LETTER TO COURT REPORTER J Santiago
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

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).

Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;

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

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

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

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

• while your response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination you experienced occurred on or about April 30, 2014, a review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. See for example Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241 (CanLII); Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495 (CanLII); and Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955..

Is “good faith” a question of fact or law to be determined by a judicial officer in a court of competent jurisdiction, or is the REGISTRAR determining a question of law?

Is the HRTO-REGISTRAR a court of competent jurisdiction for a question of law?

Please see the following below, a denial of service with reprisal does not seem to need discrimination to be heard or rule on the matter before the court;

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

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

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

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

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

The above statement by Richard Hennessy is false or misleading, for the simple reason that you have dared to change my original premise. This is the greatest sin in unbiasly evaluating someone's argument that one can commit. Because you are in essence stating your own premise, then judging it, then falsely assigning it to the applicant like it was his own. The above stated premise is yours not mine.

My PREMISE is the following:

My HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT(2014-19681-I) lays on the foundation of the Respondents having violated Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE by way of denial of COURT SERVICE and denial of equal COURT SERVICES, byway of denial of equal and fair REPRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE to perfect appeal(C56817, etc) and to complete REQUESITIONS(C56817 etc) or at least respond to REQUISITIONS in contravention of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, contravention of the COURT Rules, and in violation of the POLICY OF THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT, to give equal services in COURT SERVICE for every and all parties involved in a judicial matter. EQUAL UNBIASED SERVICES IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE COURT SERVICE WORKERS!, For which I being a Canadian is entitled to, but the said service was unequal, inferior, and some of the requested REQUISITIONS ARE STILL PENDING(TRANSCRIPT C56817, etc), INFACT MOST! In addition, this is a violation of SECTION 15 of the CHARTER and the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT of CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS to which the ONTARIO GOVERNMENT has committed itself and has signed in the capacity of a STATE PARTY.

Human Rights Code

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

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Services

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

Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;

•you allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondent s’ behaviour was related to any of the following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32 (CanLII); Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273 (CanLII).

The REPRISAL reprisal is the LEGALLY BULLYING for my beliefs in a fair and equal enforcement of the CRIMINAL CODE and for my PRIVATE PROSECUTION against those who believe themselves to be above the law.

Human Rights Code

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

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Reprisals

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

Infringement prohibited

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

Constructive discrimination

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

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

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

Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;

• the/a respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The HRTO has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208 (CanLII); Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180 (CanLII); Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (CanLII).

• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.

Please describe the JUDICIAL DUTIES OR ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES COURT SERVICE WORKER Gail Hugh; she is a CLERK at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, and she describe her professional self as a clerk in her sworn affidavit(filed in the courts as evidence record), which is also filed in other courts. As a COURT SERVICE WORKER, she has no adjudicative immunity because she was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was her function a JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I.

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

Act binds Crown

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

Act has primacy over other Acts

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

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.

Please describe the ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES COURT SERVICE WORKER Desiree Viceral; she is a CLERK at the COURT OF APPEAL- RECORDS and she describe her professional self as a clerk in her CERTIFICATION of a document (filed in the courts as evidence record), I have disclosed to you many many time same document, which is filed in the courts. As a COURT SERVICE WORKER, she has no adjudicative immunity because she was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was her function a JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I.

Act binds 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

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

Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment …

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

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

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

Please describe the ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES of COURT SERVICE WORKER Sandra Theroulde; she is a CLERK , the Deputy Clerk but still a clerk, that is not a member of the Bench or has a licence to even practice law as a Lawyer, who works at the COURT OF APPEAL- Registrar as the managing clerk for all the other clerks who come under the COURT SERVICE WORKERS Department under the authority of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. FURTHERMORE, she never describe her professional self as anything other than a clerk.

As a COURT SERVICE WORKER, she has no adjudicative immunity because she was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was her function a JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I.

Act binds Crown

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

Act has primacy over other Acts

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

Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment …

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

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

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

Please describe the ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES of former ATTORNEY GENERAL John Gerretsen; he was the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO , and as such must remain independent of adjudication, and is not a member of the Bench but has a licence to practice law, he was the “head lawyer.” The Crown’s Lawyer for Ontario who refuse to do his job, and respond to the Crown’s legal business. The very nature of his job forces him to be independent of the Police and Bench. In short, it a an area of conflict with his former position. He has no adjudicative role within the meaning of adjudicative immunity because he was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was his function a JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I (He was a lawyer and should have been acting in the capacity of a lawyer). ATTORNEY GENERAL John Gerretsen is powerful, does have a limited sort of sub judicial role with partial immunity, but he is not immune is accordance with SUPREME COURT DECISIONS and even JUSTICE PRICE decision at the Brampton SUPERIOR COURT OF jUSTICE.

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

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.

TAKE NOTICE: If it is the case that “ the/a respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. “ as you are asserting while acting in the capacity of the respondent's unofficial Lawyer, because I have not received a response nor any disclosure within the meaning of NATURAL JUSTICE nor PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, that I may know my case and make informed decisions for the same; the same Judicial Officer need to file a short response officially asserting such a claim and requesting for the claim against the same Judicial Officer to be dismissed on the Basis of judicial Immunity. Just remember that not one single one of my complaint is about any judicial decision, I know where to go for that. I am only interested in full access to public goods and services as a CANADIAN HUMAN BEING!

Pursuant to civil procedure;

43. The clerk may also sign the minute of any judgment rendered upon a motion granted by consent. 1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 43; 1992, c. 57, s. 420.

44. The assistant clerk may exercise the powers conferred on the clerk concurrently with the judge, if he has been chosen for that purpose by the clerk with the consent of the Minister of Justice or of a person designated by him.

The assistant clerk who is a special clerk may exercise such powers ex officio.

For carrying out his duties at the trial, taking down the depositions of witnesses, issuing copies of documents in his custody, and generally for all acts which do not require the exercise of judicial or discretionary power, the clerk may be replaced by such members of his staff as he designates.

1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 44; 1977, c. 73, s. 3; 1992, c. 57, s. 420.

44.1. The special clerk rules, in particular:

(1) on any motion, contested or not, for joinder of actions, security, summons of a witness under article 282, communication, filing or dismissal of exhibits, medical examination, particulars, amendment, modification of an agreement under article 151.2

, substitution of attorney, appointment of a practitioner or relief from default, or to cease representing, and

(2) on any other interlocutory or incidental proceeding, contested or not but, if contested, with the consent of the parties.

The special clerk may, in the case of applications relating to child custody or obligations of support, homologate any agreement effecting a complete settlement of the matter. Once homologated, such agreements have the same effect and binding force as a judgment of the Superior Court.

In all cases, the decision may be revised by the judge in accordance with the formalities provided in article 42.

1975, c. 83, s. 5; 1976, c. 9, s. 54; 1977, c. 73, s. 4; 1992, c. 57, s. 420; 1994, c. 28, s. 1; 1997, c. 42, s. 2; 2002, c. 7, s. 6.

45. The clerk or the assistant clerk may refer to the judge or to the court any matter submitted to him, if he considers that the interests of justice so require.

In the case of an application referred to in the second paragraph of article 44.1, the special clerk may refer the application to the judge or the court if he considers that the agreement between the parties does not provide sufficient protection for the interests of the children or that a party's consent was obtained under duress. He may, to evaluate the agreement or the consent of the parties, summon and hear the parties, even separately, in the presence of their attorneys, if any.

1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 45; 1975, c. 83, s. 6; 1992, c. 57, s. 420; 1997, c. 42, s. 3.

Please see the following below, a denial of service with reprisal does not seem to need discrimination to hear or rule on the matter before the court;

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

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

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

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

Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

MY ACCOUNT OF THE OCCURRENCE:

The following is THE CONTENTS THE AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON;

I, Wayne FERRON of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:

[1] On the 17th of September 2013 a COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARION-RECORD'S CLERK who goes by the name Desiree Viceral, tried to covertly give me corroborative evidence that was not only placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower court; but also, proved conclusively that agents of the Crown not acting in the capacity of a lawful deputy of Her Majesty the Queen, manufactured evidence or misrepresented evidence in addition to swearing a false affidavit in support of the same improper evidence.

[2] On the 17th of September 2013 the court documents which Desire Viceral try to covertly give to my person under the guise of deception, 5 copies of the January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559) which had the following origin:

1. One copy of the Crown's personal copy of the uncertified copy of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559) which Ms. Joanne Stuart was ordered to disclosed to my person after she was taking more than 5 months for her investigation and to fulfill the honorable Justice Gillese January 27, 2010 for R.V. FERRON(M38387/C51190) court order.

2. My personal uncertified copy of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT (07-02500/07-02559), the Crown served on my person for COURT OF APPEAL MATTER C51190 under the guise of being certified when it was not the case. Parts of it are hi-lighted in yellow and orange hi-liter.

3. 3 certified copies of the 3 uncertified copies of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT (07-02500/07-02559), the Crown filed with the COURT OF APPEAL for MATTER C51190 under the guise of being certified real evidence for a court process in which a panel of judges was reviewing C51190, when it was not the case. In short certified copies of the uncertified copies of real evidence used by the COURT OF APPEAL panel of 3 to review C51190 and form the bases for it's reasons for judgment for dismissing my CRIMINAL APPEAL FOR LEAVE FOR APPEAL HEARING.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[3] On or about the 19th of November 2013, I went to the Court Reporters Office, on the third floor of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Toronto Region), at 361 University Ave to check on the status of the transcripts I ordered for C55532, and C56817.

[4] On or about the 19th of November 2013, October 9, 2012 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies of the October 9, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 copies for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges? I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards of the RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[5] On or about the 19th of November 2013, June 4, 2012 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies of the June 4, 2013 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 copies for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges. I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards of the RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness.

[6] On or about the 19th of November 2013, January 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies for January 4, 2013 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 copies for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges? I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards of the RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[7] On or about the 19th of November 2013, June 4, 2012 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete. I had order 7 certified copies June 4, 2012 TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL matter C56817, but only half the number was completed. How am I supposed to serve all 3 parties and file the 3 copies for the COURT OF APPEAL reviewing Panel of Judges? I had the money ready, but how could I reasonable pay for something which did not meet the standards of the RULES OF THE COURT and did not permit service in the spirit of procedural fairness.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[8] On or about the 19th of November 2013, the necessary and most important March 11, 2013 HEARING TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) order was incomplete and it's status unknown despite the disclosing of Justice Feldman's order for the production of March 11, 2013, and April 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPTS two weeks before. I had order 7 certified copies of the March 11, 2013 HEARING TRANSCCRIPT(C56817) in addition to leaving a cash deposit of $20.00 in addition to personally checking on the status of it's production on many occasions.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[9] On or about the 19th of November 2013, I forcefully offered to leave $180.00 deposit for the necessary and most important March 11, 2013 HEARING TRANSCCRIPT(C56817); but the Clerk of the COURT REPORTER'S OFFICE refuse to take the deposit asper the court reporter's instructions, and pursuant to the Court Reporter's Clerk's assertion. Why my deposit or monies for services to be rendered is refuse while there is a demand for a deposit on other clients and the same policy seems to be enforced rigorously.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[10] On the 17th of June 2013, I ordered the following TRANSCRIPTS (C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C56817:

1. FEBURARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Alane Trumpy in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

2. FEBURARY 11, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

3. MARCH 11, 2013 HEARING TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Joy Webster in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

4. APRIL 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Neville Sioban in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

5. JUNE 4, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Orbe Santiago in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

6. JUNE 18, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Marc Lacroix in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

7. JULY 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

8. OCTOBER 9, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Orbe Santiago in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[11] On the 15th of July 2013, I ordered the following PRE-ENQETTE TRANSCRIPT (C56817) for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C56817 after I discovered that a critical piece of real evidence had went missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817:

MARCH 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Arlene Gorewicz in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[12] On the 21st of August 2013, I ordered the following PRE-ENQETTE TRANSCRIPT (C55532) for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C55532 after I discovered that a critical piece of real evidence had went missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; attached to the COURT REPORTER'S ORDER FORM was a copy of the official title of the legal proceeding in question along with it's file number used at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO:

MARCH 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C55532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Arlene Gorewicz in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

[13] Given that it seem as though there were errors in the TRANSCRIPTS (C56817); on the 28th of August 2013, I reordered the following TRANSCRIPTS (C56817) I paid for and received for COURT OF APPEAL leave to appeal matter C56817; attached to the COURTER REPORTER'S ORDER FORM was a copy of the official title of the legal proceeding in question along with it's file number used at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO:

1. FEBURARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Alane Trumpy in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

2. FEBURARY 11, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

3. JULY 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C56817) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Ms. Waters in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[14] On the 28th of August 2013, I ordered the following TRANSCRIPTS (C55532) for COURT OF APPEAL leave matter C55532; attached to the COURT REPORTER'S ORDER FORM was a copy of the official title of the legal proceeding in question along with it's file number used at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO:

1. FEBRUARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C55532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Alane Trumpy in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

2. MARCH 11, 2013 TRANSCRIPT(C55532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Joy Webster in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

3. APRIL 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(C5532) with the expectation of receiving equal service for service rendered by Neville Sioban in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[15] On the 7th of November 2013, I formally requested to view in the following week(next week after 7 nov 2013)) COURT OF APPEAL file C42322in preparing for my COURT OF APPEAL matters. I expected to see the documents and exhibit in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

[16] On the 7th of November 2013, I formally requested to view in the following week(next week after 7 nov 2013)) COURT OF APPEAL file C51190 in preparing for my COURT OF APPEAL matters. I expected to see the documents and exhibit in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

[17] On Thursday November 14, 2013 the security Officers at the entrance to the Osgood Hall Court House said I could not enter with the skipping rope handles I have entered courthouses with for the past two years. The said items are used purely for exercise. I carried a lot more Item to court houses when I was homeless and had to attend court on numerous occasions after walking all night to reach the same court on time.

[18] She said she felt uncomfortable because I could throw the said items. I countered and said you can throw any items, shoes, court documents, bags, etc. The officer did not articulate what she meant any further of the danger the item in question poses. I requested of the Officer to articulate which other items in my bag poses a security risk or she did not want me to bring to the courthouse; she offered no further explanation or articulation on the matter.

[19] Her college, another Officer also offered no explanation why the aforementioned discretion was being used against my person, but only falsely asserted in the form of questions why I cannot leave the item in question in my car, at the gym, or at home. I said that I don't own a car, I did not want to be late for work and they did not know if I was even homeless or not.

[20] In any event, I left my entire bag outside the Courthouse since there was a problem in determining which items in my bag posed a problem; so I left all items and bag. I did not want to be delayed in discussing undefined objects of interest to the officers, when they did not seem to know which item in my bag posed a security risk.

[21] I took the Officers name and badge number and informed them that I will be filing a complaint. The male Officer tried to give me advice on filing my complaint in an incorrect place, I asserted that I know where to file a complaint.

[22] On the 14th of November 2013, I asked to view my COURT OF APPEAL file C51190 in preparing for my COURT OF APPEAL matters. I expected to see the documents and exhibit in accordance with Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

[23] On the 14th of November 2013, upon viewing file C51190 I notice that there were extra documents placed in the said files long after the closing of C51190.

[24] On the 14th of November 2013, upon viewing file C51190 I Wayne Ferron, the Private Prosecutor found the following documents not belonging to C51190 were found in C51190 by my person and eye witnessed by the attending COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S Clerk who gave file C51190 to me for viewing and took the order for the certified reproduction of the said misfiled documents:

1. A copy of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) used by the panel of judges for C51190; which was before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual. The said document had a certificate for the certified reproduction of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), that was signed and commissioned on the 4th of February 2013 by Erica Ramrarinesingh stapled to the front cover of the copied TRANSCRIPT in question.

2. A copy of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) used by the panel of judges for C51190; which was before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual. The said document had a certificate for the certified reproduction of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), that was signed and commissioned on the 4th of February 2013 by Erica Ramrarinesingh stapled to the front cover of the copied TRANSCRIPT in question.

3. A copy of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) used by the panel of judges for C51190; which was before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual. The said document had a certificate for the certified reproduction of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), that was signed and commissioned on the 4th of February 2013 by Erica Ramrarinesingh stapled to the front cover of the copied TRANSCRIPT in question.

4. One copy with a plastic cover with the word “copy” written on it by the Crown which was served on my person by the Crown. The said copy was a copy of the CROWN'S COPY which was ordered to be disclosed to my person in accordance with the the Honourable Justice Watt August 27th, 2010 court order after Ms. Joanne Stuart made a false assertion before him in court. JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500); the said document was before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual.

5. One uncertified copy of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) which was served upon my under the guise of being certified and filed with the COURT OF APPEAL under the guise of being certified; the said document in addition to having yellow and orange hi-lights throughout was before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer as corroborative evidence which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's filed evidence is factual.

6. A copy of 3 other commissioned certificate by Desiree Viceral which covered four of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) in question and secured with an elastic holding the bundle of JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500) together.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[25] Again, on the 14th of November 2013 I found the missing 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559), which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, in addition to at least one to the exhibits in the same RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61) the crown was relying on in the hearing was fraudulent, or manufactured evidence, or maliciously instituted as evidence.

[26] 3 of the 5 copies were CERTIFIED reproduction by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, one copy was served on my person by the Crown and the last copy was a copy of the CROWN'S COPY which was ordered to be disclosed to the my person by the Honourable Justice Watt.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[27] On the 14th of November 2013 I formally requested to view the documents and exhibits for M42322, which I had arrange from the 7th of November 2013. After a 15 min search by the COURT OF APPPEAL-RECORD'S Clerk(Wayne), I was informed that M42322 cannot be found. Some Clerks say M42322 is closed, and some Clerks say the file M42322 is still open waiting to be closed. M42322 was Appealed to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA which demand a final order I have no access to; it implied that all the avenues of appeal was not exhausted at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[28] On the 14th of November 2013 I was denied access to M42322 in my view, since I followed court(C.O.A) protocol and prearrange my requisition to view M42322.

[29] On the 14th of November 2013 I went upstairs to the COURT OF APPEAL- RGISTRAR and requested to view M42322. After about 30 min I was give a sleeve with the NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL and a copy typed copy of Justice Watt September 13th, Order. There was none of the volumes of documents and exhibits I personally filed as supporting documents for M42322, not even the FACTUM(42322); I was denied access to M42322 in my view, since I followed protocol and prearrange my requisition to view M42322. Besides, I was only trying to affect what I believe the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA was directing me to do.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[30] On the 14th of November 2013 I requested from the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RGISTRAR to view C55532 to check for the integrity of the documents and exhibits for the said file. Since on October 24, 2013 Justice Feldman, illustrated that the only documents before her was the original NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. The NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION which was supposes to be before her, because the MOTION FOR DIRECTION (M42332) before the honorable Justice Feldman was to set a date for the CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION. Documents I filed in court was missing from the file.

[31] On the 14th of November 2013, after about a 30 min search by the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RGISTRAR to locate C55532, the Clerk informed me that she could not find the file. I requested of her to ask the last person who was involve with the said file, whom was sitting two wickets over to the east of her who processed my filing of many TRANSCRIPTS (C55532) in my effort to perfect C55532. Imagine, professional working at a high court such as the COURT OF APPEAL which makes daily determination on the good of the public, important decisions which affect all our lives could not locate file C55532, and the document and exhibits for M42322.

[32] On the 14th of November 2013 I left a hand written requisition to view the documents and exhibits for C55532.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[33] There seems to be an willful effort to hold my COURT OF APPEAL files hostage or impede my Private Prosecutions and willfully obstruct justice in addition to attempting to defeat DUE PROCESS OF LAW; to steal my legal rights, overcome the GOOD OF THE PUBLIC, steal my beloved children's Section 7 rights, and usurp the authority of the ADMINISTRATION of JUSTICE in rendering judgment in a personally constructed preliminary court. I will not stand idly by in negligence, and neglect my responsibility to the Canadian Public, and my beloved children in filing charges and notifying the proper authorities of the aforementioned.

[34] THE MATERIALS TRANSFER EXHIBITS LIST(MO-7-061-12/C56817) which the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S Clerk refuse to certify on more than one occasion has the following discrepancies:

1. I appealed CR-70000061-12 from the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO at the beginning of April 2013. I was not late in appealing the matter.

2. The SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICRE release the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on a undocumented date.

3. The MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 was released by Guiyab Sam on an undocumented date, in addition to Sam Guiyab neglecting to endorse MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 for release to a lawful receiving authority or otherwise.

4. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO received the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on May 3rd, 2013.

5. The MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 was confirmed by Azra Parvok on the 17th of July 2013 and filed under C56817.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[35] Tampering with material evidence and actively changing the court file to skew the context of the evidence it contains or whatever the case maybe, is unlawful, fraudulent, and a blatantly attempt to defeated the course of justice or at the minimum, to obstruct it or preempt the proper administration of justice and render judgment in one’s own preliminary court; vigilante action devoid of legal authority given by the Canadian people.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[36] After filing appeal C56817, I was prevented from accessing the exhibits t from the lower court for COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, blocked or impeded from properly prepare for my COURT OF APPEAL matters

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[37] The Crown had improperly taken the COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 EXHIBITS without a formal request or reasonable notification of it's intension to the Private Prosecutor. Even the simple task of requesting or reproducing court documents and exhibits or even viewing the COURT OF APPEAL file(C56817) to prepare and construct my arguments for matter C55532, C56817, and M42322 became a unnecessary burden of denial of access to my own APPEAL file(Public exhibits and evidence).

· AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW COURT RULE, PROPER PROTOCOL, AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND NATRUAL JUSTICE WAS FOLLOWED.

[38] After filing the appeal for C56817, I tried on more than one occasion to see COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, but I was turned away and informed that I could not view the same file because the “Crown has it” or file C56817 is in the possession and control of the RESPONDENT Crown Attorney.

[39] I pleaded with the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS for information concerning the date of availability for viewing COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 in addition to informing the same COURT OF APPEA-RECORDs that I am in desperate need of file C56817 to prepare for my Prosecution matters. I was blatantly refused the aforesaid requested information.

[40] In light of what was happing and the aforementioned unreasonableness, I served on the COUR T OF APPEAL-RECORDS a requisition for certified copies of documents/exhibits in C56817 which I needed for constructing my arguments for my matters. The manager of the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS refused to confirm my request in the said requisition in-addition to failing to complete a formal order form or repeat the requisition out loud for confirmation of understanding of what was needed.

[41] She(COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S manager), was quite forceful and blatant in her denial of giving me equal service(Section. 1 of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT) in accessing public COURT documents/EXHIBITS under her carriage and control.

[42] Contrastingly and in the context of Section 482 of the C.C., the Crown took the COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 improperly from the same COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without proper court documentation or a judge’s order or reasonable notice to the Private Prosecutor, and without the common decency of placing contended matter before an independent judge in the format of a fair hearing; but byway of a simple personal email (asserted by record’s Clerk) which I the Informant who is acting in the capacity of a Prosecutor was trying to affect the RULE OF LAW, does-not have access to. This is what I was told by the Records Clerk and I believe her within the context of trust and confidence forming the fiduciary relation between me and the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[43] Matter C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, has been prejudice my person and the public by Deborah Kirck (for the RESPONDENT), whom improperly removed public evidence (C56817) from the COURT OF APPEAL’S RECORD without a court order, without the Applicant permission, without reasonable notice to the Informant/Private Prosecutor, without any court documentation to track, and insure the integrity of the original papers and EXHIBITS.

[44] In short, the public, and the Private Prosecutor has been denied access to public evidence by Madame Deborah Krick, a Professional colleague of the alleged accused both of whom work in the same Institution within the same jurisdiction, Professional colleagues.

[45] FURTHERMORE, a critical piece of evidence(Pre-Enquette Transcript(M61) bound in red covers) is missing, lost or disappeared from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, in addition to other critical evidence placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower courts, which show’s Gail Hugh’s affidavit the crown was relying on in it’s RESPONDENT FACTUM(M61) is a false affidavit pointing to false evidence.

[46] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck whom has carriage and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so. She has had sufficient time to review file C56817 and cannot justify asserting any false statements she aught to know is false in contravention of the section 4 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT.

[47] But, MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers, which was filed by my person, is still missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[48] I starved myself to obtain the money to pay for the said missing transcription of evidence, and now it has disappeared from COA file C56817 while the same file may have been under Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck carriage and control. The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart) in the Private Prosecution works out of the same Office as Ms. Deborah Kirck, and is at least a Professional colleague in representing the Attorney General of Ontario within the same public institution; so there is a public appearance of the aforementioned action being improper regardless of whether this is or is-not the case. I just want the improper sanitized public evidence back where it belongs, and before the review panel.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 UNDER TAB 22 AND JUSTICE PEPALL AUGUST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[49] On the 17th of September 2013 a COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARION-RECORD'S CLERK who goes by the name Desire Viceral, tried to covertly give me I reasonable believe and do believe to be corroborative evidence that was not only placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower court; but also, proved conclusively that agents of the Crown not acting in the capacity of a lawful deputy of Her Majesty the Queen manufactured evidence or misrepresented evidence in addition to swearing a false affidavit in support of the same improper evidence.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[50] On the 17th of September 2013 the court documents which Desire Viceral try to covertly give to me under the guise of deception are 5 copies of the January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559) which had the following origin:

3. 3 certified copies of the 3 uncertified copies of January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT (07-02500/07-02559), the Crown filed with the COURT OF APPEAL for MATTER C51190 under the guise of being certified real evidence for a court process in which a panel of judges was reviewing C51190, when it was not the case. In short certified copies of the uncertified copies of real evidence used by the a COURT OF ALPPEAL panel of 3 to review C51190 and form the bases for it's reasons for judgment for dismissing my CRIMINAL APPEAL LEAVE FOR APPEAL HEARING.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

[51] After the 13th of September 2013, when the Honourable Justice Watt whom was presiding over motion M42322 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, may have made a final decision on the aforementioned matter; many more EXHIBITS(C56817) went missing, even though I personally confirmed on more than one occasion their existence in COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; I informed the honourable Justice in the HEARING that proof of the false evidence the Crown filed and was relying on was in the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS for all to check and confirm the truth of my assertions. I not allowed giving oral evidence, calling witnesses or be cross examined by the Crown to vet my allegations for truthfulness; it is just accepted and goes unchallenged.

[52] I say “may have” because I am unable to get any reliable answer concerning the closing of M42322 and even been denied access to view the same file after requesting to view it.

[53] Upon checking C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-Records it was discovered that MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers was missing from COA file C56817.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

[54] The Private Prosecutor made an official requisition to the SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO (TORONTO) to forward the aforementioned TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE (M61) to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORDS. The said TRANSCRIPT (M61) used as evidence at the appeal hearing at the lower courts is still missing or sanitized from court file C56817.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

[55] I the Private Prosecutor, was denied on more than two occasions after personally requested orally for a certified copy of the MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) without written articulated reason.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

[56] I was denied or refused a certified copy of the MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S after many oral requests.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

[57] I was denied or refused a certified copy of the MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S after serving on it a requisition for a certified copy of MATERIAL EXHIBIT LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) without written articulated reasons on more than one occassions.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A56817 AND AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

[58] THE MATERIALS TRANSFER EXHIBITS LIST(MO-7-061-12/C56817) which the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S Clerk refuse to certify on many occasion has the following discrepancies:

1. The Informant appealed CR-70000061-12 from the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO at the beginning of April 2013. He was not late in appealing the matter.

2. The SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICRE release the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on a undocumented date.

4. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO received the MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 on May 3rd, 2013.

5. The MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-061-12 was confirmed by Azra Parvok on the 17th of July 2013 and filed under C56817.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST (MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10
PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

[59] In short, the public, and I the Informant/Private Prosecutor was denied access to public evidence by Madame Deborah Krick, a Professional colleague of the alleged accuse. FURTHERMORE, a critical piece of evidence (Transcript(M61) bound in red covers) is missing, lost or disappeared from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817.

[60] If it is the case that I am not in error, I reasonable believe and do believe that the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar has been giving me false information articulated as being policy and procedure; that runs contrary to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT:

[61] Pursuant to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE;

RULE 4.08 – Requisition

REQUISITION

4.08 Where a party is entitled to require the registrar to carry out a duty under these rules, the party may do so by filing a requisition (Form 4E) and paying the prescribed fee, if any. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.08.

[62] Pursuant to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE;

RULE 4:03 - Certified copies of court documents;

CERTIFIED COPIES OF COURT DOCUMENTS

4.03 On the requisition of a person entitled to see a document in the court file under section 137 of the Courts of Justice Act and on payment of the prescribed fee the registrar shall issue a certified copy of the document. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.03

[63] Pursuant to the following SECTIONS of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT;

SECTION 137.(1) - DOCUMENT PUBLIC

Documents public

137.(1)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any document filed in a civil proceeding in a court, unless an Act or an order of the court provides otherwise.

[64] Pursuant to the following SECTIONS of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT;

SECTION 137.(3) - COURT LIST PUBLIC

Court lists public

(3)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered.

[65] Pursuant to the following SECTIONS of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT;

SECTION 137.(4) - COPIES

Copies

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

[66] The following material evidence or EXHIBITS for CR-70000061/62, which were before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer on March 11, 2013 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE are missing , has been lost, or has been sanitized from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817:

1.) *EXHIBIT A155532 – SANITIZED FROM FILE C.O.A C56817

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

2.) *EXHIBIT A255532

CERTIFIED COPY OF JUSTICE NORDHEIMER'S ORDER TO MICHAEL MACLEAN(MANIGAR OF S.C.J. REGISTRAR (M61) UNDER TAB 03

3.) *EXHIBIT M55532

UNCERTIFIED/ COURT FILED

PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (M61) SENT VIA MAIL

1. received by CROWN on June 28th, 2012

2. mailed on the 26th of July 2012

3. received on Wednesday August 1st, 2012

4. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTARAR on the 24th of July 2012

5. TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE is blank

6. TRANSCRIPT completion DATE is blank

7. TRANSCRIPT completion notification DATE is blank

8. no certification

9. signiture by Arlene Gorewicz FORM 2 is not present

4.) *EXHIBIT O55532 – SANITIZED FROM FILE C.O.A C56817

1. NOT CERTIFIED IN FORM 2/ COURT FILED

2. PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(M61) SENT VIA MAIL

3. received by CROWN on June 28th, 2012

4. mailed on or about 9th of August 2012

5. received on or about August 15th, 2012

6. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTRAR on the 24th of July 2012

7. TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE is blank

8. TRANSCRIPT completion DATE is blank

9. TRANSCRIPT completion notification DATE is blank

10. undated signature of Arlene Gorewicz is present

11. FORM 2 is not pressent,

12. nor is it certified in FORM 2

5.) *EXHIBIT S55532-sanitized from C56817 E-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (M61/M62)

1. bound in red covers,

2. served on all parties,

3. filed in the S.C.J. - REGISTRAR on the on Jan 24th, 2013

6.) 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, containing manufactured evidence or false evidence, and points to possible fraud if the Crown's evidence is factual.

[67] 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559), which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, which was relied on in the Crown's RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61), is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT, in addition to at least one to the exhibits in the same RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M61) the crown was relying on in the hearing was fraudulent, or manufactured evidence, or maliciously instituted as evidence.

[68] 3 of the 5 copies were CERTIFIED reproduction by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, one copy was served on my person by the Crown and the last copy was a copy of the CROWN'S COPY which was ordered to be disclosed to the Informant by the Honourable Justice Watt.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 under TAB 10 and EXHIBIT F55532 under TAB 09

[69] All 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), which proves conclusively that the AFFIDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH, is a FALSE AFFIDAVIT has been sanitized from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, they just went missing!

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST ( MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[70] Desiree Viceral, a CLERK at the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD whom I reasonable believe to have acted under the directions of her manager(I over hear the manager giving her instruction to place documents in question another file), tried to covertly return the same evidence which was before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer, to my person byway of her manager's instructions, and with the message that I had “already pay for” the said legal documents(missing exhibits C56817). For what purpose was I being deceived?

[71] As soon as I realized that the court documentations was the evidence placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer, I boldly refuse all 5 copies of the JANUARY 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION(07-02559/07-02500), which is supposed to go before a reviewing court panel.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST ( MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[72] Deborah Kirck (for the RESPONDENT), whom improperly removed public evidence (C56817) from the COURT OF APPEAL’S RECORD without a court order, without Informant’s express permission, without reasonable notice to the Informant/Private Prosecutor, without any court documentation to track, and insure the integrity of the original papers and EXHIBITS.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532, MATERIALS/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST ( MO-7-061-12/C56817) under TAB 10

[73] The public, and I the Private Prosecutor was denied access to public evidence by Madame Deborah Krick, a Professional colleague of the alleged accused. FURTHERMORE, a critical piece of evidence(Transcript(M61) bound in red covers) is missing, lost or disappeared from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, in addition to critical evidence placed before Justice Ian Nordheimer at the lower courts which show’s Gail Hugh’s affidavit the crown was relying on in it’s RESPONDENT FACTUM(M61) is a false affidavit pointing to false evidence.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 under TAB 10 and EXHIBIT BC55532 under TAB31

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

INFORMANT ELECTED TO APPEAL BYWAY OF MANDAMUS

[74] On the 4th of February 2013 the Private Prosecutor informed the court that CR-12-70000062 was incorrectly listed as an “EXTRA REMEDY – CERTIRIORI” on the Court’s Docket list.

· PLEASE SEE page 3 and page 4 in the FEBRUARY 4, 2013 TRANSCRIPTION(C56817), before the Honourable Madame Justice Benotto

· PLEASE SEE the Honourable Justice Nordheimer'S REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

[75] Furthermore, the Informant spent almost a year trying to correct this misleading false distinction of his matter (M61).

[76] The Applicant have put this faulty error before Learned Superior Court Judges, the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE- REGISTRAR, and the SHEDULING OFFICE to no avail.

[77] The Appellant have filed amendments, and informed all parties with TAKE NOTICE, that the appeal is a MANDAMUS APPEAL.

[78] Yet, the false hoods, and misleading information of a Certiorari (requiring proof of Jurisdictional error) Appeal persist for the purpose of stealing his legal rights in addition to attempt to colour the presiding Justice or the legal process against the Private Prosecutor. Which is what happened at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (TORONTO REGION)!

· PLEASE SEE Section. 784(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA,and page 1530, CERTERIORI, 2009 MARTIN'S Annual Criminal Code)

“Certiorari alone lies to review order made by a Justice on a Preliminary hearing only where the grounds relate to the justice's jurisdiction...”

(page 1530, MANDAMUS, 2009 MARTIN'S Annual Criminal Code)

“Mandamus / Availability generally - … but where the inferior court makes an error in law which leads it away from exercising lawful jurisdiction this remedy may be invoked: R. v. Mann(1971), 4C.C.C. (2D) 319 {…}

This extraordinary remedy, available to require an inferior court to accept it's jurisdiction and discharge it's duty ... ”

(page 1533, MANDAMUS, 2009 MARTIN'S Annual Criminal Code)

PLEASE SEE SECTION. 774 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

[79] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck falsely asserted on more than one occasion before the Honourable Justice Pepall whom was presiding over motion M42322 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that CR-12-70000062 was a Certiorari Appeal at the lower courts.

[80] On the 13th of September 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck falsely asserted on more than one occasion before the Honourable Justice Watt whom was presiding over motion M42322 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that CR-12-70000062 was a Certiorari Appeal at the lower courts.

[81] On the 24th of October 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck falsely asserted on at least one occasion before the Honourable Justice Feldman whom was presiding motion M42921 for direction at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that CR-12-70000062 was a Certiorari/Mandamus Appeal at the lower courts. The fallacy with respect to the Private Prosecutor's elected mode of appeal(MANDAMUS ONLY) from the lower court continues and still persist even at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[82] Pursuant to the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, RULE 4.01 states as follows on page 53 and 54;

“Relationship to the Administration of Justice

4.01 The Lawyer as Advocate

(2) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall

(e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct,

(f) knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statue or like authority,

(g) knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal,

(h) deliberately refrain from informing the tribunal of any binding authority that at the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been mentioned by an opponent,

(I) dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent,

(j) knowingly permit a witness or party to be presented in a false or misleading way or to impersonate another,

(K) needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness,...”

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[83] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck served on the Private Prosecutor in court the Crown's unsigned RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) which contains under Appendix A in the same document what seem to be a the Honorable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER, which came to the Private Prosecutor's attention on August 20, 2013 at about 6:00 a.m. Without reasonable notice or the opportunity to defend against the said order, before his legal rights was taken away in a fair and impartial hearing.

[84] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER which came to the Applicant's attention on August 20th, 2013 at about 6 a.m.. VIA the Crown's unsigned RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), and states as follows at para[2];

“THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indirectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any court in Ontario, except until such time as he obtain leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and as provided for in this order.”

INFORMANT IMPEDED FROM ACCESSING REAL EVIDENCE

[85] The Crown received uncertified, and unsigned TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000061) on June 28th, 2012, and then proceeded to fraudulent file the same TRANSCRIPT on the 24th of July 2012 under false pretense that the said TRANSCRIPT was certified, and had been served on the Informant, which was not the case in contravention of the RULE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, NATURAL JUSTICE, and the EVIDENCE ACT. The above is in contravention of RULE 5 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

[86] The same TRANSCRIPT was not certified in FORM 2, inaddition to the Private Prosecutor being serve on Wednesday the 1st of August 2012 at about 3:00 P.M. asper the Post Office Clerk whom received the said days mail; this is long after uncertified, and unsigned TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000061) was already filed at the SUPERIOR COURT (Toronto Region) – REGISTRAR in COURT DOCKET with file no.: CR-12-70000062 on the 24th of June 2012.

[87] The Registrar would never receive a court document from an applicant or member of the public, without the precondition of proper service to all parties being first fulfilled, and proven; Asper Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice.

[88] Furthermore, on the 4th of June 2012 it was agreed upon in open court for the CROWN to ORDER AND FILE PRE-ENQUETE TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061/62) for the sake of efficiency; the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer Endorsed the following on the 30th of July 2012;

“Mr. Ferron has not received the transcript of the pre-enquete hearing. Matter is adjourned so that the Crown can ...”

[89] Moreover, the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer directed the Crown to ensure that the Private Prosecutor was given the TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) before he leaves the Courthouse on July 30th, 2012; the Crown concur, but failed to fulfill it's promise.

[90] The Crown asked the Informant if he wanted a photo copy of the Court document in question; but the Private Prosecutor asserted that it was a criminal offence(copyright) to photocopy the TRANSCRIPT in question, and it must be a certified TRANSCRIPT served upon his person.

PLEASE SEE page , of JULY 30, 2012 TRANSCRIPT(M61)

[91] THE CANADA POST STAMP or representation of a CANADA POST STAMP, indicates that the CROWN mailed the PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) to Wayne Ferron(the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR) on the 26th of July 2012.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT K55532 UNDER TAB 14

[92] ELI ZITELLA's letter which accompanies PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000061) is dated July 25, 2012, and articulates as follows;

“...Dear Mr. Ferron:

Re: -File No: M61/12

Please find enclosed the Proceedings At Pre-Enquette Transcript dated March 6, 2012 which is being sent to you via Canada Post.”

Signed by Eli Zitella(Legal Administritive Assistant)

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT L55532 UNDER TAB 15.

[93] The above served TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) was not certified in FORM 2, unsigned, and fraudulently filed on July 24th, 2012 at the COURT'S REGISTRAR, in contravention of RULE 5, RULE 4.08, RULE 6.05 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and Section 5(2) of the EVIDENCE ACT.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT M55532 UNDER TAB 16

[94] The Crown fraudulently filed another uncertified TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) absent of a FORM 2 with an undated signature in blue ink on the 24th of July 2012; the same TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) was served on Wayne Ferron(the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR) about the 15th of August 2012 in contravention of RULE 5, RULE 4.08, RULE 6.05 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and Section 5(2) of the EVIDENCE ACT.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT N55532 UNDER TAB 17 AND EXHIBIT O55532 UNDER TAB 18

[95] The last page of the said TRANSCRIPT had the signature of Arlene Gorewicz in blue ink; however, there was no date indicated for the same signature. There is also an assertion that TRANSCRIPTION RECORDING OF Ms. A. Collins verbatum reporter, but not in FORM 2.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT O55532 UNDER TAB 18

[96] The Crown filed the Private Prosecutor's AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE for PRIVATE INFORMATION (CR-12-70000061) on the 1st of August 2012.

[97] On the 2nd of October 2010, the Private Prosecutor went to the College Park ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, to order proper certified transcribed Transcription evidence of the Pre- Enquette Hearing.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT R55532 UNDER TAB 21, page 2 and page 3

[98] The attending Court Reporter taking the order was in agreement with all his complaints of irregularities of proper transcript production except for one. Mainly the Transcript in question certification was done by an old outdated method which has been replace by a new procedure which the Informant have only been exposed to, pursuant to the same court reporter.

[99] On the 2nd of October 2010, I was able to leave $40.00 deposit instead of the usual $50.00 deposit, and the following requisition on the back of the order form;

“Things lacking or need in Transcription:

· certifying Court Reporter's Signiture in blue ink and date of endorsing Signiture.

· Transcript Original Order Date …

· Transcript Original Completion Date …

· Transcript Original Notification date of Completion …

· Date Reprinted Transcript Order …

· Date Reprinted “

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT R55532 UNDER TAB 21

[100] On the 18th of October 2010, I went to the College Park ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, to pick the transcribed Transcription (M61) of the Pre- Enquette Hearing. The Crown's filed TRANSCRIPT was deficient, and were not remedied or corrected. So I left a second Requisition for the Court Reporter (Ms. Gorewicz).

“Information 12-77000 487, 12-77000 488

S.C.J CR-12-70000061

Wayne Ferron v. Regina

Accused: Matthew Asma

Accused: Joanne Stuart

Ms. Gorewicz

• Original Order Date of Transcript

• Original Completion Date of Transcript

• Original Notification Date of Transcript

• Order Date of Reprinted Transcript

• completion Date of Reprinted Transcript

• Notification Date of Reprinted Transcript “

• PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT R55532 UNDER TAB 21

[101] On the 18th of October 2010, I went to pick up the same order Transcript, I did not have the rest of the money owed on its incomplete production.

[102] On the 9th of January 2013, I went to pick up the same order Transcript, and pay the outstanding balance. The said TRANSCRIPT was incomplete and still missing information.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT S55532 UNDER TAB 22

[103] In addition to no official COURT REPORTER'S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION to all parties in contravention RULE 4.08 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

[104] There is still no COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION (Toronto Region) filed with the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-REGISTRAR in contravention RULE 4.08 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

[105] The Private prosecutor wanted TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE certified with relevant information, signed, and dated in blue ink in FORM 2 and in accordance with Subsection 5(2) of the EVIDENCE ACT, and RULE 4.08 of the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

Transcript of Evidence

6.05 (6) A party who intends to refer to a transcript of evidence at the hearing of an application shall file a copy of the transcript as provided by rule 4.08.

[106] Upon checking C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-Records it was discovered that MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers was missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817. The Private Prosecutor made an official requisition to the SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO(TORONTO) to forward the aforementioned TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE(M61) to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORDS. The said TRANSCRIPT (M61) used as evidence at the appeal hearing at the lower courts is still missing or sanitized from court file C56817.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT S55532 UNDER TAB 22

[107] On the 28th of August 2013, the Informant was unable to view COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, because the Crown had removed all exhibits from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, without reasonable notice to the Private Prosecutor, without a Judges court order, without official court documentations giving the Crown authority to do so, without court documentation accounting for what was unofficially or improperly being removed, oppose to securing the integrity of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 and it's EXHIBITS.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 UNDER TAB 22 AND JUSTICE PEPALL AUGST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

[108] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck whom has carriage and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so.

[109] But, MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers, which was filed by the Private Prosecutor, is still missing from COURT OF APPEAL file C56817.

[110] The Informant starved himself to obtain the money to pay for the said missing transcription of evidence, and now it has disappeared from COA file C56817 while the same file may have been under Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck carriage and control. The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart) in the Private Prosecution works out of the same Office as Ms. Deborah Kirck, and is at least a Professional colleague in representing the Attorney General of Ontario within the same public institution; so there is a public appearance of the aforementioned action being improper regardless of wheatear this is or is-not the case. The Private Prosecutor just wants the improper sanitized public evidence back where it belongs, and before the review panel.

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT G55532 UNDER TAB 22 AND JUSTICE PEPALL AUGUST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT D-M42781/M43160

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT E-M42781/M43160

[111] On the 5th of April 2012 at 11:57 am, the Informant tried to file an appeal (12-70000061/12-70000062) against Ms. Joanne Stuart whom is allege to have committed criminal acts against the public; the Informant was arrested(Offense Number: 8271152B ), and blatantly denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW with no notice of trial, no disclosure of Crown's Brief, no opportunity to give full answer, and no opportunity to effect a defense in accordance with the consciousness of the court, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

· Please see EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.

· [112] Similarly, on August 26, 2011, I The Private Prosecutor tried to place before a Justice of the Piece at the ONTRIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE), crimes (12-1912/12-4395) committed in the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario; I was arrested, my legal rights were taken away, and I was unlawfully imprisoned for 13 days without access to a lawyer or an impartial trial for the just determination of his imprisonment, for trying follow the direction of Section 504 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.

[113] The Crown has failed to disclose pending requested disclosure of public evidence and pending requested further disclosure for the purposes of enforcement of the RULE OF LAW. Please see EXHIBIT A-3160-8271152B(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK and PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division).

[114] I have been denied my HUMAN RIGHTS, and HUMAN DIGNITY on many occasions at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE in contravention of their own policy which used to be on most of the walls in the same Court house; asper the ONTARION HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, there is supposed to be;

“Freedom from harassment and discrimination in employment and services, and fair and equitable access to all services...”

· Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.

[115] I tried to file an appeal (12-70000061/12-70000062) against those who have committed criminal acts against the public and consider themselves above the law, and I was arrested(Offence Number: 8271152B ) , and denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW with no notice of trial, no disclosure, no opportunity to give full answer, and no opportunity to effect a defence in accordance with the consciousness of the court, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

· Please see EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.

[116] I tried to prepare to give FULL ANSWER (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B ) in accordance with parliamentary legislation for a trial/conviction void of notice, and the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE was directed to escort me out of the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE without the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, and in contravention of Section 7 of THE SUPREME LAW OF CANADA, and Section 802 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. This seems to be the state of excepted civilized practice of Canadian Law in the Province of Ontario.

· Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.

[117] On May 14, 2013, at or about 3:40 p.m., in the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full answer for allege crimes(Offence Number: 8271152B ) I am charge within the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I was discriminated against with systemic prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKED OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by distinction without reasonable cause, but also conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my person even though they are required not to do so(OPEN COURT POLICY).

· Please see EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT B, and EXHIBIT CLK.

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MS. JOANNE STUART CRIMES

[118] The evidence refused at the PRE-ENQUETE, is evidence to the contrary of Ms. Stuart assertion on more than one occasions without investigation before the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that TRANSCRIPTS(07-0559) for MATTER C 51190 would take at least 2 years to produce. Ms. Joanne Stuart states in her May 14, 2010 letter on page 4 at the second last paragraph, four months after Justice Gillese issued her Court Order;

“As you may recall, my initial concern with these transcripts from the summary Conviction Appeal Court was whether there would even be recordings made of these appearances from which transcripts could be produce...”

[119] The afore said took place a couple of days after Justice Lanskin refused to hear the MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE (C 51190/ M38706), even though I had already orally given Ms. Joanne Stuart my agreement to an adjournment on consignment asper her request, BYWAY of the REGISTRAR, because she need more time to review the matter.

· Please see EXHIBIT PQ1 , JUSTICE LANSKIN ENDORSE, EXHIBIT PQ2.

[120] Ms. Joanne Stuart stole or confiscated my FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST without my express permission, in addition to failing to forward the same request to the proper owner (“HEAD” of the MINISTERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL). The following is a copy of the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, stamped receives on June 9, 2010 by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

· Please see EXHIBIT PS6.

[121] Ms. Joanne Stuart at a later date returned the five dollar check which accompanied the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST after improperly procuring Justice Watt's Court Order, minus the same FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST after FALSELY asserting to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, that she had returned the same $5.00 check address to the Minister of Finance

[122] In addiction to misleading the same court which Justice Watt presided over, Ms. Stuart improperly obtain a court order against my person for contested issues. Ms. Joanne Stuart asserts in her August 31, 2010 letter;

“My apologies for the delay in returning it to you and for indicating to the Court that it had been returned to you already.”

After my credibility was called into question by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, and integrity was willfully diminished while being forced to file a replacement FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request with additional funds, moreover the Crown already receive a COURT ORDER from Justice Watt in their favor at my expense of my legal rights and integrity.

· Please see EXHIBIT PS2, and EXHIBIT justice watt endorsement.

[123] Pursuant to Ms. Tanya Pineapple, the MINISTERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL denied ever receiving the aforesaid FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, in addition to counter requesting that I must file a new FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST with another new $5.00 check. Ms. Tanya Pineapple, states as follows in her letter, last paragraph;

“I have contacted the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COORDINATOR for the MINISTRY about your appeal. The Ministry has advise that, as of August 5, 2010, it does not any record of your freedom of information request...”

· Please see EXHIBIT PS3.

[124] After the willful diminishing of my credibility, and integrity; I filed a replacement FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request as requested by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL and supported by the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION which was stamped received on August 24, 2010 by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

· Please see EXHIBIT PS2, PS3, PS4, and PS5.

[125] I personally served on the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL a new FREEDOM OF INFORMATION for pending disclosure of right from the lower courts and request for further disclosure; which was stamped received by the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 8, 2010.

· Please see EXHIBIT PS7.

[126] Ms. Joanne Stuart refused to disclosed to my person, pending disclosure of right from 2007 and onward. The crown asserts in EXHIBIT R2 on page 168 at the end of the last paragraph;

“In my view of this, it is the Crown's position that there in nothing further to disclose.”

· Please see EXHIBIT R2.

[127] Ms. Janet Roland, and Analyst of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, disclosed much of the material Ms. Joanne Stuart asserted did not exist or refused to disclose byway of a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST/APPEAL against the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES at the retirement of the old Chief and the installment of a new Chief of Police.

· Please see EXHIBIT NB1.

[128] Ms. Janet Roland, and Analyst of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, fresh evidence disclosure showed that the Information(07-02500) was sworn under a false name on two different dates, and the replacement Information (07-02559) was sworn after RECONIZEANCE (07-02500) was entered into, in addition to AUDIO CD EVIDENCE being receded by the Crown without reasonable notification to the accuse of matter 07-02500.

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

[129] Pursuant to A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, internal policy;

“RESPECT

FAIR TREATMENT

COURTESY DIGNITY

As employees of the Court Services Division, we have a responsibility to provide a courteous and respectful working environment to all clients entering our court facility. We proudly perform our duties on behalf of citizen and the government of Ontario with Honesty and integrity.

Accordingly, Courts Administration, Brampton, is committed to the following principles:

· Foster and maintain working relationships based on mutual respect, dignity and cooperation.

· Respect, dignity and cooperation

· Respect the civil, legal, and human rights of all by maintaining an environment, which is fair, equitable and free of perceived or actual discrimination and harassment.

· Avoid any comments or conduct that would be considered disrespectful, impolite or demeaning.

As members of the public, in order to ensure a safe and respectful court environment please ensure your conduct reflects the above mentioned principles...”

· Please see EXHIBIT TOU3.

[130] The aforesaid policy has been fragrantly and blatantly violated in relation to or within the context of my PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, Appeals, and CIVIL MATTERS. My adversarial legal opponents seek to ban me from exercising my LEGAL RIGHTS, my CIVIL RIGHTS, and my CHARTER RIGHTS, at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, since my claims and allegations cannot be disproved nor is there any evidence to the contrary. In short, denying my person my LEGAL RIGHT which all other CANADIANS enjoy is the only way to defeat my just claims and allegation and prevent a lawfully just resolution to the matters before the court.

POVERTY /ACCESS TO JUSTICE

[131] Immediately upon becoming homeless, I went to the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, located in the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL in the city of Mississauga, to seek out emergency shelter. The REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, blatantly refused my person access to the same publicly funded facility which provides short term services for people from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER needs.

[132] I was homeless, impecunious, and financially destitute. It seems that this is the way court cases or won, by way of “civil death”, social warfare, and denial of all the things the BILL OF RIGHTS and Section 7. Of the Charter guarantees (life, liberty, security, and the pursuit of happiness).

[133] On September 1st, 2012 I went to 2500 Cahra Rd in the Region of Peel, in the City of Mississauga at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, for help AT ABOUT 11:00 P.M..

[134] On September 1st, 2012 at about 11:00 P.M., it was boldly asserted to my person in clear and distinct language that I was “restricted” from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER and to “leave” the premises without written or oral articulated reasons justifying the said questionable action.

[135] Onward from September 1st, 2012 I spent the nights and days(about 3) homeless on the other side of the road to the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER.

[136] On September 2nd, 2012 at REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, an employee came across the street to inform me that the Manager restricted me and I will have to see the manager before I could be admitted to the same shelter. Moreover, I was advised that the managers would be back after the holidays on 4/09/2012.

[137] On September 5th, 2012 I went to speak to the Manager asper the Intake Clerks at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. I spoke to two Managers extensively whom neither knew nor was able to articulate the moral or legal justification for restricting my person from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER; while others who had numerous policy infringement were admitted. Moreover, they said I must speak to another manager due in one hour.

[138] On September 5th, 2012 at about 11:00 am., at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, I was advised in clear direct language by the manager, that I (Wayne Ferron) was restricted from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER for a pending action against the region for HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, in Section 1. Of the same Act. I informed him that I was only suing for $1.00 and for the good of the public; Furthermore, the legal action was on principal of improving the fair treatment of homeless individuals.

[139] I was promptly shown the door even though I advise with a qualification of uncertainty that the action being taken may not be legal, for you cannot hold my legal rights hostage to discriminate against my person within the context of equal and fair services to all Canadians(Section 15 of the Charter). I was promptly shown the door, in fact it was held open for me.

[140] Furthermore, ONTARIO-WORKS HAS NO RECORDS OF MY PERSON BEING RESTRICTED FROM THE REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER; the matter of restriction from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, seem to be arbitrary, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by revenge in an effort to extract vigilante justice for complaints on HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. It was on September 1st, 2012 which I became homeless.

[141] In my view forcing a person to suffer homelessness when there is access to facilities to help with this said problem is an unlawful act. NOTE AND RECALL, ONTARIO-WORKS HAS NO RECORDS OF MY PERSON BEING RESTRICTED FROM THE REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. Which infers that the REGION OF PEEL has no record of me being restricted? NONE! I am not even flag for any pass unreasonable acts or acts of omission.

[142] The above incidence made me feel like an undesirable human being, whom was being punished for taking action endorsed by the will of Parliament.

[143] I was made to suffer homelessness, loss of dignity, hunger, and the outside elements for trying to affect my legal rights to bring before a court of competent jurisdiction matters which affect the public good and the public confidence and trust in services involving a civil society. Violation of Parliamentary legislation is to be dealt with by the courts of competent jurisdiction and not by way of vigilante punishment.

[144] I was not given reasonable notice of my RESTRICTION, even though I requested personal information disclosure.

[145] I should have been properly notified of the said RESTRICTION, processed by the intake office, then my application denied for a lawful and moral written articulated justification.

[146] This did not happen! I did not have due process or equal treatment given to citizen belonging to nations which affect civilized practice of law.

[147] The complaint in question is on a matter of principle, the public good, to recognize and acknowledge that homeless people are also people with freedom rights; hopefully in the adjudicative process, the human condition for Canadians may improve, even if it is just a little.

[148] According to R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55, on page 10, PAR[46] AND para[45];

“[41] In R. v. Brown (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 398 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) August P.C.J. reviewed the case law and concluded at p. 406:

“The following cases as I interpret them, say that it is mandatory for the Justice of the Peace to actually hear the allegations of the informant and if he thinks that it is necessary, his witnesses before he decides if a case has been made out: Murfina v. Sauve et al. (1901), 6 C.C.C. 275, 19 Que. S.C. 51 (Que. Sup. Ct.); Re Parke (1899), 3 C.C.C. 122, 30 O.R. 498 (Ont. H.C.J.); R. v. Smith (1909), 16 C.C.C. 425 (N.S.S.C.); Marsil v. Lanctot (1914), 25 C.C.C. 223, 28 D.L.R. 380, 20 Rev. Leg. 237 (Que. Sup. Ct.); White v. Dunning (1915), 24 C.C.C. 85, 21 D.L.R. 528, 8 Sask. L.R. 76 (Sask. S.C.).

{...}

[45] In R. v. Ingwer (1955), 113 C.C.C. 361 (Ont. H.C.), Chief Justice McRuer found that neither the laying of an information nor the issuing of process has the formalities of a trial for the potential accused. The justice has no right to decide not to issue a warrant or summons or take an information unless he has heard the witnesses that the informant desires to bring forward: Ingwer p. 366.”

[149] There has been an infringement of Section 2(e) of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, which guards my “right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE for the determination of his rights and obligations.” According to Dowson v. R., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 144, on page 148&149, PAR[22] to para[25];

“Montgomery J. concluded that “All criminal proceedings are commenced by the laying of an information. Once proceedings are commenced, the Attorney General may intervene and conduct or stay proceedings.” He relied on The Department of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 116, The Crown Attorneys Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 101, the historical origins of the expression “finding an indictment” in 1886, R.S.C. 1886, c. 174, s. 2, paras. (c.) and (d.), and, amongst others, R. v. Leonard, ex parte Graham (1962), 133 C.C.C. 262, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, and the fact that the Attorney General was the “chief law officer for the Crown and the duly constituted public authority charged with the responsibility for the administration of justice in the province.”

CRIMES IN THE COURTHOUSE(Information 12-77000487 and Information 12-77000488, Court file No.: CR-12-70000061):

[173] Ms. Joanne Stuart took carriage and control of my matter(C51190) at COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, on or about the 14th of May 2010.

[174] Matthew Asma took over carriage and control of my matter(C51190) at COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, on or about 22nd of October 2010.

[175] Matthew Asma promised me a copy of EXHIBIT 2(07-02559) in return for me to release the EXHIBITS(07-02559) for review from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, for matter(C51190) on the 13th of December 2010.

[176] Mr. Matthew Asma filed at least 3 uncertified January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts on the 7th of January in the year 2011 with the COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, and disclosed another copy of the same uncertified Transcript to my person to be used as evidence in a a legal process or criminal Appeal(C51190) matter at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[177] At an earlier date and time, Ms. Joanne Stuart disclosed a copy of the Crown’s uncertified copy of the Crown’s January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts, on or about August 31, 2010 .

[178] Ms. Joanne Stuart, in her August 31, 2010 letter to my person, asserted or assured my person that I would receive a certified copy of the January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts in addition to other Transcripts.

[179] On the 7th of February 2011 with the Honorable Justice MacPherson presiding and Mr. Matthew Asma as Crown’s council, I formally inform the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO that the Crown’s filed January 18, 2008(C51190) Transcripts, were not certified.

[180] Mr. Matthew Asma asserted in is 17th of October 2011 letter to the Informant in the following manner;

“ I have confirmed that my office did receive Ms Downer’s

Invoice, and that according to our records it was paid in

full. It appears that Ms. Downer simple forgot to sign the

last page of the Transcript.”

[181] I swore Information 12-77000487 and Information 12-77000488 against Matthew Asma and Joanne Stuart on the 3rd of February 2012 before the Justice of the Peace at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL West Region) in the Region of Peel.

[182] The INTAKE OFFICE at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, sent the Information to College Park, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE in the spirit of fairness and impartiality to the unrepresented accused in addition to the efficient administration of justice if it is the case that best intentions are assumed.

Pursuant to the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE;

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to

services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race,

ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex,

sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital

status, family status or disability. R .S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s . 1; 1999,

c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012,

c. 7, s. 1.

The following IS THE CONTENTS OF ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR;

I, Wayne FERRON (Private Prosecutor/Informant) of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY :

[1] The CROWN(Ms. Krick) has removed the public evidence in file C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, to the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE without lawful cause nor lawful permission nor a court order from a Judge of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO with a wanton disregard for DUE PROCESS of fair criminal proceedings.

[2] The CRITICAL PUBLIC EVIDENCE in file C56817 has been sanitized from the same file while C56817 has been under the carriage and control of the CROWN(ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO).

[3] The CRITICAL PUBLIC EVIDENCE in file C56817 has been removed by COURT SERVICE WORKERS from the same file, while C56817 has been under the carriage and control of the CROWN(ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO) and hidden in another file without lawful cause or the order of a Judge of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[4] Madam Deputy Registrar has not responded to any of my requisitions for copies of documents needed to produce my APPEAL BOOK(C56817) in addition to perfecting the appeal.

[5] COURT REPORTER'S has failed to complete my TRANSCRIPT(C56817) ORDERS to perfect appeal C56817.

[6] I have been denied the ability to affect a MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) byway of a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN ORDER” to place before a court of competent jurisdiction the problems of missing court EXHIBITS(C56817), pending TRANSCRIPTS(C56817), and the CROWN'S(Ms. Krick) unlawful removal of C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS.

[6] MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) was already placed before a court, but I was denied the fair and just application of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS to have the issues of law resolved.

[7] My time and resources are being stolen away or redirected from matters at the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA(SCC matters are being prejudice against my person), by forcing me to attend HEARINGS(C55532-STATUS COURT) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO in contravention of the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT ORDER” and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, to be presided over by the honourable Justice Watt.

[8] I was not given Proper service or disclosure of the honourable Healey's August 10th, 2012 wherein she determined(RULE 34.02) my person, and private prosecution to be vexatious, frivolous, has no prospect of success, and an abuse of process which waste court resources without any presentation of evidence or fulfillment of court orders against the Crown(Mr. Frank Giordano). The honorable Justice Healey DISPOSITION for CROWN'S MOTION(CR 12-1264 ET AL) states as follows;

“...12-01262, 12-01264, 12-01265, and 12 – 999 999, This court endorse that each of these applications shall be dismissed as being friviolous and vexatious, as none has a reasonable prospect of success and are, additionally, an abuse of process and waste of the court's limited resources...”

[9] Motion M42322 was requisition for LEAVE TO APPEAL the honourable Justice Healey August 10, 2012 ruling which was not served on my person. I found out about it when the CROWN (Mr. Jason Gorda, an agent of John Gerretsen the Attorney General for Ontario) tried to determine my person to be a “VEXATIVE LITIGANT” in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (TORONTO REGION), while about the business of a private prosecution (M61) against Ms. Joanne Stuart.

[10] On March 26, 2014 the Crown requested of the honourable Justice Watt that leave be given to my person even though I never requested leave from the honourable court nor did I give the Crown authority to act on my behalf nor as my legal counsel.

[11] The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO has never given me leave, but asserts on many occasions that leave carries a high requirement.

[12] I was never giving leave for C51190, to file new evidence denied me in MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE C51190(M38706) BY THE CROWN(Ms. Joanne Stuart) after being unlawfully imprisoned by PEEL REGIONAL POLICE and ; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM after they prevented me from perfecting appeal C51190.

[13] Furthermore, I was denied NATURAL JUSTICE for M38706 which is still pending and has never been heard by the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO; in addition to the DUPUTY REGISTRAR changing the original file numbers at a later date to fraudulently skew the history of the MOTIONS for C51190 without official notice or an initialized note of the reasons for the changes accompanying the covert changes in the record of the motions for C51190.

[14] I was never giving leave for M42812 for the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER”, even though Ms. Kirkpatrick fraudulently procured Justice .I. Andre J. “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” release on July 8, 2013 in addition to failing to show up for a motion adjourned in her favor while she was absent in court and she promised Justice Feldman(seized with M42812) she would attend the March 5, 2013 hearing.

[15] On the 13th of August 2013 while before the Honorable Justice Pepall, Ms. Krick for the Crown filed the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013, in court to defeat Private Prosecution matter M42322.

[16] M42322 was adjourned to September 13, 2013 since Ms. Krick had improperly removed C56817 which the Applicant was relying on for the same matter at the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, without a court order or judicially sanctioned permission.

[17] On the 13th of September 2013, the Honorable Justice Watt decline to exercise his Jurisdiction or fulfill his obligation to insure a fair hearing in accordance with PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, in accordance with my request for the assistance of Duty Council, and in accordance with the authority of the COURT OF APPEAL’S established case law (Pal Vasarhelyi ONCA 397-C50698) which the applicant placed before the same Honourable Justice.

[18] Furthermore, I begged, and I plead for about twenty times or more to speak to DUTY COUNCIL, in addition to describing the materials the informant wished to discuss with duty council, and I even invited the Honourable Justice Watt to review the same materials.

[19] The Honourable Justice Watt, never informed, nor invited, nor offered my person access to DUTY COUNCIL for legal assistance in accordance with R. V. Littlejohn & Tirabasso, R. v. Rowbotham, R. v. McGibbon, and the same Judges inherent jurisdiction to insure fairness in his court; whom is both a learned COURT OF APPEAL Judge in addition to Justice Watt having many Case Law to his name (some of which I have used and is using).

[20] On the 13th of September 2013, the Honorable Justice Watt dismissed my Private Prosecution matter M42322 while I was requesting to speak to DUTY COUNSEL and never requested an adjournment.

[21] The Honorable Justice Watt never gave me leave and dismissed my Private Prosecution matter M42322 even though I filed all required material for an application, while the CROWN(Ms. Krick) filed no materials except for the RESPONDENT MOTION (M42322) containing a copy of the “VEXATIVE LITIGAN ORDER” the CROWN was attempting to use to defeat my PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS(CR – 12-01264 ET AL).

[22] On the 13th of December 2013, the Honorable Justice La Forme adjourned motion for direction C56817 (M42921) concerning many missing exhibits (C56817), outstanding TRANSCRIPTS (C56817), the Crown improperly removing C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS without lawful permission, to December 18, 2013.

[23] On the 18th of December 2013, the Honorable Justice Jurianz excepted my late filing of FACTUM C56817(M42921) concerning many missing exhibits(C56817), outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C56817), and the Crown(Ms. Krick) improperly removing C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS without lawful permission.

[24] I was not given Proper service or disclosure of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013.

[26] Pursuant to the COURT OF APPEAL- REGISTRAR's copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013; the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR received their copy of the said “VEXATIVE ORDER” on October 15, 2013.

[27] Furthermore the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013, directs for a copy of the same order to be sent to all SUPERIOR COURTS, ALL DIVISIONAL COURT, and the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO; but oddly, Justice I. Andre J. did not direct for the same court order to be sent to Wayne Ferron, whom the same order is against or affects the most in removing all my legal rights in all courts in all of Ontario.

[28] Justice I. Andre J. orders that a copy of the same order be forthwith delivered to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, and every region of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, and DIVISIONAL COURT; the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” which came to the Applicant's attention on August 20, 2013 at about 6 a.m.. VIA the Crown's(Ms. Krick) unsigned RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), on August 13, 2012.

[29] The copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order which was located in the Crown's(Ms. Krick) unsigned RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), was missing significant information, mainly; Parties to Proceeding, Title of Proceeding, and name of originating COURT(AUTHORITY) for the same court order.

[30] On January 15th, 2014 I requested from the COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR a certified copy of ,the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th; the Registrar refused to certified the same copied order in their file(M42812) which was not properly disclosed to my person.

[31] On January 15th, 2014 I discovered that the honourable Justice I. Andre J. written court order release on July 8th, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order, and the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASON FOR JUDGEMENT release on July 17th were all placed in COURT OF APPEAL file (M42812) without lawful service to my person nor proof of service.

[32] Furthermore, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. written court order release on July 8th, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order, and the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASON FOR JUDGEMENT release on July 17th had been in the possession of the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR’S possession since October 15, 2013.

[33] Pursuant to the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106;

Reasons

393. The Court may deliver reasons for judgment

(a) orally from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing of a proceeding; or

(b) after having reserved judgment at the conclusion of a hearing, by depositing in the Registry written reasons, signed by the judge or prothonotary who delivered them.

Drafting of order

394. (1) Where the Court gives reasons, it may direct one of the parties to prepare for endorsement a draft order to implement the Court's conclusion, approved as to form and content by the other parties or, where the parties cannot agree on the form and content of the order, to bring a motion for judgment in accordance with rule 369.

Pronouncement of judgment

(2) On the return of a motion under subsection (1), the Court shall settle the terms of and pronounce the judgment, which shall be endorsed in writing and signed by the presiding judge or prothonotary.

Copies to be sent

395. (1) Subject to subsection 36(3), the Administrator shall send without delay a copy of every order made and of any reasons given other than in open court to all parties

(a) by registered mail;

(b) by electronic means, including facsimile and electronic mail; or

(c) by any other means, as directed by the Chief Justice, likely to bring the order and any reasons to the attention of the party.

Proof of receipt

(2) If an order and any reasons are transmitted by electronic means, the Administrator shall confirm receipt by the party and place proof of that receipt on the Court file.

SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

[34] The aforementioned requirements of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 has not been fulfilled.

[35] Pursuant to THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACT

(C.C.S.M. c. C280) ;

WHEN PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HEARD

In absence of opposite party

3.03(2) No motion, reference, examination, assessment of costs or other matter, except a motion made without notice, shall proceed before a judge, master or other officer in the absence of the opposite party until 15 minutes after the time fixed for it.

[36] Pursuant to Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals in the Court of Appeal (filed with the Secretary of the Civil Rules Committee on October 7, 2003);

5.3 Confirmation of Motion

1. A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall :

(a) confer or attempt to confer with the other party;

(b) not later than 2 p.m. two days before the hearing date, give the Registrar a confirmation of motion (Form 37B, below, or as set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure) by sending it by fax, (416-327-5032), by e-mail (COA.E-file), or by leaving it at the court office; and

(c) send a copy of the confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail.2. If no confirmation is given, the motion shall not be heard, except by order of the court.3.A party who has given a confirmation of motion and later determines that the confirmation is no longer correct shall immediately give the Registrar a corrected confirmation of motion (Form 37B) and send a copy of the corrected confirmation of motion to the other party.

[37] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by formal written REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION, and I have been refused a certified copy by the same REGISTRAR on more than one occasions.

[38] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION,

[39] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the proof of receipt for the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION.

[40] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the confirmation of motion (CV 13-1060) before the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. by formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION.

[41] Pursuant to RULE 59.02 of RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE;

ENDORSEMENT BY JUDGE OR OFFICER

59.02 (1) An endorsement of every order shall be made on the appeal book and compendium, record, notice of motion or notice of application by the court, judge or officer making it, unless the circumstances make it impractical to do so. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (1); O. Reg. 19/03, s. 10.

(2) Where written reasons are delivered,

(a) in an appellate court, an endorsement is not required;

(b) in any other court, the endorsement may consist of a reference to the reasons,

and a copy of the reasons shall be filed in the court file. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (2).

[42] Pursuant to RULE 59.03 of the RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE;

PREPARATION AND FORM OF ORDER

Preparation of Draft Formal Order

59.03 (1) Any party affected by an order may prepare a draft of the formal order and send it to all other parties represented at the hearing for approval of its form. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.03 (1);

[43] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, a copy of the confirmation for the motion (CV 13-1060) before the Honourable Justice I. Andre J..

[44] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, a copy of the proof of evidence use to convince the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. that I have or may have had legal proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT in ONTARIO.

[45] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, to cross examine AFFIDAVIT OF BRADBURY FERRON V. R.; court file No. 07-22259(S.C.J.) Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick filed with the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-REGISTRA, and which she used as proof or evidence to persuade the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. that I am a VEXATIVE LITIGANT by formal REQUESTION; Ms. Kirkpatrick failed to attend the March 5, 2014 Hearing even though she promised Justice Feldman on January 29, 2014 that she would be attending.

[46] Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick who is counsel for YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES et al failed to attend motion M42812 before the honourable Justice Felman on January 29th, 2014.

Similarly, Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick who is counsel for YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES et al failed to attend HEARING M42812 on March 5th, 2014 after promising the honourable Justice Felman on January 29th, 2014 that she would do so, after being called by a CLERK of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO over the speakerphone on January 29th, 2014, Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick was offered an adjournment despite her nonattendance on January 29th, 2014 while the honourable Justice Feldman was seized with the same legal matter(M42812).

[47] The honourable Justice Horigan confirmed on March 5, 2014 the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by asserting from the bench in open court that;

“Justice I. Andre J. was absolutely right”

Without the presentation of real evidence or the TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDING (CV 13-1060), for which I was denied an adjournment to obtain for the purpose of assisting the court.

[48] The honourable Justice Feldman confirmed on January 30, 2014 the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by asserting from the bench in open court that;

“...you are a vexation litigant! I am staying the matter...”

While matter M43059 was before her to be heard or she was seized by the same matter, and the Crown had failed to file a RESPONDENT FACTUM(M43059) or any material to assist the court.

[49] Matter M43059 is concerning a PRIVATE PROSECUTION appeal from the honourable JUSTICE WATT dismissed of M42322.

[50] Furthermore, the honourable Justice K. Feldman directs the following in her January 30, 2014 endorsement;

“Mr. Ferron is seeking an extension of time to appeal a decesion of Justice Healey of the New Market Superior Court. However, Mr. Ferron is not entitled to bring any proceedings without the authorization of the Regional Senior Justice because of the vexatious litigant order of Andre' J. of June 2013.

Mr. Ferron is seeking to appeal that order. Until the appeal is resolved, that order is in effect and must be adhere to. Therefore this matter is adjourned sine die to be brough back on only if and when the vexatious litigant order is set aside or with the authorization or the REGIONAL Senor Justice as per the order of Justice Andre'.”

[51] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 under the title APPENDIX “A”;

“[1] THIS COURT DECLARES that Wayne Ferron has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, and the Ontario Court of Appeal, within the meaning of sections 140(1)(a ) and (b) of the Court Of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. C.43”

[2] THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indirectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any court in Ontario, except until such time as he obtain leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and as provided for in this order.

[3] THIS COURT DIRECTS that any such application for leave will be in writing and sent by fax or registered mail to the Regional Senior Justice of Central West Region (the “RSJ”) ex parte, which shall be accompanied by an affidavit that outlines the merits of the proposed proceeding or step, and a copy of this ORDER. The application and affidavit shall not exceed 10 pages in length. The application and affidavit shall not exceed 10 pages in length. The the application for leave will be determined by the RSJ or her designee, who will

(i) give direction as to the service of the application, which shall include service on the Attorney General, and the procedure for the determination of the application, or

(ii) dismiss the application.

[4] THIS COURT ORDERS that any service on the Attorney General that directed by RSJ or her designee referred to in paragraph 3 of this Order shall only be given by registered mail addressed and sent as follows:

Attorney General of Ontario

c/o Legal Director of the Crown Law Office-Civil

8th Floor, 720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario, M7A 2S9

[5] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that should Wayne Ferron file materials seeking to commence or continue a proceeding or any appeal in any court in Ontario without first filing and an entered Order Permitting him to do so; the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this Order in such court.

[6] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that no further proceedings will be accepted from Wayne Ferron for filing or scheduling by any court in Ontario without the approval of the RSJ or her designate.

[7] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a copy of this Order be forthwith delivered to the Ontario Court of Appeal and every region of the Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court.

[8] Cost in the amount of $3, 000 inclusive to go in favour of the applicant.”

[52] The honourable Justice Watt's March 26, 2014 directions(C55532-STATUS COURT) seems to be inconsistent with the application of Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER”, Justice Feldman's January 30, 2014 Judgment(M43059), and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(Section 482(1), Section 127, Section 22.1); the same direction is requesting I file Appeal Book(C55532) even though proper CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPTS(55532) which adhere to the rule of evidence has not been completed or affected by court reporter Joy Webster.

[53] On March 26th, 2014, I filed Justice .I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” in court while before the honorable Justice Watt, and I informed the same court that it was a contravention of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(S. 127, S. 22.1) to bring the Applicant to court to participate in a legal proceeding or force the Applicant to participate in a legal proceeding in addition to the same Applicant having no legal rights in ONTARIO.

[54] Furthermore, I informed the honourable Justice Watt that the matter concerning Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER” has been sent or is being sent to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA since the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR has rejected or returned the Application MOTION BEFORE A PANEL while acting in the capacity of a Judge.

[55] Furthermore, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR failed or refuse to schedule MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) to remedy missing exhibits from file C56817, determine status of incomplete TRANSCRIPS(C56817), and remedy MS. Krick improper removal of court file C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without a court order.

[56] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Krick whom has carriage, and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so. She has had sufficient time to review file C56817 and cannot justify asserting any false statements she aught to know is false in contravention of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT.

[57] Pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106;

Inspection of files

26. (1) Where the necessary facilities are available, any person may, with supervision and without interfering with the business of the Court, inspect a Court file or annex

Removal of documents from file

(2) Nothing shall be removed from a Court file or annex except

(a) under an order of the Court;

(b) by an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties; or

Removal of files

(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no Court file or annex to a Court file shall be removed from the Registry by any person other than

(a) a judge, prothonotary or referee; or

(b) an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties.

SOR/2002-417, s. 3.

Definition

26.1 (1) In this rule, “appeal” includes an appeal of an order of a prothonotary, an application for leave to appeal and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Removal of exhibits from file

(2) Subject to subsection (4), exhibits put into evidence shall remain in the Court file either

(a) until the time for an appeal has expired, if no appeal has been taken, or

(b) until the appeal is disposed of, if an appeal has been taken.

Return of exhibits

(3) On the expiry of the time for appeal or on the disposition of the appeal, the Administrator shall return the exhibits to the respective solicitors or the parties who put the exhibits in evidence.

Return on consent

(4) At any time following judgment, on requisition by the solicitor or party who put an exhibit in evidence or the person who produced it and on the filing of the consent of all parties, the Administrator shall return the exhibit to the person making the requisition.

SOR/2002-417, s. 4.

[58] Justice Watt's February 26th, 2014 directions(C55532) seems to be inconsistent with Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER”, Justice Feldman's January 30, 2014 Judgment(M43059), and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA(Section 482(1), Section 127, Section 22.1).

[59] On February 26th, 2014 I informed court while before Justice Watt in open court that I have been determined to be a “VEXATIVE LITIGANT.”

[60] On or about February 25th, 2014, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR made an unwritten judgment that the Applicant was a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN”, and there after stop receiving or filing court materials from the APPLICANT in a normal fashion. If court documents are accepted, they seem to be set aside in addition there seem to be no entering of motions or scheduling of motions for directions; yet the honourable Justice Watt expects me to engage in proceedings and perfect appeals.

[61] The honourable Justice Hourigan on March 5, 2014 Judgment(M42812) seems to be inconsistent with the application of Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER,” since the same order directs that there is no appeal against the order.

[62] On March 5th , 2014 the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR made an unwritten judgment, and determined that I was a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN”, and returned my supporting court materials(NOTICE OF MOTION BEFORE A PANEL, FACTUM, MOTION RECORD) for a motion before the panel returnable on February 25, 2014 in addition to failing to file MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817); pursuant to Justice Feldman January 30, 2014 ENDOURSEMENT and Justice .I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” determine me to be a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN”.

[63] A copy of Justice Feldman Endorsement, and Justice .I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” was given to the Applicant with Para [2] and Para[6] highlighted in bright pink highlight for emphasis in addition to a handwritten note stating the following on bright yellow sticky note paper;

“GIVE TO MR. FERRON.”

[64] The honurabe Justice Feldman January 30, 2014 Judgment(M43059) seems to be inconsistent with case law, and PARAMOUNTCY; since she indefinitely adjourned matter M43509 which is a Private Prosecution, and is linked to the honourable Justice Watt.

[65] The honorable Justice Feldman's January 29, 2014 Judgment (M42812) seems to be inconsistent with case law and PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

[66] Why am I being forced to contravene Section 3.1, Section 127(1), and Section 22.1 of our beloved CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, which respectively states as follows;

Effect of judicial acts

3.1 Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, justice or judge is effective from the moment it is done, whether or not it is reduced to writing.

2002, c. 13, s. 2.

Disobeying order of court

127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offense and that other person is afterwards a party to that offense, the person who counseled is a party to that offense, notwithstanding that the offense was committed in a way different from that which was counseled.

Idem

(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offense is a party to every offense that the other commits in consequence of the counseling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.

Definition of “counsel”

(3) For the purposes of this Act, “counsel” includes procure, solicit or incite.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7.

[67] Why am I being counseled to violate Parliamentary legislation, when I want to act lawfully in accordance with the will of Parliament?

[68] Why am I being forced or pushed into breaking the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

[68] I REQUIRE A WRITTEN COURT ORDER TO BE FREE FROM THE CONSTRAINTS OF Justice Feldman's Judgment on January 30, 2014, and Justice Andre July 8, Judgment, to be able to lawfully participate in legal proceedings in any court in ONTARIO.

MS. KRICK PREJUDICING PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS:

[69] On the 13th day of August 2013 Ms. Krick for the Crown attempted on at least one occasion to defeat the proper course of justice with the fraudulently procured “VEXATIOUS LITTIGAN” court order; the aforementioned court order was released on July 8, 2013 by the honourable Justice I. Andre J. after being mislead by Ms. Kirkpatrick whom is counsel for CROWN AGENTS(YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES ET AL).

[70] On the 30th day of January 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown asserted on at least one occasion in open court while before the honourable Justice Feldman who was seized by M43059 and adjourned the same Private Prosecution(M43059) indefinitely; that participation of Wayne Ferron in the February 26, 2014 status court HEARING(C55532) would not be in violation of Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 or contravention of the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT” order which removed all of Wayne Ferron's legal rights in Ontario.

[71] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 under the tittle APPENDIX “A”;

{...}

[6] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that no further proceedings will be accepted from Wayne Ferron for filing or scheduling by any court in Ontario without the approval of the RSJ or her designate.

[7] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a copy of this Order be forthwith delivered to the Ontario Court of Appeal and every region of the Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court.

[8] Cost in the amount of $3, 000 inclusive to go in favour of the applicant.”

”

[72] On the 30th day of January 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown whiled before Justice Feldman, promised the honourable court that all outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) for PRIVATE PROSECUTION(C55532) would be completed for the STATUS COURT HEARING(55532) on February 26, 2014; which was not the case for the aforementioned.

[73] Furthermore, on the 26th day of February 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown failed to attend the STATUS COURT HEARING(55532) in addition to proper certified copies of all outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) not being completed in accordance with MS. Krick promised to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 30th day of January 2014 while she was before Justice Feldman.

[74] On the 26th day of February 2014 the CROWN who was not being represented by Ms. Krick requested of the STATUS COURT for Wayne Ferron to file APPEAL BOOK(C55532), even-though the CROWN should know or ought to have known that APPEAL BOOK(C55532) is dependent on outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) that the CROWN promised the court would be completed, but was not completed.

[75] Even though the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO failed to provide DUTY COUNSEL after being requested to do so on the 26th day of February 2014, in addition to the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR promising my person (Wayne Ferron) access to DUTY COUNSEL to assist the court, the honourable Justice Watt made a date of March 26, 2014 for the filing of APPEAL BOOK (C55532) with a openly stated comment of “moving the matter along.”

INSEARCH OF A CERTIFIED/OFFICIAL COPY OF “VEXATIVE ORDER”:

[76] After being refused a CERTIFIED OR OFFICIAL COPY of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, by the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR and the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR, after official re questions were made; I was finally able to obtain a certified copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR on March 13, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. for a fee with Receipt Number 51088562.

[77] The original copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, and being fully enforced by all courts in Ontario, at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR seems to be written with 3 different and distant pens, mainly;

1. an extra fine tipped black ink pen;

2. a dark blue ink pen;

3. and a light blue ink pen.

[78] I note that PARA[8] of “APENDEX A” the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 is the only addition or modification initialized by Justice I. Andre.

[79] Pursuant to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, “is not a court order,” but an endorsement which still “stands”. Furthermore, the said endorsement has not went through the process of becoming a court order, mainly; being typed up by the requesting party, and the court's official seal being added to the said document.

[80] On March 13, 2014 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR, I purchased(Receipt Number 51088562) copies of the following court documents for CV 13-1060 for $58.00;

1. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 in addition to the typed version of the same “COURT ORDER”, consisting of two pages with the title “APPENDIX A”. The said order is one page and written with 3 different and distant pens ;

2. the NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages and does not have a crimped COURT SEAL, but however is stamped by the Local Registrar(Samantha Moellar);

3. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on March 27, 2013 ;

4. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT released on July 17, 2013 , consisting of 16 pages.

[81] On March 19, 2014 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR, I purchased(Receipt Number 51093069) copies of the following court documents for CV 13-1060 for $40.00;

1. the NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages and does not have a crimped COURT SEAL, but however is stamped as issued by the Local Registrar(Samantha Moellar);

2. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on March 27, 2013 for ALTERNATIVE SERVICE;

3. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT released on July 17, 2013 , consisting of 16 pages.

[82] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. ENDORSEMENT(CV 13-1060) released on July 08, 2013 , at line 4 to line 7 despite being already served 2 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV 12-716) ;

“...The Applicant served Mr. Ferron with the Application and supporting materials on June 17, 2013 at his address and by email...”

[83] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT(CV 13-1060) released on July 17, 2013 , on page 2, at line 7 to line 9 despite being already served 2 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV 12-716) ;

“...The respondent did not attend the hearing despite having been served with the Application and related materials...”

[84] NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages and has no crimped COURT SEAL, but is stamped as issued by the Local Registrar(Samantha Moellar); filed on March 11, 2013 and address to Wayne Ferron at the following address on page 2 of the same APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) despite being already served a NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV 12-716);

“To WAYNE FERRON

322 Derry Rd. #3

Mississauga, Ontario

L5N 8G5

Email: ferronwayne@gmail.com”

[85] FACTUM(CV 13-1060) consist of 30 pages. Filed on March 14, 2013.

[86] BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(CV 13-1060) consist of at least 300 pages. Filed on March 14, 2013. How are the integrity of material insured in email service maintained, that requires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of hundreds of pages?

[87] MOTION RECORD(CV 13-1060) is four VOLUMES(3 inch binding or greater), consisting of more than 1, 500 pages. Filed on March 14, 2013. How are the integrity of material insured in email service that requires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of hundreds of pages?

[88] Kinkos charges $00.20 per/min for computer use and $00.19 per/printed page in addition to the cost of binding materials with tabs. How are the integrity of material insured in email service that requires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of hundreds of pages?

[89] On the 16th of January 2014 at 11:14 a.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), the following documents:

1. a copy of AMENDED AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812);

2. MOTION FOR DIRECTION;

3. a copy of AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL, BRAMPTON COURT;

4. a copy of STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR CV-11-4493;

5. a copy of MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

6. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL;

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 6 documents with an Appeal Clerk(whom refused to give name, said it is his right), an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who accepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;

Crown Counsel: Deborah Krick

The Attorney General of Ontario

CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH

6th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

[90] On the 16th of January 2014 at 10:31 a.m., I served upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), the following documents:

1. a copy of AMENDED AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812);

2. MOTION FOR DIRECTION;

3. a copy of AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL, BRAMPTON COURT;

4. a copy of STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR CV-11-4493;

5. a copy of MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

6. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL;

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 6 documents with Kim Parsons, an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who accepts legal service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the following location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W

Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4

T 416.367.6000

F 416.367.6749

blg.com

Counsel for Defendants;

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )

T 416.367.6092

F 416.361.2769

cfotopoulos@blg.com

[91] On the 16th of January 2014 at 10:30 a.m., I served upon PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP), the following documents:

1. a copy of AMENDED AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812);

2. MOTION FOR DIRECTION;

3. a copy of AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL, BRAMPTON COURT;

4. a copy of STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR CV-11-4493;

5. a copy of MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

6. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL;

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 6 documents with Rafal Szymanski, who is employed by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and who also receives legal service the Lawyer for the said defendants, at the following location;

Counsel: Rafal Szymanski

BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP

2 Queen Street, East

Suite 31500

Toronto, Ontario

tel: 416 593 1221

fax: 416 593 5437

COUNSEL FOR:

OFFICER PEKESKI (2261)

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

[92] The requirements of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 has not been fulfilled.

[93] On the 15th of January 2014 at about 3:20 p.m., the served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), the following documents:

1. a copy of AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812);

2. a copy of FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812);

3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 3 documents with a young Caucasian male, an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who accepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;

Crown Counsel: Deborah Krick

The Attorney General of Ontario

CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH

6th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

[94] On the 15th of January 2014 at 2:26 p.m., I served upon the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK (as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), the following documents:

1. a copy of AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812);

2. a copy of FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812);

3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 3 documents with Kim Parsons an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who accepts legal service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the following location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W

Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4

T 416.367.6000

F 416.367.6749

blg.com

Counsel for Defendants;

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )

T 416.367.6092

F 416.361.2769

cfotopoulos@blg.com

[95] On the 15th of January 2014 at 1:53 p.m., I served upon PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP), the following documents:

1. a copy of AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(M42812);

2. a copy of FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812);

3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 3 documents with Melissa Sapinoso who is employed by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and who also receives legal service on behalf of BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and Rafal Szymanski (a Lawyer for the said defendants), at the following location;

Counsel: Rafal Szymanski

BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP

2 Queen Street, East

Suite 31500

Toronto, Ontario

tel: 416 593 1221

fax: 416 593 5437

COUNSEL FOR:

OFFICER PEKESKI (2261)

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

[96] On the 21st of December 2012 at 4:25 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Asha Patrick an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who accepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;

Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439S

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Civil Law Branch

8th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

Tel: 416 314 2059

Fax: 416 326 4181

[97] On the 21st of December 2012 at 3:55 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Canada), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Ariyana Botejue(Ministry# 5007) an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Federal), who accepts service on behalf of the Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (William F. Pentney) at the following location;

Counsel: Jacqueline Wilson(2-597605)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Civil Law Branch

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

[98] On the 21st of December 2012 at 3:26 p.m., I served upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Ciara Gilbert an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the following location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W

Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4

T 416.367.6000

F 416.367.6749

blg.com

Counsel for Defendants;

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )

T 416.367.6092

F 416.361.2769

cfotopoulos@blg.com

[99] The aforementioned document stated as follows on page 6 of the same served document;

“

RE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK et. al. Ats Ferron

ourt File No.: CV-12-0716-00

BLG File No.: 016995.000102

TAKE NOTICE: That I, Wayne Ferron(Private Prosecutor) new address i

Wayne FERRON

HOMELESS VAGABOND

ON THE STREETS OF TORONTO

Tel: 416 420 1353,

Email: wayneferron@gmail.com"

[100] Which also stated as follows in the footer of the same served document;

“Please make your Motions returnable after the month of March 2013 with 8 hours set aside. CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSERTION, I HAVE MORE THAN A THOUSAND PAGES OF EVIDENCE IN ABOUT 4 VOLUMES AND REQUIRE AT LEAST 8 HOURS TO PRESENT MY EVIDENCE. Are you calling me a liar! It is improper for you to assert or advise a self represented litigant which you are in adverserial contention with on how much time or hours he needs to argue is plea. Very improper and misdirection to my person, are maybe you are afraid of real factual evidence as oppose to a metaphysical argument. The hearing will prove my point!

“

[101] On the 4th of June 2013 at 1:20 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Canada), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Carla Lyon an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Federal), who excepts service on behalf of the Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (William F. Pentney) at the following location;

Counsel: Jacqueline Wilson(2-597605)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Civil Law Branch

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

[102] On the 11th of June 2013 at 4:50 p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Wahab Khan an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who excepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;

Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439S

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Civil Law Branch

8th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

Tel: 416 314 2059

Fax: 416 326 4181

[103] On the 11th of June 2013 at 1:54 p.m., I served upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Brenda Jacome a Legal Receptionist at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the folowing location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W

Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4

T 416.367.6000

F 416.367.6749

blg.com

Counsel for Defendants;

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )

T 416.367.6092

F 416.361.2769

cfotopoulos@blg.com

[104] On the 11th of June 2013 at 5:57 p.m., I served upon PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with the Legal Receptionist who refuse to disclose her name because she could not contact the defendant's lawyer Rafal Szymanski, at BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, who excepts legal service on behalf of BLENY MCMURTRY LLP and Rafal Szymanski (a Lawyer for the said defendants), at the following location;

Counsel: Rafal Szymanski

BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP

2 Queen Street, East

Suite 31500

Toronto, Ontario

tel: 416 593 1221

fax: 416 593 5437

COUNSEL FOR:

OFFICER PEKESKI (2261)

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

[105] The aforementioned document states as follows on page 7 of the same served document;

“

TAKE NOTICE: Please serve me at the address below while

taking the given constraints into consideration; if the

documents in question are to reach their proper destination

or intended recipient.

Wayne FERRON

1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto,

ON, Postal Code M6E 4A6

Tel: 416 420 1353,

Email: wayneferron@gmail.com

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE

STREETS OF TORONTO WHILE LIVING AS A

VAGABOND, EVEN THOUGH I STILL SLEEP ON THE

FLOOR AND WALK THE CITY FOR FOOD!! SO, PLEASE

SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED

MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO

ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE

ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY

PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS

BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT

HOME IN THE DAY TIME; I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE

ABOVE ADDRESS.“

[106] The aforesaid document, also stated as follows on many pages in the footer of the same served document;

“

PLEASE DO NOT SERVE ME BY EMAIL, I DO NOT HAVE AN ISP ACCOUNT IN ADDITION TO BEING RELIANT ON THE LIBRARY FOR INTERNET ACCESS. WE HAVE NO EMAIL SERVICE AGREEMENT, AND YOU HAVE NOT SENT ME MONIES TO COVER THE ADDITION COST FOR PROCESSING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. MY RELIANCE ON THE

FOODBANK CANNOT PAY FOR THIS ADDITIONAL COST.“

[107] In addition the afore said, a letter was sent to the Chief of Police, to affect the Private Prosecutor's COLOUR OF RIGHT. It articulated as follows;

“Chief of Police Mike Metcalf

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton,

ON, L6V 3W6

(905) 453-3311

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

prompt return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated or

whatever the case my be, by your subordinate Officer Peke-

ski(2261) whom disclosed to my person the false identity of

Officer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE

disclosing his identity as Officer Perkins(2261).”

[108] On the 11th of June 2013 at 3:08 p.m., I served upon WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM and MRS HAMILTON, a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with the Sandra Persoud a Legal Receptionist at HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA, who excepts legal service on behalf of HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA and Gordon Slemko (LSUC 37320K), at the following location;

Counsel: Gordon Slemko (LSUC 37320K)

HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA

4711 Yonge Street,

Suite 1600

Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6K8

tel: 416 730 3088

fax: 416 7332058

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDENTS:

WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM

MRS HAMILTON

[109] On the 11th of June 2013 at 3:08 p.m., I served upon SALVATION ARMY and HARRY BOOM, a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with the Rob Jokinen who goes by the title of COURIER OPERATIONS TEAM LEADER at DENTONS CANADA LLP(former name is FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP(FCP)), who excepts legal service on behalf of DENTONS CANADA LLP and Marina E. Sampson (LSUC 37320K), at the following location;

Counsel: Marina E. Sampson (LSUC 37320K)

DENTONS CANADA LLP

77 King Street West,

Suite 400

TORONTO DOMINION CENTRE

Toronto, Ontario, M5K 0A1

tel: 416 863 4511

fax: 416 863 4592

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDENTS:

SALVATION ARMY;

MR HARRY BOOM

[110] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER, the following documents:

1. a copy of NOTICE OF ACTION(CV-12-0716-00);

2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-12-0716-00);

3. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00)for homelessness;

4. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00);

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 4 documents with Gina Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a PUBLIC RELATION employee, in addition to receiving egal service on behalf of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while acting in the capacity of her employeer's public relation's personael at the following location;

CARILLION SERVICES

HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES

FLOOR: SLL

OFFICE: SLL 242

DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER

Brampton Civic Hospital

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

[111] Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office located at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, N145 to receive legal service because of the complication of finding her office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, pursuant to a conversation on the phone with her from CARILLION SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES) located in OFFICE: SLL 242.

[112] I had served DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER in conjunction with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I was informed at a later date in conjunction with the service of a statement of defense that DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER is not an employee, and must be serve separately.

[113] The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot reasonable interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the front staff designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for the purpose of accessing the same doctor; codefendant WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to help in resolving this legal issue nor did they offer an alternate address and person to receive the said legal service. The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to perform personal legal service. There has been no response from these two attempt at personal service.

[114] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691), the following documents:

1. a copy of NOTICE OF ACTION(CV-12-0716-00);

2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-12-0716-00);

3. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00)for homelessness;

4. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00);

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 4 documents with Gina Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a PUBLIC RELATION employee, in addition to receiving legal service on behalf of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while acting in the capacity of her employer’s public relation's personal at the following location;

CARILLION SERVICES

HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES

FLOOR: SLL

OFFICE: SLL 242

DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691)

Brampton Civic Hospital

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

[115] Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office located at B WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL N145 to receive legal service because of the complication of finding her office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL pursuant to a conversation on the phone with her from CARILLION SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES) located in OFFICE: SLL 242.

[116] I had served DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691)

in conjunction with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I was informed at a later date in conjunction with the service of a statement of defense that DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI (257691) is not an employee, and must be serve separately.

[117] The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot reasonable interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the front staff designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for the purpose of accessing the same doctor; codefendant WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to help in resolving this legal issue nor did they offer an alternate address and person to receive the said legal service . The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to perform personal legal service. There has been no response from these two attempt at personal service.

[118] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. R. HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH, the following documents:

1. a copy of NOTICE OF ACTION(CV-12-0716-00);

2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-12-0716-00);

3. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00)for homelessness;

4. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00);

CARILLION SERVICES

HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES

FLOOR: SLL

OFFICE: SLL 242

DR. R. HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH,

Brampton Civic Hospital

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office located at B WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL N145 to receive legal service because of the complication of finding her office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL pursuant to a conversation on the phone with her from CARILLION SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES) located in OFFICE: SLL 242. I had served all the Doctors in conjunction with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I was informed at a later date in conjunction with the service of a statement of defense that the Doctors are not employees, and must be serve separately. The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot reasonable interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the front staff designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for the purpose of accessing the same doctor; codefendant WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to help in resolving this legal issue nor did they offer an alternate address and person to receive the said legal service. The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to perform personal legal service. There has been no response from these two attempt at personal service.

JUSTICE WATT HISTORY WITH APPLICANT AND PENDING M38706/

MOTION M38706 IS M.I.A.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. “M38706

2. 1 Copy of motion for direction for further disclosure and transcripts.

3. 1 Copy of Factum filed for Motion for direction for disclosure and transcripts.

4. 1 Copy Supplementary Motion Record.”

(Asper Madam Deputy Registrar)

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

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

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

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

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

Laskin J.A.

May 14, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Watt J.A.

August 27, 2010

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

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

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

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

“R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190)

Gillese J.A.

{...}

January 22, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

[139] Typed version of handwritten endorsement

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

MacPherson J.A. .J.A.

7 February 2011

The appeal book prepared by the Crown is fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[142]

“Typed version of handwritten endorsement

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

Cronk J.A.

December 22, 2010

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

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

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

This motion is adjourned to February 7, 2011.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Typed version of handwritten endorsement

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

Winkler C.J. O

March 23, 2011

Adjourned on consent

to June 13, 2011.

Motion to file longer Factum denied.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[155] 6. APPEAL MANAGEMENT

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

{...}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{...}

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

{...}

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

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

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

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

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

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

{...}

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

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

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

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

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

(Wayne Ferron, Applicant)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the afore said information has been served and filed with you in many different places. In Fact, the complaint is that I am serving multiple documents. I am saying nothing new, you have it all.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Friday, March 6, 2015

_____________________________

Wayne FERRON(Informant/APPLICANT)

vagabond

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)

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

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

The Morgan Decision

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

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

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

The Duty to Address and Respond

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

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

Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that:

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

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

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

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

(Gender, sexual harassment)

Chuvalo v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2037

(Gender and race)

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

(Ancestry)

Lauzon v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2011 HRTO 1404

(Disability)

Tearne v. City of Windsor 2011 HRTO 2294

(Age)

Knibbs v. Brant Artillery Gunners Club, 2011 HRTO 1032

(Gender, disability, association and reprisal)

Statutory Powers Procedure Act

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

Disposition without hearing

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

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

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

Idem

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;

Human Rights Code

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

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Services

Accommodation

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

Reprisals

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

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

Announced intention to discriminate

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

Opinion

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

Disposition of applications

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

Interpretation of Part and rules

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

Statutory Powers Procedure Act

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

Conflict

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

Tribunal rules

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

Required practices and procedures

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

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

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

Penalty

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

Consent to prosecution

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

Act binds Crown

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

Act has primacy over other Acts

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

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.

	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-

John Gerretsen 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

___________________________

NOTICE

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO TRANSFER MATTER

TO COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, 8., 9. 47. OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, SECTION 80.(1)(b) & SECTION 26.7(1)(b) of the of the POLICE SERVICE ACT

____________________________________________

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