Author Information
PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (cr-12-01264 ET AL.)
Folder Contents
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/INFORMANT
-and-
HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
_________________________________
MOTION
FACTUM
_________________________________
Returnable on August 10, 2012 from a contested adjournment from July 9, 2012 asper the Crown’s request and to the Crown’s benefit even-though the Crown’s Application was brought forward improperly without notice or proper filing of Application.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
[1] The Informant alleges that, the private informations he filed in BRAMPTON COURT Intake Office, which was sent to the NEWMARKET ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE; was done for for reasons of Impartiality and efficiency, and to ensure the fairness of the process to an unrepresented litigant within the meaning of Section 504, 507, 508, 523, and 540 of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 15 of the Charter, if best intensions and professionalism are to be assumed.
[2] Because of is financial destitution, the Informant found it impossible to attend the NEWMARKET, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE, to give evidence in finding process for the relevant pending private informations on March 19, 2012. The Plaintiff had -$15.00 in the bank on the day in question, it would take about 3 days to walk to Newmarket from the farthest Western part of Mississauga.
[3] On March 19, 2012 at 8:30 A.M.; he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809);the Criminal Court Office, transfer him to the Crown’s Office(905 895 8778); Crown’s Office, transferred him to the Duty Counsel Office;
Duty Counselor advised, that they do not participate in Private Information Hearings, nor are the allowed to participate in private Informations; after the Informant explained that he was simplly seeking an adjournment to the schedule hearing because it was impossible to attend it on that day.
[4] On March 19, 2012 ; he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE for the second time, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809); the Criminal Court Office, transfer him to the Judges Cambers, SUPERIOR COURT, (905 895 8778);
Judges Cambers, transferred him to the Crown’s Office;
the Crown’s Office, transferred him to the Duty Counsel Office;
the Duty Counselor advised him, that they “do not do Private Information Hearings”, nor are they allowed to do private informations. After the Informant explained that he was simplly seeking an adjournment to the schedule hearing because it was impossible to attend it on that day.
[5] On March 19, 2012 the Informant called NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE for the third time, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809);
the Criminal Court Office, transfer him to the Crown’s Office(905 895 8778);
the Crown’s Office, advised that the court is not a “Doctors office”, furthermore the Applicant would have to be their in-person to adjourn the matter. The Clerk of the Crown’s Office ask the Plaintiff for his name so she could do a search on it. He told her his name was WAYNE FERRON, and he spelled it(W-A-Y-N-E F-E-R-R-O-N. The same Clerk advised , that “it is impossible to adjourn matters on the phone”. The Informant asked her about fairness, and if she would allow the presiding justice to rule against him in an unforeseen circumstances. The Clerk ended the call prematurely(she hang up the phone).
[6] On March 19, 2012 the Informant called NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE for the forth time, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809);
the Criminal Court Office transferred him to the Duty Counsel Office;
the Duty Counselor advised, that they do not do Private Information Hearings, nor are they allowed to attend private Informations, after the Informant explained that he was simplly seeking an adjournment to the schedule hearing because it was impossible to attend it on that day. The Duty Counsel advise the Plaintiff to call the Trial Scheduling Office.
[7] On March 19, 2012 the Informant called NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, Trial Scheduling Office(905 853 4817);
the Trial Scheduling Office Clerk advised that she would give his message for adjournment to the Duty Counsel.
[8] On March 19, 2012 before 10:30 a.m. the call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE , Trial Scheduling Office(905 853 4817);
the Trial Scheduling Office Clerk advised transferred the Informant to the out of town Crown(Mr Frank Giordano), he advised the matter had been dismissed for want of prosecution by Justice Karolle.
[9] On March 19, 2012 before 10:30 a.m. at the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, the Informant private Informations were dismissed for want of prosecution in less than 1 hour.
[10] On July 23, 2012 the Registrar of the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE call the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES after becoming frustrated in locating information in the appearance history for court file number 07-02559 and certified Informations(12-01264 et al) with endorsement pursuant to Justice Howden’s Court Order. The Informant had requested the information in question a week prior. This was a typical request from the Registrar, yet they found it impossible to complete and though it a justified remedy to call an arm POLICE OFFICER even though the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE expected the Informant to complete these task for perfection of the appeals.
[11] The Plaintiff further alleges that on July 23, 2012 the Registrar of the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE refuse to disclosed the certified private Informations(12-01264 et al) since they were not served on the accused, even though there was a standing court order with the blessings of the Crown for their production and disclosure. This runs contrary to the Criminal Code because there were no accused and it runs contrary to the due process of Law for the proceedings of private complaints. The Plaintiff pointed the Registrar to Section 507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, but they demanded an affidavit of service for proof of serving the accuse whom were not yet determined judicially or in accordance with the Criminal Code to be accuse and are protected from the matter until process is issued. The Informant left the Registrar a second Requisition for the pending promised disclosure.
[12] The Informant further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964 et al), there has not been one single Judicial authority or one single Crown Prosecutor whom has advised or asserted on record or otherwise, that Officer Stribbell’s(529) given testimony, recorded in the July 23, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02559) on page 108 to page 123, does not constitute perjury or support a prima facie case for allegations of perversion of the course of justice. The Private Prosecutor reasonable believe and does believe that Officer Stribbell’s(529) given July 23, 2008 GIVEN EVIDENCE under oath in open court constitute perjury, is a contravention of the oath he took on the same day, and is a contravention of his duly sworn duty owed to the public and rule of law; so the Plaintiff filed the July 23, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02559), as an exhibit at the PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING while giving Crown’s council the opportunity to review the same TRANSCRIPT on more than one occasion, for a personal logical satisfaction of the truthfulness of what was being allege.
[13] The Informant alleges that for matter(Court File No.: 12-02964 et al), at about 13:50 hours on the 10th of April 2012, at the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar. The Informant signed up to see a Justice of the Peace for the issuing of a subpoena to a witness to give evidence under oath for a PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING(Court File No.: 12-02964 et al) to find process, on May 7, 2012 at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(Central East Region).
[14] The Private Prosecutor further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964 et al ), after he was Waiting about 30 minutes, an Officer carrying about 35 files or Briefs for what the Plaintiff reasonable believe and do believe contains at least some informations and warrants, in what seem to be a green or baby blue, two wheel carrying cart; the same Officer sat beside the plaintiff in the queue(first seat closest to the intake office #2) to see Your Worship Justice of the Peace. The Informant knew knew some of the said materials were warrants because Your-Worship said he had to signed some warrants among other things. Likewise, the Informant new some of the documents were Informations(or more accurately the police document which proceeds the Information commissioned by a Justice of the Peace), because one was left on the desk; it was in the same format as the ones which had been disclosed to the Informant in the pass for Information 07-02500/07-02559. The Informant did not touch it but only glanced at it, since it was in his field of view right in-front of his person on Your-Worship desk, at the seat which he was instructed to sit in.
[15] The Informant further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964et al), After yet another 30 minutes of waiting, Your Worship offered to see the Informant, even-though he had not completed his task with the same Officer’s; The Informant excepted Your Worship’s offer and entered intake office #2. After Your Worship review his subpoena to a witness documents for about 15 minutes in addition to Your Worship conferring with his co-workers, he advised the Informant that his information within his SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS is correct, but questioned why the SUBPOENA was not done at the Brampton Court which issued the “Pre-Enquette” hearing for the information in question. Furthermore he gave the Informant FORM 16 to use, even though he used the FORM 16 in the C.C.C. So he refused to sign and issue his SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, and strongly inferred for him to have it done at the BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE which signed the PRIVATE-INFORMATION and set the “Pre-Enquette” for May 7, 2012.
[16] The Informant further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), that pursuant to Your Worship’s advise that he should go back at Brampton intake Office to respectfully request that his SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS be signed, so he can present to the Courts the evidence demanded by Section 507.1 of the C.C.C. to make out a meritorious case against Mr. Stribbell(529), to enable the presiding Justice on May 7, 2012 at the Newmarket Courthouse to issue process for his Private Information.
[17] The Informant further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), at about 10:50 on 11th of April 2012, at the Brampton Courthouse, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, he signed up to see a Justice of the Peace for the issuing of a subpoena to a witness for a hearing to find process on May 7, 2012 pursuant to the advise or instruction of a NEWMARKET justice of the peace the day before; whom did not signed his SUBPOENA to summon witnesses to give evidence for a hearing to issue process for his information against Officer Stribbell(529).
[18] The Informant further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964 et al), After the Informant had a long discussion with the Justice of the Peace concerning the use of documents authored by or signed by the individuals he was requesting to be summoned to give evidence for his Private Prosecution against Officer Stribbell(529)(Court File No.: 12-02964), in addition to the following:
(i) Officers Williams Hird(6058) and his Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, for Occurrence 2007-70285; since the Informant used Officer Stribbell’s(529) investigative document as a bases to file Information 07-02500; furthermore he assert’s in his notes that he Swore the same information on March 27, 2007 and March 28, 2007, which is a contradiction;
(ii) Officers Joe Willmets(974) and his Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, and a Copy of Subpoena 06-239794, in addition to Officer’s Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, for Occurrence 2007-70285; since Officer Joe Willmets(974) used Officer Stribbell’s(529) investigative document as a bases to file Information 07-02559; furthermore he assert’s in his notes that he Swore to two Information or “swore to both” on an unknown date, which is a contradiction. The Justice of the Peace also advised the Plaintiff that it was unusually for someone to be subpoena to swear an information, since the filing of the Information is initiated by the Informant. He advised the Honorary Justice of the peace that a subpoena is asserted in the Officer’s notes(Subpoena 06-239794);
(iii) Mr. Shawn Broughton(1079), and his Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, for Occurrence 2007-70285; since he tasked Officer Stribbell’s(529) to investigate occurrence 2007-70285 and it is his file or brief which was used to file and swear Information 07-02500/07-02559 in addition the same Officer In Charge Initial Officer’s report being different than Officer Stribbell’s(529) SUMMERY OF GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS;
(iv) Ms. Cheryl Goodier to give evidence of her witnessing Officer Stribbell(529) perjury in open court while under cross examination on July 23, 2010.
[19] The Private Prosecutor further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964 et al), The honourable Justice of the Peace asked for a reasonable amount of time to consider the matter. After leaving the same Justice Office, the Plaintiff was called back in the intake office at about 12:30 p.m.; the honourable Justice of the peace decline to sign the Plaintiff’s SUBPOENAS TO WITNESS to give evidence under oath for the issuance process, “because he was the gate keeper and he could not justify the expense; there were many good interim lawyers and the standards for subpoenaing a Prosecutor is very high and witness are subpoenaed only when it is necessary beside there are many good interim lawyers and there are transcripts available for purchased.” The Informant informed him that because he was financial destitute he could not scale the financial barrier to obtain certified transcripts. 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.”
[20] The Informant further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964 et al ), that Duty Councils are barred from “pre-enquette” hearings and it is against their inherent duty to help Private Informants with ”Private-Informations”. Section 507.1 demands that the Informant show cause by giving evidence and presenting to the courts witnesses, yet he is denied a way of assuring the attendance of relevant witness, even-though this is necessary to show merits or that a prima-facie case is made out for the issuance of process. Furthermore, Section 507.1 in conjunction with Section 540. of the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA demands that the evidence of witnesses be given under oath.
[21] On April 12, 2012 at about 14:45:00 hours, the Informant was called into intake office # 1 to lay informations before His Worship Clark for crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Provence of Ontario, against fringe elements in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. There was a Police Officer from the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES whom the Informant reasonable believe and do believe was arm with a side revolver, present in His Worship Justice Clark’s Court; the Plaintiff was not comfortable with this set up, so he boldly asked Your Worship what the said Officer was doing there. The Honourable Justice Clark advised the Informant that if it is the case that a Justice of the piece request a Police Officers presence then one is provided. The presence of the Officer effected the trust dynamics and necessary confidence involved in the laying of an Information before a Justice of the piece; this diminished the Informant ability to speak freely and without fear of consequences or ramifications of what was being said or what was being over heard in a privilege discussion with a Honourable Justice of the piece concerning the merits of the said private prosecution. The unwarranted presence of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, Police Officer whom the Informant believed to be armed with a side revolver and memorandum notebook was intimidating and their is a concern for the said Officers involvement in what amount to criminal charges against his colleagues or fellow workers.
[22] On April 13, 2012 I was called into intake Office # 1 to lay informations before His Worship Asad Malik for crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Provence of Ontario, against fringe elements in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. Their was a Court Security Officer whom I reasonable believed to be armed, present standing at position at the inner door to the back connecting room rooms to the adjoining offices. Again The presence of the Officer effected the trust dynamics and necessary confidence involved in the laying an information before a Justice of the piece; this diminishing the Informant ability to speak freely and without fear of consequences or ramifications of what was being said or what was being over heard in a privilege discussion with a Honourable Justice of the piece concerning the merits of the said private prosecution. The unwarranted presence of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, Police Officer whom the Informant believed to be armed with a side revolver and memorandum notebook was intimidating and their is a concern for the said Officers involvement in what amount to criminal charges against his colleagues or fellow workers.
[23] On May 30, 2012 at about 3:00 p.m. at wicket 6(THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-CRIMINAL), the Informant asked the attending CLERK for a SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, qualified Clerk to commission his affidavit and accompanying EXHIBITS; she told him that “their was no SUPERIOR COURT OF JSTICE Clerk who is authorized to commission an affidavit. So the Informant asked if he could see a Justice of the peace instead to commission his Affidavit of Evidence with accompanying EXHIBITS.
[24] The Plaintiff further alleges that on May 30 2012 he did not have to wait long before being called into the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE 2 by Your Worship Tina Rotondi Molinari. She had no arm guard or the appearance of an armed guard accompanying her. If there was a Police Officer or Security Guard present, he did not notice one. This is in contrast to the other two Justice of the peace who had readily observable guards or armed Police Officers present while the Plaintiff was trying to lay Private Information’s before the Honourable Justice Clark and Justice Malik Informations. Her Worship confirmed his identIty, place him under oath and proceeded to commissioning his Affidavit of evidence and accompanying EXHIBITS.
[25] On May 14 2012 the Honourable presiding Justice was Justice Howden who had something to do with the Informant allege 2009 denial of NATURAL JUSTICE for his MOTION FOR DIRECTION(07-02559) at the NEWMARKET SUPERIOR COURT(appellate court). A Justice, cannot be a Judge in his own cause without violating the appearance of Judicial impartiality and independence. The Informant reasonable and probable believe, and do believe that the Honourable Justice Howden denied him natural justice on June 01, 2009 in the very same courtroom or one next to it. Furthermore the motion was never heard by him is still outstanding.
[26] On May 14, 2012 before he attended the hearing to be spoken to before the Honourable Justice Howden; the Informant went to the scheduling Clerk to reserve a date for a future Motion; he was refuse a date and told all he had to do was choose a monday. The Informant Informed the Scheduling Clerk that he needed about 2 hours reserved and in the Toronto Region Courts they require reservation for a long motion. The said Scheduling Clerk still refused. In the same courtroom for the Hearing before the Honourable Justice Howden; The Informant over heard other matters which reserved future hearing dates other pending motions. But the Plaintiff was outrightly being denied the exact same equal services in contravention of Section 1. of the Human Right’s Act. The week before that on May 7, 2012 it took about an hour of arguing and waiting at the Registrar to obtain the Court file Numbers for matters under Appeal by way of Section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[27] On May 14, 2012 the Private Proscecutor did not have enough money to take the bus home that day, so he walk the remaining 1/3 of the journey. He started to walk at 2:30 p.m. from HiWay 7 and HiWay 50 in Brampton; he reach home at the most westerly part of Mississauga at about 10:00 p.m.. This is ofcourse a physical and financial barrier to accessing justice. He assumed that the reason for his matter of private prosecution being sent to Newmarket by the Brampton Court intake Office was because of impartiality and fairness to the unrepresented Litigant. He only had negative $00.50 in his account that day.
[28] Frank Giordano Assistant Crown Attorney, is an out of town Prosecutor bound by a special duty of independence and impartiality in the matters before the court to ensure fairness and equity to the unrepresented Informant.
“PROSECUTORS DISCRETION:
4 THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Decisions to prosecute, stay proceedings or launch an appeal must be made in accordance with legal criteria. Two important principles flow from this proposition. First, prosecution decisions may take into account the public interest,1 but must not include any consideration of the political implications of the decision. Second, no investigative agency, department of government or Minister of the Crown may instruct pursuing or discontinuing a particular prosecution or undertaking a specific appeal. These decisions rest solely with the Attorney General (and his or her counsel). The Attorney General must for these purposes be regarded as an independent officer, exercising responsibilities in a manner similar to that of a judge.
The absolute independence of the Attorney General in deciding whether to prosecute and in making prosecution policy is an important constitutional principle in England and Canada. As the Supreme Court stated in Law Society of Alberta v. Krieger2: “It is a constitutional principle in this country that the Attorney General must act independently of partisan concerns when supervising prosecutorial decisions.” In 1925, Viscount Simon, Attorney General of England, made this oft-quoted statement:
I understand the duty of the Attorney-General to be this. He should absolutely decline to receive orders from the Prime Minister, or Cabinet or anybody else that he shall prosecute. His first duty is to see that no one is prosecuted with all the majesty of the law unless the Attorney-General, as head of the Bar, is satisfied that the case for prosecution lies against him. He should receive orders from nobody.3...”
(4, FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, page 29)
[29] Assistant Crown Attorney Mr. Frank Giordano for the Crown, is an outside Crown task in acting with a “long arm” or independently of the York Region Crowns. The following is his contact address;
Frank Giordano
Assistant Crown Attorney
1091 Gorham Street, Suite 201
Newmarket, Ontario
(Counsel for Respondent)
This is a YORK REGION ADDRESS!!
[30] Mr. Frank Giordano Assistant Crown Attorney, return address on his return express mail envelop is;
Crown Attorney’s Office
50 Eagle St. West
Newmarket, L3Y 6B1
Telephone: 905 853 4801
[31] Mr. Giordano for the Crown did not serve a proper NOTICE OF APPLICATION on the Informant(Wayne Ferron), as directed by the RULES of Criminal Procedures--RULE 5 and RULE 6
[32] Mr. Giordano for the Crown file his Respondent’s APPLICATION RECORD with a NOTICE OF APPLICATION under tab 1 with or without PROOF OF SERVICE at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-Registrar under the false auspices that the Informant was served on July 4, 2012.
[33] Mr. Giordano for the Crown served his Respondent’s APPLICATION RECORD with NOTICE OF APPLICATION under tab 1 on the Informant byway of the Informant’s beloved daughter at about 8:oo p.m. on was on July 6, 2012.
[34] Mr. Giordano for the Crown was deemed to have served his Respondent’s APPLICATION RECORD with NOTICE OF APPLICATION under tab 1 on the Informant on July 9, 2012, pursuant to RULE 5.05
[36] Mr. Giordano for the Crown, requested and won a contested contested adjournment for his improperly brought Application for Preliminary Review to a time which favored and is beneficial to the Crown at the Informant’s PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS expense.
[37] The Informant was told that he has an Application on the Adjournment date August 10, 2012. August 10, 2012 is on a Friday, SUPERIOR COURT MOTIONS, APPLICATIONS, and Appeal matters are heard on mondays at 10:00 a.m., so if the Informant has an Application pending on a Friday it would be in error and would not be heard because of the scheduling defect.
[38] The Informant has pending further Applications Rowbotham Orders to perfect the Appeals. Mandamus Applications Hearings would be set after the Appeals are perfected.
[39] The Informant contends that he had no pending Applications in August, for proper notice must be given for Applications in accordance with the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; this is the point that the Informant is at now, giving proper notice.
On page 322, para 1 of Administrative Law, David Mullan states;
“In their reflection of these principles, the courts have also indicated frequently that they are more concerned with the appearance of bias than with the actual existence of bias. Two justifications are generally advanced for this posture. First, the courts recognize the difficulty of determining in any satisfactory manner whether a person is actually biased in the sense of being unable to put any potentially illegitimate interests out of her or his conscious or subconscious mind. Second, the aphorism that it is as equally important that justice be seen to be done as that justice actually be done has been adopted specifically as a governing policy in is domain. The reputation of the justice system for integrity and impartiality is diminished in a way that is contrary to the public interest if the participants and the public generally have grounds for believing that an adjudicator may be subject to illegitimate influences or predisposition .”
(David Mullan, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; 2001, page 322, para 1)
[40] The Informant is challenging Para[9] , that this his account is only the half truth which is misleading and not forth coming; a DISCLOSED TRANSCRIPT of that appearance will reveal the truth.
“...it is not enough that justice be done,
it must appear to be done. It is also a well established principle that audi alteram partem is a rule of natural justice so firmly adopted by the common law that it applies to all those who fulfill judicial functions and it is not excluded by inference. See: L’Alliance des Professeurs Catholiques de Montréal v. Labour Relations Board [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, per Rinfret C.J. at p. 154:
[TRANSLATION] The rule that no one should be convicted or
deprived of his rights without a hearing, and especially without even
being informed that his rights would be in question, is a universal rule
of equity, and the silence of a statute should not be relied on as a basis
for ignoring it. In my opinion, there would have to be nothing less
than an express statement by the legislator for this rule to be
superseded: it applies to all courts and to all bodies required to make
a decision that might have the effect of destroying a right enjoyed by
an individual.
(Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; page 67)
[41] The Crown contends that (PART 1.), based on the materials provided by the Applicant(Mr. Ferron) to the court, there is no reasonable prospect that the applications could succeed. The Informant asserts that, if Mr. Giordano for the Crown wants a fair and equitable review within the spirit of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, the Respondent need to disclose all the evidence he is pointing to in his application, all the material that were before the pre-enquette hearings and before the intake Justice of the Peace. In addition to all the evidence the Informant is asking to be disclosed in his ROWBOTHAM ORDERS be served on all parties and be placed before the PRELIMINARY REVIEW COURT.
“Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton's observations in Dyson, supra, at pp. 418-19, are particularly instructive:
Now it is unquestionable that, both under the inherent power of the Court and also under a specific rule to that effect made under the Judicature Act, the Court has a right to stop an action at this stage if it is wantonly brought without the shadow of an excuse, so that to permit the action to go through its ordinary stages up to trial would be to allow the defendant to be vexed under the form of legal process when there could not at any stage be any doubt that the action was baseless. {...}Differences of law, just as differences of fact, are normally to be decided by trial after hearing in Court, and not to be refused a hearing in Court by an order of the judge in chambers. Nothing more clearly indicates this to be the intention of the rule than the fact that the plaintiff has no appeal as of right from the decision of the judge at chambers in the case of such an order as this. So far as the rules are concerned an action may be stopped by this procedure without the question of its justifiability ever being brought before a Court. To my mind it is evident that our judicial system would never permit a plaintiff to be "driven from the judgment seat" in this way without any Court having considered his right to be heard, excepting in cases where the cause of action was obviously and almost incontestably bad. [Emphasis added.]”
(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 on page 16&17)
[42] Mr. Giordano for the Crown, need to disclose the following evidence he is relying on and pointing to:
1) Certified Transcripts of Det. G. Stribbell testimony for the Crown at the Informant’s Bail Hearing(PART 2: PARA[1])
2) Informant’s December 7, 2007 complaint to the Ontario Civilian Police Complaints Commission(OCPCC) (PART 2: PARA[2])
3) The Informant Objectives to, Mr. Giordano for the Crown,articulation of events before the Honourable Justice Howden and task him to prove is point by disclosing certified TRANSCRIPTS of May 14, 2012 Hearing before Justice Howden in accordance with BEST EVIDENCE RULE (PART 2: PARA[9])
4) All the court material before the Honourable Justice P. Karolle). The transcript has been disclosed but not the Informant sworn Affidavit (PART 2: PARA[8]).
5) All the court material before the Honourable Justice Malik). No court material which was before Your Worship Justice Malik has been disclosed (AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST YRP and B.HIRD; AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE FOR OCCURRENCE NO. 11 - 268834 &11-268181; AFFIDAVIT FO APPLICANT (Wayne Ferron))(PART 2: PARA[11]). The question that should be asked is weather Your Worship was acting in the Capacity of a designated Justice of the Peace. For after a Justice of the Peace excepts an Information, she is suppose to arrange a Pre-Enquette, which a designated Justice will hear the evidence of the Informant and her witnesses EX-PARTE under oath and make a determination on weather to issue process for the same Information. Your Worship Justice Malik ruled on the Information he excepted himself without the benefit of a Pre-Enquette hearing nor proper notification to the Crown Attorney.
6) All the court material before the Honourable Justice P. Rogers. No court material which was before Your Worship Justice Rogers has been disclosed (Transcript of Hearing(Court File No.: 12-02964); 3 cerlox bound volumes of material with(indexed with 49 tabs); filed July 23, 2008 Transcription(07-02559) of evidence for Officer Stribbell’s perjury in Court)(PART 2: PARA[12]). Mr. Giordano’s for the Crown, friend which he was having lunch with that same day, entered the PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING without express permission of the PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING COURT while it was in session, sat down comfortably while listing intently to the giving of evidence and oblivious to court Clerk or court security, until the Informant objected to the Court about the definition of In Camera and the unwanted violation of the said notion. Mr. Giordano’s friend(in the capacity of the public) protested and asserted that he was just a friend waiting to have lunch with Mr. Giordano. The Crown also need to disclose the following to all parties for a proper review;
7) Pre-Enquette hearing Transcript (Court File No.: 12-02964);
5) May 4, 2009 APPLICATION TRANSCRIPT(07-02559);
6) June 1, 2008 APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT(07-02559);
7) June 29, 2008 APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT(07-02559);
8) July 20, 2008 APPlICATION HEARING TRANSCRIPT(07-02559);
8) July 27, 2009 APPLICATION TRANSCRIPT(07-02559);
9) Jan 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(07-02559), page 29 to page 67;
10) May 9, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(07-02559), page 22 to page 64;
11) July 23, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(07-02559), page 108 to 123.
[43] The Crown did not disclose necessary material for the Preliminary Hearing.
[44] Their was a formal respecful request to the presiding Judge to make conduct the review byway of paper review if it was the case that the Private Prosecutor couldnot attend the Hearing.
ISSUES OF LAW:
[49] Procedural Fairness
[50] Rule 34 doesnot have precedence over S. 504 of the C.C. Nor can it overtake Section 504 of the Criminal Code of Canada .
[51] and if so, was the pre-enquette before a designated Justice of the Peace a Pre-luminary determination on merits of the matter before the court to determine if a prima facie case is made out for the issuance of process for allege crimes committed within the territorial district of the Province of Ontario?
[52] Due process of law was not affected.
THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE:
12) The Informant / Applicant was homeless from September 2012 to Christmas (December 2012), in addition to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness being in jeopardy.
13) The Informant allege that there has been a denial of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, and NATURAL JUSTICE.
14) The Informant allege that there has been a denial of DUE PROCESS OF LAW in accordance with Parliamentary Legislation of Section 504, 507.1, 581.(1), 583, 584, 585, and 482 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and Section 1, and 2 of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
15) The Applicant alleges that Justice Healy error in not taking into consideration or her ruling on the enforcement of guaranteed RIGHTS and FREEDOM in accordance with Section 24(1) of the CHARTER; in addition to no taking into consideration of her final ruling, all the materials filed, all the material evident pending from the crown, all the material evidence from the pre-enquettes, and all the material evidence pointed to in his RESPONDENT FACTUM.
16) Such further material and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL USED:
Mr. John Gerretsen, Attorney General for the Province of Ontario agent’s (Mr. Jason Gorda) RESPONDENT APPLICATION RECORD (M 61/12);
Assistant Crown Attorney’s (Mr. Frank Giordano) NOTICE OF APPLICATION (CR-12-01264 et al);
Informant / Private Prosecutor’s RESPONSE FACTUM TO CROWN’S PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICATION (CR-12-01264);
Informant / Private Prosecutor’s NOTICE OF MOTION TO NOTE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT (CR-12-01264);
DUTY COUNCIL’s (Renee Rerup) email, Renee Rerup note, and compete package(LT 735519763 CA) sent to Renee Rerup for PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICATION (CR-12-01264);
Two COURT ORDERS which are still pending against the Crown, and Mr. Frank Giordano failed to complete;
AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON;
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT;
JUDICATOR ACT;
PRE ENQUETTE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-01264);
ATTORNEY GENERALS PRACTICE DIRECTIONS;
Such other evidence as counsel may offer and this Honourable Court admit.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
_________________________
Wayne FERRON(Informant)
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 AS 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.
TO:
The Clerk of the Court--Registrar
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5
Tel: 416 327 5020
Fax: 416 327 6032
AND TO:
Crown Attorney
Criminal - Crown Attorney’s Office
Superior Court of Justice
361 University Avenue
Toronto, ON M5G 1T3
Telephone: 416-327-5917
AND TO
The Attorney General of Onta
Constitutional Law Branch
4th floor
720 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
fax: 416 326 4015
AND TO:
The Attorney General of Canada
Constitutional Law Branch
Suite 3400, Exchange Tower
Box 36, First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6
fax: 416 973 3004
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
|
Wayne Ferron -versus- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN |
|
|
|
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT Osgoode Hall 130 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5
AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON ___________________________ MOTION FACTUM
Wayne FERRON 1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto, ON, M6E 4A6 Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: wayneferron@gmail.com TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS 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. |
There are no posts in this folder...
- 940 reads