Author Information
AFFIDAVIT OF Wayne Ferron(Plaintiff) _______________________________
Folder Contents
Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central West Region)
Wayne Ferron
-versus-
Joe Willmets(974)
_____________________________________
AFFIDAVIT
OF
Wayne Ferron(Plaintiff)
_____________________________________
NOTICE of ACTION issued on November 21st, 2011
STATEMENT OF CLAIM served on December 19th, 2011
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM served on January 6th, 2012
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM served again on January 10th, 2012
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM served on January 23rd, 2012
REQUISITION to NOTE IN DEFAULT filed on March 20th, 2012
REQUISITION for CONFIRMATION of Defendant NOTED IN DEFAULT, June 25th, 2012
affidavit of service
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central West Region)
Wayne Ferron
-versus-
Joe Willmets(974)
AFFIDAVIT
OF
Wayne Ferron(Plaintiff)
I, Wayne FERRON of the City of Mississauga, in the Regional Municipality of Peel, MAKE OATH AND SAY :
[1] On November 21st, 2011, the Brampton SUPERIOR COURT Registrar issued the NOTICE of ACTION for civil claims against Joe Willmets(974).
[2] On December 19th, 2011 I served upon Joe Willmets(974) a signed copy of the STATEMENT OF CLAIM and a copy of the NOTICE of ACTION at the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE by leaving a copy with Paula Baldock(5502), an Officer receptionist. My Affidavit of service was not excepted by the Brampton SUPERIOR COURT Registrar for not being a personal service; I was advised to complete a personal service if possible or send a copy by mail on the same day to the defendant for an incomplete personal service.
[3] There was no response from the defendant Joe Willmets(974).
[4] On January 6th, 2011 I served upon Joe Willmets(974) a signed copy of the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM and a copy of the NOTICE of ACTION at the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE by leaving a copy with Paula Baldock(5502), an Officer receptionist, and I also mail copies of the same documents to Joe Willmets(974), the same day byway of registered government mail(RW 678 938 012 CA).
[5] In a letter dated January 6th, 2011, Joe Willmets(974) responded to my civil action byway of BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP. Ms. M. Christine Fotopoulos(LSUC # 29861Q), articulates the following in her letter;
“We have been retained on behalf of the defendant, joe Willmets(974), in relation to the above matter.
Enclosed is our Notice of Intent to Defend, which is being served upon you pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
We note this is now the third action you have commence in relation to this matter seeking the identical relief and making the same allegations. In light of the decision of Madam Justice Mossip, you should be well aware that this action too. has no merit and is an abuse of process. Please confirm that you will be discontinuing this law suit, failing which we will be bringing a further motion to dispose of this action, for which we will seek our costs.
Furthermore, in light of our intention to bring the motion, we will not be delivering a Statement of Defence at this time. Therefore, please refrain from taking any steps by way of default against my client in the interim until we can get this matter scheduled before the Court.
As the matter currently stands, you already owe my client in excess of $ 17, 000, which my client intends to collect.”
[6] I have never had an Action against Officer Joe Willmets(974), before the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. I tried to add the same Officer to an existing Claim, but this was rejected by the SUPERIOR COURT Registrar, so I decided to proceed with the alternative option to file an action against Officer Joe Willmets(974) separately and independently of any other Claims.
[7] I have never been formally notified that Officer Joe Willmets(974) was being or had been joined to any civil action; nor has their been any motion, application or judicial order to join or make Officer Joe Willmets(974) a party to an existing civil matter, so to assert otherwise is misleading and not forthcoming.
[8] In a letter dated May 13th, 2009 Ms. M. Christine Fotopoulos Clients with the express exclusion of Joe Willmets(974) whom was not a party to civil matter(CV-09-01288-00) responded to my civil action byway of BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP. Ms. M. Christine Fotopoulos(LSUC # 29861Q) whom failed or refused to add Joe Willmets(974) as party, articulates the following in her letter;
“We understand that you have commenced an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice of the decision of the Honourable Justice Kenkel, dated September 26, 2008. We also understand that the appeal is to be spoken to on June 1, 2009. We ask that you please keep us informed with respect to the status and outcome of the appeal given the implications on the civil claim which you have brought against our clients and others.
We are presently considering whether to bring a motion to strike all or parts of the claim against the York Police defendants. Given the pending appeal, we would ask that no further steps be taken in respect of the civil action until the appeal has been heard.”
[9] On June 1st, 2009, my schedule appeal was not heard, nor was my pending MOTION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559) adjourned from May 4, 2009 by The Honourable Justice Bryant heard; I was denied NATURAL JUSTICE in opposition to the FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF JUSTICE while before the Honourable Justice Howden. My MOTION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559) adjourned from May 4, 2009 by The Honourable Justice Bryant is still pending, to which I have conclusive proof of this transgression against the will of parliament.
[10] The Appeal hearing was reschedule to October 5th, 2009 by the Honourable Justice Boswell after I filed a MOTION TO FIX THE APPEAL HEARING DATE(07-02559).
[11] On October 5th/14th, 2009 Mr Tait for the Crown relied on a RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559) he or Mr. Costain produced and fraudulently filed with the Newmarket SUPERIOR COURT Registrar on the 2nd day of October in the year 2009. Mr. Tait or Mr. Costain, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, under the false pretense that he have completed a legal service to my person, when this was not the case for the same service, in contravention of of Section. 131 subsection (2) of the Criminal Code. The aforementioned was effected while the Honourable Justice Healy was seize with the matter at issue.
[12] Mr. Tait and Jeffrey Costain for the Crown articulate the following in their Factum;
“Turning to the charge of resisting the officers, considering all the evidence the Appellant was properly convicted. While the evidence of the officers varied in some details, on the whole it showed the Appellant to be actively resisting a lawful arrest. His passivity came later-his active resistance at the time of the arrest was not something of which the Appellant had a recollection.
In general, the trial judge properly rejected the Appellant’s evidence outright, having regards to the Appellant’s lack of credible explanation for his lack of memory on various points, and finding that the appellant’s perception and judgement on the evening in question were completely unreliable. As such, the test in R. v. W.(D.) was satisfied-no reasonable doubt was found.
R. V. W.(D), supra
There is no air of reality to the various allegations of Charter Breaches by the police
{...}
There is no air of reality to the various allegations of Crown misconduct or Charter breaches
There appear to be an issue with the Crown not withdrawing an impaired driving by drug count until the day of trial. The trial did not however proceed on that count, and there was no prejudice to the Appellant also appears to allege a defective information. However no defects are apparent: He also alleges he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the officer who swore the information. Such a cross-examine the officer who swore to the information. Such a cross-examination would not appear to have any relevance or meaning. ”
[13] The Honourable Justice Healey dismissed my Appeal of Right and I subsequently Appeal byway of leave to appeal to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL UNDER THE FILE NUMBER C51190.
It was while perfecting my Appeal at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, while I was living in a homeless shelter and after being arrested and falsely imprisoned in a mental institution for 14 days without the oppurtunity to instruct a lawyer that resulted in damage to the perfecting of my leave to appeal at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, that Ms. M. Christine Fotopoulos(LSUC # 29861Q) and her clients successfully moved against me, despite the articulation in her letter.
[14] On the 10th day of January 2012, at about 2:14 P:M., I served Joe Willmets(974) with a copy of the NOTICE of ACTION, STATEMENT OF CLAIM , and AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM by leaving a copy with Christie Trypidis a receptionist/legal assistance for Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
[15] There was no response from the defendant Joe Willmets(974) or Christine Fotopoulos(LSUC # 29861Q), a lawyer retained by the Defendant(file no.: 016995 000102).
[16] On the 23rd day of January 2012, at about 4:27 P.M., I served Joe Willmets(974) with a copy of the NOTICE of ACTION, and a copy of the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM by leaving a signed copy with Ciara Gilbert a receptionist/legal assistance for Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
[17] There was no response from the defendant Joe Willmets(974) or Christine Fotopoulos(LSUC # 29861Q), a lawyer retained by the Defendant(file no.: 016995 000102).
[18] On March 20th, 2012 at 9:45 I commissioned(Receipt No.: 50595602) and filed with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FOR AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM.
[19] On March 20th, 2012 I filed with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar a REQUISITION to NOTE DEFENDANT Joe Willmets(974) IN DEFAULT.
[20] There was still no response from the defendant Joe Willmets(974) or Christine Fotopoulos(LSUC # 29861Q), a lawyer retained by the Defendant(file no.: 016995 000102).
[21] On or about the 26th day of March 2012, at 11:16 A.M., I served Joe Willmets(974) with a copy of MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST Joe Willmets(974) (Returnable on July 27, 2012) by leaving a signed copy with Brenda Jacome a receptionist/legal assistance for Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. I articulated on page 3 as follows;
[22] On or about the 28th day of March 2012, I received a letter from BLG which was dated March 23, 2012. Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick articulated the following for Officer Joe Willmets(974);
I am writing further to our letter of January 6, 2012.
I note that you have not responded to our request for confirmation that you will be discontinuing this new claim in light of the recent decision of Madam Justice Mossip striking out both of your earlier claims as being an abuse of process. Accordingly, we will be proceeding with a motion to strike the Statement of Claim.
We have been advised by the Court in Brampton that motions requiring more than one hour for hearing are heard only on Wednesdays. Please advise if you are available on any of the following dates for the hearing of the motion, which I expect will require 1 1/2 hours in total:”
I the Plaintiff was not officially notified that a new or different lawyer would be taking carriage and control of CV-11-4493 matter or acting as advocate for Officer Joe Willmets(974).
[23] I received a letter from BLG which was dated April 12th, 2012 from Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick; she articulated the following for Officer Joe Willmets(974);
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated Tuesday April 3, 2012, and “Motion for Summary Judgment against Joe Willmets” returnable July 27, 2011, in which you appear to be bringing a motion for summary judgement dismissal of the claim or an Order permitting the trial to be heard by a jury. You have scheduled the motion for 1/2 hour.
In my letter of March 23, 2012, I repeated my request for confirmation that you would be discontinuing the new claim against Officer Willmets in light of the decision of Madam Justice Mossip that your two earlier claims were struck out as being an abuse of process. I provided potential motion dates for the hearing of my client’s motion to strike the new Statement of Claim which you have now delivered).
In your letter of April 3, 2012, you now confirm that you do not intend to discontinue the new claim but rather that you intend to seek “resolution” of the action before the Court. Unfortunately, you have not responded to my request to confirm your availability for my clients’ motion to strike the Statement of Claim. Would you please confirm before April 27, 2012, whether you are available to attend the motion on June 6, 2012. Given the passage of time and lack of response from you by April 27, 2012, I will proceed to schedule the motion returnable on June 6, 2012. I expect that the motion will take 1 1/2 hours for hearing.
With respect to your motion returnable on July 27, 2012, unfortunately I am not available on that date. Please provide additional dates in August and September 2012 for the hearing of your motion. In any event I would suggest that 1/2 hour is not sufficient for the hearing of the motion, and would suggest that it be scheduled for at least 1 1/2.”
I the Plaintiff was not officially notified that a new or different lawyer would be taking carriage and control of CV-11-4493 matter or acting as a new advocate for Officer Joe Willmets(974).
[24] On the 30th day of April 2012, at about 12:45 P.M., I served Joe Willmets(974) with a copy of AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST Joe Willmets(974)(Returnable on November 21, 2012), a copy of the NOTICE of ACTION, and a copy of the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM by leaving a signed copy with Brenda Jacome a receptionist/legal assistance for Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. I articulated on page 3 as follows;
[25] Moreover, I further articulate in the AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST Joe Willmets(974) on page 8 and 9;
“RESPONSE TO APRIL 7, 2012 DEFENDANT’S LETTER:
Again the Plaintiff is neither giving his permission nor is he entering into any agreement for the Defendant to strike. After the last correspondence below, the Plaintiff endeavour to secure another Motion date with an allotment of time of more than two hours; he was strongly advised by the Superior Court’s Scheduling Clerk that their was no more viable motion dates available until September 2012 on the Wednesday of each week. Furthermore, it was strongly asserted that the Plaintiff must obtain the Defendant’s permission before a motion date can be reserved; yet the Defendant has managed to unilaterally secure July 11, 2012 motion date with an allotted time of 2 hours. How is this possible? I have advised on many occasions that I am impecunious, so simply things may determine weather I or my child eat or have the necessary things for life. Furthermore, my child is trying to secure funding and a position in post secondary education for the coming September fall/winter term, for which she need my help. The following articulation is the last correspondence before your April 17, 2012 letter.
‘I am writing in response to March 23, 2012 dated letter, which I received on or about March 28, 2012.
Asper your January 6, 2012 letter, our were advising me to dissolve the civil litigation and you informed me that I will not be receiving a statement of defense; however, I will be receiving a statement of intent to defend.
I know advise you, that I have been in receipt of your intent to defend as you promised.
The other issues you have inferred is a statement and advise. Canada is a free and democratic country; you make any statement you like within the constitutional constraints of the rights and freedom of others. In short, your statement does not warrant a response.
You advise me to dissolve the civil matter at issue; I never retained you as my lawyer, neither do you have my beloved children’s interest close to your heart nor do you have my best interest as a priority. Advise is just advise! There is no binding covenant of trust and confidence between us.
I believe with all my heart and soul in the justness of my matter. I reasonable believe that many actionable wrongs has been effected against my family and I. The law tells me that I must seek remedy, restitution and resolution in a court of competent jurisdiction. I choose to take the advise of the law and seek the ends of justice in a court of competent jurisdiction.
You believe in the justness and noble cause of your clients. If I am given the chance before an impartial tribunal, I will prove my matter and I wish you the best in your defense for truth shall prevail.
Before serving on you my motion for summery judgement on or about March 26, 2012 with a returnable date of July 2, 2012; I checked my email and my mail box for mail from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP . Their was none!
I cannot turn back the hands of time for your requested motion, this is unreasonable for you to ask of an unrepresented litigant. You will have to defend against my motion which I have already served on you with a returnable date of July 27, 2012. If July 27, 2012 is not a good date for you, then we can adjourn my motion for a later date. But I am going forward with my motion. I served on you forthwith two amendments to the STATEMENT OF CLAIM, and you never responded until know.
The time for pleading has long passed and gone, now is the time for discovery and legal argument and I elect trial by jury.’ ”
[26] On June the 22, 2012 I went to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar to confirm if Joe Willmets(974) was noted in default as I requested on March 20, 2012. The Clerk had trouble confirming this oral request, so I filled out a new request form to note the defendant in default by writing the following and signing the said REQUISITION;
“
← CV-11-4493
Wayne Ferron
-v-
Joe Willmets(974)
I REQUIRE, a NOTING OF DEFAULT of defendant Joe Willmets(974), whom has failed to deliver a statement of defence in the prescribed time in accordance with RULE 19.01 and Rule 18.02 of the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, after a copy of the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM and NOTICE of ACTION served on January 23, 2012.
June 22, 2012
signature
Wayne Ferron
Address
pone number
”
I notice the original requisition for noting the defendant in default and pointed the attended Clerk to it. It did not seem that it was indicated in the system that I had made the noting in default request.
[27] She double check my information then left for what seem to be a long period of time; upon returning while ripping up the new signed and completed noting in default form and informed me that the system had been updated to reflect the original filed request of noting in default of the defendant.
She also said I can “obtain proof from the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL,” all while she closing the Wicket-17.
I did as she instructed, and it only shows the date of the requisition to note default was filed; it does-not in any way confirm that the defendant Joe Willmets(974) was noted in default as I requested.
Unexseptionally, it did show no Affidavit of Service filed by Defendant.
[28] On June the 25, 2012 I went to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar to file a REQUISITION(Rule 4.08) for the confirmation of Joe Willmets(974) the defendant being in default, I articulated my request in the following manner;
“ TO THE LOCAL REGISTRAR at ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region):
1.1. I REQUIRE, an OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION NOTING OF DEFAULT of defendant Joe Willmets(974). In short, is Joe Willmets(974) in default of the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM served on January 23rd, 2012; or was my request denied for some short comings for which I have not been officially notified of? What I should have said in my requisition NOTING OF DEFAULT is the following;
I REQUIRE, a NOTING OF DEFAULT of defendant Joe Willmets(974), whom has failed to deliver a statement of defence in the prescribed time in accordance with RULE 19.01 and Rule 18.02 of the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, after a copy of the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM and NOTICE of ACTION served on January 23, 2012, by leaving a signed copy for Joe Willmets(974) and his Lawyer M. Christine Fotopoulos(LSUC # 29861), byway of Ciara Gilbert receptionist/legal assistance for Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
In any event I still need OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION that defendant Joe Willmets(974) is officially listed as being in default; this will tell me what my next action must be and how my argument should be constructed for the upcoming MOTION on June 11, 2012. I will return on June 27, 2012 to receive my answer.”
[29] I cannot understand why I am having so much trouble in securing confirmation of Joe Willmets(974) the defendant being in default , if the Registrar has denied my request for noting the defendant in default or effected it.
An electronically filed request will generate a confirmation of noting in default. The RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE asserts as follows;
RULE 19.01(1.1) Where a plaintiff files electronically a requisition for the noting in default of a defendant and the registrar notes the defendant in default, the registrar shall send the plaintiff confirmation of the noting in default
RULE 4.08 Where a party is entitled to require the registrar to carry out the duty under these rules, the party may do so by filing a requisition and paying the prescribed fee, if any.
[30] The defendant has asserted that July 27, 2012 was not a viable date for a motion, yet she has unilaterally secured July 11, 2012 without my express agreement for a MOTION TO STRIKE, without having served upon me a NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE, before securing a returnable date, and without filing a NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE with proof of service at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region) Registrar.
Normally, a Notice of Application or Notice of Motion with proof of service to have ones matter placed before a Honourable Judge for hearing. This is regular practice in civil litigation, the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE asserts as follows;
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.
[31] Furthermore, the defendant has effected the aforementioned while possible being in default pending the Registrar confirmation of the defendant Joe Willmets(974) being noted in default.
[32] Upon reviewing the history of the documents filed by the defendant with SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region) Registrar up until June 22, 2012.
The defendant has filed a MOTION RECORD, FACTUM, NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND, and BOOK OF AUTHORITIES; but not one single proof of service in the form of an AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE.
I am required to pay $13.00 for the commissioning of an AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE and file it with the REGISTRAR as proof of service for documents served on the defendant. Without proof of service my documents would not be excepted by the Courts and they would be deemed never to have been served, so their would be no case. I am impecunious and self represented. Later on July 11, 2012 at the hearing the honourable presiding judge, advised me without invitation that the Affidavit or Affidavits were in the file.
[33] On July 10, 2012 at 8:41:52 I went to SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE- Registrar to file(G2-WICKET 18) a REQUISITION for “certified documentation for pass pending Requisitions to be completed ASAP;” because I was being told that the documents I was requesting cannot be certified even though my arguments in a civil proceeding(cv-4493) critically relied on the requested documents and case would be severely damage by the purposeful withholding of information and deprecating the legal weigh of legal documents.
The following is my personal account of my efforts or due diligence in obtaining relevant information and certified documents to defend against a motion to strike my STATEMENT OF CLAIM(cv-11-4493) against Joe Willmets(974):
[34] On June 25, 2012 at about 12:34:57(Wicket-20), I served on the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar a signed REQUISITION for a confirmation of defendant noted in default for CV-11-4493.
[35] On July 5, 2012 at about 12:34:57(Wicket 18), I return to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar to retrieve my requested certified documents; my request articulated in PARA [34] was not completed.
The attending Clerk informed or advised me that certified copies of Court documents deem to be “originating documents” are the only documents capable of being certified; i.e. STATEMENT OF CLAIM, NOTICE OF ACTION, NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND, and STATEMENT OF DEFENCE....
[36] So in accordance with the given articulated scope on document production, I procured a photo copy(Receipt No.: 50 666 889) and served on the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar a REQUISITION for a certified copy of LISTING OF DOCUMENT FILED by each party, with the word certified crossed out, because I was informed or advised by the clerk that Certified copies are not done for none “originating documents”.
[37] My request for a copy of LISTING OF DOCUMENT FILED by each party articulated in PARA [36] was for the following matters;
(i) CV-11-4493;
(ii) CV-10-4628;
(iii) CV-09-1288.
[38] On July 6, 2012 at about 9:28:00(Wicket 19), I returned to file at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar an AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE and other court documents(Receipt N.: 56 667 456); my request for a copy of LISTING OF DOCUMENT FILED by each party articulated in PARA [37] for the above file numbers was not completed.
[39] So I left a photo copy of the same request articulated in PARA [36] in PARA [37]
which was previously served on the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar.
[39] If it is the case that I am not in error, I reasonable believe and do believe that the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar has been giving me false information articulated as being policy and procedure; that runs contrary to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT:
Pursuant to the following RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE;
(i) RULE 19.01(1.1) - NOTING DEFAULT ELECTRONICALLY
(ii) RULE 4.08 - Requisition
(iii) RULE 4:03 - Certified copies of court documents;
Pursuant to the following SECTIONS of the COURT OF JUSTICE ACT;
(i) SECTION 137.(1) - DOCUMENT PUBLIC
(ii) SECTION 137.(3) - COURT LIST PUBLIC
(iii) SECTION 137(4) - COPIES
[39] So on July 10, 2012 at about 8:41:52(G2-WICKET 18), I went to SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - Registrar one day before the returnable for the MOTION TO STRIKE(CV -11-4493), to serve on it an hand written REQUEST respectfully invoking Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT and SECTION 15. of the CHARTER for equality in legal Services and demand that the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar produce certified copies of the following documents;
(a) confirmation of DEFENDANT NOTED IN DEFAULT;
(b) REQUISITION OF DEFENDANT NOTED IN DEFAULT;
(c) LISTING OF DOCUMENT filed by all parties for the following matters;
(i) CV-11-4493;
(ii) CV-10-4628;
(iii) CV-09-1288.
[39] As a result the manager after being alerted of my request, personally oversaw certifying REQUISITION OF DEFENDANT NOTED IN DEFAULT and AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE for AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM in addition to instructing me in how to use the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINALS in the hall way of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar.
[39] But is was too late my defense against MOTION TO STRIKE(CV-11-4493) already been severely damaged.
My argument was based on the assumption that the Defendant was in default and I used the laws with respect to the Defendant being in Default in accordance with what I believed the Registrar cause me to believe or the improper action on their part in denying me vital information relevant to my case and disclosable to the litigants and public. I made sure advised the registrar that the requested information is needed to determine how I should formulate my arguments.
MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS
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).
(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
(c) the order sought is for,
(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.
[39] The following is a concise rendicion of my argument on July 11, 2012 before the Honourable Justice Miller;
[39] The defendant arguments to justify striking the STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-11-4493), even if assumed to be valid contains logical fallacies, which bars the same argument from reaching the articulated conclusion on page 23 Para[86] of the defendant’s Factum.
[39] When an argument is presented, their are assumptions and constraint’s or scope for which the argument is valid, or more importantly sound. A sound argument is what the court want or a legal argument demands; for it is impossible for the said argument to be false and is therefore truthful!
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
If it is the case that the defendant’s arguments to strike are valid, then by (i) and (ii) the defendant’s premise is a false PREMISE, articulated on page 4, PARA[16], and PARA[18] of her FACTUM. Which implies that the argument even if valid cannot be sound, and is therefore is not truthful!
[39] The logical requirement for a sound argument is that the premise must be true and the argument must be valid. Both conditions must be fulfilled,
a true premise
with a VALID ARGUMENT
makes a SOUND ARGUMENT
[39] Therefore, even though the defendant’s conclusion on page 23 PARA[86] as her FACTUM can still follow from a false premise, but the present state of the motion before the Court dictates that the defendant’s argument can never be sound!
In the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE in addition to the defendant’s defendants admission of the STATEMENT OF CLAIM being true, makes soundness of of the defendant’s argument contained in the defendant’s FACTUM impossible.
[39] Thus, it is impossible for the defendant to be granted the orders sought in her respectfully submissions. So the motion to strike must fail.
[39] The defendant’s Motion to Strike is not a proper motion; RULE 19.01-NOTING IN DEFAULT; RULE 19.02(b) - ... no steps can be taken in action, other than a motion to set aside the NOTING OF DEFAULT...except with leave of the court or the consent of the plaintiff.
[39] The defendant has contravene RULE 19 in seeking to strike the Plaintiff’s STATEMENT OF CLAIM. The proper course of action is to first set aside the noting in default, then the way is clear to strike.
[39] One can clearly see that my arguments to defend against the strike is heavily reliant on Section 19 of RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Confirmation of the defendant being noted in default by the Registrar is very important. One place a lot of trust and confidence in the administrative staff at a courthouse. However, even thought the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar does have some jurisdictional authority, it is not a court of competent jurisdiction for CV-11-4493 MOTION TO STRIKE, and it cannot make a preliminary judgement and ruling on the matter.
[39] In my view, the Registrar DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ACT DECEPTIVELY BE MISLEADING, but it has jurisdictional authority to note parties in default, their is an inherent binding duty to the public, to act fairly, act honestly, be transparent, and act in accordance with CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES and the OPEN COURT POLICY, when asked to disclose critical information about the status of ones case; not advice but information about action which has direct dire consequence on ones case, not to withhold information willfully without lawful cause.
[39] Just imagine how I felt when the Honourable Justice made an order forbidding me from placing the Defendant in default while she reserves her judgement. Which to me means that the defendant was never in default, knowledge is being use as a weapon to deprecate my legal rights is my true honest feelings.
[39] The PARTY AND DOCUMENT INFORMATION I printed out from the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar for Cv-11-4493, shows that the Plaintiff has two Affidavit of service for proof of service of material’s filed.
The defendant on the other hand in the PARTY AND DOCUMENT INFORMATION from the public view terminal show’s no Affidavit of service for materials filed with the Registrar.
Contrastly, the PARTY AND DOCUMENT INFORMATION for the Plaintiff showed the Affidavits of service for proof of service.
[39] The PARTY AND DOCUMENT INFORMATION I printed out from the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar for Cv-10-4628, shows Affidavit of service for all parties except T.A. PATTERSON AND ASSOCIATES INC and MARGUERITE CAMPBELL whom both did not have any Affidavit of Service for proof of service filed.
Furthermore, MARGUERITE CAMPBELL did not even have a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND( Cv-10-4628), or a STATEMENT OF DEFENSE( Cv-10-4628), filed.
[39] The PARTY AND DOCUMENT INFORMATION I printed out from the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)-Registrar for CV-09-1288, shows Affidavit of service for proof of service for all parties.
[39] On July 11, 2012, I had planed to use this information in my defence argument in the MOTION TO STRIKE(CV-11-4493), I planed on using this information in conjunction withe the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, to show that the motion was not a PROPER MOTION in addition of their being an infringement of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS RIGHTS.
[39] I was surprised to hear from the Honourable presiding Judge that she has the Affidavit or Affidavits in her possession and she cannot go by the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL.
I trust the Honourable Superior Court Judge and I am bound by confidence in the judicial system to do so.
However, I must note that Your Honour did not invite me to examine the Affidavits in question, nor did the council for the Defendant object or passionately challenge on the record or off the record my allegation or adverse inferences based on the data from the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL.
Contrastly, When all is said and done, A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE has carriage and control over the PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL.
[39] But more importantly, if it is the case that Your honour is correct; and I do have to say it in that fasion because I did-not examine the evidence personally, my confidence in the existence of the Affidavit was on reasonable belief and confidence; their is still a duty which binds the COURT to the public at large, to disclose accurate and credible information under it’s direct stewardship concerning public disclosure of civil and criminal matters under its carriage and control.
The Administration of justice has a fiduciary relationship with the public, a bond of trust forged by confidence; so any information which could induce a false adverse inference only serves to diminish the trust relationship.
|
Sworn before me at the City of Brampton
in the Regional Municipality of Peel, on
the ............................ day of July 2012.
|
|
|
Wayne Ferron(Plaintiff) |
|
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or as may be) |
|
|
|
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Date: .............................
________________
Wayne FERRON
3221 Derry RD. #3
PO BOX 13563
Mississauga, ON, L5N 8G5
Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: wayneferron@gmail.com
TO: The Clerk of the Court--Registrar
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)
← A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE
← 7755 Hurontario St, Brampton,
← ON, L6W 4T6
←
← Tel: 905 456 4700
←
AND TO:
← BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
← Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W, 44 fl
← Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4
← T416.367.6000
← F416.367.6749
← blg.com
←
← M. Christine Fotopoulos, LSUC # 29861Q
← T 416.367.6092
← F 416.361.2769
←
← Lawyer retained by the Defendant(file no.: 016995 000102),
← Joe Willmets(974)
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central West Region)
|
Wayne Ferron -versus- Joe Willmets(974) |
|
|
|
Superior Court of Justice (Central West Region) PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT
A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE 7755 Hurontario St, Brampton, ON, L6W 4T6 Tel: 905 456 4700
AFFIDAVIT OF Wayne Ferron(Plaintiff)
Wayne FERRON 3221 Derry RD. #3 PO BOX 13563 Mississauga, ON, L5N 8G5 Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: wayneferron@gmail.com |
There are no posts in this folder...
- 608 reads