FACTUM Court file No.: M42812

court of appeal for ontario

B E T W E E N:

WAYNE FERRON Applicant

- and -

HERMAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

____________________________________________________

FACTUM

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

_______________________________________________________

OVERVIEW:

[1] The Crown has attempted to use on at least one occasion, the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order to defeat the proper course of justice or the proper application of due process of law for the Private Prosecution of CRIMINAL ACTIONS in the jurisdictional territory of Ontario. This is the main reason for the Informant’s appeal.

[2] SCOPE of the matter is PRIVATE PROSECUTION; the right to Prosecute violations of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA within the territorial jurisdiction of Ontario, byway of Section 504, 507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

[3] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order is transcendental, transcending many or all courts in ONTARIO. It’s broad and pervasive; It read like a guaranteed right in the CHARTER.

[4] 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. In the absence of evidence to prove the aforesaid, the Private Prosecutor task the Crown and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES to prove the said false fact which has been used to unjustly drive the Informant from the “seat of judgment.”

[5] 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; the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” which came to the Applicant's attention on August 20, 2013 at about 6 a.m.. VIA the Crown's unsigned and improperly served RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), on August 13, 2012 is being appealed within the context of the Informant's criminal Prosecutions and the said court order adversely affect or blocks the Applicant's private prosecution for the enforcement of the rule of law.

[6] YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BLG), HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario) knows are ought to have known how to give the Private Prosecutor proper legal service, because they all have been properly notified in person by the Informant on the method, and location legal service is to be received, if the Informant is to be successfully served.

[7] YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BLG), HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario) has been notified on more than one occasion of the applicant change of address.

[8] YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by BLG), HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO (as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA (as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario) had been informed or new or ought to have known that the Informant was homeless or was recently homeless, or impecunious.

[9] YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by BLG), HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario) new or ought to have known that the Private Prosecutor did not own an ISP account because of his financial destitution; moreover, he is impecunious.

[10] YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BLG), HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario) was impecunious.

[11] Officer Pekeski(2261) of the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES who is referred to as Officer Perkins(2261) in some of the represented court documents being used in this matter is the legal entity Officer Pekeski(2261); the error in the aforesaid Officer_2261 identification came about byway of his own deception of disclosing his name as “PERKINS” in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing the same Officer's identification as “PERKINS”.

[12] Officer Pekeski(2261) of the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and his superiors has failed to legally return the Private Prosecutor's personal belonging's Officer Pekeski(2261) stole after the Informant exercised his colour of right on many occasions.

[13] YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BLG), has failed to affect proper legal service of material and exhibits relied on in attempting to “drive from the judgment seat” the Private Prosecutor byway of banning him from having fair access to justice or as Madame Joanne Stuart more or less articulate what the Informant believe to be the aforesaid, “you will come up against a wall!”

[14] Operating in the following scope or set of constraints establish by case law, some of which are the following;

“The complexity or novelty of the question that the plaintiff

wishes to bring to trial should not act as a bar to that trial taking

place.

(ii) Supreme Court of Canada

While this Court has had a somewhat limited opportunity to

consider how the rules regarding the striking out of a statement

of claim are to be applied, it has nonetheless consistently upheld

the "plain and obvious" test. Justice Estey, speaking for the

Court in Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada,

[1980] 2 S.C.R. 735, stated at p. 740:

As I have said, all the facts pleaded in the statement of

claim must be deemed to have been proven. {...}

The law then would appear to be clear. The facts pleaded are

to be taken as proved. "

(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 page 23)

[15] Has the Private Prosecutor's Statement of Claim assumed to be true, before striking in a vacuume before any presentation of evidence or calling of witnesses? Pursuant to R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39;

“[27] I see no principled reason to suggest, as Justice Deschamps does, that such a finding of fact — expressly contemplated by the Code and independently made by the competent court — could never estop the Crown from relitigating the issue in a subsequent proceeding.

[28] To constrain the doctrine as my colleague does is to create the possibility of conflicting judicial determinations, each purporting to be final, and each made in proceedings between the same parties. Where the earlier finding was made in the accused’s favour, it is precisely this sort of inconsistency that damages the integrity and coherence of the criminal justice system (R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 316, at para. 45).”

(R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39)

[16] The YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BLG) before the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. on or about July 8^th, 2013 or whatever the case maybe was an exparte hearing in contravention of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, NATURAL JUSTICE if it is the case that there was a hering, and the BILL OF RIGHTS.

[17] The YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BLG) successful effort in trying to drive the Private Prosecutor from the “seat of judgment” without a fair hearing(Section 1b, 2e of the BILL OF RIGHTS), contrary to PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, and contrary to NATURAL JUSTICE, byway of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8^th, 2013, directs as follows;

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

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

{…}

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

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

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

[18] The YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BLG) have successfully stolen the Private Prosecutor's LEGAL RIGHTS without a fair hearing where the Informant is given the oppurtunity to give full answer for his cause or the full oppurtunity to defend against the action of banning the Private Prosecutor from accessing justice or the fair application of Section 1(b) and Section 2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS, byway of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8^th, 2013.

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

Reasons

393. The Court may deliver reasons for judgment

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

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

Drafting of order

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

Pronouncement of judgment

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

Copies to be sent

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

(a) by registered mail;

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

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

Proof of receipt

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

SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

[20] The Applicant alleges that there has been a violation of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE.

[21] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to be inconsistent with Section 1(b) of the BILL OF RIGHTS which asserts;

“the right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law;”

[22] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to be inconsistent with Section 2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS which asserts;

“...the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principle of fundamental justice for the determination of his right and obligation;”

[23] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER was signed on unknown Date, pursuant to the disclosed document in Apendicks A of Crown's RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322).

[24] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER was release on July 8, 2013.

[25] Name of Court is not disclosed or clearly stated in the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER in Appendix A of RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322).

[26] Address of Court in the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER is not disclosed or clearly stated in Appendix A of Crown's RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322).

[27] Region of Court is indicated in the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER in Appendix A of RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) is CENTRAL WEST.

[28] Place of EXPARTE Hearing or EXPARTE Appearances is not indicated in the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER in Appendix A of the Crown's RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322).

[29] The Applicant appeal from the COURT ORDER of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER within the scope of Private Prosecution(Section 504 & Section 507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE), which prohibits WAYNE FERRON the Applicant from exercising his legal rights without leave of “RSJ” in any court. Pursuant to APPENDIX “A” in the unsigned and improperly served without reasonable notice RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Kirk, which 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.”

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

[30] 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.

[31] 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.

[32] 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 followes on page 6 of the same served document;

“

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

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

BLG File No.: 016995.000102

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

Wayne FERRON

HOMELESS VAGABOND

ON THE STREETS OF TORONTO

Tel: 416 420 1353,

Email: wayneferron@gmail.com"

[33] Which stated as followes in the footer of the same served document;

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

“

[34] 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.

[35] 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. .

[36] 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 .

[37] 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.“

[38] The aforsaid document, also stated as followes 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.“

[39] 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).”

[40] 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)

[41] 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)

[42] 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)

[43] 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.

[44] 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)

[45] 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)

[46] 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;

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

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

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

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

“Relationship to the Administration of Justice

4.01 The Lawyer as Advocate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[51] On the 18^th of December 2013 before the honourable Justice Juriansz, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck for the Crown referred to matter C56817 as a Mandamus matter. But the damage has alredy been done from the lower courts.

[52] Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck for the Crown, IMPROPERLY TOOK CARRIAGE AND CONTROL OF C56817 EVIDENCE AND EXHIBITS BACK TO THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE TO REVIEW, AND KNOW THE TRUTH OF THE CASE. How many accuse in addition to their co-workers and their co-accuse, and professional colleague who work in the same profession who practice get opportunity to access court materials and exhibits without the supervision of the court in the spirit of fairness and integrity of factual materials being relied on. The allege accused is not even suppose to be informed of the matter until process is found to maintain the integrity of evidence.

[53] 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 AUGST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

[54] On the 13^th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck 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

[55] 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.

[56] On the 13^th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck 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.

[57] 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.”

[58] 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).

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

[60] 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)

[61] 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)

[62] Pursuant to R. v. Thorburn;

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

and the defendant is entitled to make his full answer and

defence.(ib)

[63] 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)

[64] 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)

ISSUES OF LAW:

1. The Applicant allege that there has been a violation of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE ;

2. The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to be inconsistent with Section 1(b) of the BILL OF RIGHTS which asserts “the right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law;”

3. The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to be inconsistent with Section 2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS which asserts “...the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principle of fundamental justice for the determination of his right and obligation;”

SCOPE

PRIVATE PROSECUTION, the right to Prosecute violations of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA within the territorial jurisdiction of Ontario, byway of Section 504, 507.1, and Section 540 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

PREMISE

The Applicant allege that there has been a violation of NATURAL JUSTICE ;
The Applicant allege that there has been a violation of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS;
Para [1] of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears not to be logically true;
Para [1] of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to be logically false;
Para [1] of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears not to be logically sound;
The Private Prosecutor /Informant reasonable believe and do believe that, there has been an infringement of Section 1(b) and Section 2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to be TRANSCENDENTAL or onerous, it appears to bind any and every court in Ontario to it's directions;
The Applicant allege that the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to violation of the notion of PARAMOUNTCY;
The Applicant allege that the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to challenge DUE PROCESS OF LAW for Criminal Proceedings for Private Prosecutions, which was clearly laid out by Parliament in Section 504, Section 507.1, and Section 540 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

ASSUMPTIONS

Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck, is an agent of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO.
Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck, is a lawful representive of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario
The Crown byway of Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck, has tried to defeat the Informant's Private Prosecution of CRIMINAL ACTIONS commited in the territorial jurisdictional of Ontario, while before the Honourable Justice Pepall on August 13^th, 2013 with the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order.

4. The Private Prosecutor has unimpeded access to justice.

5. The Informant can invoke the right to prosecute under Section 504.

6. The Informant has access to the right given by S 15.(1) of the CHARTER.

7. The Informant has access to Section 1. and Section 2. of the BILL OF RIGHT.

8. All Hearings in the process are INDEPENDENT and IMPARTIAL.

9. The legal process of Private Prosecution is fair.

10. Natural Justice has not been violated

11. Procedural Fairness has not been violated.

12. Federal Legislation take precedence over Provincial Legislation

13. Section 482(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA has not been violated.

PROPOSED METHOD OF HEARING:

The motion is to be heard orally.

THE APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY REQUEST:

that Officer Pekeski (2261) return forthwith the Private Prosecutor’s personal property he stole or confiscated;
that the REGION OF PEEL AND THE SALVATION ARMY RETURN THE TWO CHECKS FOR THE FREDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST they did not affect;
Ms. Joanne Stuart forthwith return the Private Prosecutor’s legal instrument(FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST) she stole or fail to return to the rightful owner or fail to forward to the proper recipient;
1 HOUR TO ARGUE THE MATTER;
the assistance of DUTY COUNCIL;
to grant an extension of time to file appeal,
if it is the case that extension of time is granted, a judicial review of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order;
to set aside the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order;
to give any relief or remedy this Honourable Court deems just, and reasonable;

THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE:

1. The Applicant allege that there has been a violation of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE ;

2. The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. COURT ORDER appears to be to be inconsistent with Section 1(b) of the BILL OF RIGHTS which asserts “the right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law;”

4. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Monday, May 25, 2015

_____________________________

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

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/INFORMANT

-and-

HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

___________________________________

SCHEDULE A

(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/ INFORMANT)

_______________________________

SCHEDULE A

PROSECUTORS DISCRETION:

[74]

“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)

[75]

“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”

(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, page 29)

[76]

“THE COURT: Now just a second now, sir. In situations like this the practice is and correct me, Madam Crown if I’m wrong, that there should be number one, an outside crown and number two, and outside justice of the peace dealing with these matters.

CROWN: I....

[77]

THE COURT: That’s - the reason for that being, sir is that the system has to be fair, it has to be fair to you. Both the Crowns here and the justice of the peace deal with police officers on a regular basis and under those circumstances the practice is to bring both an outside justice of the peace to deal with the matters and also an outside Crown - a Crown outside the jurisdiction. so that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”

( The honorable Justice N. Rohan asserted the following on May 14^th, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-00001912), on page 2 line 1-15)

[78]

“THE COURT: ...on the day they’re before a justice and it has to be an outside justice, number one. It has to be outside crown and number two.”

( The honorable Justice N. Rohan asserted the following on May 14^th, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-00001912), on page 2 line 27-35)

[79]

“THE COURT: ...The system has to be fair to you. Can we establish a new date that’s suitable to this gentleman?

MS PULS:: Yes, your Worship, I agree with your position and just for the record, the Crown would be requesting an out-of-town Crown as well specifically as a result of it being a Peel Regional Police officer that we deal with directly almost on a daily basis.”

( The honorable Justice N. Rohan asserted the following on May 14^th, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-00001912), on page 3 line 20-30)

[80]

“MS PULS:: Your Worship, I’ll be forwarding in terms of an out-of-town Crown, this information. I’ve already spoken with my deputy, Ms Carrie Stoddart. I’ll confirm with her this date and she’ll ensure that there’s an out-of-town justice of the peace, I’m not sure if there’s an individual on your end that needs to be advised.”

( The honorable Justice N. Rohan asserted the following on May 14^th, 2012 PRE-ENQUETTE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-00001912), on page 6 line 15-25)

[81]

JUSTICE CROLL'S ORDER:

“ ________

ORDER

ON HEARING the oral submissions of the Applicant and Counsel for the Respondent

IN THE PRESENCE OF the Applicant and Counsel for the Respondent.

THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The transcript of the pre-enquete hearing involving the Applicant, heard on the 6th of March 2012, shall be provided to the Applicant, after he has provided payment for said transcripts.

2. The transcripts are to be used for the purpose of Superior Court Application file number M61/12, and for no other purpose.”

(the Honourable Justice Croll’s April 30, 2013 Crown authored Court Order)

[82]

(FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, page 29)

[83]

2011 NBSECE 4, para[18], on independence;

“...Superior courts, by virtue of their role as courts of inherent jurisdiction, are constitutionally required to possess objective guarantees of both individual and institutional independence. The same constitutional imperative applies to the provincial courts:

1. ...”

[84]

YOUNG OFFENDER ACT(PEI) [1991] 1.S.C.R., provision from courts flows from Federal Government

[85]

Daviault [1994] 3.R.C.S., rule that contradicts the law cannot be justified;

”[55] Criminal Code, s. 504 does not provide discretion to a justice who receives an information in writing and under oath:...”

(R.V.THORBURN, 2010 ABQB390, PARA[55])

[86]

”[56] The language of Criminal Code, s. 504 seems to prohibit any court from adding a step (asking permission of a judge) before the steps of laying and receiving an information. Section 504 is mandatory,... ”

(R.V.THORBURN, 2010 ABQB390, PARA[56])

[87]

”[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.”

(R.V.THORBURN, 2010 ABQB390, PARA[57])

[88] Pursuant to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

139.(2) Everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.”

[89] Pursuant to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

“EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ACTS.

3.1 Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, justice or judge is effective from the moment it is done, whether or not it is reduced to writing. 2002, c. 13, s. 2.”

[90] Pursuant to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

Disobeying a statute

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

Disobeying order of court

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

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Where the order referred to in subsection (1) was made in proceedings instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government, any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene that order may be instituted and conducted in like manner.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 127;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F);

2005, c. 32, s. 1.

[91]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[92]

“before the court is found to be in essence an attempt to relitigate a claim which the

court has already determined. [Emphasis added.]

44 The adjudicative process, and the importance of preserving its integrity,

were well described by Doherty J.A. He said, at para. 74:

The adjudicative process in its various manifestations strives to do justice. {...} By justice, I refer to procedural fairness, the achieving of the correct result in individual cases and the broader perception that the process as a whole achieves results which are consistent, fair and accurate.

45 {...} When the focus is thus properly on the integrity of the adjudicative process, the motive of the party who seeks to relitigate, or whether he or she wishes to do so as a defendant rather than as a plaintiff, cannot be decisive factors in the application of the bar against relitigation. “

(Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 6

1.1.1.

2.[93]

“...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, {...} 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)

[94] Pursuant to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

“482. (1) Every superior court of criminal jurisdiction and every court of appeal may make rules of court not inconsistent with this or any other Act of Parliament, and any rules so made apply to any prosecution, proceeding, action“

[95] 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.”

[96]

SECTION 140(3) of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT

Vexatious proceedings

140.(1)Where a judge of the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied, on application, that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds,

(a) instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or

(b) conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner,

the judge may order that,

(d) a proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court not be continued,

except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140 (1); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

(2)Repealed: 1998, c. 18, Sched. B, s. 5 (2).

Application for leave to proceed

(3)Where a person against whom an order under subsection (1) has been made seeks leave to institute or continue a proceeding, the person shall do so by way of an application in the Superior Court of Justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140 (3); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

[97]

SECTION 23.1(1) of the JUDICATURE ACT

RSA 1980 cJ‑1 s23

Part 2.1
Vexatious Proceedings

Definitions

23(1) In this Part,

(a) “clerk of the Court” means

(i) in the case of the Court of Appeal, the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Court,

(ii) in the case of the Court of Queen’s Bench, a clerk, deputy clerk or acting clerk of the court of the judicial centre in which the proceeding is being instituted, and

(iii) in the case of the Provincial Court, a clerk or deputy clerk of the Court;

(b) “Court” means

(i) the Court of Appeal,

(ii) the Court of Queen’s Bench, or

(iii) the Provincial Court.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, instituting vexatious proceedings or conducting a proceeding in a vexatious manner includes, without limitation, any one or more of the following:

(a) persistently bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) persistently bringing proceedings that cannot succeed or that have no reasonable expectation of providing relief;

(d) persistently using previously raised grounds and issues in subsequent proceedings inappropriately;

(e) persistently failing to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings on the part of the person who commenced those proceedings;

(f) persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions;

(g) persistently engaging in inappropriate courtroom behaviour.

[98]

”[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.”

(R.V.THORBURN, 2010 ABQB390, PARA[57])

3. [99]

3.1.1.1. “the right of the individual to equality before the law

3.1.1.2. and protection of the law.”

4. ( Section 1(b) of the Bill of Rights)

5. [100]

5.1.1.“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

5.1.2.

5.1.3.(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;”

( Section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights)

7. [101]

8. “15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

( Section 15(1) of the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM)

[102]

ʻIn equity law the term fraud has a wider sense, and  includes all acts, omissions, or concealments by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another, or which equity or public policy forbids as being to another's prejudice; as acts in violation of trust and confidence. This is often called constructive, legal, or equitable fraud, or fraud in equity.ʼ Encyclopedia of Criminology 175 (Vernon C. Branham & Samuel B. Ku- tash eds., 1949), s.v. "Fraud."

“CONSTRUCTIVE [LEGAL] FRAUD comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving breach of, equitable or legal duty, trust or confidence and resulting in damage to another, 38 Ca!. Rptr. 148, I ~I

i,e., no scienter is required. Thus the party who makes the misrepresentation need not know that It false. See 437 S.w. 2d 20, 28.”

( BLACK LAW DICTIONARY, Eighth Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief page 686)

[103]

“EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ACTS.

3.1 Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, justice or judge is effective from the moment it is done, whether or not it is reduced to writing. 2002, c. 13, s. 2.”

c.c.

[104]

COURT OF JUSTICE ACT

Appointment of counsel

Section 8(6) If an interest affected is not represented by counsel, the court may request counsel to argue on behalf of the interest and the reasonable expenses of counsel shall be paid by the Minister of Finance. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 8 (6); 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 2.

Appeal

Section 8(7) The opinion of the court shall be deemed to be a judgment of the court and an appeal lies from it as from a judgment in an action. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 8 (7)

Idem

Section 7(5) A panel of the Court of Appeal may, on motion, set aside or vary the decision of a judge who hears and determines a motion. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 7

Court of Appeal judges

Section 13(2) A judge of the Court of Appeal is, by virtue of his or her office, a judge of the Superior Court of Justice and has all the jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 13 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT

PART I
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Court of Appeal

2.(1)The Court of Appeal for Ontario is continued as a superior court of record under the name Court of Appeal for Ontario in English and Cour d’appel de l’Ontario in French.

Idem

(2)The Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction conferred on it by this or any other Act, and in the exercise of its jurisdiction has all the powers historically exercised by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 2.

Assignment of judges from Superior Court of Justice

4.(1)The Chief Justice of Ontario, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, may assign a judge of the Superior Court of Justice to perform the work of a judge of the Court of Appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 4 (1); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (14, 17).

Superior Court of Justice judges

(2)A judge of the Superior Court of Justice is, by virtue of his or her office, a judge of the Court of Appeal and has all the jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Court of Appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 4 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

Court of Appeal jurisdiction

6.(1)An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from,

(a) an order of the Divisional Court, on a question that is not a question of fact alone, with leave of the Court of Appeal as provided in the rules of court;

(b) a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, except an order referred to in clause 19 (1) (a) or an order from which an appeal lies to the Divisional Court under another Act;

(c) a certificate of assessment of costs issued in a proceeding in the Court of Appeal, on an issue in respect of which an objection was served under the rules of court. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 6 (1); 1994, c. 12, s. 1; 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

Combining of appeals from other courts

(2)The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal that lies to the Divisional Court or the Superior Court of Justice if an appeal in the same proceeding lies to and is taken to the Court of Appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 6 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

Idem

(3)The Court of Appeal may, on motion, transfer an appeal that has already been commenced in the Divisional Court or the Superior Court of Justice to the Court of Appeal for the purpose of subsection (2). R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 6 (3); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

Superior Court of Justice

11.(1)The Ontario Court (General Division) is continued as a superior court of record under the name Superior Court of Justice in English and Cour supérieure de justice in French. 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (3).

Idem

(2)The Superior Court of Justice has all the jurisdiction, power and authority historically exercised by courts of common law and equity in England and Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 11 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

PART V
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS

Goals

71. The administration of the courts shall be carried on so as to,

(a) maintain the independence of the judiciary as a separate branch of government;

(b) recognize the respective roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General and the judiciary in the administration of justice;

(d) further the provision of high-quality services to the public; and

(e) promote the efficient use of public resources. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Role of Attorney General

72. The Attorney General shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of the courts, other than the following:

1. Matters that are assigned by law to the judiciary, including authority to direct and supervise the sittings and the assignment of the judicial duties of the court.

2. Matters related to the education, conduct and discipline of judges and justices of the peace, which are governed by other provisions of this Act, the Justices of the Peace Act and Acts of the Parliament of Canada.

3. Matters assigned to the judiciary by a memorandum of understanding under section 77. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Court officers and staff

Appointment

73. (1) Registrars, sheriffs, court clerks, assessment officers and any other administrative officers and employees that are considered necessary for the administration of the courts in Ontario may be appointed under Part III of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14; 2006, c. 35, Sched. C, s. 20 (3).

Exercise of powers

(2) A power or duty given to a registrar, sheriff, court clerk, bailiff, assessment officer, Small Claims Court referee or official examiner under an Act, regulation or rule of court may be exercised or performed by a person or class of persons to whom the power or duty has been assigned by the Deputy Attorney General or a person designated by the Deputy Attorney General. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Same

(3) Subsection (2) applies in respect of an Act, regulation or rule of court made under the authority of the Legislature or of the Parliament of Canada. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Destruction of documents

74. Documents and other materials that are no longer required in a court office shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the Deputy Attorney General, subject to the approval of,

(a) in the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of Ontario;

(b) in the Superior Court of Justice, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice;

Powers of chief or regional senior judge

75. (1) The powers and duties of a judge who has authority to direct and supervise the sittings and the assignment of the judicial duties of his or her court include the following:

1. Determining the sittings of the court.

2. Assigning judges to the sittings.

3. Assigning cases and other judicial duties to individual judges.

4. Determining the sitting schedules and places of sittings for individual judges.

5. Determining the total annual, monthly and weekly workload of individual judges.

6. Preparing trial lists and assigning courtrooms, to the extent necessary to control the determination of who is assigned to hear particular cases. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Powers re masters, case management masters

(2) Subsection (1) applies, with necessary modifications, in respect of directing and supervising the sittings and assigning the judicial duties of masters and case management masters. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Direction of court staff

76. (1) In matters that are assigned by law to the judiciary, registrars, court clerks, court reporters, interpreters and other court staff shall act at the direction of the chief justice of the court. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Same

(2) Court personnel referred to in subsection (1) who are assigned to and present in a courtroom shall act at the direction of the presiding judge, justice of the peace, master or case management master while the court is in session. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14; 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 20 (16).

Memoranda of understanding between Attorney General and Chief Justices

Court of Appeal

77. (1) The Attorney General and the Chief Justice of Ontario may enter into a memorandum of understanding governing any matter relating to the administration of the Court of Appeal. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Superior Court of Justice

(2) The Attorney General and the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice may enter into a memorandum of understanding governing any matter relating to the administration of that court. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Ontario Court of Justice

(3) The Attorney General and the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice may enter into a memorandum of understanding governing any matter relating to the administration of that court. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Scope

(4) A memorandum of understanding under this section may deal with the respective roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General and the judiciary in the administration of justice, but shall not deal with any matter assigned by law to the judiciary. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Publication

(5) The Attorney General shall ensure that each memorandum of understanding entered into under this section is made available to the public, in English and French. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

PART VI
JUDGES AND OFFICERS

Oath of office

80.Every judge or officer of a court in Ontario, including a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court, shall, before entering on the duties of office, take and sign the following oath or affirmation in either the English or French language:

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will faithfully, impartially and to the best of my skill and knowledge execute the duties of ..........................

So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)

1994, c. 12, s. 30.

Persona designata abolished

81.Where an adjudicative function is given by an Act to a judge or officer of a court in Ontario, the jurisdiction shall be deemed to be given to the court. 1994, c. 12, s. 31.

Liability of judges and other officers

82.The following persons have the same immunity from liability as judges of the Superior Court of Justice:

1. Judges of all courts in Ontario, including judges presiding in the Small Claims Court and deputy judges of that court.

2. Masters.

3. Case management masters. 1996, c. 25, ss. 1 (15), 9 (17).

83.Repealed: 1996, c. 25, s. 1 (16).

PART VII
COURT PROCEEDINGS

Application of Part

Civil proceedings

95.(1)This Part applies to civil proceedings in courts of Ontario.

Criminal proceedings

(2)Sections 109 (constitutional questions) and 123 (giving decisions), section 125 and subsection 126 (5) (language of proceedings) and sections 132 (judge sitting on appeal), 136 (prohibition against photography at court hearing) and 146 (where procedures not provided) also apply to proceedings under the Criminal Code (Canada), except in so far as they are inconsistent with that Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 95 (1, 2).

Provincial offences proceedings

(3)Sections 109 (constitutional questions), 125, 126 (language of proceedings), 132 (judge sitting on appeal), 136 (prohibition against photography at court hearings), 144 (arrest and committal warrants enforceable by police) and 146 (where procedures not provided) also apply to proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act and, for the purpose, a reference in one of those sections to a judge includes a justice of the peace presiding in the Ontario Court of Justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 95 (3); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (18).

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.

Jurisdiction for equitable relief

(3)Only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive of the Small Claims Court, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided. 1994, c. 12, s. 38; 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

Injunction in labour dispute

Definition

102.(1)In this section,

“labour dispute” means a dispute or difference concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.

Notice

(2)Subject to subsection (8), no injunction to restrain a person from an act in connection with a labour dispute shall be granted without notice.

Steps before injunction proceeding

(3)In a motion or proceeding for an injunction to restrain a person from an act in connection with a labour dispute, the court must be satisfied that reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance, protection and action to prevent or remove any alleged danger of damage to property, injury to persons, obstruction of or interference with lawful entry or exit from the premises in question or breach of the peace have been unsuccessful.

Evidence

(4)Subject to subsection (8), affidavit evidence in support of a motion for an injunction to restrain a person from an act in connection with a labour dispute shall be confined to statements of facts within the knowledge of the deponent, but any party may by notice to the party filing such affidavit, and payment of the proper attendance money, require the attendance of the deponent to be cross-examined at the hearing.

Interim injunction

(5)An interim injunction to restrain a person from an act in connection with a labour dispute may be granted for a period of not longer than four days.

Notice

(6)Subject to subsection (8), at least two days notice of a motion for an interim injunction to restrain a person from any act in connection with a labour dispute shall be given to the responding party and to any other person affected thereby but not named in the notice of motion.

Idem

(7)Notice required by subsection (6) to persons other than the responding party may be given,

(a) where such persons are members of a labour organization, by personal service on an officer or agent of the labour organization; and

(b) where such persons are not members of a labour organization, by posting the notice in a conspicuous place at the location of the activity sought to be restrained where it can be read by any persons affected,

and service and posting under this subsection shall be deemed to be sufficient notice to all such persons.

Interim injunction without notice

(8)Where notice as required by subsection (6) is not given, the court may grant an interim injunction where,

(a) the case is otherwise a proper one for the granting of an interim injunction;

(b) notice as required by subsection (6) could not be given because the delay necessary to do so would result in irreparable damage or injury, a breach of the peace or an interruption in an essential public service;

(c) reasonable notification, by telephone or otherwise, has been given to the persons to be affected or, where any of such persons are members of a labour organization, to an officer of that labour organization or to the person authorized under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act to accept service of process under that Act on behalf of that labour organization or trade union, or where it is shown that such notice could not have been given; and

(d) proof of all material facts for the purpose of clauses (a), (b) and (c) is established by oral evidence.

Misrepresentation as contempt of court

(9)The misrepresentation of any fact or the withholding of any qualifying relevant matter, directly or indirectly, in a proceeding for an injunction under this section, constitutes a contempt of court.

Interim order for recovery of personal property

104.(1)In an action in which the recovery of possession of personal property is claimed and it is alleged that the property,

(a) was unlawfully taken from the possession of the plaintiff; or

(b) is unlawfully detained by the defendant,

the court, on motion, may make an interim order for recovery of possession of the property.

Damages

(2)A person who obtains possession of personal property by obtaining or setting aside an interim order under subsection (1) is liable for any loss suffered by the person ultimately found to be entitled to possession of the property. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 104.

Procedural Matters

Jury trials

108. (1) In an action in the Superior Court of Justice that is not in the Small Claims Court, a party may require that the issues of fact be tried or the damages assessed, or both, by a jury, unless otherwise provided. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (1); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

Trials without jury

(2) The issues of fact and the assessment of damages in an action shall be tried without a jury in respect of a claim for any of the following kinds of relief:

1. Injunction or mandatory order.

2. Partition or sale of real property.

3. Relief in proceedings referred to in the Schedule to section 21.8.

4. Dissolution of a partnership or taking of partnership or other accounts.

5. Foreclosure or redemption of a mortgage.

6. Sale and distribution of the proceeds of property subject to any lien or charge.

7. Execution of a trust.

8. Rectification, setting aside or cancellation of a deed or other written instrument.

9. Specific performance of a contract.

10. Declaratory relief.

11. Other equitable relief.

12. Relief against a municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (2); 1994, c. 12, s. 41; 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 16.

Idem

(3) On motion, the court may order that issues of fact be tried or damages assessed, or both, without a jury. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (3).

Composition of jury

(4) Where a proceeding is tried with a jury, the jury shall be composed of six persons selected in accordance with the Juries Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (4).

Verdicts or questions

(5) Where a proceeding is tried with a jury,

(a) the judge may require the jury to give a general verdict or to answer specific questions, subject to section 15 of the Libel and Slander Act; and

(b) judgment may be entered in accordance with the verdict or the answers to the questions. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (5).

Idem

(6) It is sufficient if five of the jurors agree on the verdict or the answer to a question, and where more than one question is submitted, it is not necessary that the same five jurors agree to every answer. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (6).

Discharge of juror at trial

(7) The judge presiding at a trial may discharge a juror on the ground of illness, hardship, partiality or other sufficient cause. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (7).

Continuation with five jurors

(8) Where a juror dies or is discharged, the judge may direct that the trial proceed with five jurors, in which case the verdict or answers to questions must be unanimous. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (8).

Specifying negligent acts

(9) Where a proceeding to which subsection 193 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act applies is tried with a jury, the judge may direct the jury to specify negligent acts or omissions that caused the damages or injuries in respect of which the proceeding is brought. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (9).

Malicious prosecution

(10) In an action for malicious prosecution, the trier of fact shall determine whether or not there was reasonable and probable cause for instituting the prosecution. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108 (10).

Notice of constitutional question

109.(1)Notice of a constitutional question shall be served on the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario in the following circumstances:

1. The constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of an Act of the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature, of a regulation or by-law made under such an Act or of a rule of common law is in question.

2. A remedy is claimed under subsection 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to an act or omission of the Government of Canada or the Government of Ontario.

Failure to give notice

(2)If a party fails to give notice in accordance with this section, the Act, regulation, by-law or rule of common law shall not be adjudged to be invalid or inapplicable, or the remedy shall not be granted, as the case may be.

Form of notice

(2.1)The notice shall be in the form provided for by the rules of court or, in the case of a proceeding before a board or tribunal, in a substantially similar form.

Time of notice

(2.2)The notice shall be served as soon as the circumstances requiring it become known and, in any event, at least fifteen days before the day on which the question is to be argued, unless the court orders otherwise. 1994, c. 12, s. 42 (1).

Notice of appeal

(3)Where the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario are entitled to notice under subsection (1), they are entitled to notice of any appeal in respect of the constitutional question.

Right of Attorneys General to be heard

(4)Where the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General of Ontario is entitled to notice under this section, he or she is entitled to adduce evidence and make submissions to the court in respect of the constitutional question.

Right of Attorneys General to appeal

(5)Where the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General of Ontario makes submissions under subsection (4), he or she shall be deemed to be a party to the proceeding for the purpose of any appeal in respect of the constitutional question. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 109 (3-5).

Boards and tribunals

(6)This section applies to proceedings before boards and tribunals as well as to court proceedings. 1994, c. 12, s. 42 (2).

Proceeding in wrong forum

110.(1)Where a proceeding or a step in a proceeding is brought or taken before the wrong court, judge or officer, it may be transferred or adjourned to the proper court, judge or officer.

Continuation of proceeding

(2)A proceeding that is transferred to another court under subsection (1) shall be titled in the court to which it is transferred and shall be continued as if it had been commenced in that court. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 110.

[105] Pursuant to the BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY;

ʻIn equity law the term fraud has a wider sense, and  includes all acts, omissions, or concealments by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over an- other, or which equity or public policy forbids as being to another's prejudice; as acts in violation of trust and confi- dence. This is often called constructive, legal, or equitable fraud, or fraud in equity.ʼ Encyclopedia of Criminology 175 (Vernon C. Branham & Samuel B. Ku- tash eds., 1949), s.v. "Fraud."

“FRAUD intentional deception resulting in injury to another. Elements of fraud are: a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignorant of its truth; the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person

and in a manner reasonably contemplated; the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation; the person's rightful or justified reliance; and proximate injury to the person. See 310 F. 2d 262, 267. It "usually consists of a misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure of a material fact, or at least misleading conduct, devices, or contrivance." 234 F. Supp. 201, 203. It embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise to

CONSTRUCTIVE [LEGAL] FRAUD comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving breach of, equitable or legal duty, trust or confidence and resulting in damage to another, 38 Ca!. Rptr. 148, I ~I

i,e., no scienter is required. Thus the party who makes the misrepresentation need not know that It false. See 437 S.w. 2d 20, 28.

EXTRINSIC [COLLATERAL] FRAUD fraud that prevents a party from knowing about his rights or defenses or from having a fair opportunity of, presenting them at a trial, or from fully litigating at the trial all the rights or defenses that he was entitled to assert. 468 S.w. 2d 160, 163. It is a ground for equitable relief from a judgment. See 247 P. 2d 801”

( BLACK LAW DICTIONARY, Eighth Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief page 686)

“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”

(4, FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, page 29)

[106]

Obstructing justice

139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Idem

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 127;

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 3;

1972, c. 13, s. 8.

[107]

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.

Disobeying order of court

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[108]

Definitions

2. In this Act,

“Act”

« loi »

“Act” includes

(a) an Act of Parliament,

(b) an Act of the legislature of the former Province of Canada,

(d) an Act or ordinance of the legislature of a province, territory or place in force at the time that province, territory or place became a province of Canada;

“associated personnel”

« personnel associé »

“associated personnel” means persons who are

· (a) assigned by a government or an intergovernmental organization with the agreement of the competent organ of the United Nations,

· (b) engaged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by a specialized agency of the United Nations or by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or

· (c) deployed by a humanitarian non-governmental organization or agency under an agreement with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by a specialized agency of the United Nations or by the International Atomic Energy Agency,

to carry out activities in support of the fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation;

“Attorney General”

« procureur général »

“Attorney General”

· (a) subject to paragraphs (b.1) to (g), with respect to proceedings to which this Act applies, means the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes his or her lawful deputy,

· (b) with respect to the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, or with respect to proceedings commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government in respect of a contravention of, a conspiracy or attempt to contravene, or counselling the contravention of, any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any regulation made under such an Act, means the Attorney General of Canada and includes his or her lawful deputy,

· (b.1) with respect to proceedings in relation to an offence under subsection 7(2.01), means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them,

· (c) with respect to proceedings in relation to a terrorism offence or to an offence under section 57, 58, 83.12, 424.1 or 431.1 or in relation to an offence against a member of United Nations personnel or associated personnel under section 235, 236, 266, 267, 268, 269, 269.1, 271, 272, 273, 279 or 279.1, means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them,

· (d) with respect to proceedings in relation to

◦ (i) an offence referred to in subsection 7(3.71), or

◦ (ii) an offence referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1), where the act or omission was committed outside Canada but is deemed by virtue of subsection 7(2), (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1), (3.4), (3.6), (3.72) or (3.73) to have been committed in Canada,

means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them,

· (e) with respect to proceedings in relation to an offence where the act or omission constituting the offence

◦ (i) constitutes a terrorist activity referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1), and

◦ (ii) was committed outside Canada but is deemed by virtue of subsection 7(3.74) or (3.75) to have been committed in Canada,

means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them,

· (f) with respect to proceedings under section 83.13, 83.14, 83.28, 83.29 or 83.3, means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them, and

· (g) with respect to proceedings in relation to an offence referred to in sections 380, 382, 382.1 and 400, means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them;

[109]

In what cases justice may receive information

504. Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice, and the justice shall receive the information, where it is alleged

(a) that the person has committed, anywhere, an indictable offence that may be tried in the province in which the justice resides, and that the person

(i) is or is believed to be, or

(ii) resides or is believed to reside,

within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(b) that the person, wherever he may be, has committed an indictable offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(c) that the person has, anywhere, unlawfully received property that was unlawfully obtained within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; or

(d) that the person has in his possession stolen property within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 455;

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

506. An information laid under section 504 or 505 may be in Form 2.

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

Justice to hear informant and witnesses — public prosecutions

507. (1) Subject to subsection 523(1.1), a justice who receives an information laid under section 504 by a peace officer, a public officer, the Attorney General or the Attorney General’s agent, other than an information laid before the justice under section 505, shall, except if an accused has already been arrested with or without a warrant,

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so; and

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, issue, in accordance with this section, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence.

Process compulsory

(2) No justice shall refuse to issue a summons or warrant by reason only that the alleged offence is one for which a person may be arrested without warrant.

Procedure when witnesses attend

(3) A justice who hears the evidence of a witness pursuant to subsection (1) shall

(a) take the evidence on oath; and

(b) cause the evidence to be taken in accordance with section 540 in so far as that section is capable of being applied.

Summons to be issued except in certain cases

(4) Where a justice considers that a case is made out for compelling an accused to attend before him to answer to a charge of an offence, he shall issue a summons to the accused unless the allegations of the informant or the evidence of any witness or witnesses taken in accordance with subsection (3) discloses reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary in the public interest to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

No process in blank

(5) A justice shall not sign a summons or warrant in blank.

Endorsement of warrant by justice

(6) A justice who issues a warrant under this section or section 508 or 512 may, unless the offence is one mentioned in section 522, authorize the release of the accused pursuant to section 499 by making an endorsement on the warrant in Form 29.

Promise to appear or recognizance deemed to have been confirmed

(7) Where, pursuant to subsection (6), a justice authorizes the release of an accused pursuant to section 499, a promise to appear given by the accused or a recognizance entered into by the accused pursuant to that section shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection 145(5), to have been confirmed by a justice under section 508.

Issue of summons or warrant

(8) Where, on an appeal from or review of any decision or matter of jurisdiction, a new trial or hearing or a continuance or renewal of a trial or hearing is ordered, a justice may issue either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused in order to compel the accused to attend at the new or continued or renewed trial or hearing.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 507;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 78;

1994, c. 44, s. 43;

2002, c. 13, s. 21.

Referral when private prosecution

507.1 (1) A justice who receives an information laid under section 504, other than an information referred to in subsection 507(1), shall refer it to a provincial court judge or, in Quebec, a judge of the Court of Quebec, or to a designated justice, to consider whether to compel the appearance of the accused on the information.

Summons or warrant

(2) A judge or designated justice to whom an information is referred under subsection (1) and who considers that a case for doing so is made out shall issue either a summons or warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel him or her to attend before a justice to answer to a charge of the offence charged in the information.

Conditions for issuance

(3) The judge or designated justice may issue a summons or warrant only if he or she

(a) has heard and considered the allegations of the informant and the evidence of witnesses;

(b) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received a copy of the information;

(d) has given the Attorney General an opportunity to attend the hearing under paragraph (a) and to cross-examine and call witnesses and to present any relevant evidence at the hearing.

Appearance of Attorney General

(4) The Attorney General may appear at the hearing held under paragraph (3)(a) without being deemed to intervene in the proceeding.

Information deemed not to have been laid

(5) If the judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant under subsection (2), he or she shall endorse the information with a statement to that effect. Unless the informant, not later than six months after the endorsement, commences proceedings to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

Information deemed not to have been laid — proceedings commenced

(6) If proceedings are commenced under subsection (5) and a summons or warrant is not issued as a result of those proceedings, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

New evidence required for new hearing

(7) If a hearing in respect of an offence has been held under paragraph (3)(a) and the judge or designated justice has not issued a summons or a warrant, no other hearings may be held under that paragraph with respect to the offence or an included offence unless there is new evidence in support of the allegation in respect of which the hearing is sought to be held.

Subsections 507(2) to (8) to apply

(8) Subsections 507(2) to (8) apply to proceedings under this section.

Non-application — informations laid under sections 810 and 810.1

(9) Subsections (1) to (8) do not apply in respect of an information laid under section 810 or 810.1.

Definition of “designated justice”

(10) In this section, “designated justice” means a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter or, in Quebec, a justice designated by the chief judge of the Court of Quebec.

Meaning of “Attorney General”

(11) In this section, “Attorney General” includes the Attorney General of Canada and his or her lawful deputy in respect of proceedings that could have been commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

2002, c. 13, s. 22;

2008, c. 18, s. 16.

Justice to hear informant and witnesses

508. (1) A justice who receives an information laid before him under section 505 shall

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so;

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, whether the information relates to the offence alleged in the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance or to an included or other offence,

(i) confirm the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and endorse the information accordingly, or

(ii) cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and issue, in accordance with section 507, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence and endorse on the summons or warrant that the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, has been cancelled; and

(c) where he considers that a case is not made out for the purposes of paragraph (b), cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and cause the accused to be notified forthwith of the cancellation.

Procedure when witnesses attend

(2) A justice who hears the evidence of a witness pursuant to subsection (1) shall

(a) take the evidence on oath; and

(b) cause the evidence to be taken in accordance with section 540 in so far as that section is capable of being applied.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 508;

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

Taking evidence

540. (1) Where an accused is before a justice holding a preliminary inquiry, the justice shall

(a) take the evidence under oath of the witnesses called on the part of the prosecution and allow the accused or counsel for the accused to cross-examine them; and

(b) cause a record of the evidence of each witness to be taken

(i) in legible writing in the form of a deposition, in Form 31, or by a stenographer appointed by him or pursuant to law, or

(ii) in a province where a sound recording apparatus is authorized by or under provincial legislation for use in civil cases, by the type of apparatus so authorized and in accordance with the requirements of the provincial legislation.

[110]

Review by court of appeal

680. (1) A decision made by a judge under section 522 or subsection 524(4) or (5) or a decision made by a judge of the court of appeal under section 261 or 679 may, on the direction of the chief justice or acting chief justice of the court of appeal, be reviewed by that court and that court may, if it does not confirm the decision,

(a) vary the decision; or

(b) substitute such other decision as, in its opinion, should have been made.

Single judge acting

(2) On consent of the parties, the powers of the court of appeal under subsection (1) may be exercised by a judge of that court.

Enforcement of decision

(3) A decision as varied or substituted under this section shall have effect and may be enforced in all respects as though it were the decision originally made.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 680;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 142;

1994, c. 44, s. 68.

681. [Repealed, 1991, c. 43, s. 9]

Report by judge

682. (1) Where, under this Part, an appeal is taken or an application for leave to appeal is made, the judge or provincial court judge who presided at the trial shall, at the request of the court of appeal or a judge thereof, in accordance with rules of court, furnish it or him with a report on the case or on any matter relating to the case that is specified in the request.

Transcript of evidence

(2) A copy or transcript of

(a) the evidence taken at the trial,

(b) any charge to the jury and any objections that were made to a charge to the jury,

(d) the addresses of the prosecutor and the accused, if a ground for the appeal is based on either of the addresses,

shall be furnished to the court of appeal, except in so far as it is dispensed with by order of a judge of that court.

(3) [Repealed, 1997, c. 18, s. 96]

Copies to interested parties

(4) A party to an appeal is entitled to receive, on payment of any charges that are fixed by rules of court, a copy or transcript of any material that is prepared under subsections (1) and (2).

Copy for Minister of Justice

(5) The Minister of Justice is entitled, on request, to receive a copy or transcript of any material that is prepared under subsections (1) and (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 682;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 143, 203;

1997, c. 18, s. 96.

Powers of court of appeal

683. (1) For the purposes of an appeal under this Part, the court of appeal may, where it considers it in the interests of justice,

(a) order the production of any writing, exhibit or other thing connected with the proceedings;

(b) order any witness who would have been a compellable witness at the trial, whether or not he was called at the trial,

(i) to attend and be examined before the court of appeal, or

(ii) to be examined in the manner provided by rules of court before a judge of the court of appeal, or before any officer of the court of appeal or justice of the peace or other person appointed by the court of appeal for the purpose;

(d) receive the evidence, if tendered, of any witness, including the appellant, who is a competent but not compellable witness;

(e) order that any question arising on the appeal that

(i) involves prolonged examination of writings or accounts, or scientific or local investigation, and

(ii) cannot in the opinion of the court of appeal conveniently be inquired into before the court of appeal,

be referred for inquiry and report, in the manner provided by rules of court, to a special commissioner appointed by the court of appeal;

(f) act on the report of a commissioner who is appointed under paragraph (e) in so far as the court of appeal thinks fit to do so; and

(g) amend the indictment, unless it is of the opinion that the accused has been misled or prejudiced in his defence or appeal.

Parties entitled to adduce evidence and be heard

(2) In proceedings under this section, the parties or their counsel are entitled to examine or cross-examine witnesses and, in an inquiry under paragraph (1)(e), are entitled to be present during the inquiry, to adduce evidence and to be heard.

[111]

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/INFORMANT

-and-

HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

__________________________________________

SCHEDULE B

(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/ INFORMANT)

__________________________________________

SCHEDULE B

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL BE USED:

AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON;

AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS;

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, REPORT ON THE PREVENTION OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE(FPT HEADS OF PROSECUTIONS COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP);

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA, WORKING PAPER 52, PRIVATE PROSECUTION (1986);

REPORT OF THE CHIEFT JUSTICE OF ONTARO UPON THE OPENING OF THE COURTS OF ONTARIO FOR 2007(Cief Justice R. Roy McMamurtry);

THE JUDICIAL ROLE IN A DEMOCRATIC STATE, 1999 CONSTITUTIONAL CASES CONFERENCE(Rosalie Silberman Abella);

MARTIN REPORT;

R. V. VASARHELYI, 2011 ONCA 397(C50698);

MANDAMUS MOTION RECORD(C 51190 / M 38706);

MOTION RECORD(C 51190 / M 38706);

January 18, 2007 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559);

March 11, 2013 TRANSCRIPTS (CR-70000061);

February 04, 2013 TRANSCRIPTS (CR-70000061/62);

October 09, 2013 TRANSCRIPTS (CR-70000061/62);

July 30, 2013 TRANSCRIPTS (CR-70000061/62);

June 18, 2013 TRANSCRIPTS (CR-70000062/98);

April 30, 2013 TRANSCRIPTS (CR-70000061/62);

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 for CR-12-01264 et al;

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT;

ATTORNEY GENERALS PRACTICE DIRECTIONS;

Such other evidence as counsel may offer and this Honourable Court admit.

THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES AND EVIDENCE:

1. Edmond, Re, 2011 NBSECE 4

2. YOUNG OFFENDER ACT(PEI) [1991] 1.S.C.R.

3. Daviault [1994] 3.R.C.S

4. 2004 NLCA 27

5. Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 2009 ABQB 482

6. R. v. Vasarhelyi, 2011 ONCA 397

7. Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc

8. R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39

9. R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390

10. R. v. Labadie, 2011 ONCA 22

11. R. v. Wells, 2012 ABQB 77

12. reference re YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT (P.E.I),

13. CERTIFIED COPY OF Jason Gorda's RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M61/12)

14. Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170

15. CASE LAW- Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raymond Li, Docket: 2004-00034

16. CASE LAW- Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raymond Li, Docket: 2004-00040

17. R. V. Little john & Tirabasso, [1978], 41 C.C.C. (2d) 161, “this court accept as self-evident the proposition that a person charged with a serious offence is under a grave disadvantage if, for any reason, he is deprived of the assistance of competent counsel:” see p. 173:,

18. R. v. Rowbotham

19. R. v. McGibbon

20. Jason Gorda for the Crown improperly filed RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION RECORD(M61/12), containing a FALSE AFFIDAVIT of Gail Hugh(TAB 6), what seems to be a fraudulent INVOICE # 267-10(May 18, 2010)(TAB 8), AND FALSE EVIDENCE OR MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE which contradicts the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO EXHIBITS CRIMINAL(C51190)

21. Justice Pepall August 10, 2013 court order ;

22. Deborah Kirck’s RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION RECORD M42322 (TAB 4) Pursuant to the COURT ORDER of .I. Andre J. which prohibits WAYNE FERRON, the Private Prosecutor from exercising his legal rights without leave of “RSJ” in any court. Pursuant to APPENDIX “A” in the unsigned and improperly served without reasonable notice RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Kirk, which 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.”

23. MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, REPORT ON THE PREVENTION OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE(FPT HEADS OF PROSECUTIONS COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP);

24. LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA, WORKING PAPER 52, PRIVATE PROSECUTION (1986);

25. MS. JOANNE STUART'S, 22 PAGE 9 MONTHS PRUDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT;

26. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS;

27. FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK;

28. ATTORNEY GENERALS PRACTICE DIRECTIONS;

29. MARTIN REPORT;

30. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW(David J. Mullan)

31. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW(Professor Paul P. Craig)

32. AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON(INFORMANT) WITH EXHIBIT

CASE LAW:

1) Mackay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357

2) Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959

3) Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raymond Li; May 10, 2004; Docket: 2004-00034

4) Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raymond Li, 2004 ONLSAP 0011

5) R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39

6) Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63

7) Halifax Insurance Company v. O’Donnell, Absher, Allen and Gamblin, 2001 NBCA , NBCA 109n

8) Ontario Supreme Court R. v. Duong; 1998-09-08; Court File No. P459/97

9) Beals v. Saldanha, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, 2003 SCC 72

10) (Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) [1963] UKHL 2 (14 March 1963); page 25, at 44)

11) Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177

12)Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judicial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869

13) HOWAED BUCHBInDER and her majesty the queen; file no: 16761; [1983] 2 r.c.s.

14) ross dowson and her majesty the queen; file no: 16818; [1983] 2 r.c.s.

15) R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55

16) R. v. Vasarhelyi, 2011 ONCA 397

17) Jeffrey Green, 2011 ONCJ 63

18) McHale v. Attorney General (Ontario), 2011 ONSC 4365

19) R. v. Drozd, 2011 ONCJ 51

20) R. v. Hughes, 2011 ONSC 4858

21) R. v. Hynes, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623, 2001 SCC 82

22)

23) (DISCLOSURE, PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN POLICY MANUAL, March 21, 2005 )

24)Rule 1.04, MARTIN’S ONTARIO CRIMINAL PRACTICE 2004

25)RULE 4, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

26)RULE 2, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

27) David Mullan, ESSENTIALS OF CANADIAN LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

28)MARTIN REPORT, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING, DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

29)FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK

30)ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DIRECTIVE

31)RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER

32) CANADA, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2000: RULE 4.01 (3),

33) COMMENTARY NOTE: Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct made May 23, 2002, June 28, 2002, October 30, 2002.

34)(Rosalie Silberman Abella Justice, Court of Appeal for Ontario, The Law Society of Upper Canada Professionalism Revisited, Opening Address Benchers', Retreathttp://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/professionalism.htm)

35)MARTIN REPORT

36) INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

37)Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry, 2007 Report of the Court of Appeal for Ontario http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/archives/ocs/2007.htm)

38)Bill of Rights Preamble, Preamble

39)R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of human rights and freedoms, Preamble.

40) SELF-REPRESENTATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA: REMOVING A FALSE RIGHT OF SPECTACLE, by Eugene Cerruti, in the GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

41)

LEGISLATION:

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

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

Pronouncement of judgment

Copies to be sent

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

(a) by registered mail;

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

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

Proof of receipt

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

SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

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

Pronouncement of judgment

Copies to be sent

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

(a) by registered mail;

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

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

Proof of receipt

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

SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

Section 1(b) of the Bill of Rights

Section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights

Section 15(1) of the CHARTER

Section 24(1) of the CHARTER

Section 15(1) of the CHARTER

Section 8(6), Section 8(7) of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT

RULE 21.02-MOTION TO BE MADE PROMPTLY

RULE1.02 (1) These rules are enacted pursuant to subsection 482(1) of the Criminal Code ...

RULE 1.04 (1) These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding

RULE 1.05 The interpretation sections of the Code apply to these rules.

2.01 A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity

(a) ...to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute

(b) only where and as necessary in the interests of justice, may

set aside the proceeding...

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 various elements of the requirement that 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)

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

NOTICE:

ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 233

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 furnished prior to the hearing with reasonable information of any allegations with respect thereto. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 8.

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 227-229)

Application of Part

Civil proceedings

95.(1)This Part applies to civil proceedings in courts of Ontario.

Criminal proceedings

Provincial offences proceedings

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.

Jurisdiction for equitable relief

(3)Only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive of the Small Claims Court, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided. 1994, c. 12, s. 38; 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

“ONTARIO REGULATION 587/91

COURT REPORTERS AND COURT MONITORS

1. In this Regulation, “court monitor” means court electronic equipment operator. O. Reg. 587/91, s. 1.

2. (1) Court reporters and court monitors shall be paid

the following fees for attendances and services requested by an official of the Ministry of the Attorney General and performed on or after the 1st day of January, 1990: ...”

507.1 (1) A justice who receives an information laid under section 504, other than an information referred to in subsection 507(1), shall refer it to a provincial court judge or, in Quebec, a judge of the Court of Quebec, or to a designated justice, to consider whether to compel the appearance of the accused on the information.

Marginal note:Summons or warrant

(2) A judge or designated justice to whom an information is referred under subsection (1) and who considers that a case for doing so is made out shall issue either a summons or warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel him or her to attend before a justice to answer to a charge of the offence charged in the information.

Marginal note:Conditions for issuance

(3) The judge or designated justice may issue a summons or warrant only if he or she

(a) has heard and considered the allegations of the informant and the evidence of witnesses;

(b) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received a copy of the information;

(d) has given the Attorney General an opportunity to attend the hearing under paragraph (a) and to cross-examine and call witnesses and to present any relevant evidence at the hearing.

Marginal note:Appearance of Attorney General

(4) The Attorney General may appear at the hearing held under paragraph (3)(a) without being deemed to intervene in the proceeding.

Marginal note:Information deemed not to have been laid

Marginal note:Information deemed not to have been laid — proceedings commenced

(6) If proceedings are commenced under subsection (5) and a summons or warrant is not issued as a result of those proceedings, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

Marginal note:New evidence required for new hearing

Marginal note:Subsections 507(2) to (8) to apply

(8) Subsections 507(2) to (8) apply to proceedings under this section.

Marginal note:Non-application — informations laid under sections 810 and 810.1

(9) Subsections (1) to (8) do not apply in respect of an information laid under section 810 or 810.1.

Marginal note:Definition of “designated justice”

(10) In this section, “designated justice” means a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter or, in Quebec, a justice designated by the chief judge of the Court of Quebec.

Meaning of “Attorney General”

(11) In this section, “Attorney General” includes the Attorney General of Canada and his or her lawful deputy in respect of proceedings that could have been commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

2002, c. 13, s. 22; 2008, c. 18, s. 16.

Right to make full answer and defence

650.(3) An accused is entitled, after the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and defence personally or by counsel. 1991, c. 43, s. 9 (Sched., item 4); 1994, c. 44, s. 61; 1997, c. 18,

s.77(2).

802.(1) The prosecutor is entitled personally to conduct his case and the defendant is entitled to make his full answer and defence.(ib)

Breach of trust by public officer

122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person. R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

29.(2) It is the duty of every one who arrests a person, whether with or without a warrant, to give notice to that person, where it is feasible to do so, of

(a) the process or warrant under which he makes the arrest; or

(b) the reason for the arrest.

35.(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

29. (1) It is the duty of every one who executes a process or warrant to have it with him, where it is feasible to do so, and to produce it when requested to do so.

(2) It is the duty of every one who arrests a person, whether with or without a warrant, to give notice to that person, where it is feasible to do so, of

(a) the process or warrant under which he makes the arrest; or

(b) the reason for the arrest.

(3) Failure to comply with subsection (1) or (2) does not of itself deprive a person who executes a process or warrant, or a person who makes an arrest, or those who assist them, of protection from criminal responsibility.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 29.

67.(1) The driver of an emergency vehicle that is:

(a) used for the transportation of a peace officer in the performance of his duties; may, while an emergency exists and only while the emergency device and emergency light are in operation, drive contrary to this Act, the regulations or a traffic bylaw where it is necessary in the circumstances to do so.

POLICE SERVICE ACT:

Declaration of principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provocation

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST UNPROVOKED ASSAULT

34.(1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself. ...

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

SELF-DEFENCE IN CASE OF AGGRESSION

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to assault ...

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Preventing assault

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

Assault

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

Application

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Consent

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(d) the exercise of authority.

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.

139.(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

WARRANTLESS ARREST

495. (2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for

(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or

497. (1.1) A peace officer shall not release a person under subsection (1) if the peace officer believes, on reasonable grounds,

(b) that if the person is released from custody, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

INFORMATION AND PROCESS

788. (1) Proceedings under this Part shall be commenced by laying an information in Form 2.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law that requires an information to be laid before or to be tried by two or more justices, one justice may

(a) receive the information;

(b) issue a summons or warrant with respect to the information; and

R.S., c. C-34, s. 723.

Time within which information to be laid in certain cases

505. Where

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

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

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

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

506. An information laid under section 504 or 505 may be in Form 2.

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

508. (1) A justice who receives an information laid before him under section 505 shall

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so;

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, whether the information relates to the offence alleged in the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance or to an included or other offence,

(i) confirm the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and endorse the information accordingly, or

509. (5) A summons may require the accused to appear at a time and place stated in it for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act, where the accused is alleged to have committed an indictable offence and, in the case of an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has not made an election under section 50 of that Act.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 509; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 80; 1992, c. 47, s. 71; 1996, c. 7, s. 38; 2008, c. 18, s. 17.

798. Every summary conviction court has jurisdiction to try, determine and adjudge proceedings to which this Part applies in the territorial division over which the person who constitutes that court has jurisdiction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 733.

523.(1) Where an accused, in respect of an offence with which he is charged, has not been taken into custody or has been released from custody under or by virtue of any provision of this Part, the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance issue to, given or entered into by the accused continues in force, subject to its terms, and applies in respect of any new information charging the same offence or an included offence that was received after the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance was issued, given or entered into...”

“523.(1.1) Where an accused, in respect of an offence with which he is charged, has not been taken into custody or is being detained or has been released from custody under or by virtue of any provision of this Part and after the order for interim release or detention has been made, or the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance has been issued, given or entered into, a new information, charging the same offence or an included offence, is received, section 507 or 508, as the case may be, does not apply in respect of the new information...”

“523.(3) The provision of section 517, 518 and 519 apply, with such modification as the circumstances require, in respect of any proceedings under subsection (2), except that subsection 518(2) does not apply in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence listed in section 469...”

(2004 edition of MARTIN’S CRIMINAL CODE)

128. Every peace officer or coroner who, being entrusted with the execution of a process, wilfully

(a) misconducts himself in the execution of the process, or

(b) makes a false return to the process, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

132. Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 132; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17; 1998, c. 35, s. 119.

133. No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 132 on the evidence of only one witness unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 133; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.

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.

CHARTER:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

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

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

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been in-fringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Exception (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.

Human Rights Act:

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

(Human Rights Act, S. 1)

Reprisals

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

Infringement prohibited

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

Civil Code of Quebec:

GIVEN s. 6, 7 and 1375 of the Civil Code of Quebec:

"Art. 6. Every person is bound to exercise his civil rights in good

faith.

Art. 7. No right may be exercised with the intent of injuring

another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner which is

contrary to the requirements of good faith."

"Art. 1375. The parties shall conduct themselves in good faith

both at the time the obligation is created and at the time it is

performed or extinguished.";

© Éditeur officiel du Québec

R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of human rights and freedoms

Preamble.

WHEREAS every human being possesses intrinsic rights and freedoms designed to ensure his protection and development;

Whereas all human beings are equal in worth and dignity, and are entitled to equal protection of the law;

Whereas respect for the dignity of human beings, equality of women and men, and recognition of their rights and freedoms constitute the foundation of justice, liberty and peace;

Whereas the rights and freedoms of the human person are inseparable from the rights and freedoms of others and from the common well-being;

Whereas it is expedient to solemnly declare the fundamental human rights and freedoms in a Charter, so that they may be guaranteed by the collective will and better protected against any violation;

Therefore, Her Majesty, with the advice and consent of the National Assembly of Québec, enacts as follows:

PART I

HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

CHAPTER I

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS

1982, c. 61, s. 1.

Right to life.

1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.

Fundamental freedoms.

3. Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

1975, c. 6, s. 3.

Safeguard of dignity.

4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.1975, c. 6, s. 4.

Respect for private life.

5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.

1975, c. 6, s. 5.

Peaceful enjoyment of property.

Right to secrecy.

9. Every person has a right to non-disclosure of confidential information.

Disclosure of confidential information.

No person bound to professional secrecy by law and no priest or other minister of religion may, even in judicial proceedings, disclose confidential information revealed to him by reason of his position or profession, unless he is authorized to do so by the person who confided such information to him or by an express provision of law.

Duty of tribunal.

The tribunal must, ex officio, ensure that professional secrecy is respected.1975, c. 6, s. 9.

Exercise of rights and freedoms.

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

Scope fixed by law.

In this respect, the scope of the freedoms and rights, and limits to their exercise, may be fixed by law.1982, c. 61, s. 2.

CHAPTER I.1

RIGHT TO EQUAL RECOGNITION AND EXERCISE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

1982, c. 61, s. 2.

Discrimination forbidden.

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

Discrimination defined.

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

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

Harassment.

10.1. No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10.1982, c. 61, s. 4.

Treatment of person arrested.

25. Every person arrested or detained must be treated with humanity and with the respect due to the human person.

1975, c. 6, s. 25.

Right to information.

44. Every person has a right to information to the extent provided by law.

1975, c. 6, s. 44.

50. The Charter shall not be so interpreted as to suppress or limit the enjoyment or exercise of any human right or freedom not enumerated herein.

1975, c. 6, s. 50.

Rights guaranteed.

50.1. The rights and freedoms set forth in this Charter are guaranteed equally to women and men.2008, c. 15, s. 2.

No extension of provision of law.

51. The Charter shall not be so interpreted as to extend, limit or amend the scope of a provision of law except to the extent provided in section 52.

1975, c. 6, s. 51.

Sections to prevail over subsequent Act.

52. No provision of any Act, even subsequent to the Charter, may derogate from sections 1 to 38, except so far as provided by those sections, unless such Act expressly states that it applies despite the Charter.

1975, c. 6, s. 52; 1982, c. 61, s. 16.

Doubt in interpretation.

53. If any doubt arises in the interpretation of a provision of the Act, it shall be resolved in keeping with the intent of the Charter.1975, c. 6, s. 53.

State bound.

54. The Charter binds the State.

1975, c. 6, s. 54; 1999, c. 40, s. 46.

Jurisdiction of Charter.

55. The Charter affects those matters that come under the legislative authority of Québec.1975, c. 6, s. 55.

BILL OF RIGHTS:

An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Preamble

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;

And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:

Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

PART I

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(d) freedom of speech;

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

Construction of law

2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, 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;

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS:

FRUIT-OF-THE-POISONOUS-TREE DOCTRINE

“fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Criminal procedure. The rule that evidence derived from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible because the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted by the illegality (the “poisonous tree”).

(Blacks Law Dictionary, page 693)

“constructive fraud. 1. Unintentional deception or misrepresentation that causes injury to another. Also termed legal fraud; fraud in contemplation of law; equitable fraud; fraud in equity. 2. See fraud in

law. [Cases: Fraud =>5.]

‘In equity law the term fraud has a wider sense, and

includes all acts, omissions, or concealments by which one

person obtains an advantage against conscience over an-

other, or which equity or public policy forbids as being to

another's prejudice; as acts in violation of trust and confi-

dence. This is often called constructive, legal, or equitable

fraud, or fraud in equity.’

Encyclopedia of Criminology 175 (Vernon C. Branham & Samuel B. Kutash eds., 1949), s.v. "Fraud."

“FRAUD intentional deception resulting in injury to another. Elements of fraud are: a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignorant of its truth; the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person

and in a manner reasonably contemplated; the person's ignorance of the

falsity of the representation; the person's rightful or justified reliance; and

proximate injury to the person. See 310 F. 2d 262, 267.

It "usually consists of a misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure of a material fact, or at least misleading conduct, devices, or contrivance." 234 F. Supp. 201, 203. It embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise to

CONSTRUCTIVE [LEGAL] FRAUD comprises all acts, omissions, and

concealments involving breach of, equitable or legal duty, trust or

confidence and resulting in damage to another, 38 Ca!. Rptr. 148, I ~I

i,e., no scienter is required. Thus the party who makes the misrepresentation need not know that It false. See 437 S.w. 2d 20, 28.

ground for equitable relief from a judgment. See 247 P. 2d 801”

( BLACK LAW DICTIONARY, Eighth Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief page 686)

ASSAULT. 1

“Every one who without the consent of another person, applies force intentionally to that other person directly or indirectly commits an assault

(s. 265(1)(a)).

Every one who by an act or a gesture attempts or threatens to apply force to another person if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose commits an assault (s. 265(1)(b)).

3. Every one who while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof accosts or impedes another person or begs commits an assault (s. 265(1)(b)).”

(THE POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL)

ABUSE OF PROCESS.

I. Pursuant to this common law doctrine, a court of competent jurisdiction has inherent power to prevent the abuse of its process by staying proceedings. This power is to be exercised in favour of the accused where compelling the accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community's sense of fair play and decency and to prevent the abuse of a court's process through oppressive and vexatious proceedings (R. v. Jewitt (1985), 47 C.R. (3d) 193 (S.c.c.)). It is limited to the clearest of cases. An additional protection against an abuse of process is found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7).

2. The onus of establishing that an abuse of process has occurred is on the respondent who must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Crown has acted in an oppressive or vexatious manner or that the prosecution is offensive to the principles of fundamental justice and fair play (R. v. D. (T.c.) (1987), 38 c.c.c. (:Id) 434 (Ont. C.A.)).

(THE POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL of Criminal Offence and Criminal Law, Gary P. Prodrigues, CARSWELL 2000 page 8 - page 9)

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

40.06(11) Upon signing a certificate, each reporter shall proceed with reasonable diligence to prepare and certify the transcript and shall, upon completion, forthwith notify each party and the clerk, in writing, that the transcript has been completed.

40.06(12) Unless an appeal has been wholly abandoned, after a transcript has been ordered, the completion of the transcript shall not be suspended nor the order countermanded except pursuant to an order of a judge made in accordance with rule 2.02.

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

8. (1) This rule does not apply to inmate appeals.

(13) In the event of difficulty in settling the statement of facts, counsel for either party may, on notice, attend upon a judge for directions.

Date of order and completion

(14) The transcript shall include a note of the date the transcript was ordered and the date the ordering party was notified that the transcript was completed.

Completion not to be suspended

(15) After a transcript has been ordered, the completion of the transcript shall not be suspended or the order countermanded without an order of a judge or the Registrar, unless the appeal has been wholly abandoned and the court reporter notified in accordance with subrule 30(3).

Notification of completion

8.(16) When the transcript has been completed, the court reporter shall forthwith notify the parties and the Registrar, and shall, upon payment, deliver the copies of the transcript for use of the court to the Registrar.

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

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

Rule 21(3) which requires the respondent factum to be filed at least 10 days before the week in which the appeal is to be heard

2.01 A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity and does not render a proceeding or a step, document or order in a proceeding a nullity, and the court,

a) may grant all necessary amendments or other relief in accordance with rule 2.02 on such terms as are just, to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute;or

b) only where and as necessary in the interests of justice, may set aside the proceeding or a step, document or order in the proceeding in whole or in part

2.02 The court may, only where and as necessary in the interests of justice, dispense with compliance with the rules.

x) any other factors the judge determines are relevant to the application.

[318] The rules must also be interpreted in the context of the trial process, a process which often changes from day to day. The comments of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Archer[75] with regard to defence tactics and positions apply with equal force to the Crown:

(Report to Chief Justice Smith, New Approaches to Criminal Trials THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/reports/ctr/index.htm)

Recommendations regarding Police Services

1. All parties involved in the provision of the constitutional right to disclosure are strongly encouraged to resolve the outstanding issues regarding the costs and provision of disclosure, and to implement all outstanding recommendations regarding disclosure in the Martin Report and Criminal Justice Review.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Agree upon the following articles:

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 10

1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Article 11

No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Article 14

1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

Article 15

1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.

2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 50

The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 51

2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their own respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Recommendation 13:

“The State party should review the Canada Evidence Act so as to guarantee the right of all persons to a fair trial, and in particular, to ensure that individuals cannot be condemned on the basis of evidence to which they, or those representing them, do not have full access. The State party, bearing in mind the Committee’s general comment No. 29 (2001) on states of emergency, should in no case invoke exceptional circumstances as justification for deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial.”

(The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Interim Report in follow-up to the review of Canada’s Fifth Report November 2006)

The facts pleaded are to be taken as proved(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959) .

RULE 21.01(1)(a) of CIVIL PROCEDURE-...question of law raised in pleading...

RULE 21.01(2) of CIVIL PROCEDURE-...no evidence is admissible without leave...

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS RIGHTS, is a constraint on all administrative process, including any legal process even though it is rearly ever mentioned.

RULE 21.02-MOTION TO BE MADE PROMPTLY

RULE1.02 (1) These rules are enacted pursuant to subsection 482(1) of the Criminal Code ...

RULE 1.04 (1) These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding

RULE 1.05 The interpretation sections of the Code apply to these rules.

2.01 A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity

(a) ...to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute

(b) only where and as necessary in the interests of justice, may

set aside the proceeding...

NATURAL JUSTICE

HEAR THE OTHER SIDE(AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM):

ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 232

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

NOTICE:

ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 233

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

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 furnished prior to the hearing with reasonable information of any allegations with respect thereto. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 8.

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE RENDERS A DECISION VOID:

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 227-229

Application of Part

Civil proceedings

95.(1)This Part applies to civil proceedings in courts of Ontario.

Criminal proceedings

Provincial offences proceedings

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.

Jurisdiction for equitable relief

(3)Only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive of the Small Claims Court, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided. 1994, c. 12, s. 38; 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

Proof of conviction or discharge EVIDENCE ACT - 22.1 (1) Proof that a person has been convicted or discharged anywhere in Canada of a crime is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the crime was committed by the person, if, (a) no appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken and the time for an appeal has ex- pired; or (b) an appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken but was dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (3). Same (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the convicted or discharged person is a party to the proceeding. 1995, c. 6, s. 6

General Principle

1.04 (1) These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, and shall be liberally construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fair- ness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.

1.05 The interpretation sections of the Code apply to these rules. 3.01 (1) In the computation of time under these rules or an order, except where a contrary inten-

tion appears,

(a) where there is a reference to a number of days between two events, they shall be counted by excluding the day on which the first event happens and including the day on which the second event happens, even if they are described as clear days or the words “at least” are used;

(b) where a period of less than 7 days is prescribed, holidays shall not be counted;

(c) where the time for doing an act under these rules expires on a holiday, the act may be done on the next day that is not a holiday; and

(d) service of a document, other than an originating process, made after 4 p.m. or at any time on a holiday shall be deemed to have been made on the next day that is not a holiday

Service on Solicitor of Record

5.05 (1) Service of a document on the solicitor of record of a party may be made: (a) by mailing a copy to the solicitor’s office; (b) by leaving a copy with a solicitor or employee in the solicitor’s office;

(c) by depositing a copy at a document exchange of which the solicitor is a member or subscriber, but service under this clause is effective only if the document or a copy of it and the copy deposited are date stamped by the document ex- change in the presence of the person depositing the copy; or,

(d) by telephone transmission of a facsimile of the document in accordance with subrule (3).

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

Service by Mail Manner of Service

5.06 (1) Where a document is to be served by mail under these rules, a copy of the document

shall be sent by prepaid first class mail or by registered or certified mail.

Effective Date

(2) Service of a document by mail, except under subrule 5.03(4), is effective on the fifth

day after the document is mailed.

Where Document Does Not Reach Person Served 5.07 Even though a person has been served with a document in accordance with these rules, the person may show on a motion to set aside the consequences of default, for an extension of time or in support of a request for an adjournment, that the document:

(a) did not come to his or her notice; or,

(b) came to his or her notice only at some time later than when it was served or is deemed to have been served.

Service of Notice General Rule re Service

6.04 (1) The notice of application shall be served on all parties in accordance with rule 5 and, where there is uncertainty whether anyone else should be served, the applicant may make a motion without notice to a judge for an order for directions.

(2) The notice of application in Form 1 and any other supporting materials required by the Criminal Code, other statute or these rules, or ordered by a judge of the court, together with proof of service, shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court in the place where the application is to be heard, not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the hearing of the application, unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court, or un- less rule 20.04(1) applies.

Application Record

6.05 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court or otherwise provided by these rules, an applicant shall serve on every other party and file an application record in accor- dance with rule 6.05(2), not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the hearing of the application.

Respondent’s Application Record

(3) Where the respondent seeks to rely on material other than that filed by the applicant, the respondent shall serve on every other party and file a respondent’s application record in accordance with rule 6.05(4), not later than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing of the application.

Appeal in mandamus, etc.

· 784. (1) An appeal lies to the court of appeal from a decision granting or refusing the relief sought in proceedings by way of mandamus, certiorari or prohibition.

· Application of Part XXI

(2) Except as provided in this section, Part XXI applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to appeals under this section.

· Refusal of application, and appeal

(3) Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is refused by a judge of a court having jurisdiction therein, no application may again be made on the same grounds, whether to the same or to another court or judge, unless fresh evidence is adduced, but an appeal from that refusal shall lie to the court of appeal, and where on the appeal the application is refused a further appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court of Canada, with leave of that Court.

· Where writ granted

(4) Where a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is granted by any judge, no appeal therefrom shall lie at the instance of any party including the Attorney General of the province concerned or the Attorney General of Canada.

· Appeal from judgment on return of writ

(5) Where a judgment is issued on the return of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, an appeal therefrom lies to the court of appeal, and from a judgment of the court of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, with the leave of that Court, at the instance of the applicant or the Attorney General of the province concerned or the Attorney General of Canada, but not at the instance of any other party.

· Hearing of appeal

(6) An appeal in habeas corpus matters shall be heard by the court to which the appeal is directed at an early date, whether in or out of the prescribed sessions of the court.

· R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 784;

· 1997, c. 18, s. 109.

PART XXVIISUMMARY CONVICTIONS

Interpretation

Definitions

785. In this Part,

“clerk of the appeal court”

« greffier de la cour d’appel »

“clerk of the appeal court” includes a local clerk of the appeal court;

“informant”

« dénonciateur »

“informant” means a person who lays an information;

“information”

« dénonciation »

“information” includes

· (a) a count in an information, and

· (b) a complaint in respect of which a justice is authorized by an Act of Parliament or an enactment made thereunder to make an order;

“order”

« ordonnance »

“order” means any order, including an order for the payment of money;

“proceedings”

« procédures »

“proceedings” means

· (a) proceedings in respect of offences that are declared by an Act of Parliament or an enactment made thereunder to be punishable on summary conviction, and

· (b) proceedings where a justice is authorized by an Act of Parliament or an enactment made thereunder to make an order;

“prosecutor”

« poursuivant »

“prosecutor” means the Attorney General or, where the Attorney General does not intervene, the informant, and includes counsel or an agent acting on behalf of either of them;

“sentence”

« sentence », « peine » ou « condamnation »

“sentence” includes

· (a) a declaration made under subsection 199(3),

· (b) an order made under subsection 109(1) or 110(1), section 259 or 261, subsection 730(1) or 737(3) or section 738, 739, 742.1 or 742.3,

· (c) a disposition made under section 731 or 732 or subsection 732.2(3) or (5), 742.4(3) or 742.6(9), and

· (d) an order made under subsection 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

“summary conviction court”

« cour des poursuites sommaires »

“summary conviction court” means a person who has jurisdiction in the territorial division where the subject-matter of the proceedings is alleged to have arisen and who

· (a) is given jurisdiction over the proceedings by the enactment under which the proceedings are taken,

· (b) is a justice or provincial court judge, where the enactment under which the proceedings are taken does not expressly give jurisdiction to any person or class of persons, or

· (c) is a provincial court judge, where the enactment under which the proceedings are taken gives jurisdiction in respect thereof to two or more justices;

“trial”

« procès » ou « instruction »

“trial” includes the hearing of a complaint.

· R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 785;

· R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 170, 203;

· 1992, c. 1, s. 58;

· 1995, c. 22, s. 7, c. 39, s. 156;

· 1996, c. 19, s. 76;

· 1999, c. 25, s. 23(Preamble);

· 2002, c. 13, s. 78;

· 2006, c. 14, s. 7;

· 2013, c. 11, s. 4.

Application of Part

· 786. (1) Except where otherwise provided by law, this Part applies to proceedings as defined in this Part.

· Limitation

(2) No proceedings shall be instituted more than six months after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose, unless the prosecutor and the defendant so agree.

· R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 786;

· 1997, c. 18, s. 110.

Punishment

General penalty

· 787. (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, everyone who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both.

· Imprisonment in default where not otherwise specified

(2) Where the imposition of a fine or the making of an order for the payment of money is authorized by law, but the law does not provide that imprisonment may be imposed in default of payment of the fine or compliance with the order, the court may order that in default of payment of the fine or compliance with the order, as the case may be, the defendant shall be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months.

· (3) to (11) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 171]

· R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 787;

· R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 171;

· 2008, c. 18, s. 44.

Information

Commencement of proceedings

· 788. (1) Proceedings under this Part shall be commenced by laying an information in Form 2.

· One justice may act before the trial

(2) Notwithstanding any other law that requires an information to be laid before or to be tried by two or more justices, one justice may

· (a) receive the information;

· (b) issue a summons or warrant with respect to the information; and

· (c) do all other things preliminary to the trial.

· R.S., c. C-34, s. 723.

Formalities of information

· 789. (1) In proceedings to which this Part applies, an information

· (a) shall be in writing and under oath; and

· (b) may charge more than one offence or relate to more than one matter of complaint, but where more than one offence is charged or the information relates to more than one matter of complaint, each offence or matter of complaint, as the case may be, shall be set out in a separate count.

· No reference to previous convictions

(2) No information in respect of an offence for which, by reason of previous convictions, a greater punishment may be imposed shall contain any reference to previous convictions.

· R.S., c. C-34, s. 724.

Any justice may act before and after trial

· 790. (1) Nothing in this Act or any other law shall be deemed to require a justice before whom proceedings are commenced or who issues process before or after the trial to be the justice or one of the justices before whom the trial is held.

· Two or more justices

(2) Where two or more justices have jurisdiction with respect to proceedings, they shall be present and act together at the trial, but one justice may thereafter do anything that is required or is authorized to be done in connection with the proceedings.

· (3) and (4) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 172]

· R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 790;

· R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 172.

791. [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 173]

792. [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 174]

Defects and Objections

793. [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 175]

No need to negative exception, etc.

· 794. (1) No exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law is required to be set out or negatived, as the case may be, in an information.

· Burden of proving exception, etc.

(2) The burden of proving that an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the defendant is on the defendant, and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification does not operate in favour of the defendant, whether or not it is set out in the information.

· R.S., c. C-34, s. 730.

Application

Application of Parts XVI, XVIII, XVIII.1, XX and XX.1

795. The provisions of Parts XVI and XVIII with respect to compelling the appearance of an accused before a justice, and the provisions of Parts XVIII.1, XX and XX.1, in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Part, apply, with any necessary modifications, to proceedings under this Part.

· R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 795;

· R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 176;

· 1991, c. 43, s. 7;

· 2011, c. 16, s. 16.

796. and 797. [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 176]

Trial

Jurisdiction

798. Every summary conviction court has jurisdiction to try, determine and adjudge proceedings to which this Part applies in the territorial division over which the person who constitutes that court has jurisdiction.

· R.S., c. C-34, s. 733.

Non-appearance of prosecutor

799. Where, in proceedings to which this Part applies, the defendant appears for the trial and the prosecutor, having had due notice, does not appear, the summary conviction court may dismiss the information or may adjourn the trial to some other time on such terms as it considers proper.

· R.S., c. C-34, s. 734.

ABUSE OF PROCESS.

(THE POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL of Criminal Offence and Criminal Law, Gary P. Prodrigues, CARSWELL 2000 page 8 - page 9)

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

8. (1) This rule does not apply to inmate appeals.

(13) In the event of difficulty in settling the statement of facts, counsel for either party may, on notice, attend upon a judge for directions.

Date of order and completion

(14) The transcript shall include a note of the date the transcript was ordered and the date the ordering party was notified that the transcript was completed.

Completion not to be suspended

Notification of completion

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

Rule 21(3) which requires the respondent factum to be filed at least 10 days before the week in which the appeal is to be heard

2.01 A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity and does not render a proceeding or a step, document or order in a proceeding a nullity, and the court,

a) may grant all necessary amendments or other relief in accordance with rule 2.02 on such terms as are just, to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute;or

b) only where and as necessary in the interests of justice, may set aside the proceeding or a step, document or order in the proceeding in whole or in part

2.02 The court may, only where and as necessary in the interests of justice, dispense with compliance with the rules.

x) any other factors the judge determines are relevant to the application.

Recommendations regarding Police Services

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Agree upon the following articles:

Article 2

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 10

1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Article 11

No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Article 14

Article 15

Article 26

Article 50

The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 51

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Recommendation 13:

(The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Interim Report in follow-up to the review of Canada’s Fifth Report November 2006)

The facts pleaded are to be taken as proved(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959) .

RULE 21.01(1)(a) of CIVIL PROCEDURE-...question of law raised in pleading...

RULE 21.01(2) of CIVIL PROCEDURE-...no evidence is admissible without leave..

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS RIGHTS, is a constraint on all administrative process, including any legal process even though it is rearly ever mentioned.

RULE 21.02-MOTION TO BE MADE PROMPTLY

RULE1.02 (1) These rules are enacted pursuant to subsection 482(1) of the Criminal Code ...

8.1. RULE 1.04 (1) These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding

8.2. RULE 1.05 The interpretation sections of the Code apply to these rules.

8.3. 2.01 A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity

8.4. (a) ...to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute

8.5. (b) only where and as necessary in the interests of justice, may

8.5.1. set aside the proceeding...

NATURAL JUSTICE

HEAR THE OTHER SIDE(AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM):

ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 232

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

NOTICE:

ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 233

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

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 furnished prior to the hearing with reasonable information of any allegations with respect thereto. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 8.

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE RENDERS A DECISION VOID:

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 227-229

Application of Part

Civil proceedings

95.(1)This Part applies to civil proceedings in courts of Ontario.

Criminal proceedings

Provincial offences proceedings

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.

Jurisdiction for equitable relief

(3)Only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive of the Small Claims Court, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided. 1994, c. 12, s. 38; 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

General Principle

1.05 The interpretation sections of the Code apply to these rules. 3.01 (1) In the computation of time under these rules or an order, except where a contrary inten-

tion appears,

(b) where a period of less than 7 days is prescribed, holidays shall not be counted;

(c) where the time for doing an act under these rules expires on a holiday, the act may be done on the next day that is not a holiday; and

(d) service of a document, other than an originating process, made after 4 p.m. or at any time on a holiday shall be deemed to have been made on the next day that is not a holiday

Service on Solicitor of Record

(d) by telephone transmission of a facsimile of the document in accordance with subrule (3).

Service by Mail Manner of Service

5.06 (1) Where a document is to be served by mail under these rules, a copy of the document

shall be sent by prepaid first class mail or by registered or certified mail.

Effective Date

(2) Service of a document by mail, except under subrule 5.03(4), is effective on the fifth

day after the document is mailed.

Where Document Does Not Reach Person Served 5.07 Even though a person has been served with a document in accordance with these rules, the person may show on a motion to set aside the consequences of default, for an extension of time or in support of a request for an adjournment, that the document:

(a) did not come to his or her notice; or,

(b) came to his or her notice only at some time later than when it was served or is deemed to have been served.

Service of Notice General Rule re Service

Application Record

Respondent’s Application Record

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

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:

Attn. Deborah Krick

The Attorney General of Ontario

CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH

6th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W

Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4

T 416.367.6000

F 416.367.6749

blg.com

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

T 416.367.6092

F 416.361.2769

cfotopoulos@blg.com

AND TO:

Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439S

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Civil Law Branch

8th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

Tel: 416 314 2059

Fax: 416 326 4181

AND TO:

Counsel: Jacqueline Wilson(2-597605)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Civil Law Branch

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

AND TO:

Counsel: Rafal Szymanski

BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP

2 Queen Street, East

Suite 31500

Toronto, Ontario

tel: 416 593 1221

fax: 416 593 5437

REGIONAL OF PEEL

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

WAYNE FERRON

-versus-

HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Court file No.: M 42812

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

Osgoode Hall

130 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5

AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON(Private Prosecutor)

_________________________________

FACTUM

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

_________________________________

Wayne FERRON

1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto,

ON, M6E 4A6

Tel: 416 420 1353,

Email: wayneferron@gmail.com

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Folder Contents

Reasons

Drafting of order

Pronouncement of judgment

Copies to be sent

Proof of receipt

Inspection of files

Removal of documents from file

Removal of files

Definition

Removal of exhibits from file

Return of exhibits

Return on consent

Disobeying a statute

Attorney General of Canada may act

Disobeying order of court

Attorney General of Canada may act

Definitions

Reasons

Drafting of order

Pronouncement of judgment

Copies to be sent

Proof of receipt

Reasons

Drafting of order

Pronouncement of judgment

Copies to be sent

Proof of receipt

Appeal in mandamus, etc.

· Application of Part XXI

· Refusal of application, and appeal

· Where writ granted

· Appeal from judgment on return of writ

· Hearing of appeal

PART XXVIISUMMARY CONVICTIONS

Interpretation

Definitions

Application of Part

· Limitation

Punishment

General penalty

· Imprisonment in default where not otherwise specified

Information

Commencement of proceedings

· One justice may act before the trial

Formalities of information

· No reference to previous convictions

Any justice may act before and after trial

· Two or more justices

Defects and Objections

No need to negative exception, etc.

· Burden of proving exception, etc.

Application

Application of Parts XVI, XVIII, XVIII.1, XX and XX.1

Trial

Jurisdiction

Non-appearance of prosecutor

Free Membership

Who's online

Who's new