Court file No.: M42812

court of appeal for Ontario

B E T W E E N:

WAYNE FERRON Applicant

- and -

HERMAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

AMENDED

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

_______________________________________________________

LOGICAL ARGUMENT(Proof by contradiction):

[1] VALID argument: It is impossible for the PREMISE to be true and the conclusion to be false.

[2] FACT: The PRIVATE PROSECUTOR Wayne Ferron, has never instituted a proceeding at any DIVISIONAL COURT, nor does he have any on going proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT. If there exist evidence to the contrary, let it be filed with the honorable court forthwith, which has carriage and control of the matter in question.

CONJUNCTIONS are only true when all the conjunct(all components) are true.

DISJUNCTIONS are only false when all the disjunct(all components) are false.

ASSUMPTION:

[3] PARA[1] of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER is TRUE.

[4] Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES has proven her PREMISE with a VALID argument.

[4] Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES argument is a VALID argument.

[5] The honourable Justice I. Andre J. did not make any errors in the Reasons for Judgment for the exparte hearing.

ASSUMED PREMISIS:

Did Wayne Ferron 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?

[6] This is a reasonable assumption since the Private Prosecutor does not have the material's which the PROCEEDING'S PROHIBITION (the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order) is base upon, in addition to the conclusion being a restating of the premises being proved. Given that the premises of an argument cannot be changed during the hearing and the premise is what the Applicant(REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK AND YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES) was trying to prove.

[7] Then it fellows that the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order's DECLARATION in PARA[1] is in fact what Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES proved in the July 8^th, 2013 EXPARTE HEARING to the same honourable Justice satisfaction, is infact Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick CONCLUSION.

[8] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8^th, 2013 under the tittle APPENDIX “A”, PARA[1] (CONCLUSION:)

“[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”

( the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8^th, 2013; TITLED APPENDIX “A”; PARA[1])

Let W= Wayne Ferron has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings.

Let F= Wayne Ferron has persistently and without reasonable grounds conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner;

Let property s= in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE .

Let property d= in the DIVISIONAL COURT.

Let property o= in the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL.

Let ~(Wd)= the negation of Wd where ~=negation

Let ~(Fd)= the negation of Fd where ~=negation

[9] Using the above definitions, PARA[1] of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order implies the following:

L1: Ws and Wd and Wo and Fs and Fd and Fo pursuant to PARA[1] of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order.

L2: (Ws and Wd and Wo) and (Fs and Fd and Fo) by associative law.

L3: ( ((Ws and Wd) and Wo) and ((Fs and Fd) and Fo)) by associative law.

[10] The following truth table below shows all the possible permutation(2⁶^{(number of variables)}=64 possible out comes) of the statements consisting of two possibilities( true(T) or false(F)), which are joined together by conjunctions(and) in PARA[1] of Justice I. Andre J. court order.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
	Ws	Wd	Wo	Fs	Fd	Fo	(((Ws and Wd) and Wo)and ((Fs and Fd) and Fo))
1	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
2	T	F	F	F	F	F	F
3	F	T	F	F	F	F	F
4	F	F	T	F	F	F	F
5	F	F	F	T	F	F	F
6	F	F	F	F	T	F	F
7	F	F	F	F	F	T	F
8	T	T	F	F	F	F	F
. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	All other permutations are false (F)
64	T	T	T	T	T	T	T
							PARA[1] of Justice I. Andre J. court order

[11] It should be clear from the truth table above, that the only possible combination which would render PARA[1] of Justice I. Andre J. court order to be true, is if it is the case that all the separate statements joined together by conjunctions are all true; this is represented by row 64 in the truth table above.

[12] The above stated FACT, that the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR Wayne Ferron, has never instituted a proceeding at any DIVISIONAL COURT, nor does he have any on going proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT, renders both Wd and Fd truth value to be all-ways false.

[13] There is no evidence to the contrary for the above stated fact, thus it is a false fact. If it is the case that Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES, asserted or tried to convince the honourable Justice I. Andre J. that, Wayne Ferron has instituted a proceeding or proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT, then it follows that Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick wood have been misleading the honourable Justice I. Andre J. In contravention of RULE 4.01 on page 53 and 54 of THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT which directs as follows;

“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,

...”

[14] The above stated FACT, implies that:

Wd truth table value is false and can only be false in accordance with the FACT of the matter.

Fd truth table value is false and can only be false in accordance with the FACT of the matter.

Therefore, COLUMN 2 and COLUMN 5 of the truth table value is all-ways false.

Given that Wd truth table value is false for all 64 permutations and Fd truth table value is false for all 64 permutations, then it follows that (Wd and Fd) truth table value is false for all 64 permutations.

Given that Wd truth table value is false for all 64 permutations and Fd truth table value is false for all 64 permutations, then it follows that (Ws and Wd) truth table value is false for all 64 permutations.

Given that (Ws and Wd) truth table value is false for all 64 permutations , then it follows that ((Ws and Wd) and Wo) truth table value is false for all 64 permutations.

Given that ((Ws and Wd) and Wo) truth table value is false for all 64 permutations , then it follows that (((Ws and Wd) and Wo)and ((Fs and Fd) and Fo)) truth table value is false for all 64 permutations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
	Ws	Wd	Wo	Fs	Fd	Fo	(((Ws and Wd) and Wo)and ((Fs and Fd) and Fo))
1	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
2	T	F	F	F	F	F	F
3	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
4	F	F	T	F	F	F	F
5	F	F	F	T	F	F	F
6	F	F	F	F	T	F	F
7	F	F	F	F	F	T	F
8	T	F	F	F	F	F	F
. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	. . .	All other permutations are false (F)
64	T	F	T	T	F	T	F
							PARA[1] of Justice I. Andre J. court order

[15] Thus, (((Ws and Wd) and Wo)and ((Fs and Fd) and Fo)) in the truth table is always false.

[16] Hence, Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES, conclusion as represented in PARA[1] of the honourable Justice I. Andre J., is always false.

[17] But, Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES argument was assumed to be VALID.

[18] Thus there is a contradiction, since it is impossible for the PREMISE to be true and the conclusion to be false in a VALID argument ,and Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick argument was assumed to be VALID.

[19] Which implies that the negation of the assumption is true;

Mainly ~VALID argument which is logically equivalent to an INVALID argument.

Therefore, Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES argument is INVALID or NOT-VALID.

[20] The logical deductive result is for the simple reason that the, Private Prosecutor has no matter or any legal proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT or COURTS in ONTARIO or any were else; there is no evidence to prove or support this questionable assertion or false fact used to support Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick's invalid argument which misled or deceived the presiding Justice, and caused the honorable Justice I. Andre J. court order to rely on the same false fact which asserts as follows;

[20] The aforesaid, renders or shows that the following declaration composing of conjunctive statements is false byway of the properties of conjunctions.

“[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”

In short, all the component statements of a conjunction must all be true for the resulting cojunction to be true. This is just logical fact.

[21] In the absence of evidence to prove otherwise, the Private Prosecutor task Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES to lead evidence for the above stated false assertion, which has been used to unjustly chase the Private Prosecutor from the “seat of judgement.”

JURISDICTION:

Appeals

Judge not to hear appeal from own decision

132. A judge shall not sit as a member of a court hearing an appeal from his or her own decision. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 132.

Leave to appeal required

133. No appeal lies without leave of the court to which the appeal is to be taken,

(a) from an order made with the consent of the parties; or

(b) where the appeal is only as to costs that are in the discretion of the court that made the order for costs. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 133.

Powers on appeal

134.(1)Unless otherwise provided, a court to which an appeal is taken may,

(a) make any order or decision that ought to or could have been made by the court or tribunal appealed from;

(b) order a new trial;

Interim orders

(2)On motion, a court to which a motion for leave to appeal is made or to which an appeal is taken may make any interim order that is considered just to prevent prejudice to a party pending the appeal. 1999, c. 12, Sched. B, s. 4 (3).

Power to quash

(3)On motion, a court to which an appeal is taken may, in a proper case, quash the appeal.

Determination of fact

(4)Unless otherwise provided, a court to which an appeal is taken may, in a proper case,

(a) draw inferences of fact from the evidence, except that no inference shall be drawn that is inconsistent with a finding that has not been set aside;

(b) receive further evidence by affidavit, transcript of oral examination, oral examination before the court or in such other manner as the court directs; and

to enable the court to determine the appeal.

Scope of decisions

(5) The powers conferred by this section may be exercised even if the appeal is as to part only of an order or decision, and may be exercised in favour of a party even though the party did not appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134 (3-5).

Common Law and Equity

Rules of law and equity

96.(1)Courts shall administer concurrently all rules of equity and the common law. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 96 (1); 1993, c. 27, Sched.

Rules of equity to prevail

(2)Where a rule of equity conflicts with a rule of the common law, the rule of equity prevails. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 96 (2); 1993, c. 27, Sched.

SCOPE:

[22] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8^th, 2013 under the tittle APPENDIX “A”, PARA[2].

“ [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. ”

( PARA[2] of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8^th, 2013; TITLED APPENDIX “A”; PARA[2])

[23] The aforementioned in set theory is known as the universal set, or the set of all courts in ONTARIO. In short, the said order is transcendental and pervasive. But this is what Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES requested of the honourable presiding justice in accordance with the REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT.

[24] So how does this affect the Private Prosecutor's Humanity, his obligation to his children and the public good? How, does the aforemention deal with the right of any member of Canadian society to Prosecute for infringement of the Criminal Code of Canada for the purpose of enforcing the will of Parliament to maintain a just and humain society? Does there exist some criminals who set themselves above the law and circumvent due process at the expense of the public purse?

[25] 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.

Asonablly disclosing to all partieds SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

[26] The aforesaid Federal Court rules is clear on reasonable disclosing of court order to all partied, in addition to a confirmation of the same court order disclosure byway of a proof of receipt being placed into the court file.

[27] Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES knows or ought to know the location and method by which the Private Prosecutor is to be served, since she was notified on more than one occasions byway of personal service. In addition to knowing that the Private Prosecutor is impecunious.

· PLEASE SEE TAB 1 to TAB TAB 5 IN MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(M42812)

[28] Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick is required by the RULE 4.01(2)(e) on page 53 and page 54 of the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT which directs as follows;

“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...”

[29] Pursuant to VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al., 2003 FCA 56;

“[6] The authorities are clear that where an order or decision is not pronounced or delivered in public, the order or decision is not made until such time as the order or decision is entered by the

Registry or when the parties are notified of the decision.

{...}

Strong J., in concurring reasons, was also of the view that the time to appeal could not begin to run until the judgment had been entered. At page 218, he made the following remarks:

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

[30] Pursuant to NIKE CANADA LTD. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and -

JANE DOE and JOHN DOE et al., T-1636-99 on page 4;

“ORDER

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Commencement and Term of Order

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

[31] Not only was the Private Prosecutor not given proper service of court material Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES was relying on at the hearing, so that the Private Prosecutor would know the full extent of his jeopardy; but the resulting court order against him was not properly disclosed.

[32] The Private Prosecutor discovered the honourable Justice I. Andre J. written court order, typed court order, reason for judgment, and a letter filed by the Crown in COURT OF APPEAL file M42812; he requested and paid for copies of the aforementioned court documents except for the filed Crown letter.

[33] The Private Prosecutor requested of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARION-REGISTRAR a certified copy of the filed Crown's letter, the filed Crown's letter was lost while in transition of being copied and certified. Hence, the Private Prosecutor never received a copy of the requested filed Crown's letter.

[34] How did all the aforementioned documents get into COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO file M42812 without being successfully served on the Private Prosecutor, with possible the exception of the Crown's filed letter?

[35] The aforementioned is clearly a denial of NATURAL JUSTICE and PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS within the meaning of Section 1(b) and 2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

[36] On the 21^st of December 2012 at 4:25 p.m., the Private Prosecutor 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 excepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at 720 Bay Street, 8^th flr, Toronto.

[37] On the 21^st of December 2012 at 3:55 p.m., the Private Prosecutor 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 excepts service on behalf of the Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (William F. Pentney) at Suite 3400, Exchange Tower Box 36, First Canadian Place Toronto.

[38] On the 21^st of December 2012 at 3:26 p.m., the Private Prosecutor 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 SCOTIA PLAZA, 40 KING STREET WEST, TORONTO. Which stated as followed on page 6 of the same served document;

“

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

our 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"

[39] Which stated as followed 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 adversarial 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!

“

[40] On the 4^th of June 2013 at 1:20 p.m., the Private Prosecutor 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 Suite 3400, Exchange Tower Box 36, First Canadian Place Toronto.

[41] On the 11^th of June 2013 at 4:50 p.m., the Private Prosecutor 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 720 Bay Street, 8^th flr, Toronto. .

[42] On the 11^th of June 2013 at 1:54 p.m., the Private Prosecutor 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 SCOTIA PLAZA, 40 KING STREET WEST, TORONTO .

[43] On the 11^th of June 2013 at 5:57 p.m., the Private Prosecutor 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 2 Queen St. East, Suite 1500. Which stated 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.“

[44] The aforsaid document, also stated as followed 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.“

[45] 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).”

[46] Pursuant to David J. Mullan;

NOTICE:

“It is one of the fundamentals of procedural fairness that those affected by decisions coming within its ambit should in general receive notice of the process about to be undertaken in a sufficient degree of detail and in a timely enough fashion to enable the effectuation of their participatory entitlement.”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 23)

[47] Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

NATURAL JUSTICE

HEAR THE OTHER SIDE(AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM):

“The rules of procedural fairness or natural justice are divided

into two separate categories. the first category comprises the

decision maker provide adequate opportunities for those

affected to present their case and respond to the evidence and

arguments being advanced by other participants or in the

knowledge or possession of the decision maker. The Latin term

for this is ”audi alteram partem,” though its admonition to hear

or listen to the other side is {...} The second limb of the rules

covers the requirement that decision makers be independent

and unbiased. Here too, there is and underinclusive Latin term:

“nemo judex in sua propria causa debet esse” - no one should

be a judge in her or his own cause.”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 232)

[48] Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

NOTICE:

“It is one of the fundamentals of procedural fairness that

those affected by decisions coming within its ambit should in

general receive notice of the process about to be undertaken in

a sufficient degree of detail and in a timely enough fashion to

enable the effectuation of their participatory entitlement.”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 233)

[49] Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

“One of the bedrock principle of natural justice or procedural

fairness is that affected individuals have timely notice of what

is at stake in sufficient detail to enable them to participate

effectively in the decision making process. This principle is not

only the basis of common law jurisprudence in this domain but it

also is manifest in statutory provisions such as section 8 of the

Ontario Statutory Powers Procedure Act. It provides:”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 238)

Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22

Where character, etc., of a party is in issue

8.Where the good character, propriety of conduct or competence of a party is an issue in a proceeding, the party is entitled to be information of any allegations with respect thereto R.S.O. 1990,c. S.22, s. 8.

[50] Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE RENDERS A DECISION VOID:

“The denial of a right to a fair hearing must always render a

decision invalid, whether or not it may appear to a reviewing

court that thee hearing would likely have resulted in a different

decision. The right to a fair hearing must be regarded as

an independent, unqualified right which finds its essential

justification in the sense of procedural justice which any person

affected by an administrative decision is entitled to have. It is

not for the court to deny that right and sense of justice

on the basis of speculation as to what the result might

have been had there been a hearing. Indeed, in most

instances, for the reviewing court to even speculate as to the

outcome would be to compound the denial of procedural

fairness.”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 227-22)

[51] Pursuant to R. v. Dwyer and Lauzon at the COURT OF APPEAL;

“Conclusion

[68] With the benefit of a full argument which, unfortunately, was not presented to the learned trial Judge, we have concluded that the trial was a complete nullity, as the Judge had no jurisdiction to try the accused without a jury in the circumstances. While this conclusion may appear unduly technical, it is necessary to secure the appellants’ fundamental right not to be deprived of their liberty except by due process of law. In the result therefore, we would allow the appeal, quash the convictions and order a new trial.”

(Ontario Court of Appeals, R. v. Dwyer and Lauzon, Date: 1978-05-02)

DUE PROCESS OF LAW:

[52] Pursuant to the BILL OF RIGHTS, one's rights cannot be taken away without a fair hearing to plea ones cause or defend against the said action;

2. ...be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;

[53] Pursuant to Frederick E. Gibson in Toledo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1572;

“[5] The issue of the impact of an incomplete transcript on the interests of an Applicant has often been before this Court in immigration judicial reviews in recent years. ^[1]Typical of the reasoning of my colleagues in the cited authorities are the following comments of Justice Layden-Stevenson in the Randhawa matter, to the following effect:

Despite the capable and articulate arguments and submissions of counsel for the respondent, the applicant has persuaded me that the board's credibility findings with respect to the witnesses in question were fundamental to the decision. I am mindful of the comments of Evans J., as then was, in Hassan v. Canada ... that given the nature of a vacation hearing, an individual is entitled to the clearest assurance that the board has given full and fair consideration to the evidence.

[citations omitted]

[6] Although the hearing that is here under review was not a "vacation hearing", I am satisfied that the implications of the Convention refugee hearing here before the Court equally

entitle an individual such as the Applicant to the clearest assurance that the RPD has given full and fair consideration to his evidence.

{…}

[8] Unfortunately, the "entire ruling" is not on the record. I am satisfied that, in the absence of the "entire ruling", this Court is substantially disadvantaged in ensuring a full and fair

hearing, not only in the interests of the Applicant, but also in the interests of the presiding member himself.”

[54] Pursuant to Justice Lutfy in Razm v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration);

“[6] {…}

In this case, no meaningful judicial review can be achieved with the partial transcript, one which discloses potentially serious errors. The incomplete record does not allow me, in the words of Justice L'Heureux-Dubé in CUPE,13 "to properly dispose of this application for judicial review" on the substantive issues. “

MISLEADING A JUDICIAL OFFICER:

[55] If it is the case that the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASON FOR JUDGEMENT(CV-13-1060-00), release on July 17, 2013 is correct, then it follows that Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES mislead the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. on the facts of the matter in contravention of RULE 4.01 of the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT on page 53 and page 54 directs as followes;

“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,...”

[56] If PARA[10] is review on page 5 of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASON FOR JUDGEMENT(CV-13-1060-00), which asserts as fact the following;

“[10] Mr. Ferron commenced a second action in December 2010 against the Applicants, Ms. Gingrich, Ms. Pasquale, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Board (MCSCSB), Marguerite Campbell and Patterson & Associates Inc. in relation to his March 27, 2007 arrest and subsequent conviction.”

[57] The misleading charaterization and manipulated assert which will more than likely induce false adverse inferences.

[58] Look at the following false assertion for example;

“... in relation to his March 27, 2007 arrest and subsequent conviction.”

That causes of action for the aforesaid civil preceding are:

[59] Ms. Angela Pasquale assaulted Wayne Ferron at about the end of August 2009 while trying to affect a legal service of a FREEDOM AND INFORMATION REQUEST without lawful excuse.

[60] Ms. Angela Pasquale and Ms. Gloria Gingrich affected a malicious prosecution against Wayne Ferron based on manufactured evidence after the successful completion of the probation period without incident. The Information number is 09-14407.

· PLEASE SEE TAB 9 IN DOC 1-VOL 3 IN MOTION RECORD(M61), LOCATED IN C.OA. File C56817. EXHIBIT PPB

[61] Ms. Angela Pasquale and the Crown was seeking 15 days imprisonment after the successful completion of the probation period without incident;

· PLEASE SEE TAB 10 IN DOC 1-VOL 3 IN MOTION RECORD(M61), LOCATED IN C.OA. File C56817. EXHIBIT PPC

[62] Ms. Angela Pasquale manufactured evidence to support her vicarious Information 09-14407 byway of Ms. Gloria Gingrich ;

PLEASE SEE TAB 13 IN DOC 1-VOL 3 IN MOTION RECORD(M61), LOCATED IN C.OA. File C56817. EXHIBIT PPF

[63] In addition to there being many blank uncompleted forms with the name Wayne Ferron on them, and a persistent amount of activity aimed at investigating the Private Prosecutor, Ms. Angela Pasquale filed an OFFENDER ALLERT for undefined or unarticulated MENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS on October 21, 2009 after the successful completion of the probation period, which ended on September 26, 2009.

· PLEASE SEE TAB 24 IN DOC 1-VOL 3 IN MOTION RECORD(M61), LOCATED IN C.OA. File C56817. EXHIBIT PPQ

[64] The cause of action is about October 26, 2009, in the location of Mississauga and Brampton; not in the Region of York in 2007, but in the region of Peel 2009.

[65] As an act of omission, in deceiving the Honourable Justice I. Andre J., Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick who is acting in the capacity as counsel for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE BOARD SERVICES conveniently leaves her client who does not exist at bar off the above list. Her client B. Hird, whose false fraudulent name void of a badge number, grace the jurat of Information 07-02500. How is it possible that a none legal entity can act within the capacity of an informant/witness, swear a false oath of truthfulness to enable information 07-02500, endorse the jurat of information 07-02500 with a false signature, and secure a payment of cost in a Canadian Court of Law, and yet does not legally exist at bar, but is infact a phantom?

Fabricating evidence

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

R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

Offences relating to affidavits

138. Every one who

(a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared before him when the writing was not so sworn or declared or when he knows that he has no authority to administer the oath or declaration,

(b) uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he knows was not sworn or declared, as the case may be, by the affiant or declarant or before a person authorized in that behalf, or

(c) signs as affiant or declarant a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared by him, as the case may be, when the writing was not so sworn or declared,

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

R.S., c. C-34, s. 126.

Perjury

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

PREJUDICING A JUDICIAL PRECEEDING AGAINST THE INFORMANT:

[66] On the 28^th of August 2013, the Informant was unable to view COA 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 being removed to secure the integrity of the COA file C56817 and it's EXHIBITS.

· PLEASE SEE JUSTICE PEPALL AUGUST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

[67] On the 13^th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Krick whom has carriage and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having possession of COA file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS and has done so. 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. 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 JUSTICE PEPALL AUGUST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT AND THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JURIANSZ SEPTEMBER 18, ENDORSEMENT

[68] 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.

[69] On the 13^th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Krick served on the Private Prosecutor while before the Honourable Justice Pepall 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.

The following are the properties of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order, located in APENDIX “A” of Ms. Krick's(Crown) RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322):

Court Order of.....................................................................................Justice I. Andre J.

Court file number........................................................................................UNKNOWN

Court Order Signed Date.............................................................................UNKNOWN

Court Order Release Date...............................................................................July 8, 2013

Name of Court or ORIGINATING AUTORITY.......................................UNKNOWN OR NOT CLEARLY STATED(“THIS COURT”)

Address of Court..........................................................................................UNKNOWN

Region of Court...........................................................................CENTRAL WEST(RSJ)

Place of Hearing or Appearances or MOTION...............UNKNOWN

[70] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER which came to the Applicant's attention on August 20^th, 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.”

[71] The aforesaid, give an explanation to the reason why the Private Prosecutor has received no decision or copy of endorsements with respect to the Private Prosecutors criminal matters in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CENTRAL WEST REGION).

[72] Similarly, the suspending of THE Informant's HUMAN RIGHT'S MATTER, which has put his life liberty and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy.

[73] Pursuant to R. v. Thorburn;

“[59] Any justice who receives a valid Criminal Code, s. 504 information shall receive that information, and then follow the procedure in either s. 507 or s. 507.1. There is no discretion in the legislation for the justice who receives a private information to refuse to act and instead send the deponent to a different justice for the s. 504 procedure. Again, to whatever degree the Judicature Act contradicts that procedure, the Judicature Act is ineffective on the basis of paramountcy.

e. the Federal criminal law authority

[60] There is no question that the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal matters: The Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, s. 91...”

( R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390)

[74] But the JUDICATOR ACT is Provincial Legislation, and Federal legislation is give precedence.

“[57] That conclusion also applies to the Judicature Act, s. 23.1(1) procedure, where the provincial legislation directly contradicts the procedure in s. 504. Federal legislation, the Criminal Code, would trump the Judicature Act to whatever extent the provincial legislation authorizes any judge to require that a person obtain permission prior to swearing a private information.”

(page 23, R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390)

[75] Pursuant to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

802.(1) The prosecutor is entitled personally to conduct his case

and the defendant is entitled to make his full answer and

defence.(ib)

[76] In the Private Prosecutor's respectful view, RULE 34 cannot have precedence over S. 504 of the C.C. Nor can it overtake Section 504 of the Criminal Code of Canada for the same reasons that Federal legislation takes precedence over section 23.1 of the JUDICATOR ACT in R. V. THORBURN.

[76] In the Private Prosecutor's respectful view, section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act cannot have precedence over S. 504 of the C.C. Nor can it overtake Section 504 of the Criminal Code of Canada for the same reasons that Federal legislation takes precedence over section 23.1 of the JUDICATOR ACT in R. V. THORBURN.

“[57] That conclusion also applies to the Judicature Act, s. 23.1(1) procedure, where the provincial legislation directly contradicts the procedure in s. 504. Federal legislation, the Criminal Code, would trump the Judicature Act to whatever extent the provincial legislation authorizes any judge to require that a person obtain permission prior to swearing a private information.”

(page 23, R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390)

[77] Pursuant to R. v. Thorburn;

e. the Federal criminal law authority

[60] There is no question that the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal matters: The Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, s. 91...”

( R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390)

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. MY RECIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE 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.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

BETWEEN:

-and-

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES RESPONDENT

-AND-

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK RESPONDENT

SUPPLEMENTARY TO

FACTUM

of APPLICANT(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/INFORMANT)

Former title of preceding was:

Court File No.: M42812

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

BETWEEN:

-and-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Pursuant to the direction of the honourable Justice Feldman on the 29^th day of January 2014, the Former title of the preceding listed above has been changed to the preceding title below and the same Justice indicated that the afore said would be put in her endorsement on MOTION FACTUM M42812 on the 29^th day of January 2014:

Court File No.: M42812

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

BETWEEN:

-and-

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES RESPONDENT

-and-

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK RESPONDENT

PROFILE OF APPEAL:

[0] How is Wayne Ferron(a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR) who is from the general public, and is not a Legal Professional suppose to Affective charges on the platform of DUE PROCESS OF LAW for contravention of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA in the face of such overwelling directed legal HOSTILITY? The following is the legal punishments directed at the Private Prosecutor:

1. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR is enforcing the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, even though the same “COURT ORDER” failes to indicate the original COURT or original AUTHORITY issuing the same order WHICH IS IN THE PROCESS OF AN APPEAL.

2. The COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR has failed to show confidence in attesting to the autenticity or trustworthyness of their copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” by refusing to issue to the Private Prosecutor a certified copy, when asked to do so by the Informant.

3. The Private Prosecutor has been declared a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN” orally from the bench without any recorse for appeal because the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR has refuse his documents for an appel before a panel without lawful cause or written articulated reasons for their adjudication dispite the fact of placing the matter before a legal team of experts.

4. The Private Prosecutor has been denied direction by the honourable Justice Feldmand, and left to the hostility of the REGISTRAR while being denied an avenue to appeal, and get direction for the honourable Justice Feldman's declaration from the bench of PUBLICLY BRANDING the Private Prosecutor a “VEXATIVE LITIGANT.”

5. The Private Prosecutor has been denied access to his evidence by the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, and Ms. Krick(CROWN'S Counsel) byway of Ms. Krick improperly removing public evidence in C56817 or C56817 without lawful authority or a court order from a Judge in contravention of Section 26. of Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.

6. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S or the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CRIMINAL-TORONTO REGION)-REGISTRAR has lost or impropertly removed or lost many critical exhibits for C56817 in contravention of Section 26. of Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.

7. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S has hidden some of the Private Prosecutors rellevant evidence and faild to return the same evidence to C56817 without lawful cause, and in contravention of Section 26. of Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.

8. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S is now forcing the Private prosecutor to first pay for or give a full deposit of cost for furture services NO YET rendered for the reproduction of court documents or exhibits to be used in his Private Prosecutions (impediment); the aforesaid court document were lost or improperly removed without a judges order from C56817 in contravention of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT and Section 26. of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.

9. The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-RECORD'S is CHARGING Private Prosecutor about $1300.00(10 copies of a 120 page court document) for the reproduction of uncertified exhibits the same COURT RECORD'S improperly removed permanentaly from C56817 without lawful cause, and deceptively hid in C51190 without a judges order, thereby forcing the Applicant to refile the same document as lost evidence in his APPEAL BOOK(C56817). The charge for certified copies of the same document is about $220.00, but the RECORDS and DEPUTY REGISTRAR has taken months to make a determination on the issue of certification of the said court documents.

10. In light of the fact that the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR didnot want to accept Informant's appeal and has refused the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR'S appeal against Justice Feldman declaration, to sort out issues of contention and the REGISTRAR has refused the said appeal while acting in the capacity of a Judge, and without one word of written articulated reason for their ajudication dispite haveing their legal team reveiw the matter for about two weeks. The following is in essence the content of the aforementioned appealed document refused by the COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR.

OVERVIEW:

[1] All or close to all the Defendants for CV 13-1060 which repondended to the Applicant's STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 13-1060 ), has file a STATEMENT OF DEFENCE or STATEMENT OF INTENT TO DEFEND which promise to strike in a vacuume without any reasonable presentation of evidence; no defendents has filed a Motion to Strike with a returnable date to the Applicant's knowledge.

[2] Not all the Defendants for CV 13-1060 has respondended to the Applicant's STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 13-1060 ).

[3] It seems as though all Defendents of CV 13-1060, hope to defeat the Applicant's Claims or due process of law byway of depending on THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), to have the applicant judicially decleared a “VAXATIVE LITIGANT” without any demonstration of evidence or vetting of facts in a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. In short, due process of law is desired to be bypassed by the Defendents of CV 13-1060 of which includes CROWN.

[4] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), failed to serve on the applicant or respond to M42812 or file any respondent material for MOTION (M42812) on January 29, 2014 before the honourable Justice Feldman.

[5] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), failed to attend court on January 29, 2014 and articulate her argument against the Private Prosecuting Applicant's MOTION (M42812) for extention of time for his appeal against the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER”, despite being served byway of personal service all the materials to be relied on for MOTION (M42812), in addition to being accused by the Applicant that she mislead the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. on July 8, 2013.

[6] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), are CROWN agents or Crown Corporation or Crown Institution, and there are pending Claims against the Crown byway of vicarious liability for alleged actionable wrongs commited against the Applicant by REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES.

[7] The Crown is the main benefactor for a successfull “VEXATIVE LITIGATION” against the Private Prosecutor, since the The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK, and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG) are AGENTS OF THE CROWN; the Crown stands to gain the most from the implimentation of an indefinite adjournment or a staying of all the Applicants Private Prosecutions; this is a demonstration of no accountabily or deterance!

[8] Ms. Krick for the Crown, failed to serve, and failed to file a RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M43059) or any other court material for MOTION M43059 before the honourable Justice Feldman on January 30, 2014.

[9] On January 30, 2014, the Private Prosecutor didnot request an adjournment, since he had served and field NOTICE, FACTUM, BOOK OF AUTHORITY, MOTION RECORD, etc...

[10] On January 30, 2014, the Crown didnot request an adjournment, eventhough Ms. Krick for the Crown, failed to serve and file a RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M43059) or any other court material for MOTION M43059 before the honourable Justice Feldman on January 30, 2014.

[11] Is the notion of PARAMOUNTCY, relevant to the matter before the court?

[12] Which legislation takes precedence COURT RULE 34 or Section 140.(3) of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT or Section 504. of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

[13] Which matter takes precedence M42812(VAXATIVE LITIGATION APPEAL-CV 13-1060) or M43059(PRIVATION PROSECUTION APPEAL-CR 12-01264 ET AL)?

[14] The Private Prosecutor has no matter or any legal proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT or COURTS in ONTARIO or any were else; there is no evidence to prove or support this false fact the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order is relying on, and introduced by.

[15] In the absence of evidence to prove the aforesaid, the Private Prosecutor task the CROWN and REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES to prove the following false fact in the next paragraph, which has been used to help drive the Informant from the “seat of judgment.”

[16] Given that 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 while excluding the disclosure to the Private Prosecutor; the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” came to the Applicant's attention on August 20, 2013 at about 6 a.m., VIA the Crown's unsigned RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322) while before the honourable Justice Pepall for motion M42322.

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

Reasons

{...}

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...

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.

[17] The following are the properties of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order, located in APENDIX “A” of Ms. Krick's(Crown) RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322):