“VEXATIVE LITIGAN” file No.: M ...denied by COA without lawful cause/motion number denied/motion refused by coa REGISTRAR without reason or lawful cause

court of appeal for ontario

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FERON Informant/Applicant

-and-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

___________________________________

FACTUM

of APPLICANT(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/INFORMANT)

BEFORE A PANEL TO APPEAL

JUSTICE FELDMAN'S OPINION

___________________________________________

OVERVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7] The Crown is the main benefactor for a successfull “VEXATIVE LITIGATION” against the Applicant, since the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES are Crown institutions inaddition to staying of all the Applicants Private Prosecutions.

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

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

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

[11] Is the notion of PARAMOUNTCY, rellevant to the matter?

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

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

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

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

[16] Given that Justice I. Andre J. orders that a copy of the same order be forthwith delivered to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, and every region of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, and DIVISIONAL COURT while excluding the Applicant; the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” came to the Applicant's attention on August 20, 2013 at about 6 a.m., VIA the Crown's unsigned RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322) while before the honourable Justice Pepall for a motion M42322.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18] Pursuant to the above properties of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order articulated in the previous paragraph; the Private Prosecutor question's the authenticity and trustworthyness of the disclosed typed version of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order, located in APENDIX “A” of Ms. Krick's(Crown) RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), until the applicant can secure an official copy or certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order.

[19] Given that Justice I. Andre J. orders that a copy of the same order be forthwith delivered to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, and every region of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, and DIVISIONAL COURT while excluding the Applicant or giving no directions for giving the Applicant reasonable NOTICE; the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” came to the

On January 15, 2014 at about 17:20, after viewing COURT OF APPEAL FILE(M42812), the Applicant discovered a copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. written “COURT ORDER” , a copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed “COURT ORDER” , a copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT, and a filed typed letter by the CROWN; the said filed Crown letter dissappeared or was lost by the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR aftrer the Applicant requested a certified copy of the same letter.

[20] The Applicant respecfully requested certified copies of all four aforementioned court document in COURT OF APPEAL FILE M42812; the Private Prosecutor was refused or denied a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. written “COURT ORDER” , a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed “COURT ORDER” , and a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed REASON S FOR JUDGEMENT.

[21] If the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR cannot attest to the autenticity or truthfulness of documents in the COURT OF APPEAL FILE M42812, neighter can the Applicant; for the aforesaid reasons in addition to the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. written “COURT ORDER” appearing as though it was modified with the addition of parties(“REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK ET AL vs. FERRON, WAYNE”) and court file number(“Cv 13-1060”) in what seems to be a different hand writing, and no initial with corresponding date for the same alleged modification.

Practice Direction Concerning

Civil Appeals in the Court of Appeal

5.3 Confirmation of Motion

STATEMENT OF FACT:

[22] Pursuant to the above observations and action of the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR with respect to the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. written court order articulated in the previous paragraph, the Private Prosecutor question's the authenticity of the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR'S version of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order, and REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT, until the applicant can secure an official copy or certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order, and REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT.

[23] The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order 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, and access to justice.

[24] The Crown has attempted to use on at least one occasion(August 13,2013 before Justice Pepall), 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.

[25] On the 28^th of August 2013, the Informant was unable to view COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO 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 COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 and it's EXHIBITS.

· PLEASE SEE JUSTICE PEPALL AUGST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

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

[27] The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart), works out of the same Toronto Region Office Office of Attorney General as Ms. Deborah Krick, 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 wheather this is or is-not the case.

[28] 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, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

[29] 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.

SOR/2002-417, s. 4.

[30] SCOPE of the matter is PRIVATE PROSECUTION; the Right to Prosecute or Access Justice for violations of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA within the territorial jurisdiction of Ontario, byway of the right given by Section 504 of Parliamentary Legislation, and in accordance with the legal process laid out by Parliament in Section 507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

[31] 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.

[32] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at 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 by the method directed by RULES OF THE COURT, at a location legal service can be received, if the Informant is to be successfully served; because they all have been properly notified in person by the Informant of how, and where to serve the Private Prosecutor sucessfully.

[33] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at 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's change of address.

[34] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at 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, and impecunious, and in the process of securing employment and, a safe secure home for himself and his beloved daughter.

[35] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at 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 and under banrupcy pretection.

[36] 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).

[37] 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”.

[38] 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.

[39] The YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), has failed to affect proper legal service of material and exhibits relied on in there successful attempting to “drive from the seat of judgment” the Private Prosecutor byway of banning(Vaxative Litigant) 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!”

SCOPE OF SECTION 140(3) OF 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).

[40] The legal preceedings in essence being contested, are Private Prosecutions at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL.

[41] Does the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE have jurisdiction over the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO?

[42] Does “any court” in Section 140 of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT include the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO?

[43] Is the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT, Provincial legislation?

[44] Does the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO operate under federal legislation?

[45] What takes precedence, federal or providential legislation?

SCOPE OF The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order

[46] 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;

“ [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.”

FACTUAL CORRECTNESS OF ORDER

[47] 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”

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

“Relationship to the Administration of Justice

4.01 The Lawyer as Advocate

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

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

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

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

...”

NO DIRECTION FOR REASONABLE NOTICE TO WAYNE FERRON

[49] 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;

“[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…”

EFFECT OF COURT ORDER

[50] The honourable Justice Feldman has indefinately adjourn criminal matter M43059, which is a legal preceeding involving Private Prosecution afther she asserted from the bench in open court that Wayne Ferron is a “vexative litigan” and she would be staying the matter(M43059).

[51] The honourable Justice Feldman January 30^t^h, 2014 judgment(opinion) wherein she asserted the following in open court, and while matter M43059 was before her to be heard or she was seized by the same matter in addition to the Crown not filing 1 single page of respondent material while the Applicant had filed all his required court materials, articulates in open court from the bench;

“...you are a vexation litigant!

I am staying the matter...”

[52] Pursuant to VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al.(2003 FCA 56);

“[8] {...}

... The theory of judicial procedure is that the cogent and binding effect of the order begins immediately from the time when the order is pronounced by the lips of the Judge...”

[52] In light of the fact that the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR didnot want to accept this appeal to sort out issues of contention, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR has informed the Private Prosecutor that the January 30^th, 2014 court order directs for M43059 to be adjourned without a returnable date.

[53] In my view, this is an indefinate adjournedment similar to the adjournment on C51190(M38706) which has still not been heard since about April of 2010; the Private Prosecutor was not in possession of the January 30, 2014 endorsement for M43059, he based his appeal on what was directed from the bench.

[54] The COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR no longer files Wayne Ferron's court documents directly, they must be personally approved by the DUPUTY REGISTRAR or sent to a legal team for approval.

[55] Moreover a COURT OF APPEAL – REGISTRAR CLERK directed Wayne Ferron's attention to a photo copy of a typed copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order while asserting that there is a vexative order against the Private Prosecutor.

[56] The aforemention copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order, has no court listed, does not state the title of the prceeding, nor does it has the names of the parties listed except that it is against Wayne Ferron.

[57] The Private Prosecutor attempted to ask for directions for clarity of Justice action in-terms of her prohibitions, but was not given any except for ordering transcripts and viewing court records.

[58] The Private Prosecutor did not ask for an adjournment.

[59] the Private Prosecutor filed all required material for a Motion M43059 except Justice Watt September 13, 2013 order which the COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR or RECORDS refused to give the Applicant, but instead gave file M42322 to the court on February 30, 2014.

[60] The Crown filed no material for the M43059, not even one sheet of paper.

[61] The Crown did not ask for an adjournment.

[62] The Private Prosecutor did not ask for an adjournment.

[63] Is the indefinite adjournment of M43059 for the Crown, and what party benefits from the indefinite adjournment?

EFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER

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.

[64] Pursuant to VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al.(2003 FCA 56);

“[8] {...} The Divisional Court concluded that where a decision or order was not pronounced or delivered in public, it could not be held to have been made until such time as the parties were notified of it. At pages 259, 260 and 261, Armour C.J. stated:

... The theory of judicial procedure is that the cogent and binding effect of the order begins immediately from the time when the order is pronounced by the lips of the Judge...”

[65] In the Private Prosecuto's view, the honourable Justice Feldman is enforcing the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order with distinction; hence, Justice Feldman's judicial declaration from the bench while she was acting in the capacity of the ebondiment of the court; “...you are a vexation litigant! I am staying the matter...,” then the same Justice binding action of an indefinite adjournment of CRIMINAL MATTER M43059 (a Private Prosecution).

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)

[66] In the Private Prosecutor's view, the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR is enforcing the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order

[67] In the Private Prosecuto's view, THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL maybe enforcing the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order eventhough their is resulting jepordy placed on the Private Prosecutor, and his beloved daughter's life, liberty, and persuit of happyness.

[68] In the Private Prosecutor's view, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION) maybe enforcing the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order, since their has been no resonable notice of judgement or serving of REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT(CR 12-1912 ET AL) for pending prosecutions, after the Applicant was told its was not necessary to attend the hearing in addition to requesting decisions on the said matters.

[69] Pursuant to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

Disobeying order of court

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

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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

Idem

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

Definition of “counsel”

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

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

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

PROOF THAT PRIVATE PROSECUTOR IS A “VEXATIVE LETIGANT”:

[70] Pursuant to the Section 22.1 of the EVIDENCE ACT;

proof of conviction discharged

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 expired: or

(b) an appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken but was dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available R.S.O. 1990, c. C.2 3

PROPERTIES of MOTION TO STRIKE IN A VACCUME

1) ASSUMPTION FOR STRIKING:

(i) STATEMENT OF CLAIM is true

(ii) RULE 19.02 - defendant is deemed to admit allegations in STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

2) CONSTRAINTS or SCOPE FOR STRIKING:

(i) RULE 21.02(1) - ...on a question of Law Raised by Pleading

(ii) RULE 21.02(2)(a)&(b) - ...no evidence is admissible on motion

(iii) RULE 21.02(1) - ...motion to strike shall be made promptly

[71] Pursuant to Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., the following scope or set of binding constraints are 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)

[72] So how can their be no marrets, if the condiction to strike in a vaccume is to take the case the STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 13-1060 lays out as already proven.

BILL OF RIGHTS

[73] 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, which amounts to a denial of PURCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE; the BILL OF RIGHTS articulates as follows;

Section1.

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;

Section 2.

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;

EMAIL NOTICE OF “VEXATIVE LITIGAN” MOTION

[74] A failure to give proper notice of a pending “VEXATIVE LITIGATION” accompanied withe the proper disclosing of materials to be relied upon at the hearing so that a party may know his jeopardy and be able to properly defend against his jepordy, amounts to a denial of PURCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE; Pursuant to the RULE 16 of the RULES OF CIVIL PRACTIC;

SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OR DISPENSING WITH SERVICE

Where Order May be Made

16.04 (1) Where it appears to the court that it is impractical for any reason to effect prompt service of an originating process or any other document required to be served personally or by an alternative to personal service under these rules, the court may make an order for substituted service or, where necessary in the interest of justice, may dispense with service. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.04 (1).

Effective Date of Service

(2) In an order for substituted service, the court shall specify when service in accordance with the order is effective. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.04 (2).

(3) Where an order is made dispensing with service of a document, the document shall be deemed to have been served on the date of the order for the purpose of the computation of time under these rules. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.04 (3).

SERVICE ON LAWYER OF RECORD

16.05 (1) Service of a document on the lawyer of record of a party may be made,

(a) by mailing a copy to the lawyer’s office;

{...}

(f) by e-mailing a copy to the lawyer’s office in accordance with subrule (4), but service under this rule is effective only if the lawyer of record provides by e-mail an acceptance of service and the date of the acceptance, and where the e-mail acceptance is received between 4 p.m. and midnight, service shall be deemed to have been made on the following day. O. Reg. 575/07, s. 18.

{...}

Fax of Certain Documents

(3.1) A document of 16 pages or more inclusive of the cover page and the backsheet may be served by fax only between 4 p.m. and 8 a.m. the following day, unless the party to be served gives prior consent. O. Reg. 536/96, s. 3 (2); O. Reg. 206/02, s. 3 (3).

(3.2) A motion record, application record, trial record, appeal book and compendium or book of authorities may not be served by fax at any time unless the party to be served gives prior consent. O. Reg. 536/96, s. 3 (2); O. Reg. 19/03, s. 4.

E-mail, Required Information

(4) The e-mail message to which a document served under clause (1) (f) is attached shall include,

(a) the sender’s name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address;

(b) the date and time of transmission; and

SERVICE BY MAIL

Manner of Service

16.06 (1) Where a document is to be served by mail under these rules, a copy of the document shall be served by regular lettermail or by registered mail. O. Reg. 535/92, s. 6 (1).

Effective Date

(2) Service of a document by mail, except under subrule 16.03 (4), is effective on the fifth day after the document is mailed but the document may be filed with proof of service before service becomes effective. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.06 (2); O. Reg. 535/92, s. 6 (2).

WHERE DOCUMENT DOES NOT REACH PERSON SERVED

16.07 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 the person’s notice; or

(b) came to the person’s notice only at some time later than when it was served or is deemed to have been served.R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.07.

VALIDATING SERVICE

16.08 Where a document has been served in a manner other than one authorized by these rules or an order, the court may make an order validating the service where the court is satisfied that,

(a) the document came to the notice of the person to be served; or

(b) the document was served in such a manner that it would have come to the notice of the person to be served, except for the person’s own attempts to evade service. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.08.

PROOF OF SERVICE

Affidavit of Service

16.09 (1) Service of a document may be proved by an affidavit of the person who served it (Form 16B). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 16.09 (1).

NOTICE OF “VEXATIVE LITIGAN” MOTION

[75] A failure to give proper disclosing of materials to be relied upon at the hearing so that a party may know his jeopardy and be able to properly defend against his jepordy, amounts to a denial of PURCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE; Pursuant to the RULE 37 of the RULES OF CIVIL PRACTIC;

RULE 37 MOTIONS — JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

NOTICE OF MOTION

37.01 A motion shall be made by a notice of motion (Form 37A) unless the nature of the motion or the circumstances make a notice of motion unnecessary. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.01.

Jurisdiction of Judge

37.02 (1) A judge has jurisdiction to hear any motion in a proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.02 (1).

SERVICE OF “VEXATIVE LITIGANT” MOTION

MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS

Where Notice Ought to Have Been Served

37.07(5) Where it appears to the court that the notice of motion ought to have been served on a person who has not been served, the court may,

(a) dismiss the motion or dismiss it only against the person who was not served;

(b) adjourn the motion and direct that the notice of motion be served on the person; or

Minimum Notice Period

(6) Where a motion is made on notice, the notice of motion shall be served at least seven days before the date on which the motion is to be heard. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.07 (6); O. Reg. 171/98, s. 12; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 33.

FILING OF NOTICE OF MOTION

37.08 (1) Where a motion is made on notice, the notice of motion shall be filed with proof of service at least seven days before the hearing date in the court office where the motion is to be heard. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.08 (1); O. Reg. 171/98, s. 13; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 34.

(2) Where service of the notice of motion is not required, it shall be filed at or before the hearing. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.08 (2).

Confirmation of Motion

37.10.1 (1) A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall,

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

(b) not later than 2 p.m. three days before the hearing date, give the registrar a confirmation of motion (Form 37B) by,

(i) sending it by fax, or by e-mail if available in the court office, or

(ii) leaving it at the court office; and

(c) send a copy of the confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 36.

Effect of Failure to Confirm

37.10.1(2) If no confirmation is given, the motion shall not be heard, except by order of the court. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19.

Duty to Update

(3) A party who has given a confirmation of motion and later determines that the confirmation is no longer correct shall immediately,

(a) give the registrar a corrected confirmation of motion (Form 37B) by,

(i) sending it by fax, or by e-mail if available in the court office, or

(ii) leaving it at the court office; and

(b) send a copy of the corrected confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19.

Consent motions, unopposed motions and motions without notice

37.12.1 (1) Where a motion is on consent, unopposed or without notice under subrule 37.07 (2), the motion may be heard in writing without the attendance of the parties, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 4 (2).

(2) Where the motion is on consent, the consent and a draft order shall be filed with the notice of motion. O. Reg. 766/93, s. 1 (1).

PROFF OF SERVICE OF THE “VEXATIVE LITIGAN” ORDER

[76] The applicant even now does not have an official copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order eventhough he has sent official requestion for a certified copy to ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, and the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION). 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.

ISSUE OF LAW:

1. PARAMOUNTCY;

2. NATURAL JUSTICE'S;

3. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

[77] Is the notion of PARAMOUNTCY, rellevant to the matter?

[78] what legislation takes precedence, Federal or Provencial?

[79] what legislation takes precedence, Section 23.1 of the JUDICATOR ACT or Section 504 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

[80] what legislation takes precedence, Section 23.1 of the JUDICATOR ACT or Section 504 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

[81] what legislation takes precedence, RULE 34 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE or Section 504 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

[82] what legislation takes precedence, Section 140(3) of the COURT OF [83] JUSTICE ACT of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

[84] CIVIL JURISDICTION-EI CASE LAW

[85] CRIMINAL JURISDICTION-PARAMOUNTCY

[86] what legislation takes precedence, Federal or Provencial

[87] what PREECEEDING take presedence, CIVIL PRECEEDING or CRIMINAL PRECEEDING?

THE MOTION IS FOR:

1. assistance of DUTY COUNSEL

2. an order to vary the Honourable Justice Feldman's judgement, and stay or INDEFINATELY ADJOURN all the applicant's matters(C56817, C55532, M43059) without distinction, and in accordance with the enforcement of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8^th, 2013, until the vexative litigant matter is resoved and it appeal process exhaused;

3. an order to stay the TRANSCRIPT COURT HEARING on February 26, 2014 for matter C55532 for the purpuse of not inviting or forcing the applicant to contravene the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order in addition to Section 127(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA; counseling or inducing someone to break the law is in itself a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Ms. Kirck put forward or asserted the Crown's position, that the TRANSCRIPT HEARING COURT does not contravene Justice I. Andre J. court order; the Private Prosecutor's position is that attendance of the Private Prosecutor to the TRANSCRIPT HEARING COURT(C55532) would be a violation of Justice I. Andre J. court order in addition to Section 127(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA; hence the emergency or utmost importance for direction on the matter before the COURT OF APPEAL;

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

GROUNDS:

1. the Private Prosecutor challenges the authenticity of the uncertified, unofficial copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order until he can successfully obtain a certified copy of the same order or an officially signed copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order, which was supposed to be disclosed to him in accordance with the FEDERAL COURT RULES;

2. consistent and uniform enforcement of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order without distinction;

3. prevention of an invitation or inducing of contravening of Section 127(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE;

4. Section 22.1 of the EVIDENCE ACT

5. the maintenance of proper jurisdiction within the notion or doctrine of paramountcy;

6. to maintain consistency with the RULES OF THE COURT and Section 482 of the CRIMINAL CODE;

7. to simply make it possible to obey the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order until it is set aside, dismissed or affirmed by the honourable court, and the appeal process is exhausted;

8. such and other grounds this honourable court may accept or admit.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Dated at the city of TORONTO, in the province of Ontario, on this Monday, May 25, 2015. SIGNED BY

____________________________ Applicant/Informant

Wayne Ferron

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

Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: I HAVE NO ISP ACCOUNT

court of appeal for ontario

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FERON Informant/Applicant

-and-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

___________________________________

SCHUDLE A

___________________________________________

SCOPE OF The Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order

[88] 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;

{…}

[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.”

[89] Pursuant to Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., the following scope or set of binding constraints are 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)

[90] Pursuant to VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al.(2003 FCA 56);

“[6] The authorities are clear that where an order or decision is not pronounced or delivered in

public, the order or decision is not made until such time as the order or decision is entered by the Registry or when the parties are notified of the decision.

[8] {...} The Divisional Court concluded that where a decision or order was not pronounced or delivered in public, it could not be held to have been made until such time as the parties were notified of it. At pages 259, 260 and 261, Armour C.J. stated:

... The theory of judicial procedure is that the cogent and binding effect of the order begins immediately from the time when the order is pronounced by the lips of the Judge, and if that could be done physically which legally is supposed to be done, and which one would desire to be done if it were possible, every order would be completed on the spot, written out by the judicial officer and in curid before the Court rises, and delivered to the parties. That is the unquestionable theory of judicial procedure, and in conformity with that theory the time when the order is "made," for the two words

must be considered as equivalent and capable of being substituted the one for the other. The mere defining of the words of the Court by writing and reducing them into a form in which they can be evidence in a ministerial operation which, according to the true theory, succeeds the delivery of the order by the Judge, and must be in point of fact nothing in the world more than the physical embodiment on the spot by the Court of the words which the Judge has used."

[...]

I am of opinion that the principle of these decisions is entirely applicable to the case in judgment, and that the month mentioned in sec. 57 of the County Courts Act commences to run from the date of the judicial opinion or decision, oral or written, pronounced or delivered, and that the judgment or order

founded upon it must be referred to that date. If the judicial opinion or decision, oral or written, is not pronounced or delivered in open Court, then it cannot be said to be pronounced or delivered until the parties are notified of it.”

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

JANE DOE and JOHN DOE ET. AL.(T-1636-99);

“ORDER

UPON PLAINTIFFS" EX PARTE MOTION made on September 27, 1999, for an Anton Piller Order and other relief, dated September 22 nd , 1999, heard on Monday, September 27, 1999, and upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the Plaintiffs, and relying upon the Affidavits of Brent Akeson, sworn September 22, 1999 and the Affidavit of Jack Hunter, sworn September 22, 1999, and the Affidavits of David Lafave sworn September 15, 1999, and September 18, 1999, filed in the Nike

Canada Ltd. et al v. Goldstar Design Ltd. et al. matter (Court File No. T-1951-95), and the pleadings and proceedings herein;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Commencement and Term of Order

1. The terms of this Order shall become effective against each Defendant only from the commencement of the day on which it is served on that defendant and shall remain in effect for

fourteen days thereafter, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

[92] 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)

[93] 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)

[94] Pursuant to Criminal Code;

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

and the defendant is entitled to make his full answer and

defence.(ib)

[95] 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)

[96] 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)

court of appeal for ontario

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FERON Informant/Applicant

-and-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

___________________________________

SHUDLE B

___________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES AND EVIDENCE:

1. Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc

2. R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39

3. R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390

4. R. v. Labadie, 2011 ONCA 22

5. R. v. Wells, 2012 ABQB 77

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

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

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

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

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

11. 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:,

12. R. v. Rowbotham

13. R. v. McGibbon

14. NIKE CANADA LTD. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and - JANE DOE and JOHN DOE ET. AL.(T-1636-99)

15. VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al.(2003 FCA 56)

16. R. v. Caron, 2011 SCC 5

[97] Pursuant to the COURT OF JUSTIC ACT;

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

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)

[98] Pursuant to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

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.

[99] Pursuant to the FEDERAL COURT RULES, SOR/98-106;

Failure to attend or misconduct

97. Where a person fails to attend an oral examination or refuses to take an oath, answer a proper question, produce a document or other material required to be produced or comply with an order made under rule 96, the Court may

(a) order the person to attend or re-attend, as the case may be, at his or her own expense;

(b) order the person to answer a question that was improperly objected to and any proper question arising from the answer;

(d) dismiss the proceeding or give judgment by default, as the case may be; or

(e) order the person or the party on whose behalf the person is being examined to pay the costs of the examination.

Contempt order

98. A person who does not comply with an order made under rule 96 or 97 may be found in contempt.

Stay of order

398. (1) On the motion of a person against whom an order has been made,

(a) where the order has not been appealed, the court that made the order may order that it be stayed; or

(b) where a notice of appeal of the order has been issued, a judge of the court that is to hear the appeal may order that it be stayed.

· Conditions

(2) As a condition to granting a stay under subsection (1), a judge may require that the appellant

(a) provide security for costs; and

(b) do anything required to ensure that the order will be complied with when the stay is lifted.

· Setting aside of stay

(3) A judge of the court that is to hear an appeal of an order that has been stayed pending appeal may set aside the stay if the judge is satisfied that the party who sought the stay is not expeditiously proceeding with the appeal or that for any other reason the order should no longer be stayed.

SOR/2004-283, s. 40.

Setting aside or variance

399. (1) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order that was made

(a) ex parte; or

(b) in the absence of a party who failed to appear by accident or mistake or by reason of insufficient notice of the proceeding,

if the party against whom the order is made discloses a prima facie case why the order should not have been made.

· Setting aside or variance

(2) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order

(a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order; or

(b) where the order was obtained by fraud.

· Effect of order

(3) Unless the Court orders otherwise, the setting aside or variance of an order under subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity or character of anything done or not done before the order was set aside or varied.

MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS

RULE 37MOTIONS — JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

NOTICE OF MOTION

37.01 A motion shall be made by a notice of motion (Form 37A) unless the nature of the motion or the circumstances make a notice of motion unnecessary. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.01.

JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MOTION

Jurisdiction of Judge

37.02 (1) A judge has jurisdiction to hear any motion in a proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.02 (1).

Jurisdiction of a Master

(2) A master has jurisdiction to hear any motion in a proceeding, and has all the jurisdiction of a judge in respect of a motion, except a motion,

(a) where the power to grant the relief sought is conferred expressly on a judge by a statute or rule;

(b) to set aside, vary or amend an order of a judge;

(d) for judgment on consent in favour of or against a party under disability;

(e) relating to the liberty of the subject;

(f) under section 4 or 5 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act; or

(g) in an appeal. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.02 (2).

Jurisdiction of Registrar

(3) The registrar shall make an order granting the relief sought on a motion for an order on consent, if,

(a) the consent of all parties (including the consent of any party to be added, deleted or substituted) is filed;

(b) the consent states that no party affected by the order is under disability; and

(i) amendment of a pleading, notice of application or notice of motion,

(ii) addition, deletion or substitution of a party,

(iii) removal of a lawyer as lawyer of record;

(iv) setting aside the noting of a party in default,

(v) setting aside a default judgment,

(vi) discharge of a certificate of pending litigation,

(vii) security for costs in a specified amount,

(viii) re-attendance of a witness to answer questions on an examination,

(ix) fulfilment of undertakings given on an examination, or

(x) dismissal of a proceeding, with or without costs. O. Reg. 19/03, s. 8; O. Reg. 575/07, s. 21.

PLACE OF HEARING OF MOTIONS

37.03 (1) All motions shall be brought and heard in the county where the proceeding was commenced or to which it has been transferred under rule 13.1.02, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 17; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 32.

(2) Revoked: R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.03 (3).

(3) Spent: O. Reg. 14/04, s. 17.

MOTIONS — TO WHOM TO BE MADE

37.04 A motion shall be made to the court if it is within the jurisdiction of a master or registrar and otherwise shall be made to a judge. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.04; O. Reg. 19/03, s. 9.

HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS

Where no practice direction

37.05 (1) At any place where no practice direction concerning the scheduling of motions is in effect, a motion may be set down for hearing on any day on which a judge or master is scheduled to hear motions. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 10.

Exception, lengthy hearing

(2) If a lawyer estimates that the hearing of the motion will be more than two hours long, a hearing date shall be obtained from the registrar before the notice of motion is served. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 10; O. Reg. 575/07, s. 3.

Urgent motion

(3) An urgent motion may be set down for hearing on any day on which a judge or master is scheduled to hear motions, even if a lawyer estimates that the hearing is likely to be more than two hours long. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 10; O. Reg. 575/07, s. 3.

CONTENT OF NOTICE

37.06 Every notice of motion (Form 37A) shall,

(a) state the precise relief sought;

(b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on; and

SERVICE OF NOTICE

Required as General Rule

37.07 (1) The notice of motion shall be served on any party or other person who will be affected by the order sought, unless these rules provide otherwise. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.07 (1); O. Reg. 260/05, s. 9 (1).

Where Not Required

(2) Where the nature of the motion or the circumstances render service of the notice of motion impracticable or unnecessary, the court may make an order without notice. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.07 (2).

(3) Where the delay necessary to effect service might entail serious consequences, the court may make an interim order without notice. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.07 (3).

(4) Unless the court orders or these rules provide otherwise, an order made without notice to a party or other person affected by the order shall be served on the party or other person, together with a copy of the notice of motion and all affidavits and other documents used at the hearing of the motion. O. Reg. 219/91, s. 3; O. Reg. 260/05, s. 9 (2).

Where Notice Ought to Have Been Served

(5) Where it appears to the court that the notice of motion ought to have been served on a person who has not been served, the court may,

(a) dismiss the motion or dismiss it only against the person who was not served;

(b) adjourn the motion and direct that the notice of motion be served on the person; or

Minimum Notice Period

FILING OF NOTICE OF MOTION

37.08 (1) Where a motion is made on notice, the notice of motion shall be filed with proof of service at least seven days before the hearing date in the court office where the motion is to be heard. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.08 (1); O. Reg. 171/98, s. 13; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 34.

(2) Where service of the notice of motion is not required, it shall be filed at or before the hearing. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.08 (2).

CONFIRMATION OF MOTION

Confirmation of Motion

37.10.1 (1) A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall,

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

(b) not later than 2 p.m. three days before the hearing date, give the registrar a confirmation of motion (Form 37B) by,

(i) sending it by fax, or by e-mail if available in the court office, or

(ii) leaving it at the court office; and

(c) send a copy of the confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 36.

Effect of Failure to Confirm

(2) If no confirmation is given, the motion shall not be heard, except by order of the court. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19.

Duty to Update

(3) A party who has given a confirmation of motion and later determines that the confirmation is no longer correct shall immediately,

(a) give the registrar a corrected confirmation of motion (Form 37B) by,

(i) sending it by fax, or by e-mail if available in the court office, or

(ii) leaving it at the court office; and

(b) send a copy of the corrected confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19.

HEARING IN ABSENCE OF PUBLIC

37.11 (1) A motion may be heard in the absence of the public where,

(a) the motion is to be heard and determined without oral argument;

(b) because of urgency, it is impractical to have the motion heard in public;

(d) the motion is made in the course of a pre-trial conference; or

(e) the motion is before a single judge of an appellate court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.11 (1); O. Reg. 465/93, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 24/00, s. 7.

(2) The hearing of all other motions shall be open to the public, except as provided in section 135 of the Courts of Justice Act, in which case the presiding judge or officer shall endorse on the notice of motion leave for a hearing in the absence of the public. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.11 (2).

37.12 Revoked: O. Reg. 288/99, s. 15.

HEARING WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT

Consent motions, unopposed motions and motions without notice

37.12.1 (1) Where a motion is on consent, unopposed or without notice under subrule 37.07 (2), the motion may be heard in writing without the attendance of the parties, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 4 (2).

(2) Where the motion is on consent, the consent and a draft order shall be filed with the notice of motion. O. Reg. 766/93, s. 1 (1).

(3) Where the motion is unopposed, a notice from the responding party stating that the party does not oppose the motion and a draft order shall be filed with the notice of motion. O. Reg. 766/93, s. 1 (1).

CONFIRMATION OF MOTION

Confirmation of Motion

37.10.1 (1) A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall,

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

(b) not later than 2 p.m. three days before the hearing date, give the registrar a confirmation of motion (Form 37B) by,

(i) sending it by fax, or by e-mail if available in the court office, or

(ii) leaving it at the court office; and

(c) send a copy of the confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 36.

Effect of Failure to Confirm

(2) If no confirmation is given, the motion shall not be heard, except by order of the court. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19.

Duty to Update

(3) A party who has given a confirmation of motion and later determines that the confirmation is no longer correct shall immediately,

(a) give the registrar a corrected confirmation of motion (Form 37B) by,

(i) sending it by fax, or by e-mail if available in the court office, or

(ii) leaving it at the court office; and

(b) send a copy of the corrected confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 19.

HEARING IN ABSENCE OF PUBLIC

37.11 (1) A motion may be heard in the absence of the public where,

(a) the motion is to be heard and determined without oral argument;

(b) because of urgency, it is impractical to have the motion heard in public;

(d) the motion is made in the course of a pre-trial conference; or

(e) the motion is before a single judge of an appellate court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.11 (1); O. Reg. 465/93, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 24/00, s. 7.

37.12 Revoked: O. Reg. 288/99, s. 15.

HEARING WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT

Consent motions, unopposed motions and motions without notice

(2) Where the motion is on consent, the consent and a draft order shall be filed with the notice of motion. O. Reg. 766/93, s. 1 (1).

Opposed Motions in Writing

(4) Where the issues of fact and law are not complex, the moving party may propose in the notice of motion that the motion be heard in writing without the attendance of the parties, in which case,

(a) the motion shall be made on at least fourteen days notice;

(b) the moving party shall serve with the notice of motion and immediately file, with proof of service in the court office where the motion is to be heard, a motion record, a draft order and a factum entitled factum for a motion in writing, setting out the moving party’s argument;

(c) the motion may be heard in writing without the attendance of the parties, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 4 (2); O. Reg. 766/93, s. 1 (2).

(5) Within ten days after being served with the moving party’s material, the responding party shall serve and file, with proof of service, in the court office where the motion is to be heard,

(a) a consent to the motion;

(b) a notice that the responding party does not oppose the motion;

(c) a motion record, a notice that the responding party agrees to have the motion heard and determined in writing under this rule and a factum entitled factum for a motion in writing, setting out the party’s argument; or

(d) a notice that the responding party intends to make oral argument, along with any material intended to be relied upon by the party. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 4 (2).

(6) Where the responding party delivers a notice under subrule (5) that the party intends to make oral argument, the moving party may either attend the hearing and make oral argument or not attend and rely on the party’s motion record and factum. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 4 (2).

EVIDENCE BY CROSS-EXAMINATION ON AFFIDAVIT

On a Motion or Application

39.02 (1) A party to a motion or application who has served every affidavit on which the party intends to rely and has completed all examinations under rule 39.03 may cross-examine the deponent of any affidavit served by a party who is adverse in interest on the motion or application. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.02 (1).

(2) A party who has cross-examined on an affidavit delivered by an adverse party shall not subsequently deliver an affidavit for use at the hearing or conduct an examination under rule 39.03 without leave or consent, and the court shall grant leave, on such terms as are just, where it is satisfied that the party ought to be permitted to respond to any matter raised on the cross-examination with evidence in the form of an affidavit or a transcript of an examination conducted under rule 39.03. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.02 (2).

To be Exercised with Reasonable Diligence

(3) The right to cross-examine shall be exercised with reasonable diligence, and the court may refuse an adjournment of a motion or application for the purpose of cross-examination where the party seeking the adjournment has failed to act with reasonable diligence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.02 (3).

Additional Provisions Applicable to Motions

(4) On a motion other than a motion for summary judgment or a contempt order, a party who cross-examines on an affidavit,

(a) shall, where the party orders a transcript of the examination, purchase and serve a copy on every adverse party on the motion, free of charge; and

(b) is liable for the partial indemnity costs of every adverse party on the motion in respect of the cross-examination, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding, unless the court orders otherwise. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.02 (4); O. Reg. 284/01, s. 10.

EVIDENCE BY EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS

Before the Hearing

39.03 (1) Subject to subrule 39.02 (2), a person may be examined as a witness before the hearing of a pending motion or application for the purpose of having a transcript of his or her evidence available for use at the hearing. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.03 (1).

(2) A witness examined under subrule (1) may be cross-examined by the examining party and any other party and may then be re-examined by the examining party on matters raised by other parties, and the re-examination may take the form of cross-examination. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.03 (2).

To be Exercised with Reasonable Diligence

(3) The right to examine shall be exercised with reasonable diligence, and the court may refuse an adjournment of a motion or application for the purpose of an examination where the party seeking the adjournment has failed to act with reasonable diligence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.03 (3).

At the Hearing

(4) With leave of the presiding judge or officer, a person may be examined at the hearing of a motion or application in the same manner as at a trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.03 (4).

Summons to Witness

(5) The attendance of a person to be examined under subrule (4) may be compelled in the same manner as provided in Rule 53 for a witness at a trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 39.03 (5).

EVIDENCE BY EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY

Adverse Party’s Examination

39.04 (1) On the hearing of a motion, a party may use in evidence an adverse party’s examination for discovery or the examination for discovery of any person examined on behalf or in place of, or in addition to, the adverse party, and rule 31.11 (use of discovery at trial) applies with necessary modifications. O. Reg. 534/95, s. 1.

Party’s Examination

(2) On the hearing of a motion, a party may not use in evidence the party’s own examination for discovery or the examination for discovery of any person examined on behalf or in place of, or in addition to, the party unless the other parties consent. O. Reg. 534/95, s. 1.

PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS IN PENDING LITIGATION

RULE 40INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION OR MANDATORY ORDER

HOW OBTAINED

40.01 An interlocutory injunction or mandatory order under section 101 or 102 of the Courts of Justice Act may be obtained on motion to a judge by a party to a pending or intended proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 40.01.

WHERE MOTION MADE WITHOUT NOTICE

Maximum Duration

40.02 (1) An interlocutory injunction or mandatory order may be granted on motion without notice for a period not exceeding ten days. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 40.02 (1).

FAILURE TO PROVE A FACT OR DOCUMENT

52.10 Where, through accident, mistake or other cause, a party fails to prove some fact or document material to the party’s case,

(a) the judge may proceed with the trial subject to proof of the fact or document afterwards at such time and on such terms as the judge directs; or

(b) where the case is being tried by a jury, the judge may direct the jury to find a verdict as if the fact or document had been proved, and the verdict shall take effect on proof of the fact or document afterwards as directed, and, if it is not so proved, judgment shall be granted to the opposite party, unless the judge directs otherwise. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 52.10.

RULE 53EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

EVIDENCE BY WITNESSES

Oral Evidence as General Rule

53.01 (1) Unless these rules provide otherwise, witnesses at the trial of an action shall be examined orally in court and the examination may consist of direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.01 (1).

Trial Judge to Exercise Control

(2) The trial judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode of interrogation of a witness so as to protect the witness from undue harassment or embarrassment and may disallow a question put to a witness that is vexatious or irrelevant to any matter that may properly be inquired into at the trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.01 (2).

(3) The trial judge may at any time direct that a witness be recalled for further examination. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.01 (3).

Leading Questions on Direct Examination

(4) Where a witness appears unwilling or unable to give responsive answers, the trial judge may permit the party calling the witness to examine him or her by means of leading questions. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.01 (4).

Interpreter

(5) Where a witness does not understand the language or languages in which the examination is to be conducted or is deaf or mute, a competent and independent interpreter shall, before the witness is called, take an oath or make an affirmation to interpret accurately the administration of the oath or affirmation to the witness, the questions put to the witness and his or her answers. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.01 (5).

(6) Where an interpreter is required under subrule (5), the party calling the witness shall provide the interpreter, unless the interpretation is to be from English to French or from French to English and an interpreter is provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.01 (6).

EVIDENCE BY AFFIDAVIT

With Leave of Court

53.02 (1) Before or at the trial of an action, the court may make an order allowing the evidence of a witness or proof of a particular fact or document to be given by affidavit, unless an adverse party reasonably requires the attendance of the deponent at trial for cross-examination. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.02 (1).

(2) Where an order is made under subrule (1) before the trial, it may be set aside or varied by the trial judge where it appears necessary to do so in the interest of justice. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 53.02 (2).

EXPERT WITNESSES

Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals in the Court of Appeal

1. APPLICATION
2. APPLICATION OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
3. ADDRESSING THE COURT
4. NOTICE OF APPEAL IN CIVIL APPEALS
5. MOTIONS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CIVIL MATTERS
6. APPEAL MANAGEMENT
7. EARLY RESOLUTION OF APPEALS
8. PRE-HEARING CONFERENCES IN FAMILY LAW APPEALS
9. PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE IN OTHER APPEALS
10 PERFECTING THE APPEAL
11 SCHEDULING PROCEDURES
12 COSTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
13. POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

1. APPLICATION

The following practice direction was filed with the Secretary of the Civil Rules Committee on October 7, 2003 is published herein pursuant to rule 1.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It will become effective on January 1, 2004.

This practice direction revokes and replaces practice directions dated:

1. May 1, 1993 (practice direction concerning civil matters in the Court of Appeal for Ontario-- motions to the Court of Appeal in civil matters, title of proceeding in civil appeals in the Court of Appeal, unnecessary evidence in civil appeals in the Court of Appeal, factums in civil appeals in the Court of Appeal, books of authorities and filing motion material in the Court of Appeal),

2. December 18, 1995 (practice direction concerning new scheduling procedures for civil appeals),

3. April 12, 1996 (practice direction concerning New Procedure Respecting Motions in Writing for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal) and

4. July 27, 2000 (practice direction concerning Pre-hearing Settlement Conferences in Family Law Appeals).

It also replaces:

1. a notice to the profession regarding "Appeals and Motions by video-conference" and

2. notices to the profession dated:

a) March 22, 2000 (Filing of Compendium)
b) February 15, 2001 (Addressing Members of the Court of Appeal), and
c) January 1, 2002 (Costs in the Court of Appeal).

It also incorporates several new or previously unpublished procedural practices in the Court of Appeal.

2. APPLICATION OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Practice directions supplement the Rules of Civil Procedure and provide guidance and direction to counsel or litigants as to matters not touched on by the rules. Where there is a conflict between Rules of Civil Procedure and a practice direction, the Rules of Civil Procedure take precedence.

3. ADDRESSING THE COURT

Members of the Court of Appeal should be addressed and referred to in gender-neutral terms, such as "Justice" or "Justice (Surname)", and not as My Lady, My Lord, Your Ladyship, Your Lordship or Your Honour.

4. NOTICE OF APPEAL IN CIVIL APPEALS

4.1. Title of Proceeding

1. The title of a proceeding in the Court of Appeal shall be in accordance with rule 61.04(2) and Form 61(B). Accordingly the title of proceedings should set out the parties in the same order that they appeared in the title of proceedings in the court appealed from. The appellant and respondent should be clearly identified as set out in Form 61(B).

4.2 Jurisdictional Statement

1. From time to time appeals are filed in the wrong court. Effective July 1 2003, the Rules of Civil Procedure require that the notice of appeal must include a jurisdictional statement outlining the statutory or other basis for filing an appeal in a particular appellate court;

2. The Courts of Justice Act provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and Divisional Court. However, provisions of other statutes governing particular litigation may modify these general provisions of the Courts of Justice Act. The jurisdictional statement should include a reference to the provisions of any relevant statute or rule that provides for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The jurisdictional statement should set out the basis upon which the appellant asserts that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain the subject appeal.

4.3 Additional information

1. The Court requests that parties include their telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and in the case of counsel, Law Society number on all documents filed with the Court.

5. MOTIONS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CIVIL MATTERS

5.1. Motions to a Single Judge

5.1.1. General

1. A judge in Chambers hears motions daily at 10 o'clock in the morning. Counsel may select the date for the hearing of a motion provided that time limits set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service and filing are complied with.

2. In urgent situations where such time limits cannot be complied with, leave to file material may be obtained from the Registrar or a judge.

3. The notice of motion shall contain a statement outlining the jurisdiction of a single judge to hear the motion and grant the relief requested.

4. The notice of motion shall contain an estimated length of time for the oral argument of the motion.

5. In order to ensure the efficient use of Court resources, the Registrar may direct that a motion scheduled for hearing be removed from the list and rescheduled to a different date. Counsel or the parties will be consulted before the motion is removed from the list and the hearing rescheduled.

6. Motions to expedite the production of transcripts must be served on the opposing party and the court reporter or the local Manager/Coordinator of Court Reporters.

7. Motions to expedite appeals may be brought to a judge in Chambers.

5.1.2 Motions on Consent

1. Where all parties consent to an order, counsel may file a notice of motion, two copies of the draft order, the consent of the parties and an affidavit or covering letter setting out why the consent order is appropriate.

2. If a judge considering the proposed consent order is satisfied that it should issue, the order will be issued, usually within 24 hours.

3. If a judge considering the proposed order is not satisfied that it should issue, the parties will be advised and will be given an opportunity to make further oral or written argument

.5.1.3 Intervention

1. Motions to intervene in an appeal in the Court of Appeal are heard by the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Court.

2. To obtain a hearing date for such a motion, the parties should consult with each other in order to obtain mutually agreeable dates for hearing the motion and present these dates to the court through the office of the Senior Legal Officer. If the parties cannot agree on suitable dates, the court will fix the date of the hearing.

3. Counsel for the moving party will be advised of the selected hearing date and will be responsible for notifying the other parties.

4. After the date for the hearing of the motion to intervene has been fixed, the moving party must file a notice of motion and other material for use by the court in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and this practice direction.

5. Where appropriate, motions to intervene may be argued by telephone conference call.

5.1.4 Factums for Use on Motions

1. It is of great assistance to the Court of Appeal to have factums filed for use on motions. At the same time it is understood that the filing of factums in some relatively simple motions may cause undue delay and expense to the litigants.

2. As a result, a factum must be served and filed in motions for which the time of argument of the moving party is estimated to require 15 minutes or more.

3. Notwithstanding any time estimate to the contrary contained in the notice of motion, if a factum has not been filed, the oral argument of the moving party shall be limited to 15 minutes.

4. In the majority of motions, the length of the factums should be 10 pages or less and except with leave may not exceed 30 pages. If counsel is of the opinion that a factum of more than 30 pages is needed in any particular case, counsel should obtain leave from the Registrar or a judge for the filing of such factum.

5.1.5 Filing Material for use on a motion before a Judge

1. Unless the Rules of Civil Procedure provide otherwise, all of the material for motions before a judge in chambers in the Court of Appeal must be filed at least two days prior to the hearing. In urgent situations where this time limit cannot be complied with, leave to file material may be obtained from the Registrar or a judge.

2. If a factum is filed, an electronic copy of the factum should also be filed with the court.

5.2 Motions before a Panel

5.2.1. General

1. Except in cases of urgency, motions before a panel will not be scheduled for hearing until the moving party has filed the motion record, factum and transcript if any.

2. In motions before a panel, the oral argument shall be limited to 15 minutes for the moving party, 10 minutes for the responding party, and 5 minutes for reply.

3. Counsel who seek more time for oral argument must make a request to the List Judge arranged through the Appeals Scheduling Unit by fax (416-327-6256).

5.2.2 Motions to Quash an Appeal

1. Motions to quash appeals are heard by a panel of the court. Where the basis for the motion to quash is that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the motion will be scheduled at an early date.

2. Motions to quash an appeal based on an argument that the appeal is devoid of merit will be heard together with the appeal, since the court will be obliged to consider the merits of the appeal, in any event, in determining the motion.

5.2.3 Filing Material for use on a Motion before a Panel

1. The court requests that counsel file an electronic copy of any factum or transcript filed on a motion before a panel including a motion in writing for leave to appeal brought under Rule 61.03.1.

5.3 Confirmation of Motion

1. A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall :
(a) confer or attempt to confer with the other party;
(b) not later than 2 p.m. two days before the hearing date, give the Registrar a confirmation of motion (Form 37B, below, or as set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure) by sending it by fax, (416-327-5032), by e-mail (COA.E-file), or by leaving it at the court office; and
(c) send a copy of the confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail.2. If no confirmation is given, the motion shall not be heard, except by order of the court.3.A party who has given a confirmation of motion and later determines that the confirmation is no longer correct shall immediately give the Registrar a corrected confirmation of motion (Form 37B) and send a copy of the corrected confirmation of motion to the other party.

[1] Pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194

RULE 37.07(2), concerning subtituted service states as follows;

SERVICE OF NOTICE

Required as General Rule

Where Not Required

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Dated at the city of TORONTO, in the province of Ontario, on this ........................... SIGNED BY

____________________________ Applicant/Informant

Wayne Ferron

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

Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: I HAVE NO ISP ACCOUNT

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

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

The Attorney General of Ontario

Constitutional Law Branch

4th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:

The Attorney General of Canada

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

AND TO

Deborah Krick, CROWN COUNSEL

The Attorney General of Ontario

Criminal Law Branch

6th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

court of appeal for ontario

Wayne Ferron -versus- R

Court file no.: M.........

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

Osgoode Hall

130 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5

AFFIDAVIT

FACTUM

of APPLICANT(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/INFORMANT)

BEFORE A PANEL TO APPEAL

JUSTICE FELDMAN'S OPINION

___________________________________________

Wayne FERRON

1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto,

ON, Postal Code Mw6E 4A6

Tel: 416 420 1353,

Email: I HAVE NO ISP ACCOUNT

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

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

FACTUM of APPLICANT(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/INFORMANT) BEFORE A PANEL TO APPEAL JUSTICE FELDMAN'S OPINION

Folder Contents

Reasons

Drafting of order

Pronouncement of judgment

Copies to be sent

Proof of receipt

Practice Direction Concerning

Civil Appeals in the Court of Appeal

Inspection of files

Removal of documents from file

Removal of files

Definition

Removal of exhibits from file

Effect of judicial acts

Idem

Reasons

Drafting of order

Pronouncement of judgment

Copies to be sent

Proof of receipt

Failure to attend or misconduct

Contempt order

Stay of order

· Conditions

· Setting aside of stay

Setting aside or variance

· Setting aside or variance

· Effect of order

Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals in the Court of Appeal

1. APPLICATION

2. APPLICATION OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

3. ADDRESSING THE COURT

4. NOTICE OF APPEAL IN CIVIL APPEALS

5. MOTIONS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CIVIL MATTERS

[1] Pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194

Free Membership

Who's online

Who's new